it just shows that gajin is consistent with the rules they did set
all we want those to be followed, we have no problem with indiginous australian vehicles to be gathered at one spot, but importet stuff should go to the manufacturers nation as its the case how they followed the rules
and there is no such thing as un official sub trees, if we start that again everyone and anyone starts claiming the slightest nations again, oh look argentinia is a german sub tree (not the case)
italy has spanish and brazilian sub trees out of nowhere (not the case)
If you start with stuff like unofficial subtrees everyone goes crazy
fact is UK has 2 sub trees already, and has no gaps that would be filled by either canada or australia
most of those imported vehicles would give canada an unfair advantage, steal their core gameplay away, uk loses its uniqueness and so on
“It can be installed on any MAU-12 or “Aero 27” Bomb rack”, "Aircraft like F-4, A-7 and F-15 "
Is that not enough to prove that it was possible? The A-7E has access to the GPU-5/A even though it was only trialed by the USAF, and the report to remove it was refused due to the A-7D & -7E being identical outside the engines.
Is the F-15A somehow not an F-15 with MAU-12 Bomb racks?
Videos statements / claims alone are not accepted forms of sources by themselves. The brochure sadly is not specific. So those alone wont be sufficient.
Sadly yes. Something for example can state “Tornado” on a source and be referring to GR.1 / GR.4 and not F.3. The sources are currently not sufficient as I have explained. Further material should be gathered to confirm the information, then it can be submitted for reconsideration.
