Let Japan’s win rate be the problem of those who play on Japanese vehicles.
You said you’re not against VT-4 in the Japanese tree.
That’s it, I don’t need your “buts”, do you understand me?
Just add VT-4 to Japanese tree right now.
I have nothing against a Chinese Abrams if they give me my VT-4.
My response was to the manipulation regarding Abrams.
I recommend reading the entire thread.
This is the fundamental misunderstanding about subtrees. It is not about being intended for Japan, because Japan here doesn’t matter at all when it comes to the VT-4. It only matters that it’s Thai, and Thailand has a home in game.
Subtrees are like sharing rent on an apartment with a friend. Essentially nations come together to support each other in making a common techtree function.
Most nations on their own are not equal to nations like the USA or USSR, so instead of inventing vehicles that never existed (like it was done in the past with things like Ho-Ri Production),0 subtrees take multiple different nations and let them work together to match those larger nations.
Britain techtree + South Africa = Britain / South Africa techtree Missing vehicles to match US / USSR Has vehicles, but not enough for own techtree equal to US / >USSR Both nations pool vehicles together to be closer to US / USSR
Here, South Africa helps Britain because they are able to pool together the equipment they have, but in the same way Britain also helps South Africa by providing not only the same help, but also a fixed home in game. In a way this means there is no Britain techtree, only a techtree that is both Britain and South Africa.
- USA (+ Australia and Canada as unofficial / split)
- Germany + Switzerland
- USSR (alone unless former USSR nations like Russia or Kazakhstan count)
- Britain + South Africa + India (+ Australia and Canada as unofficial / split)
- Japan + Thailand + Indonesia + Malaysia
- China + Pakistan
- Italy + Hungary + Romania
- France + Belgium + Netherlands + Luxembourg
- Sweden + Finland + Norway + Denmark
- Israel + Greece + Cyprus (+ Singapore as unofficial / split)
More might be added in the future, this is just the state now. Some of these are also only mentioned for the future but don’t have any vehicles yet, such as Greece and Cyprus. Singapore is only confirmed for Israel, but was said to be added to multiple nations similar to Australia / Canada
This is different from one nation with different historical states. An example for this is Germany.
Germany is just one nation, but in game there are multiple German states that are compiled in the German techtree without the need of a subtree. All of these are Germany:
German Empire Weimar Republic WWII / Nazi Germany German Democratic Republic Federal Republic of Germany (1871 - 1918) (1918 - 1933) (1933 - 1945) (1949 - 1990) (1949 - today)
Russian Empire (1721 - 1917), USSR (1922 - 1991), Russian Federation (1991 - today)
Japanese Empire (1868 - 1945), Japan (1947 - today)
Republic of China (1912 - ???), People’s Republic of China (1949 - today)
→ I don’t want to choose RoC time since depending on who you ask it can be 1949 (founding of PRC), 1971 (losing UN seat) or today (recognized by 11 nations), and all of these might be political so I’m leaving it open.Kingdom of Italy (1861 - 1946), Italy (1946 - today)
(There’s probably more, these were just easy examples.)
Come on Gaijin, more copy-paste Abrams and Leopards. It’s time. Look at this perfect gap for them.
Remove the 2a4m and add 2a6m, its just perfect
Where is the ROC flag?
oh hey its back. this thread was gone for a while
Why not both, along with the other missing Canadian and Australian MBTs? After all, it’s just made up of Canadian and Australian MBTs in the game right now, as the C2(Mexas) is there.
Also, you want 2A6M CAN. minor difference, but that means it’s using local guns(C6), over German(MG3) as that is a possibility. As the ones we got for Germany had no changes, so just 2A6M, well, the ones converted from Dutch Leos had minor changes, so 2A6M CAN. As According to someone I was asking, Barracuda kit and C6s are the difference between 2A6M and 2A6M CAN
I’d like to see Gaijin give it M829A1 and possibly DM63 but if not that’s ok, it got K-EWA2 which is roughly on par.
taiwan and mainland china have more similar idealogies and culture than the states of new york vs texas so whats your point? should we split usa into 2 trees then?
You know this was during the 2016 Tank Biathalon.
The ZTZ-96B collided with a T-72
and did this obstacle course
Although i dont know if that was on the same day of the event, or the same vehicle.
Drive over small ramps on a paved road that stay within the height range of the suspension?
The only time ive seen a similar demonstration is a VT-5 driving over logs.
Why the Abrams Should Not Be in China (Gameplay Perspective)”
I want to make something clear from the start: my argument here IS NOT ABOUT POLITICS. It’s strictly about gameplay quality, tech tree consistency, and Gaijin’s own precedent for how foreign vehicles should be distributed.
