Ah yes, my apologies, I meant the Venom. This would make a fun addition to the TT or a nice 8.7 Premium or an event vehicle.
3 Likes
Thank u! Ill have a dig soon hopefully (i know i keep saying this, but trust)
Been really busy with school lately so havent had much time to do much else im afraid
3 Likes
Too busy making thomas the tank engine youtube videos
4 Likes
sush, bleached is finally happy, we cant let him spiral again
Britain was so much of an aircraft design factory that I’m not even surprised it’d take 9 lines for a full tree
5 Likes
I really like the idea behind this project, of expanding out trees so that they can be more comprehensive to a nation’s technological development. Would be a great way to expand the game, and something to center updates around that don’t involve new tiers or new tech trees, just filling out pre-existing trees.
Having said that, I do have issues with a number of these inclusions. Specifically, those regarding lend lease, evaluated, and captured aircraft.
First, lend-lease.
While I can get Britain receiving
While I understand that there are nations where you kinda have to copy paste vehicles into trees as they may not have anything else otherwise… I feel a lot of the ‘new’ lend lease vehicles ‘suggested’ here are unnecessary.
Firstly, in regards to such vehicles in the tech tree, I feel most of them can be cut out. While I feel the Mustangs can ‘stay’ given their extensive usage by RAF, the importance the British had in the development of the Mustang, and the fact that they were the first operators of the craft, most of the aircraft feel like they are there because they can be as opposed to a real need. I bring this up specifically for the Heavy Fighter line, which feels more like the lend lease line, at least for the early ranks. While I will admit, I am not an expert on British aircraft, so I don’t know how much of these are unique modifications, I don’t think that the tree needs them. Heavy Fighters aren’t really something the tree needs, and there isn’t any reason the line can’t start with the Mustang Mk.1, so I don’t really see the purpose in most of the line between the Mustang Mk. 1 and the Lysanders. Also don’t see why the Invader Mk. 1 is needed either. Yes, it may be the only thing the British have that can slot into a BR of 5.0, but, even assuming we remove the Marauder B.lll (which is me assuming it’s copy paste without research), the Liberator GR.1 at 5.0 and the Jet Provost T.2 at 5.3. Not light/medium bombers by your according to the tree, I know, but seeing as how Britain already has CAS options at about 5.0, I don’t think they have the need to dip into evaluated foreign aircraft to plug a hole. I could go on, but the tree has a lot of vehicles, and I can’t be bothered to do a play by play.
While I can understand the argument that some of these aircraft were relatively significant to Britain’s war effort, I don’t think that’s enough to warrant inclusion into War Thunder. Not because they are insignificant, but because such a description can apply to hundreds, if not thousands of vehicles, which makes it a meaningless limitation to have, as it can apply to so many vehicles, leading to a situation where a ton of aircraft suddenly have the 'Sherman" problem of being everywhere.
As for the premium and event aircraft that are a result of being lend leased, evaluated, or captured… I’d recommend getting rid of them all. They don’t add anything to the game, and only result in making trees less unique, especially if we apply it to all possible additions. A huge amount of vehicles would suddenly face the issue the Sherman has where it can be found in just about every tree, with the Axis nations being dis-proportionally affected as many of their prototypes got yoinked by the allies after the war.
Outside of those issues, however, I really like this project and hope Gaijin decides to do something like this in the future.
Please refer to this:
I would also like to add that this would not be the “Ultimate” British Air Tree if we left out half of the aircraft britain used because they are “lend lease” or captured.
You cant discount aircraft because they weren’t built by the British, especially when they were used in such great numbers (some of which were used more than the US), So many aircraft served as major parts of the Royal Air Force or Fleet Air Arm during the war, and just removing them because “Muh Copy and Paste” is quite frankly (and not to be too blunt) rather stupid.
For example lets have a quick look at some of the aircraft I have included, starting with the Tomahawks and Kittyhawks; Whilst they are variants of the Curtiss P-40, they both served as major parts of the Royal Air Force in the skies over North Africa, in fact, Britain modified them to carry extreme bomb loads (sometimes as high as 3000 lbs) to use them as fighter-bombers. Also the Corsairs and Hellcats which, In the latter stages of the war, were some of the biggest and most important aircraft the Fleet Air Arm had in the pacific, being the backbone most carrier air wings.
