The M1A2 AIM should be added to the British tech tree

[ODST_Viper24251]

Gaijin leave open ended answers ambiguous, like the Commonwealth line. This is the issue we find here.

[spartinwarrior64]

ok let’s do the thought experiment @l2ulan did:

M1A1 AIM:
ownership: australia (goes to uk)
crew: australia (goes to uk)
producer: america

2/3 uk majoirty

2AV
Ownership: german
Crew: american
producer: german

hmm…

[Thomas_Belgium]

As a slight derailment:

Spoiler

now do it with the different parts of the F35:

FOKKER moment

[ODST_Viper24251]

To add to this. Australia is still a British realm, a founding member of the Commonwealth of Nations and the Australian Defence Force also swear allegience to the British monarchy… But the US have a “claim” on them

[spartinwarrior64]

true but that’s very derailing

[Thomas_Belgium]

To summarise my take here:

@Thomas_Belgium

Right now we have the worst possible outcome:

• The US tree gets a vehicle that isn’t actually theirs
• The Australian service variant is not correctly represented
• And Australia’s ground lineup remains incomplete despite already being tied to Britain

If Gaijin wants a USMC AIM, fine: keep it in the US tree and label it correctly. But the Australian M1A1 AIM belongs in the British tree, alongside the rest of Australia’s equipment, as a distinctly unique vehicle, not a mislabeled placeholder.

Anything else is just inconsistent tree logic and poor historical fidelity.

@Thomas_Belgium

The current M1A1 AIM in-game (with the Aussie flag) actually isn’t the Aussie variant in its current in-game implementation, but the service variant of the USMC!

Meanwhile all but 1 vehicle from the Australian nation are in the UK nation tree.

Why not add it to there and make the current US one actually one used and designed by the USA?

@Thomas_Belgium

It’s just that the USMC variant of the M1A1 AIM is very similar to the Australian one, so I never saw the point of it being added to the US tech tree. As a USA tech tree player I would have rather had a USMC variant like we see with the stuart .

[Caernarvon02]

fokker still exists? wat

[MiseryIndex556-psn]

And the Australians chose to buy US equipment instead of British equipment. If your nations are linked so closely to justify being in the UK tree, you’d think they would be operating Challenger 2s and Eurofighters. Oh well…

[ODST_Viper24251]

They use British equipent on their vehicles, and US bribe money is a thing. Oh well…

[Thomas_Belgium]

It does, but they are specialised for certain parts now and are a subsidiary. Another part of Fokker is currently also the biggest Dutch Aerospace company (now called Airbus Netherlands). The other part is now called Fokker Technologies.

[MiseryIndex556-psn]

Australia isn’t a tree.

The US is a tree.

[MiseryIndex556-psn]

Sure, if you say so.

[ODST_Viper24251]

Its true, much like a British company make Bradleys, Strykers and M109’s for the US

[_Renzo]

They do it exactly so that they have a way out no matter what they decide.

Adds the Abrams to Britain: “Well we did say we planned to add some commonwealth MBTs to the British tree”

Doesn’t add the Abrams to Britain: “Well we have always said that Britain won’t get every commonwealth vehicle”

It’s a pretty smart way to handle it.

[ODST_Viper24251]

Its a double edged sword yes

[Caernarvon02]

either way the commonwealth boys are suffering

[MiseryIndex556-psn]

What company makes what is irrelevant.

[Thomas_Belgium]

So what company made the M1A1 AIM?

[MiseryIndex556-psn]

I just said what company made what is irrelevant. The AIM is an American tank.

[ODST_Viper24251]

Not the question asked