1:29 the u.s shares your pain here/
1 Like
I’m not an American main. I play Britain much more than America nowadays, and I’ve already told you that.
Glad we agree on that. The accuracy of game models and physics is the biggest draw of War Thunder, and the Chally 2 falls behind in that respect.
Still don’t understand this; India has flown some cool, highly effective, and well rounded aircraft. But you do you I guess.
Not even the Arjun? On a somewhat unrelated note, hopefully Britain gets the Desert Warrior as a 9.7 squadron sometime soon. As an export model it’s perfect as a squadron vehicle for the nation that developed the vehicle family. Same as how the Hunter should have been added to the British tree. Give Germany a MiG-21 variant or Su-20 to replace it, or even Tornado ECR, Alpha Jet MS1, or F-4E for a higher tier option.
Sure, I have no problem with Britain getting some Canadian or Australian vehicles. So long as the country who developed said vehicles isn’t also in need of those vehicles (Germany for the C1, US for the AIM, US for the 111C- though I can see the argument for it being British so long as the US gets the 111D as a squadron vehicle WITH AIM-7G). Heck, if there was a guarantee of simultaneous replacement with an equivalent vehicle, I’d even be down for even those vehicles to be British. What I DO have a problem with is when someone says that a vehicle ALREADY IN A TREE needs to be REMOVED ASAP without ANY recommendation for a replacement or consideration for the tree.
I have a huge problem with how single-nation players, especially British ones lately, keep whining that their nation suffers and needs a huge buff ASAP, every other nation be damned. Often, nations suffer not because they are massively outperformed, but because it is War Thunder. EVERY nation is suffering at the same time. A single-nation player, no matter how skilled or experienced, cannot truly understand how every nation suffers because they have not played even close to every nation.
4 Likes
I don’t play ground forces much, so you’ll have to educate me on this. Are you saying the M48 and T54 are worse than the Centurion? If so, how would they be worse?
What I dont get is this:
Germany can get any number of Leopards including the one that the Canadian one is based on. Why speciifcally does Germany need the Canadian one
The US fields the M1A1 AIM itself. Why did it not get the US AIM instead of the Australian AIM
Of course the US should get the F-111C but that is no reason for A) the US also getting the Australian F-111C or B) why Britain couldnt get the F-111C as an Event vehicle/premium
Again, the point was never about moving vehicles, but establishing in future where they should go and creating clear defined rules for placement. Because otherwise you end up with situtions where things like the Hunter F58 made by Britain going to Germany in stark contrast to the “rules” based upon the Abrams and Leopard placement. We need better standards for this. The Hunter F58 is EXACTLY the Hunter Brits have been asking for for quite a while and it was given to a random nation instead.
It would be like the Australian M1A1 AIM going to Japan because its close to Australia.
4 Likes
I’m saying they’re about equal to the Centurion Mk 3. The Cent is a bit better IMO, but not by much. The Mk 5/1 is definitely better than the M48 or T-54 1947.
The FV4202 is also on par with those 7.7s.
With that many highly capable to moderately overpowered 7.7 tanks, Britain 7.7 is an extremely strong lineup. The other guy was saying that it was suffering because of low spalling on 20pndr APDS, when that is not as significant a difference from other cannons than he thinks and the Cents make up for it in other ways.
1 Like
The issue in my opinion to the Britain 7.7 line up is this:
- No SPAA (Best choice is either uptier and take Falcon or use 5.3 Skink. Its about time we got an appropriate BR6 or 7 SPAA.
- APDS is a bit buggy /underperforming currently but regardless of that, it does require far higher skill-gate/accuracy, as you have to know exactly where to aim to do any meaningful damage, just point and shoot doesnt work like it does for many APHE/HEAT shells.
- No Light tank or IFV without uptiering a 6.7 or using 8.3
- Both Heavy tanks have reported issues (not used either personally, just read the threads on them)
- Limited CAS options (especially compared to a few other nations at that BR)
It’s fine but could be a lot better without a huge amount of effort.
HEATFS is just way more reliable than APDS and the APHE that they put in the russian 7.7 tanks is just straight up busted in comparison
The lack of a light tank or IFV isn’t that big of a deal tbh considering that 7.7 is one of those BRs where about half of the nations ingame don’t even have a full lineup, the Ratel and Eland still stand a good chance in that BR area
About the SPAAs, I wish they would just take away that APDS belt on the Falcon and put it at 7.7
1 Like
Yeah, but every little helps.
Though all I know is I hated that BR, it took me months to get through it because it sucked. Why I eventually bought the Premium Cent. The Cheiften was such as breath of fresh air and its why I really want the CR2s to get fixed because even in their current state, I have way more fun in the CR1s or CR2s than I ever did in that bracket. Other than the odd funny match in the Tortoise, the centre chunk of the British TT is such an unfun grind
But yeah, that would work, though the Falcon is still probably one of the best AT vehicles we have, so I really dont want to see it nerfed. There are plenty of options for BR6 or 7
Dunno, I quite enjoyed most of the AT line, only the Gun Carrier and Conway were turn-offs for me. The FV4005 would be fun, but the AVRE and G6 just do it better for me.
I actually hate how effective some SPAAs are when used as AT vehicles, so I personally would welcome the Falcon being at 6.7 with less AT potential, but I can see why others would be against that.
All in all I actually had fun playing through rank 4, but that might be because I didn’t really touch the Centurions apart from the FV4202 and not having the Action X or the Centurion 5/1 meant I wouldn’t have a proper 7.7 lineup anyways, so I went straight to 8.3 instead
Ah does that mean Swedish aircraft should be in Germany then ?
Are you aware that Sweden has a tree in game?
RAM was added in open beta, before any modern rulesets.
Complaining about it & creating strawman fallacies doesn’t help.
No one claims Japan for Korea either. You’re just trying to troll British players.
History is funny like that… how about ALL US equipment post 1959 in the UK tree since this is the flag of the great state of Hawaii:
4 Likes
“Stuck”, literally the best ammo in WT right now, on a meta platform.
@Razielkaine
Harrier was used by USA, joint developed.
F-111 is American; Abrams is American. Switzerland isn’t Britain and you even agree with Misery that it’s not a tree. There is no German Hunter in War Thunder, and you keep agreeing with Misery rthat Switzerland isn’t a tree in-game.
UK has its Harriers, so stop acting like they don’t.
Dude, the amount of hate in your posts is unreal and annoying.
By your logic the J-21 should be in Germany because it used the DB
Nope, not his logic. His logic is that it should be Swedish.
So that blows his views out the window then lmao.
As the time of the RAM Canada was a dominion of the UK :)
2 Likes
No, it doesn’t.
It’s in-line with his views. He’s being ideologically consistent.
So much British hate in this thread today…
1 Like
M8 if he thinks the J-21 is Swedish then the RAM should be in Britain because Canada was ruled by Britain more then it was now.
RAM is already in-game, so the argument is meaningless.
RAM was added in 2016, Sweden was added recently.
Not the same standards, not the same timeline.
Misery & I agree that IF RAM wasn’t in-game, and was to be added today, it would be British.
You either disagree with us & think it shouldn’t be British premium, or you agree with us and are arguing to just argue.
1 Like