And in case you cant be bothered reading what i linked above, this is not meant to be a wishlist (although I would very much like to see some of the lend lease aircraft included in the british tree) but a representation of what could be added, if this was for the US air tree, I would have included the Spitfires, Beaufighters and Mosquitos that the US used.
Quite frankly the question is where do you draw the line in this? Should the Phantoms be removed from the British tree because they are American aircraft and the Tornado fills the fighter role? should the Gen 1 harriers be removed from the American Tree because they are British aircraft with little to no modifications? Should the Hunter be removed from sweden because its just a Hunter F.4 with Sidewinders?
You also stated:
This is a massive understatement.
So many of these aircraft were quite frankly, invaluable to the British war effort, to the point where entire fronts would have collapsed without them, The Buffalos helped stall the Japanese advance in Singapore, The Kittyhawks were some of the best aircraft the Desert Air Forces had that could compete with modern Axis fighters, The Martlets were the some of the best naval aircraft britain could get in decent numbers early on in the war, and for them, I would also like to add that Britain adopted into service before the Americans, even seeing combat on christmas day 1940, only just after the Americans adopted the aircraft into service the same month.
And lastly the age old statement;
If you don’t want everyone to use your vehicles, DON’T EXPORT THEM TO EVERYONE
9 Likes
It’s not that I am discounting aircraft that weren’t built by the British. I don’t even main Britain, I main the United States. My issue is that, if we go by the simple metric of being used by the nation in question, then, if we apply this fairly (as in, everyone gets their ‘ultimate’ tech tree, not just Britain), we run into an issue where a ton of vehicles face the issues the Sherman has where they show up everywhere as the major victorious powers sold off a lot of their surplus to friendly nations, which especially affects the US and UK as most of the nations modeled in game are nations that were friendly with those powers. Heck, even during the war, the Russians received a lot of aid in the form of vehicles.
The end result would be nations losing their identity, and less of a reason to play multiple nations, or more specifically the US and UK, as you can play a lot of their most iconic aircraft in your main tree. It also isn’t very fun to have to grind out the same vehicles for the morbillionth time. You’d also end up facing a lot more of the same vehicles when matchmaking, like with what we see in top tier. While it wouldn’t be as bad, owing to there being a lot of indigenous aircraft at lower tiers, the issue becomes more severe if we expand ‘ultimate’ trees into captured aircraft as, at that point, there is little reason to play Japan or German air. By the time the war ended, and the dawn of the post war era came, the allies had captured pretty much ever single vehicle the Axis nations had ever produced. Not everything, of course, the capture of capital ships is annoyingly difficult, and some of the smaller runs of production aircraft or prototypes were all destroyed before the war had ended, but enough of them that aforementioned statement may as well be true. This includes aircraft such as the Kikka, ME-262, HO-229, Ki-83, Ki-87, Arado, and so on, and when those air trees already struggle with being worthwhile grinds once you get into the post war, the last thing that should be done is give the option to play all of their coolest, most interesting aircraft in another tree. Similar applies to ground, less players are going to bother grinding out Germany if they can play captured Tigers in the US, UK, and RU trees, especially if Russia gets their captured Maus.
And that’s just with WW2 kit. The Cold War frequently saw the opposing faction’s vehicles being captured by the other side. MiGs, F-16s, you name it. At one point, pretty much everything that saw use got captured by the other guy. And when the Soviet Onion fell? US bought a ton of advanced, top of the line Russian aircraft, either to evaluate themselves or to prevent adversaries from getting them.
At that point, you may as well do away with tech trees entirely.
I have read what you said, and I take issue with it and don’t think it would be a good idea, and everything you have written up top indicates that you have plans to make this into a suggestion once all of the aircraft have suggestion pages on the forums.
As for a US Spitfires, and other such copy paste? No. Two wrongs do not make a right. US getting Spitfires does not magically make the copy paste better.
