tell that the leo 2a4m can or the australian abrams.
Rules of war thunder for most cases, if the operator nation has an official place in the game, it goes there.
If it has not, it goes to the developer nation.
Canada and australia do not have an official place, they are place fillers
1 Like
with the same logic would rather go to Switzerland, since they developed the original vehicle and use them
wont happen, UK has already 2 sub trees.
Giving them 2 more, with even more access to major nation vehicles is just to much
2 Likes
TBH the addition of India isn’t something any British player I’ve spoken with has wanted :( as well as that the damned SA isn’t exactly relatable to Britain either, they had more influence from Isreal than us.
They also did just state that they plan to add exports and commonwealth stuff to the British tree not long ago. It’s not speculation anymore as far as I’m aware.
Pretty cold for Australia seeing as all their vehicles bar one are in the British tree.
As well as that, Britain is still missing the aussie versions of vampires and what not.
At this rate I just want the chieftains to get sorted with their gear and be content.
How is he correct? me and @quartas121 already came to an understanding that BAE is actually quite involved with the software, just the missile implementation is a pain.
2 Likes
SA non arguably is the best implementation of Sub trees, completly being unique vehicles, all afterwards were mostly C&P
they said they wanna add some yes, but not all, unique developments like the LAVs ( despite me meming on the swiss connection) completly deserve to be added to the UK. They dont realy have other places to be added. Australian redback, currently as well can be added to the UK, as we dont have South Korea yet.
But when we get to the MBTs or KF41 Aus, they very much can or should go to the developer nation, if they are intresting variants. UK does not need Challengers, Abrams, Leopards and T-90s in their top tier line up. And should not be done.
still the same state currently, and considering i want the KF41 Aus for germany, which they declined in the trials, i need to take that hard stand here, before it gets claimed otherwise.
I mean Vampire was british either way wasnt it? Then the aussie ones would go to UK either way, no subtree currently needed
i wrote that before more conversation, i am only aware of Lockheed / US making problems about implementation, one reason being them likely wanting to rather wanna boost the AIM 260 sales
4 Likes
Oh I know I don’t mean anything against the actual additions themselves, just the tree as a whole isn’t really relatable to Britain bar like the olifants and the extremely early BR stuff.
Really doesn’t need the T90s’ they could of completely went to the russian tree in all honesty, same as the mig21 BISON, has 0 relation to britain in any manner.
No of course I don’t just mean funnel it into the British tree. Though it would be nice to have proper clarity on a few things.
Couldn’t they do both? they did with the Stingray and I have no idea why, America made the stingray sure but they didn’t use, and Thailand is added to the game, Yet it still went to the US tree?
It would also be the best one, same as the Aussie sabers which aren’t even sabers any more.
Yeah they are being a pain apparently with it all probably to boost sales as you say man.
1 Like
but here is the thing, sub trees dont necesarily need to relate to the nation,
One thing they are supposed to do is bring diversity, which india and SA do perfectly.
Ignoring ground, You are getting Gripens, Rafales, and SU 30 out of it, those realy are great and intresting additions you shouldnt complain about.
apparantly stingrays were trialed at one point by US themself, not this variant, but they still got it for whatever reason. Its clear favourism but ehh.
Since germany didnt trial KF41s they arent sure to get them, those our stands for an australian sub tree are clear.
yeah not enough into that topic
likely
1 Like
I thought the subtrees used to have to have some form of relations to said nation to be added to it.
though I wouldn’t like to see the Rafale nor Su30 in british tree cause then it invalidates getting them for other trees in certain peoples eyes.
I mean it is quite literally clear in this context.
As well as when they said if the US didnt get the F111F then Britain wouldn’t get the C variant :(
though I mean we have had disagreements in the past, with who deserves what, i genuinely believe that Germany should at least get one KF41 seeing as it’s the producer.
Look at china, getting the VT4 / A1 which is solely for export xD so why can’t Germany get at least one variation of a vehicle it makes.
I wasn’t until I started playing with some aussie lads
xD turns out theres a plethora of stuff missing still
Aye as usual
the relations exist in india being an old colonised country, it sounded likely you wanted it to be vehicle relations that are necesary.
and this would be different for ground leopards and abrams? thats a double standard in that regard, why is it ok for ground, but not for air?
my words, similary stingray, being poor excuse,
Uk as well with the challenger 2e and vickers mk 7 all mainly export variants, not produced for service use. Its ok for everyone to get their exports but of course becomes a problem when germany asks for them
1 Like
So did Canada, Australia and many other nations. In fact, Canada and Australia are actually closer military wise with Britain and have been for longer due to keeping both the commonwealth realm status as well as the king as the head of state for both nations (head of state or whatever the term they roll around now)
India however is a sordid history in which I feel bad for them being ham handedly rammed into Britain TBH, folks mention south korea and Japan cant be together due to historical reasons, nor should India be foisted into Britain.
