Nigeria operates VT4 as well, that means Britain should receive the VT4 smh
Somehow it would be better than the main trees MBT(smh CR2)
4 Likes
well no, nigeria is not part of the british tech tree
3 Likes
They were a British colony, furthermore, Kuwait also trialed the ariete PSO(somewhat) during the Iraq war. Then add it on with the merkavas because the mandate of Palestine was under British management, there we have it, all of the bottom 4 MBTs in the British tree.
Edit: if you think about it, the merkava is based off sho’ts, which are Centurions, so they should be British as well
1 Like
and? it being a british colony doesnt mean anything, its not a sub tree
1 Like
To add onto that, even if it was a subtree, that wouldn’t mean that a VT-4 was guaranteed to be added to Britain
Why do we even have seperate tech trees for the nations ingame
the british sub trees are south africa and india.
thats what they are getting additionaly. with a few canadian /australian propably thrown in,
but likely not more,
Besides that coming sub trees include asean for japan, and switzerland for germany
there is no other sub trees coming as of right now
yeah point i case, when the indian rafale was being discussed and smin stated not necesarily every vehicle is gonna be added
which i dont agree with honestly, should get every vehicle what else is the point of a sub tree
I was joking about Nigerian VT4 and Kuwati arietes part. But I suppose even for India its gonna take time to fruition.
I dont like the idea of having vehicles that are polar opposite of both playstyles or design, but hmm…
Spoiler
1 Like
Whats the point of having seperate tech trees if we are just gonna have everything in every single one of them?
How else will gaijin milk nationalism then, if they unify the war thunder universe
They can’t milk nationalists by diluting their trees with foreign vehicles either
@KhorneFlakez1337 i am against the whole thing either way
if you ask me allow mixed line ups from every nation, give people reason to grind multiple tech trees,
no argument for uhhh my country lacks this or that, just put that sth in from another country
guys like canada can make their line ups etc
just restrict research to still be only to the vehicles nations used trees
There me just hoping for the Tomahawk as it would be a nice Fighter-bomber for Britain
This is one of the options for addition as event vehicle. I despise IFVs with Bushmaster.
BVVD did confirm a Chinese subtree of multiple nations, though we don’t know which. It’s likely Pakistan and Bangladesh since they’re already in the Chinese tree, and the way it was worded probably more too.
5 Likes
North Korea would make sense too !
Also I’m pretty sure the Arethusa class was literally a British ship gifted to Taiwan briefly that more or less got stolen and then sunk in about 3 months having no active service career. It’s a little bit dubious if you ask me.
Also the Arethusa’s are barely 5.3 worthy and then there’s nothing to bridge that gap. Particularly as almost no modern ASHM will do anything to a Capital ship.
At least with Sweden they have coastal ‘battleships’ on the level of things like HMS Dreadnought/Invincible. So that takes them to 6.3 and they also have one of the most potent potential coastal fleets possible.
Yeah, outside of export variants of course like the Jordan challenger or Omani Hunter
Chongqing, or known as the aurora, was transferred to the nationalists as a return when Britain conscripted nine Chinese merchant ships in Hong Kong when the war broke out. It defected to the communists in 1948, and was sunk by B-24s.
It did serve in the civil war, during the nationalist siege on tashan pass, it bombarded the communist forces positions with its guns. However it did not change the tide of the battle or any campaigns in the second civil war.
To go beyond that, without considering missile-capable ships, would be a 1913 battlecruiser commissioned towards Italy. It is said to have up to 12 10-ins, but there was not even a single draft being drawn - needless to say any diagrams.