Sure, sounds good. I can add more to the Compromise section.👍
1 Like
It is getting better right now, when the post only got posted it had 58% against for no reason
3 Likes
Try and keep references to the conflict out so the thread doesn’t get locked
6 Likes
I do not personally like this re-envisioned UA tech-tree.
General comments:
The new layout bugs me! It should be as it was >:(
Heavy → Medium → Light → TD → AA
I still don’t see any point for much focus on Western Vehicles - especially considering the fact that they have proven to be a point of contention in this suggestion’s discussion.
In my opinion, they also work to contradict the argument of the UA techtree not being copy-paste.
We have them in game, they aren’t all needed for competitiveness, and overall (slightly) dilute the concentration of actual Ukrainian vehicles in the Ukrainian techtree.
I understand an M2A2 ODS, as a noteworthy, and effective (BUSK kit with BRAT ERA) IFV we dont currently have - But a fully standard Leopard 2A6, a fully standard Leopard 1A5?
(IV)
I dont see why the BRDM-2 2A14 was removed as a Georgian premium - and replaced with the BTR-80 Joker in rank V
The Joker serves as a heavier, less capable, (per mobility, IMO), larger light-vehicle with a lighter main armament and a difficult to use/aim SPG-9 gun system.
I fully understand such a functional & effective SPG style system exists in game, but I simply fear the Soviet/Post-Soviet curse of lacking gun depression for the only really useful weaponry on the vehicle besides the other disadvantages of the BTR-80 chassis.
(V)
The only concern I have with this rank was voiced - the BTR-80 Joker replacing the BRDM-2 2A14.
(VI)
I dont see the need for the BMP-3 within the tech-tree line, considering it wont be serving with the same advantages as the Soviet BMP-3 we currently have.
The Sodema thermal imager it uses was not included until the 2010s, and as such the UA one would lack it, one of the major advantages it possesses over any light vehicles UA can already have.
I do appreciate the foldering of the T-55AM. Thank you!
I voiced my concerns with the Leopard 1A5 (DK) within the general comments section - as a standard Leopard 1 tank, similar to what we have in game, it serves little purpose within the techtree and dilutes the focus.
I’m not saying it should be replaced with the T-72A, but I wouldn’t be opposed to that if it was. Although this might make the rank very, very large.
I personally do not see the need for the T-64B1 if it is Object 437. As far as I can tell, it is just a T-64B without a laser rangefinder and the ability to fire GL-ATGMs.
I believe that it only makes the rank larger and grindier, with little purpose.
The addition of the foldered T-64BV zr. 2022 is very much appreciated as further love to indigenous, modern UA vehicles!
I understand the replacement of the BTR-3E CPWS-30 with the BTR-3E Fire Support Vehicle as it much better suits the TD role with the new cannon, but I dont understand the complete removal of the BTR-3E CPWS-30mm entirely.
I vote to replace the SBA Novator “Amulet” Premium with the BTR-3E CPWS 30, as the Novator is a very very light, modern MRAP vehicle with little to no protection.
Realistically, coaxial light machine guns are capable of destroying the Novator despite the claimed protection and I just personally dont see it fitting correctly - it’s a new class of vehicle we haven’t seen, with a modern and capable weapons system at a low BR, fighting M48s and T55s!
The BTR-3E CPWS wouldnt be a great improvement on this time-warping thing, but hey.
I know, realistic vehicle eras has already been destroyed, but I don’t see why we should damage it more.
This is just me of course, my opinion, with little basis in game balance.
And the BTR-3E as an accessible, easy to use & effective premium vehicle would feature modern thermal sights, fitting with the current BR situation (thank you BMD-4, BMP-3, etc) and a great introduction to the Ukrainian tech-tree for new players.
A wonderful first look at the backbone of modern UA APCs, and a (IMO) UA playstyle - “ratting” due to lack of newly produced MBTs/Other vehicles which sit on the cutting edge such as Leopards, T80s, Abrams’.
(VII)
The T-62AGM could certainly be a viable vehicle competitive for it’s battle rating, however it would be dependent on the ERA used and the Armament/FCS adopted. Love to see it!
