Oh I didn’t know that it was never official
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
Thailand uses a 1200hp engine, iirc the VT-4 is also sold with 1300hp and 1500hp options.
The VT-4A1 in game gets the 1300hp engine.
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.
4 Likes
Captured vehicle and subtree is not the same concept at the beginning, but it just got concept swapped by those mainland players
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.
So the comparison doesn’t really hold.
Don’t waste my time with your hypocrisy.
8 Likes
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
3 Likes
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
1 Like
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.
1 Like
Oh yeah, I’d forgotten about that one. Pretty absurd as well.
1 Like
If it gets built, I bet they are going to reconsider this because it’s expensive or it will come in 2028
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.
4 Likes
Lord I hate how this thing looks, the “eyes” just make it so ugly
Dev server opened?
no its a leak
1 Like
2 Likes
Even the Thai green camos look different than this, so I think (hope) it’s a placeholder
Thai unicolor camos, darkest to lightest (might have missed some, but these are the common ones)
Sadly so far we’ve only seen them copy over Russian green for the Oplot and US green for the Stingray. At least for the Stingray it could just be the camo for the US tree but I’m not very confident in that anymore after seeing the Oplot. This would also mean the US Stingray uses the Thai model, so at this point I’m not sure if it would make it any better
2 Likes
Oh god, it’s going to be the JGSDF camos all over again.
for context Gaijin got both the Japanese OD and dark green-brown camouflages wrong for years
3 Likes