If the nation made the vehicle, it go be in the TT thats how nations stay unique.
Oh btw i reported him so i think he got timed out for using slurs
Ay but what if said nation operates a specific upgrade or variant to a vehicle (Say the little john locust)?
Also I really would’ve prefers Israel going to India but here we are now, Smin himself said it was a UK subtree.
If this version is identical to the version the Americans use, then yes, it could be a skin or premium for the USA. If it’s got any differences then it should go where most Australian vehicles go.
lul.
this comparison doesnt work. You would want to hypothetically remove all the F-16s from US TT. But theres no Abrams in the UK TT thats being removed in the first place.
Issue is, and I think I mentioned this in this thread already, that Canada and Australia arent proper subtrees.
Smin or someone stated somewhere (would need to dig for it) that Canada and Australia go wherever they deem neccesary.
2 Likes
its not british, its swiss, which is a german subtree
id argue gaijin was testing the waters because they always saw the demand for germany to have the swiss as subtree and they were planning to do it anyway
Are you… okay? The Hunter is a British aircraft
1 Like
that specific hunter is owned by the swiss bruh
and theyre a subtree of germany
Okay, then why is the M1A1 AIM not in British tech tree
1 Like
because its austrailian, originates in america, would go to britain if austrailia was a subtree of britain, but it isnt.
I’m pretty sure the Hunter F.58 was added before the Swiss became a Sub-tree anyway, so by your logic it should’ve gone to the UK then, but it didn’t.
Either vehicles who’s operators don’t have a set home, in this case the Hunter F.58 (when it was added, pre sub-tree), and the M1A1 AIM, are added to their politically ‘closest’ trees, in this case, Ger, and UK respectively. OR they go to their manufacturer nation, the UK, and US.
You cant pick and choose on a per vehicle basis, that’s just going to lead to inconsistent results, which will lead to more arguments like this.
4 Likes
i would go further and say switzerland was an undeclared subtree when the hunter was added.
allow me to introduce gaijin
Eh? 14/15 Australian Vehicles are in the UK tree, check for yourself. That’s a far better argument for a ‘undeclared sub-tree’ than just one vehicle.
Just because they can and do, doesn’t mean they should.
(Fixed the link I accidentally added a full stop to it)
3 Likes
Then USSR would get the likes of Bhishma and other Indian vehicles. I guess that’s not the case.
To be honest, UK should be getting some actually competent MBTs, as Challengers are far from that both in game and in real life.
I cant wait for all the US main cries when China gets their M1A2T in the TT thats coming. And Russia gets Ukrainian Abrams.
“You get an Abrams and you get an Abrams, everyone gets an Abrams!!!”
Nope.
That’s it, i want all my harriers back they’re british we made it, we invented it it’s not american. /s
1 Like
So your just totally against the US having unique vehicles? Just because it was exported to a couple countries doesn’t mean it can’t be unique to the US tech tree in-game
It should go with the rest of the Australian Abrams, where it belongs with the rest of the Abrams. The only difference is slightly worse armor and a slightly worse dart, both are internal and visually it’s about the same so it could be a skin, if not, it could be an event tank .3 lower than a really kitted out US Army SEPv3