I dont agree with the introduction of the Otaman-3 IFV as a premium - from your standalone suggestion on it, it would be a capable IFV with a good amount of mobility, but I just believe that the BTR-4MV1 would serve this purpose better. I dont know, it’s more authentically Ukrainian, more realistic as a vehicle, I like it more. Just my opinion and not based at all on which vehicle would perform better.
But I think it should be noted that most nations in game have only 3 premiums at a similar tier.
As such, I think the Otaman-3 and Kevlar-E should be removed for now and the BTR-MV1 placed as the premium to work with 2 MBTs, the T-72 SIM-1, and the T-64E perhaps.
(VIII)
I understand the unique focus on troop-carrying MBTs at the end of the line with the Object 488 and BTMP-84, but I don’t believe that the T-72MP should have been replaced into the Squadron vehicle area for this change.
The T-72MP is one of the most powerful T-72 modifications available, and shouldn’t be reserved as a squadron vehicle instead of topping off the line. I understand the Obj 488, BTMP-84 & T-72MP share similar engines and possibly armour, but it should finish, or be close to finishing the T-72 line of the tree.
The addition of the Tor-M AA is a great idea, allowing for variation if nothing else. Although I am sure there are differences between the platforms which would lead to one being used over the other in certain situations.
The Azovets is an interesting vehicle, however I think it would be a bit useless, really. It might not even be added due… political reasons, but i’m not sure what could replace it.
Love the work as always, more than I could ever do. Keep it up and I hope this techtree grows to be the best it can, with the most popular support it can get.
Edit : I tried to be pretty clear, concise and understandable, but I just, just, might be a bit dull! So please feel free to ask for clarification
3 Likes
Everything is still a WIP. I just wanted to share with everyone I’m still actively working on it. I appreciate the feedback as always
2 Likes
Here’s my bad microsoft paint rendition. Wow, making an entire techtree with 5 different colours for the BR numbers is a lot of work. Well done!!!
Maybe I should’ve switched around the lines to the order of the original suggestion too… I always thought this new one is confusing
4 Likes
Yeah it definitely takes time. The vehicles I took out aren’t permanent removed or anything. I’ve been working on better placement options in the tree. I haven’t had the chance to keep working on it yet due to IRL and another large project that I hope gets approved shortly.
1 Like
So here you are right, and the axis is against basically “Russians”, as I wrote earlier, everything that was found in the USSR is attributed to oneself!
If you want, you can use the banners of one country from the country in the same union (USSR)
Well, the most unpleasant thing is that the “Russians” actively vote against, and advertise on their servers, their coordination is palpable!
I want to correct you a little a number of individual infantry fighting vehicles, clearly not in terms of their “rank” and Combat rank! BMP-3
I quote “operator”
If there was a gun with a BMP-3E on Bradley
Or the protection on the BMP-3E was the same as on Bradley! I think we would have another legend!
There are also no Russian tanks that were captured
T-72B3M
T-72B3
T-80BVM
T-80U. (Russian mod)
T-90A
T-90M
T-90M in KSSZ “Nakidka”
1 Like
I think you mean the BRs on the vehicles? I mixed and matched the BRs from the old post which did not include Rank VIII vehicles so some of them do not reflect the BRs shown in the new post. But I didnt decide any BRs for the vehicles in either post.
I’m not sure what you mean by the BMP-3E, sorry.
Captured vehicles will not feature in the techtree for many reasons I think, but first and foremost the fact that they come from a very volatile and best avoided conflict currently ongoing!
Elder variant
3Е
CPWS-30
90мм
CPWS-30
The disadvantage (in my opinion) is armor penetration! Suitable for destroying lightly armored vehicles! But if you already start working in fortified areas, you need a system with armor-piercing! Shturm-D (Btr-3E) has a 30mm cannon similar to that on the BMP-1 Penetration 45mm But we also have an AGS-17 (grenade launcher) on board
Now on the shooter system there is a more perfect system
If the 30mm cannon has not been changed, then the Grenade Launcher has the ability to destroy UAVs and helicopters Due to new cartridges! The projectile explodes in front of the target, creating a cloud of debris called (graphite) The material of the striking elements is a secret.
Reminds me of shooting “Flashets”
4 Likes
Oh, I see what you mean now. BMP-3E refers to the BTR-3E, as was in my post.
I can understand your concerns regarding the possible lacking penetration of the CPWS-30 system, but as far as I can tell, it all depends on which gun is mounted in the turret.
