The M1A2 AIM should be added to the British tech tree

Game Discussion General Discussion
62

Is Sweden a non-tech tree, and does Sweden have an alternative MBT there?
Is Israel a non-tech tree, does Israel have an alternative 9.0 MBT?

Does Britain lack a 7.7 or 9.0 area MBT?

The answer to all of these is no.
Britain has the Centurion Action X, Khalid, Chally 2 OES, and Bishma TWMP.
Britain is not hurting for things.

And Squadron vehicles should not ever become delisted. Supporting that type of FOMO isn’t something I’ll ever entertain.

The only solution would be one that lets the OG tech trees keep their stuff.
However, for now, Chally 2 fills the premium slot.
And IDK what USA could get as tit-for-tat in regards to a squadron vehicle.

Also, there wasn’t a 3.7 medium tank for British premiums until the Ram II was added.

63

No.

If so then what would be the Top Tier squadron tank for US be?

64

Why does it always comes down to needs ?

All of us know we have our different versions of NEEDs plus needs never was the part of the question.

2 Likes
65

If you want to go that route the US could take every LAV, and a whole lot more

66

This we can agree on, it’s not needs but balance concerns that should actually be worried about. We’d barely have anything if they only added what was strictly necessary

2 Likes
67

Yep plus if it was about needs I’m sure this game would be totally different today then if it wasn’t about needs lol

But yeah it’s more of a “We would like to have X to go with the rest of X’s stuff”.

1 Like
68

Alternative MBT there. That’s hilarious. The USMC used the M1A1 AIM too. Literally the same vehicle, just needs a new camo and nation flag.

When did I say we’re removing the squadron vehicle, ay? Did you even read what I said earlier?

Also, there’s plenty of vehicles that could have been a British 3.7 medium premium. Such as the VwE or VIIwE, or a lend-lease Sherman.

2 Likes
69

Or the early models of the Churchill, The United states built the turrets and a bunch of other parts for around 1000 of them and also tested a few.

People here will be surprised at just how many foreign things the Americans got their hands on.

2 Likes
70

Still found me that rule yet ?

71

What if they just added the US skin to the AIM as well and just left it as is. So we can have basically both

1 Like
72

I said this earlier, just reconfig the current AIM’s into a US on while adding the Australian one to Britain, that way the US isn’t losing anything and Australia it still in one place. It’s a win win

1 Like
73

I like to glaze gaijin at every opportunity I get; hell id consider myself a profesional hater when it comes to warthunder

But in regard to what is and what isnt subtree, it kinda matters what gaijin says (since they are the one putting stuff in game).

Unless subtree is confirmed by gaijin as official, it simply isnt a subtree.

74

No one said it comes down to need.

The only thing I’m saying is mutual respect drives decisions/additions.
And preventing FOMO in a video game where it’s not wanted is a good thing to go for regardless.

The only solution in the M1A1 AIM’s situation is to have two, and that’d be unprecedented.
It’s not a solution I would oppose, but it is the only consumer-friendly solution with regards to squadron vehicles as a whole.

And for now, there’s no solution for Leo 2A4M. There is a Canadian 2A6 that Britain can get in tech tree though.
Which would be far more consumer friendly while allowing a better result.

@Jarms
No one said you said you’re for removing vehicles.
Examples are used as literary devices to make greater points and deepen discussion.

Also a tech tree M1A2 would be better than a squadron M1A1 AIM.

75

What? I mean just add the US skin and don’t add anything else. Since they aren’t subtrees it should be this way. The only Australian vehicles that need moving are the Hornets and F-111C to the US where they rightfully belong

76

I’m just saying they change their minds on things all the time. How many times have they said X isn’t coming to the game and then a year or two later it comes to the game.

77

Britain doesn’t need the Abrams

1 Like
78

You said that, your words.

Also, M1A1 AIM in the British tree should be a TT after the Vickers MBT 7 which is completely vacant right now. Gaijin literally said that was going to be the Vickers Export and Commonwealth line. Keep the US squadron vehicle, maybe rebrand it as a USMC one.

1 Like
79

I’m not going into that but BvvD and Smin said why they went to Britain and it come down to having variety and so the US won’t have too many vehicle in one update and of direct copies of one at that. It’s the same reason you’re not getting the D’s since you’re getting your E’s

80

No it came down to Britain mains whining about a vehicle that was never theirs and shouldn’t have been theirs.

And D’s are not out of question for coming updates

81

And tell me, can you name these British mains ?

3 Likes