As in early do you mean the T-84U?
yeah pretty much obiect 478d could be great too. but its not a proper t84
I’m guessing this is a mistake meant to say Japan, but on the same topic I feel like China could also get an Oplot through their most likely subtree candidate Pakistan.
They trialed the Oplot-M in 2015, while a specific Pakistani Oplot-P variant was meant to be adopted if it was chosen.
Oplot-M during trials in Pakistan
Oplot-P during testing in Ukraine
They ended up buying the VT-4 instead, but considering they did trial the tank and even had a nation specific variant made I’d say at the Oplot-P would make for a nice addition in a future Pakistani subtree.
The current Thai version is about to join the Japanese TT, and there is no doubt about the configuration of VT4, most of which are similar to those already present in the game. What is uncertain now is that Thailand T84 will provide written configuration
1 Like
VT-4 follows the lineage of Type 90II (CN) (IIRC the 99 series and the 90 series both come from an understudy of T-72, but they are different from each other) and the entire 90 lineage is now completely aimed at arms export. The difference between the 4 and the 4A should be only in electrical system, APS and thermal vision they use, but the shells the VT-4 and the VT-4A use should be already compatible.
Again I’m not an insider of arms trade but from my understanding since the VT-4 series is a completely export-focused model they shouldn’t have the “export version” caveat tanks of the USA/SOV are usually accused of having.
1 Like
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 think the best idea is to ignore players like you altogether, especially given your ridiculous idea of ignoring Chinese players lol.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
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.
It is.
Also the Rising Sun flag was never the national flag of Japan.
3 Likes
I agree
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?
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.
2 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.
1 Like
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
2 Likes