Would maybe trade tor m1 to 3 and ito 90m to 2.
But yeah mostly agree
They were imtrested in the E yes.
But trained on the C
They have yet more to add, even rare T-50 tank, with Finland uparmouring one even more.
Wouldnt really be a nice addition due to being uptiered compared to regular T-50 while having terrible gun for BR and no access to APCR and etc.
Eh a tad bit better defense capability
Additionaly with how the launcher is constructed it will have direct fire lode like the chinese one.
So better chances of it actualy doing sth on closer ranges compsred to the akwards villas/kf41 launchers tjat gsjin fixed to a position which is just wrong
yeah maybe not sure the 2 are very good
They are not. Just scroll above for the french mains asking for tigers, panthers and pz4s. Or the captured vehicle suggestion made for germany. Germany doesn’t need and wont get a firefly etc.
US captured every mig, Germany captured most ww2 french tanks, most allied nations captured most german vehicles.
Where is the limit? The kungstiger was just tested and got added.
See how many people agree which are to lazy to grind other trees.
1 Like
The very same people wont be happy a moment others mention how many of their stuff has been exported/captured.
Or even having to play handicapped captured versions.
2 Likes
Is there any word about a Mig-21-93 type vehicle for the Russian tree? basically a Bison analog in some form.
1 Like
My opinion for captured/tested vehicles is if the nation had no other domestic options then they should be added. We actually have a few examples of that already. As for the kungstiger i believe it was added because the KV-1B wont be added. This is gaijins way of adding a 2nd heavy tank to sweden (this is woth the KV-1a coming in which wont have a lineup on sweden.)
You can check all my posts if my opinion upsets you but ive said this before and ive also been very vocal about my dislike for the kungtuger when the KV-1B existed.
Bison is basically a capped version of MiG 21-93, not the other way around.
First Bison flew in 1998, first MiG 21-93 flew in 1995.
I would say there’s nothing stopping from getting it other than USSR already getting enough in recent update.
I exclude unique modification if it’s not just a different radio or something. The Marders are for example build on some french chassie but are definelty a new vehicle
Comparison is hard. Tor m1 is just way rarer and ito 90m appearing in france and sweden
Yeah, I follow, just wasn’t certain on the details, but wanted to broadly get the point across
Yeah at least that if nations really really needs it. But for example especially the US doesn’t need another 6.7 heavy tank and definetly not russian captured jets.
I believe the topic was created as a bait but in the replies are a few agreeing
I mean giving this much armour certainly should show it on gameplay.
I mean if you think about it T series or Leo2s, Abrams themselves dont change on any big level, only era’s and enemy’s capabilities do.
That one was debated on the old forum by staff iirc because apparently there were docs of russia having an uparmored t50 but myself and other couldn’t find any evidence of it.
In all honesty USSR doesnt need that, I would not want to make it any heavier, if weaponry changed: sure, but otherwise, no.
That’s why I really want some BT-7A version for TT.
Finland in other words, does need it for it having none to begin with and it being somewhat unique.
It doesnt need to be unique IRL, only unique to game.
But like you said the gun is probably lacking for the br. Which makes it frustrating to play against and to play with. I would avoid another jumbo or maus. They are to hard to balance
Technically this counts as a devblog, right?))))
You are probably right but at least for the sake of lineup or TT completion I still dont see why not.
Thinking about it maybe I should try making War Thunder TT’s but if I wanted to basically maximize every each TT to basically not have gaps, maybe even adding 6th line.