I can’t tell which gun is mounted in the turret from the picture you’ve provided and some of my little research, but the options listed on Cockerill’s website and YouTube list the
- 30mm M230LF Chaingun, as found on the AH-64 Apaches in game.
- 25mm M242 Gun, as found on the M3 Bradleys in game.
The 30mm M230LF seems like a lacking option considering the in-game round (HEDP) has a maximum penetration of 51mm, and no other rounds beyond TP & HEI are used by this gun in real life, but I could be wrong!
The 25mm M242 Gun seems more promising, as it can get up to 101mm of penetration in-game with the APFSDS round, and up to 81mm with the APDS round.
However, I doubt the vehicle would receive either round as it is a foreign development not at all linked to America and their ammunition, and not even in use with the ZSU (so we dont have any real-life knowledge of what ammunition it would use in UA service).
However
In this video I found from 2014 at a Defense expo featuring the CPWS 30 mounted on a BTR-3, the owner of John Cockerill said that the unmanned turret could work with weapons from the East and the West, from calibers of 20mm up to 30mm. So who knows.
1:00
“It can be equipped with different calibers, from 20 to 30 millimeter, including different type(s) of supplier(s) from Eastern countries or from NATO countries.”
+1. I want to see an independent Ukraine Ground Forces Tree in the game.
4 Likes
+1
I have been following the topic on the old forum and am glad to see it being discussed again. On the old site, I posted a screenshot showing the interest of Ukrainians in the game. Ukraine ranked first in terms of searches for War Thunder. Now Estonia is in first place. I live in Poland and have many Ukrainian friends. Many of them have stopped playing the game because Ukraine is completely ignored in the content addition. Out of everything in the game, Ukraine has only a flag for 500 gold. In my opinion, adding a Ukrainian tree will help to win back the players’ favоr .
12 Likes
Captured R-149BMR Kushetka-B command vehicle, based on the BTR-80, by the Ukrainian army.
The original fixed turret has been removed and been replaced with a BRM-1K turret, which has the same main armament as the BMP-1, the 2A38 grom 73mm gun.
6 Likes
Ukrainian MT-LB with improvised slat armor & 85mm D-44 gun.
7 Likes
I looked through the old forum and noticed that many of the proposals that were described there were not added to the new “honorable mentions” list. So I’ve compiled these suggestions into a short list:
T-64BVK zr. 2022
3rd gen TPN1 TPV thermal imaging tank sight
TKN-ZVUM commander sight
Laska K2 HMG
Slat armor + Rubber shields
PT-17
Т-72-120
BTMP-84
BTR-3E CPWS-30
MT-LB S-8
Otaman 6x6 APC w/122mm gun
BTR "Plavets" on MT-LB chassis:
Arms and Security 2018 exhibition.
Otaman-3 with the "Parus" combat module
We’ve already talked about the Otaman 6x6 with a with a tower from Gvozdykа. And about the Otaman 3, the same 6x6 but with the Parus combat module. But there is another Otaman 8x8…
Otaman-3 with a "Hrim" turret from BMP-1
CVR(T) with combat module "Kastet"
Found another interesting combat vehicle: CVR(T) with combat module “Kastet”. This is an English-made chassis with a Ukrainian turret. It was presented at the XI international exhibition of special forces SOFEX-2016.
Ukraine also received several dozen CVR(T) machines as international technical assistance from Great Britain.
BTR-4E BM-2-30
MT-LB BM-21 Grad
BM-21 Grad based on MT-LB
MT-LB with Sturm RWS
13 Likes
I followed the old page and am happy to see a new one +1 would love to have a Ukrainian tech tree or at the very least a combined Poland and Ukraine tech tree.
10 Likes
Looking at this, I have a feeling that we will be offended by Israeli players or fans of playing Israeli tanks…
Because if we start sorting through all the models that were made in Ukraine, then we are getting close to the “mixer” of Israel (those who study their tank school will understand what I’m talking about)
And with such success, Israel will have to share the first places with Ukraine in the Nominations “WonderWaffle” “Best tanks” “strange tanks” “holy t-shirt”
1 Like
You may be right… But in my opinion, it is the “strange tanks” that fit well for events. Look at the Abrams from ERA, the Object 279 or the Ystervark from the main tree…
1 Like