Mixed battles are already a mess — this would make them worse
We all know how frustrating mixed battles already are. Fighting your own nation’s vehicles ruins readability, quick ID, and situational awareness.
An Abrams in the Chinese tree just exaggerates that issue.
And in Sim? It would be even worse. Sim already relies on silhouettes and quick recognition — dropping the Abrams into China means more friendly-fire, more misidentification, and more confusion. It’s not “variety”; it’s a visual mess.
Tech tree consistency: Taiwan subtree ≠ main Chinese tree
Yes, China will receive the M1A2T, but that is a Taiwan-only export configuration, sitting inside the Taiwan subtree, not within the PLA lineup.
That does not justify giving mainland China a U.S.-operated Abrams variant.
It’s the same logic as South African vehicles in the British tree — Britain doesn’t suddenly get domestic South African MBTs because they’re in the subtree.
Subtrees are a gameplay convenience, not a blank check.
Japan still didn’t get the Thai VT-4 — so why does China get U.S. armor?
This is where consistency breaks completely.
Gaijin refused Japan the Thai VT-4 despite Thailand actually fielding it.
But China gets an American Abrams variant they never operated?
Either foreign vehicles are added consistently…
or the rule is being selectively ignored.
And right now, it’s being applied selectively.
If China gets foreign Abrams because of access, then the U.S. should get its “tactically acquired” vehicles too
And this is the part people keep pretending doesn’t exist.
If Gaijin justifies a Chinese Abrams by saying “well, they had access to one” or “a subtree operated it,” then by that same standard the U.S. should have:
• Mi-24
• T-90A
• T-80U
• T-72 variants
• MiG-29
• Su-27 / Su-30
• MiG-23s, MiG-21s, Su-25s
The U.S. has tested or evaluated almost every major Soviet/Russian platform at some point.
If China gets the Abrams because Taiwan operated an export model, then the U.S. should get an entire reverse-USSR subtree.
Which is obviously absurd for gameplay — and highlights why the Abrams-for-China logic makes no sense.
The core issue
China has plenty of actual indigenous MBTs and export derivatives to flesh out its higher tiers. Forcing an Abrams into their lineup isn’t “helpful,” it’s just unnecessary and breaks the identity of the tree.
There’s a point where “more variety” stops improving gameplay and starts damaging it.
An Abrams in China crosses that line.
Conclusion
This isn’t about politics. It’s about consistency, readability, and gameplay health.
The Abrams — even with the M1A2T existing in the Taiwan subtree — does not belong in the main Chinese tree under any reasonable gameplay-based standard.
Again I want to state that my argument IS NOT ABOUT POLITICS, but is about the gameplay, balance, and some other issues that will come along by adding it.
I cant find any training videos to match that, mainly because most nato trails aren’t recorded AND they do more important trials then racing who has the faster tank.
Round of applause for this guy, if this doesnt clear up the issue of the M1A2T then idk what will. I couldn’t make a better argument for the abrams.
world politics shouldnt ever be brought into the equation however in game politics (balance, player concern and interaction) kinda have to.
remove taiwan from 6.0 and above man, replace it with pakistan it will 100% better.
2A4M would be a premium, which Britain already has.
And M1A1 AIM would be a squadron, which they already have.
@npN3paK6102-live
1- That’s what IFF is for in simulator.
2- Yeah, you’re just injecting politics into discussions.
Sorry, but the Republic of China is very real, and they call themselves China.
China does operate the M1A2T:
China is A TECH TREE, NOT a sub-tree. China has NEVER been a sub-tree.
3- Japan has Type 10, USA has M103.
China deserves all service vehicles, which includes M1A2T.
Consistency > your post’s double standards.
Gaijin has not refused to add the Thai VT-4, in-fact their only statement on the Thai VT-4 was a vague “We’ll add vehicles how we see fit.” which is easily seen as an attempt to calm down those opposing the Thai VT-4.
China is not getting an American serviced Abrams. China is getting a Chinese serviced Abrams.
4- Extreme false equivalency.
USA already has M103, which is the equivalent of adding M1A2T to China.
None of the vehicles you listed are in American military service, and are thus a false equivalence fallacy.
Your post is demanding double standards.
5- M1A2T is in-service as we speak.
“China” is NOT specifically “PRC” or “ROC”, as both call themselves “China”.
@racimazzedine
No, Chinese vehicles should remain in the game in their tech tree.
we are talking about CCP china and not ROC china, the tree is based for CCP china. if people want to have ROC vehicles, they should play usa.
my point is still good as CCP can get the ROC ww2 stuff as they were the same country until 1949.
same as why FRG got some GDR vehicles after the fall of the wall.