My line is copy paste should only be done either when it is needed, or the nation and aircraft in question have massive historical significance to each other. Prime example of this would be the Mustang, where not only did Britain make extensive use of it, but they also massively influenced it’s development. And the Harrier, which, to my understanding, was a joint development between the US and UK, with the US taking over full development of the Harrier ll after the UK dropped out for budgetary reasons. It needs to be beyond them using a stock aircraft as, again, if just use is enough to qualify an aircraft for implementation, then the trees WILL become a mess.
And that can be said for hundreds of aircraft. Given how many aircraft that would include, I think that standards for such implementations should be higher then that.
This is a non argument and in no way addresses the issues with copy paste, and only seeks to dismiss those with entirely valid issues with copy paste
It’s not much different then telling a German main who has an issue with the Russians getting a Maus that they should of thought about that before losing the war, or a Russian main that they should have thought about how their government collapsing in on itself in the 90s would have on War Thunder’s tech trees in regards to American SU-27s. Is it literally the same? No, but it shares in the fundamental principles of using real life events to justify something that adds nothing and makes the game worse, especially when we are looking at it from the POV of every nation becoming the ‘ultimate’ version of what it can be. This isn’t a single addition, this is across a tree with a heavy implication of applying to every other tree in the game as well.
FYI, our Buffalo were heavily modified with extra armour, which acted like 'dead weight and damaged flight characteristics drastically IRL.
So it will look the same but act significantly different than buffalos in USN.
Also, I just can’t get why the f Gaijin keeps letting our caribou be exclusive to US TT bc it was ‘built because of us’
When the French and we tried to buy Bell’s newly developed P-39, there was an export limitation on the 37mm autocannon to Europe, so Bell decided to install 20mm Hispano instead.
If we didn’t order Caribou at all, there was no P-400 in history.
I agree with you on ‘some’ points. We might not need ‘every single variant’ of exported vehicles.
However, maybe some vehicles have different specs than the ones which was in US service can be exception I think.
But…
No offence though, I am really tired of there being tons of US Mains always acting edgy about every single one of their planes getting ‘stolen’ outside of US TT.
Please don’t get me wrong, you were one of the polite guys who critiqued about ‘Brits stealing our planes’. and sounds plausible than the rest of them bc it seems you will also dislike ‘adding other TT’s vehicles into US TT’
Some bad others usually end up with illogical double standard that
‘We can get foreign vehicles, whatever we want, because we used them.’
‘but no other nation should have our vehicle at all. because copy and paste is bad.’ :|
8 Likes
Really need all Rolls Royce Merlin P-51s moved to the British TT. Its really annoying the US mains are stealing aircraft powered by our engine :P
2 Likes
The modified Mirages are one thing, but the base models should stay France to avoid the 100% copy-paste
1 Like
This is not a “what should be added thread”. This is a “what could be added thread”.
Every single possible aircraft for both Britain and South Africa.
South Africa did operate the Mirage III and Mirage F1 so its on the list.
4 Likes
Btw, you are missing the Harrier T.10 and suppose technically the Harrier T.12 (Harrier Gr9 Trianer version)
Also the Harrier T.8 which was the Sea Harrier FA2 trainer
Is that due to unique British modifications, or because it’s a late Buffalo? Late Buffalos were heavily modified/upgraded to the point they lost their best attribute, being their excellent turning circle.
I’m assuming you are referring to the P-400 when talking about the Caribou (when I looked it up, I got solidly post war aircraft in the results), and my guess is because it was added before Britain and France were added, Britain and France being added when they cared a lot more about keeping copy paste to a minimum, and subsequent years of them just neglecting lower tiers. It doesnt help that Britain and France are seen as ‘minor’ nations.
Small comfort, but at least the P-400 isn’t a top tier indigenous aircraft arbitrarily being locked to a foreign tree.
Like the Revenge class is.
That peeves me off, and I don’t even main Britain.
I’d be fine with that, though part of me does worry if, say, having .303 guns instead of .50s is big enough of a difference given the amount of lend lease that probably has such mods, but I don’t think I’m knowledgeable enough about lend lease aircraft to be able to make that call.
None taken, and thank you for being polite with me. I can see how toxic individuals can sour your perspective on a given stance. It’s happened to me on more then one occasion.
As for those with double standards, US mains especially, yeah, that peeves me off to no end as well, though I’m fortunate enough to have not encountered them so far.