Leopards nah, we discussed that before my opinion has changed, though Abrams was Trailed by Britain I believe, the M1A1 or A2 was considered as well before the CR2 program went up.
I could be wrong so take this with a pinch of salt.
For top tier I don’t particularly mind the CR2s for Britain, I would mean for the lower /mid /low high Brs where the actual stuff makes a difference.
Air as well, Britain running the Gripen was pretty damn weird for me, never mind a SU30, Rafale as well as the gripen. It would become the best air tree in game.
The vickers MK7 did get investigated by the british army to use the technology from it in the development of the CR2 I believe.
the CR2E though does fall into the catagory of the nation it exists for isn’t in game, like the AH64 Paten.
theres a few times it’s been a pain in the butt, the hunter F58 at release years before Switzerland was announced is pretty obtuse, as well as now they’ve made it worse saying Britain will now get exports as well as commonwealth -.-
They need to make a specific amd detailed answer to us all to finally sit this topic down.
I’m not a fan of every tree getting every vehicle of every nation I think it dilutes the game to the point of not having trees.
Well you’d get Piranhas not LAV’s but they would be really similar
1 Like
ZA and India are more than enough already.
The chassis, made entirely out of American sourced MIL-A-46100 steel is Canadian?? First, the entire drive shaft, power train, and engine were reworked from the ground up. We took a drawing and improved it. Weird, when an American company makes a vehicle originally for U.S service, but it isn’t at first accepted that makes it not American? So, the stingray which American politicians didn’t except now that vehicle is Thai just because America doesn’t operate it? The only reason the LAV program exist to begin with, is Canada and the U.S both were in need of a light troop transport and GD made the “LAV” using drawings from a subsidiary company GDMS (General Dynamics Mission Systems - Canada) which is owned, funded, and completely under the Trademark of an American company.
Further question, IF BMW designs a car but its manufactured in Mexico, is BMW a Mexican company?
No right? The LAV has 0 Canadian parts, the ONLY thing Canadian on the LAV “2” series is the crew, and the Shape. Even then one could argue there under an American subsidiary making that trademark right go to GD.
Note, if General Dynamics Land Systems - Canada (your desperation to cry and claim a non-US vehicle as US is showing as you can’t even use the right company) were to make a LAV and no one would buy it, it’s Canadian.
Subsidiary vehicles fall under the nation the subsidiary is located in. If Lockheed Martin - UK makes a vehicle and no one buys it’s British, etc.
Also, it’s LAV-II for a reason, as LAV-I was the AVGP, a vehicle the US neither used nor was involved in.
Also, for a vehicle built in London, Ontario, it’s odd not to use any Canadian-made parts, so your claims are likely wrong. But then again, you’re using the metal that makes it up to try an claim it as a pure US vehicle.
2 Likes
Because it shouldn’t
You can check GDLS overview of the LAV 2, there arent really any Canadian parts. The machine gun is a renamed FN MAG.
Armament, optics, power train, and protection (armor steel it’s made of) are all American
Feel free to prove me wrong.
and yet almost entirely replaced unique British Additions or were added alongside them and not additions that were actually needed
SA was never necessary. They always claim “it was to fill gaps” it has filled exactly one and only for a 6 month period
2 Likes
It unique nonetheless better than most sub tree in the game that are copy paste
1 Like
Maybe, but doesnt change the fact that we have so much just… missing… because of an SA vehicle added in its place. I wonder what our tree could have been without its addition.
Slapping India into our tree as well. Especially as it seems to be more air focused than SA ever was… Has me fearing waiting years and years for additions we should have gotten years ago, all because of a soviet thing in its stead
Sub-TTs were a mistake from the get go, and its clear that the system was doomed to failure
3 Likes
Ship has sailed, we already have:
- Ireland: 1 vehicle.
- SA: 22 vehicles.
- Australia: 16 vehicles.
- Canada: 11 vehicles.
- Poland: 2 vehicles.
- NZ: 2 vehicles.
- Kuwait: 1 vehicle.
- India: 7 vehicles.
- Jordan: 1 vehicle.
- Saudi Arabia: 1 vehicle.
That’s 10 seperate nations in the British tree.
1 Like
That ship hasn’t sailed.
India and South Africa are the Britains subtrees, the rest of those nations aren’t subtrees.
Vehicles of those other nations aren’t guaranteed to be added to the British tree and can still be added to other trees.
Canada, Australia and New Zealand are not subtrees of Britain and they shouldn’t become subtrees of Britain either.
As I’ve said, ZA and India are more than enough. ZA already wasn’t necessary from a content perspective and India just adds insult to injury.