This is true, but the VT-4A1 in-game is a demonstrator that includes FY-4 ERA on the hull and GL-6 APS that Thailand didn’t buy. It also has a 1300hp engine in-game, while Thailands version is using a 1200hp engine.
So while the VT-4 isn’t necessarily downgraded for export, customers can still choose to configure it based on their needs and budgets.
This means a Thai VT-4 with only FY-2 ERA on the hull, no active protection systems and a weaker engine would be worse, because that is simply the version Thailand chose to buy.
i dont think we should ignored chinese players in general of course. i mean that the chinese players whining about thailand getting its own tanks should be wholly ignored.
but Puntx’s remarks about weaker ammunition and different engines would not necessarily stand under the premises. The configuration, on the other hand, is indeed highly customizable.
Also did Thailand’s VT-4 have weaker engines?
I think it would be similar to the stingray if US mains got upset that the stingray would be in the Thai mini tree. Because the stingray was built by Cadillac gage (same people who helped make type 59 Jaguar), and the US military doesn’t even use the stingray. Similar to how the PLA doesn’t use the VT4 (to my knowledge).
Edit: stingray just got announced for both nations
Regarding the uncertain news, Thailand is planning to purchase additional VT4, and it is uncertain whether additional configurations will be required. The latest VT4B configuration is equipped with side reactive armor and a 1500hp engine
It seems you are not familiar with the situation in East Asia. Some of the equipment acquired by China from other countries was obtained on the battlefield, much like how the KV2 is included in the German tech tree, rather than arbitrarily deciding that placing the VT4 in the Japanese tech tree is justified.
You’re mixing two completely different situations here.
Captured Equipment:
Things like the KV-2 in the German tree exist because they were directly captured and used by Germany during the war. That’s historically accurate for a captured vehicle line.
Now about those Chinese WW2 vehicles I mentioned: the P-40, B-25, P-51, P-47, etc. Those were not captured. They were obtained because China was on the Allied side and purchased or received them via Lend-Lease. Completely different from a “captured tank” scenario. The only exceptions are a handful of Japanese premiums, which were captured.
Sub-tree / Operator Logic:
The VT-4 and T-84BM Oplot are not “captured” by Japan. They are operated by Thailand, which is already confirmed as a Japanese sub-tree nation. That’s exactly the same reason why South African vehicles appear in the British tree, or Hungarian vehicles in the Italian tree.
The placement isn’t arbitrary at all — it follows Gaijin’s own rule of “operator nation decides tech tree placement”.
If we follow your battlefield-logic, then a whole bunch of vehicles across tech trees wouldn’t make sense anymore, because plenty of nations never captured or operated those in reality. The consistency here is simple:
Germany gets KV-2 → captured and used.
Japan gets VT-4 → operated by Thailand, a Japanese sub-tree nation.
Please no more “trialed” vehicles being added to trees. It was completely absurd to give the Apache and Mi-28 to Sweden, we don’t need any more of those.
Otherwise we could get further absurd situations like K2 Black Panther to Sweden through Norway, France could get the F-15 as well as the Eurofighter + Grippen + Super Hornet through Belgium, Germany Rafale + Grippen + Super Hornet through Switzerland, Sweden Rafale + Eurofighter + Super Hornet through Finland…
We have enough copy paste making tech trees less unique already, let’s not repeat this awful mistake
yep hope they recognize all member states as an sub tree in the USSR tech tree tbh so we can get the oplot and other cool tank mods from other post ussr countries, also there is the alleged T-90M2 which is supposed to use a gearbox reverser like on the T-84 and T-14
Or giving them the T-80 just because they trialed it.
Trialed vehicles are BS, it’s like people get to own cars just because they had a test drive.
In my opinion, export vehicles should only be added if nations in questions signed a sale/lease/donation contract. Right now, Sweden’s T-80 is a fake vehicle.
If it was just the Oplot-M I’d agree, but the Oplot-P (while not adopted) was made for Pakistan. It’s more akin to a prototype variant that wasn’t adopted.
For many non-major arms producing nations this is a sizable part of their unique vehicles, since unoque variants offered to their specifications by foreign countries are essentially their equivalent to the US/USSR idea of having a bunch of domestic companies compete with new developments or variants for a certain contract.
I can see how identical vehicles aren’t something you’d like to see, but for something like the Oplot-P I don’t see any place it should go besides the nation it was developed for.