Honestly, it’s weird Britain only has, like, one Mustang in their whole tree. They got a ton of either copy paste or bordering on copy paste premium aircraft in the lower tiers, but for the quintessential lend lease aircraft?
The one initially ordered by them?
The one which they themselves modified with their premier engine, and subsequently advocated for?
Yeah, they get one premium.
It’s not even a Merlin Mustang, iirc. It’s an Allison.
Like, Britain should at least get some of their prototype Merlins if nothing else.
It’s also a pseudo suggestion, and the only reason it isn’t a proper suggestion is because not all aircraft in the suggestion have suggestions, so there isn’t any reason why it can’t be critiqued.
It isn’t even all possible implementations, as Gaijin includes evaluated vehicles as possible additions to the game, and the Brits definitely captured/acquired more then a single zero and a couple 109s.
Not that they should get a ton of evaluated and/or captured aircraft, they have plenty of indigenous aircraft in the proposed tree as it stands, and going down that route, especially if you are consistent and do so with the other trees in game, will just lead to the trees becoming an utter mess, but you get my point.
Tbh, even though I see this tree as a bit too large for real implementation, it proves well enough that Britain could easily have a tree as large or larger than the US tree without necessarily being cluttured with copypaste, and US is only bigger because it gets more love
Because looking at this, one could say “muhuh copypaste” but even if you get rid of variants there’s still a ton of unique vehicles that are completely missing in the British tree
Rank VIII top right premium/event
I think it’s not there
Rank VII Naval Strike line between the Buccaneer and Nimrod
With all due respect, you have missed my main point, which i will stare again once more:
THIS IS NOT A WISHLIST, IT IS A COMPLETE TREE INCLUDING EVERYTHING BRITAIN (AND SOUTH AFRICAN SUBTREE) USED
This (again,I feel like a broken record here) is just a metric of what could be added, not what will or should be added.
You also completely ignored my point about the aircraft being heavily modified, tell me, were any of your P-40s modified to carry 6 250 lb bombs?
Or perhaps a 1000 lbs bomb under the fuselage?
Again with due respect, these are nothing alike, captured vehicles are already a major part of war thunder, as premium but almost every aircraft I have added as researchable has been a frontline combat aircrsft used in large numbers, not a random Mig-29 or F-16 captured/purchased for evaluation reasons.
My man, if you think gaijin is getting anywhere near adding this many vehicles to the game in the near future, think again. This has more than doubled the size of the current UK tree, even if we doubled the current amount of additions per update, we wouldnt even come close in 10 years, and I can assure you, i dont think War Thunder will last long enough to have everything here in game.
And if you are that worried about copy and paste, look at this american tree, the amlunt of unique aircraft missing from the US tree would keep it unique and diverse, there are so many interesting aircraft (prototypes or not) that the US used that could be added:
10 Likes
Also South Africa
1 Like
yes, that too, fixed
1 Like
Neat. It’s also a suggestion that only isn’t because not all of the aircraft have suggestions on the forums. So I’m going to criticize it when I feel there is something to criticize.
So unless I’m being delusional, and the OP hasn’t said…
I’m going to treat it as a suggestion, not a wishlist.
If you really want my response to modified P-40s? I don’t know. I don’t have an encyclopedic knowledge of aircraft, far from it, but I honestly doubt Britain would be the only ones to do such mods. It could very well lead back to the original issue of copy paste where a ton of aircraft are suddenly found across multiple different trees, and all because such aircraft were converted to carry indigenous bombs or bigger bomb loads. Which, if it’s only a handful of such craft across all trees, is one thing, would be fine, but if it’s not, would be an issue.
Well, first of all, you have suggested aircraft only ever evaluated into the tech tree, the A-26/Invader.
Secondly, I wasn’t talking about the researchable craft, mostly (see A-26). It was mostly in reference to the premium/event part of the tree. Stuff like the Zero, P-59A, BF-109s, so on, as well as all ‘possible inclusions’ if we were to apply such logic for implementations consistently to every possible addition.
As stated before, I’m treating this as a suggestion, even if it technically isn’t, as everything in the OP indicates every intent for this to be a suggestion, if not now, then at some point.