Smin already answered that question
Which is why Australian vehicles are in the British tree.
Except the australian abrams because… (pick your b.s gaijin reason) its not british, britain doesnt need another main battle tank, no logical connection to britain…
I’m not going to go through these same arguments again. The AIM is in the US tree because its a US based tank, built by the US. The C2A is in the German tree because its a German based tank, built by the Germans. Gaijin determined Germany needed a certain vehicle, and the Swiss Hunter fit their objectives.
And gaijin have finaly admitted the brits needed something different yet ignored australias legitimate connection and went with a loose “its a commonwealth connection” you have literally pointed out the hyocracy yourself. By this logic the firefly should be british because the sherman was built in america.
Well no, the Firefly was a British modification, built by the British, using a British gun, and was fielded by the British. Its entirely different than the AIM.
A modified american built tank. Austrlia has modified the abrams. Your logic still contradicts itself. Your like gaijin where the rules apply to one vehicle but not another as you see fit
Britain modified the Firefly themselves. The US built the AIM SA.
Which australia has since modified… america has never used the australian configuration of the abrams.
What modifications the Australians make themselves?
Some are secret still but the ones i onow of are SAAB Australia installed modifications to cool the engine and crew compartment and reduce the external thermal signiature. The stock version couldnt handle the australian temperatures and the engine was prone to fires, especially when in the australian bush. Internal components were customised to improve communications amongst other australian vehicles in the combat space. A modernisation was done to improve the battlefield awareness and an infantry phone was installed. Those are the known upgrades but there were other mofications and upgrades paid for but they arent public knowledge what they were just they were paid for in budgets.
1 Like
What’s your definitely of a sub tree here? Because Australia does have tech tree vehicles. Not just premiums.
- HMAS Arrow
- HMAS Nepal
- HMAS Tobruk
- Beaufort Mk VIII
- Beaufighter Mk 21
I’m just curious, as I said in my earlier reply. I agree with you on the Abrams placement.
My definition of a sub tree is when it’s officially added as a sub tree, like South Africa.
And I just gave you several Australian tech tree vehicles, does that not make them officially added?
Thats still not a sub tree…
Thats just some vehicles that dont even share a complet TT line in the British TT.
We got teased so bad with the transition from the A4 to the F-16 that we never got that it literally destroyed any enthusiasm that entire branch of our defence forces had… Those who wanted jets, went to the US or Australia to partake…
Anything here, is literally still props…
No, because it’s not a sub tree. South Africa is the sub tree.
There will come a day when I will get bored with War Thunder having tried most other things and quit due to the lack of Australian sub trees in the game. Bug fixes, Market for console players and Australian tech trees are my number one “wants”. Most of everything else I want are WW2 props from various nations.
1 Like
What’s your definition of a sub-tree here though? There’s 12 Australian vehicles already in the British tree.
South Africa would require an actual sub tree as currently observed. The simple reason for this is that South Africa is no longer under the monarchy. Just like India [which is also not part of the monarchy] could be represented in a sub tree; although that is lacking now and as such the T90 should go to the USSR/Russia tree.
However, Australia as with the Britain, Canada, New Zealand, and others are directly under the monarchy. So by fact of this reality, and as I have stated in previous comments, Australia, Canada, New Zealand cannot have a sub tree as this would make absolutely no sense at all. An equivalent argument would be that the USA tech tree would require a sub tree for each individual state of the USA.
ALL military equipment in service with Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand is directly owned by the king. ALL military personnel are directly employed by the king, not the country; our oath is to the king and not to the country.
If Australia was to become republic, in that situation the M1A1 AIM-SA Abrams should go to the USA tech tree. But to remind everyone of the core purpose of this conversation, it is about Gaijin having consistency and to stop ignoring reality.
2 Likes