'Renovating' Gaijin's vehicle addition policy



This is not an official statement nor intended to resemble one

Heads up!

There is a poll at the end, please vote!

  • Nation is used to define actual independent nations in War Thunder that participate in the Match Maker.

Now and always, with new additions of vehicles to Tech Trees, many players, including I, have felt that a more concrete, more rational, more fair policy of adding vehicles to tech trees should be adopted.
This is not to challenge the policy of what can be considered an actual vehicle as I am in agreement with the policy of rejecting ‘paper vehicles’ and etc.

To maintain equality of the nations in terms of what vehicles they receive, I propose the following standards of vehicle addition.
These points apply both individually and in an overlapping manner:

  1. A nation that operated a vehicle (if said nation exists in game) should receive it.
  2. A nation that produced a vehicle (if said nation exists in game) should receive it.
  3. A nation that prototyped (within what is considered to be a complete or nearly complete) a vehicle (if said nation exists in game) should receive it.
  4. A nation that designed a vehicle (if said nation exists in game) should receive it.
  5. A nation that designed a vehicle, whether or not it used it in its armed forces (if said nation exists in game), should receive it.
  6. A nation that designed a vehicle, but merely exported, (if said nation exists in game) should receive it.
  7. A vehicle should go to the nations that it originates from, for example, a vehicle is made of a French turret and German hull, goes to both France and Germany.
  8. If a vehicle belonging to a nation that does not exist in War Thunder is added, the nation that is closest to it (holds most of the original design) shall receive it.
  9. If a vehicle designed by a collection of nations is present, all the involved nations that used or produced it should have it.
  10. The nation that developed the tank will only receive up to the upgrades that it was itself involved in.
  11. Wartime donated vehicles may not be placed as researchable vehicles in the tech tree, if at all. (if the country purchases, or significantly modifies them then these vehicles can be placed).

Keeping that in mind, I shall be compiling a list of vehicles that are placed in the wrong nations and which nations they should actually be in.

Please suggest additions to either list that I may not know of!

List of misplaced vehicles

List of vehicles that should be in more than the current tech tree

Should this policy be adopted by Gaijin?

  • yes
  • no
0 voters

Please explain your vote aswell.


  • Added G.91 R/3 to the should also be in list for italy
  • Removed repeated point, the fact that no one pointed it out is proof that you havent read these. so unless you did actually point it out, you lose a lot of credibility to criticise.
  • Added current point 11

What happens when the thermal imager is imported from france?

Or when the vehicle uses a German/Russian engine?

Does this mean that UK gets the Kongo of the Kongo-class fast battleships? Or what of all the ships who were contracted to build in a third party country?

Honestly these rules just make things a mess. There being some arbitrary ruling of which vehicles goes where makes sense as it allows for the filling of tech trees.

Should Gaijin be open about why a vehicle or sub-tree went somewhere? Sure, but i don’t like the need to ground it in some arbitrary ruleset. If its good for gameplay then thats the only reason they need.

1 Like

So hypocrisy is better in your eyes than grounded rules? Just because it fills out the nations you support.


The equipment used on it does not matter unless it is a turret or hull.
besides, if the nation has not used it and merely exported some equipment for an otherwise foreign design, they dont have any claim to it.
its quite a simple concept to understand.

if the vehicle was designed by a nation and used by that nation, it dosent matter which nation was contracted to build it as long as the contracted nation was not also a user of that vehicle

I mean as they have done now, yeah. Its a game im playing, having a good time is more important than some grounded ruleset that limits what they could do.

Id like it if they were more liberal in adding stuff arbitrarily, but i can see why they want to avoid community backlash

so YOU having a good time is ok but what if another guy isnt?
Fairness is a just policy and theres a reason why laws exist. not to needlessly restrict people but to maintain equality and justice

1 Like

So here because it was designed and built by Britain, but used by Japan it should go to Japan? Am i getting that right?

Honestly seems like quite arbitrary cut-off if you ask meme, but i guess there will be some arbitrary cut-off somewhere in the pipeline

A limit to what is considered a “part” should be set. Otherwise we can go down to “the atom oif this piece of steel probably was at one point in history in x nation”
So development of full systems is probably a better term. E.g. Hull developed, tested and produced (prototype) in germany and Turret (Gun, sights, electronics etc, developed, designed and tested in France)

No but they should get the Kongo class Battlecruiser if these rules applied to all vehicles. Which is almost identical to I belive the Lion class Battle cruisers? But OP specified just planes and tanks and I belive SHips should be kept different as they are much much more easy to allocate then tanks and planes.


I would say that having a gameplay wise a good time is kinda seperate to whatever grudge you or others might hold for specific vehicle additions.

Im not advocating for free reign, just think grounding it in hard rules seems a bit silly

was it designed and built by Britain for Britain?

I ask because it kinda makes or breakes imports of vehicles. I don’t think ships are in any way all that fundamentally different in terms of allocating what goes where.

Like the only thing that ships are all that different IMO is that “laid down” Is enough for addition given how finalized ships tend to be when they are laid down.

silly or not, it is realistic. and one persons genius is another’s silly so that argument is of no weight

Designed and built by Britain at a the request of Japan.

so NOT designed and built by britian for britian but for service and use by japan.(japan paid for its design and building)
since britain didnt use it. hence, it shouldnt get it.

BTW @DiamondLag thanks for arguing, it keeps the post at the top of the forums lol

So what about me having a good time? I main germany and because of gaijins arbitrary and blatantly hypocritical lack of rules im not allowed to have fun with an IFV they themselves called a german IFV.

1 Like

So why shouldn’t Finland (a sub-tree of Sweden) get a T-72M1?

It was built for Finland and they operated it.

Ah, i see. So its about complaining about the KF41 again. Well i guess i won’t bother then.

finland does not exist in game as an independent TT, hence its vehicles should be, for now, added to the nation of origin

its a complaint alright. a logical and justified one.
if Britain gets the Challenger 2E, (which it never used but designed built and exported), then germany should also get the Kf41, (which it never used but designed built and exported) as well as all its prototype variants that are worth adding

1 Like

So youre proving our points against you. You only care about certain nations having fun. But the thought that german mains would have fun, nah thats not allowed.

1 Like