Doesn’t matter if the suggestion forgot to mention it or not when we already have good sources that prove the vehicle has a 1200hp engine, and we can only see FY-2 on the hull and no FY-4
3 Likes
The 1500 hp engine was never installed, and has never even been tested for the VT-4. It’s just a claim that was made by some engineer as a possible future proposal, and people have run with it as if it’s gospel for some reason. Part of the problem is that the Chinese use a different transmission for the VT-4 than the ZTZ-99A, so you couldn’t simply just slap a new 1500hp engine in, but would also have to modify/change the transmission, and then make more room for the new transmission.
2 Likes
Should all Shermans be in the US TT then?
5 Likes
all Abrams should be in TT in the United States
don’t let the tragedy in Germany happen again
1 Like
It very much won’t happen again.
The exported Abrams are inherently lower performing than the US Abrams. Just like the Thai VT-4 is lower performing than the Chinese Type 99 or VT-4A1 found in the Chinese tree right now.
The issue people see about the Leopard/Strv 122 is that they are upgraded, and often regarded as better. This leads many to see a “better German top tier” in Sweden.
So no, this situation is very much akin to the Sherman situation, rather than the Germany/Sweden situation.
2 Likes
The reason why we Chinese people do not want Thailand’s VT4 to appear in the Japanese technology tree is largely due to political reasons (historical factors). The core of this problem for Chinese players is never in the car, but the country.
1 Like
It boils down to being “selfish.” If that’s allowed, all Japanese weapons in the Chinese tree should be removed.
(For some reason this post seems to have been hidden. Did I do something wrong?)
5 Likes
This reason doesn’t make sense because VT-4 is an export tank.
10 Likes
But then again, so far subtrees have just included vehicles used by that nation. The VT-4 is just another vehicle Thailand used, so within the confines of the game additions like it are the norm. However excluding exports of a specific nation is trying to break that norm.
I wouldn’t call this situation selfish though, since there is nothing to gain from others not receiving something, considering that either way China will get their own VT-4 anyways.
2 Likes
F16 and M60 are Chinese used vehicles, exported to Taiwan province. So it is not equivalent.
1 Like
And the VT-4 is a Thai used vehicle, exported to Thailand. They are very much equivalent.
A subnation is a definitive place for that nation. If there is a Thai subtree that is equivalent to that tree being a Thai tree and all Thai vehicles may go there.
Similarly China may also receive multiple nation subtrees in the future if rumors are to be believed, and would then receive their vehicles regardless of origin as well.
8 Likes
If there is a subtree then yes, that would be how it works. Though I find it unlikely for the USSR tree to receive a subtree anytime soon. You might see an M1A2T Abrams for the Chinese tree though, being exported to Taiwan.
Right now I’d agree, without a subtree there is no reason for Thai VT-4 going to Japan.
Though it seems Gaijin is planning a regional SEA subtree of what is most likely the predominently western equipped nations, Thailand is likely one of those and considering the F-5 that makes it even more likely. My guess is Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand, though it’s just a guess, since they go well together and generally bring the tree up to about the amount of potential France has with BeNeLux.
Similarly though, recent interview with BVVD has spread some information on China as well, who will likely get a similar multi nation subtree. I’d guess Pakistan and Bangladesh, maybe Myanmar and Vietnam as well, though I don’t know too much about possible subtree nations for China and probably forgot some options.
2 Likes
China already has a VT-4
1 Like
It seems many are confused.
There is already a VT-4 in the Chinese tech tree complete with better rounds and an APS.
Thai VT-4 will be a downgrade to what the PLA has in service. With no APS to boot.
What this means is that the VT-4 being in the Japanese tech tree under a Thai subtree will not take away from any Chinese player or China’s tech tree.
The ROC should also receive the Abrams, which would make the Abrams available in the China tech tree.
5 Likes
And it will be flagged as a Thai vehicle. What of the ROC vehicles kn the China tree? Nobody gave a damn about it even if ROC will never want to associate with the PRC.
The VT4A1, completely different variant.
And the China tree should get the VT4 as well, being the nation of origin and all.
4 Likes
Personally I dont think the VT4 will really be needed in the Chinese tech tree not unless its flagged as a Pakistani vehicle.
The VT4A1 is just better but eh who knows.
1 Like
That’s where Battle Ratings come in. China doesn’t have any 11.3 MBT’s yet.
4 Likes
+1 from me for a Thai subtree in Japan. It’s not like the VT-4 was only ever evaluated by Thailand, it’s a vehicle used in active service by Thailand, so it should go into the Thai subtree. China is in no place to complain about it, seeing as how much of their tech tree is made up of vehicles from other nations, even those that are considered top tier like F-16s and potentially Abrams in the future.
4 Likes
Now I feel that political stance doesn’t matter anymore. Even if the Thai VT4 is given to the Japanese TT, China can still replicate an identical copy. Exactly the same.
Another issue is that VT4 currently performs extremely poorly in the game. Gaijin is neither willing to enhance it nor give it a reasonable BR.
The Thai manual indicates that the loading speed of VT4 can be reduced to at least 6.7s.
And the length of DTC10 is at least 635mm（Install tail fin ≈ 670mm）. This does not include the gains brought by special structures, high initial velocity, and tungsten alloy materials.
But Gaijin refused all of them on the grounds of “undisclosed information”.
There is also evidence to suggest that the armor thickness of VT4’s hull is incorrect. Thicker in reality. The report has been approved, but it has not been revised yet.
3 Likes