Switching nation for the swiss Hunter F.58

[nathanclawfish 647]

 

and like that its confirmed

8 hours ago, TerikG2014 said:

I still advise against holding  your breath on that

 

[MBDA_Meteor 20]

15 hours ago, AVROVULCANXH558 said:

That's already been done. But you can only imagine how long that would take for the UK to get, considering Gaijin's overt favouritism with three certain nations. This is despite the fact that the model is already in game and can easily be added in a future update. Alternatives have already been stated, and the logical decision would have been for Gaijin to add a similar aircraft in at the same time, yet they didn't do so, which only proves the blind favouratism they show a select few nations.

U know, I don't care that thing lmao

One thing is for sure, it will be faster than moving F.58 to UK and remove it from GER tree.

Edited May 25, 2023 by MBDA_Meteor

[Loongsheep 5,339]

20 hours ago, Thodin said:

When a minor nation has gaps, then it has gaps. 

 

Germany was a minor Air Power during the Cold War era, couldn't even produce fighters on its own.

So there is no reason it gets a Swiss Hunter to fill in a gap. It should just cope with the gaps.

 

Meanwhile, Britain was a major aircraft manufacturer that exported globally. It should get the aircraft it has historically produced to fill into the BRs.

Edited May 25, 2023 by Loongsheep

[Tunagraph 223]

1 minute ago, Loongsheep said:

Germany is a minor Air Power during the Cold War era, couldn't even produce fighters by its own.

So there is no reason it gets a Swiss Hunter to fill in a gap.

 

Meanwhile, Britain was a major aircraft manufacturer that exported globally.

This has no bearing on balancing decisions.

[Loongsheep 5,339]

10 minutes ago, _Sister said:

This has no bearing on balancing decisions.

This is not about balancing. Neither is this very thread.

Thodin tries to justify the decision that the Hunter F.58 goes to Germany because Germany is a "major tree". But the truth is that UK was the bigger aircraft industry since the beginning of powered flight until today.

Edited May 25, 2023 by Loongsheep

[Real K Soze@live 407]

On 25/05/2023 at 10:19, Loongsheep said:

Germany was a minor Air Power during the Cold War era

 

The first part is flat wrong, after rearming in 1955 it could establish within 10 years a significant Air Power.

 

On 25/05/2023 at 10:19, Loongsheep said:

couldn't even produce fighters on its own.

 

After having 5 years of technological advance (Quote Eric Brown) in 1945 and 10 years without domestic aircraft industry what do you expect? It was logical that the US forced/bribed the GAF to buy available US products to rearm. After 1965 it was simply too expensive for any nation active in Nato/Warsaw Pact to develop own fighters locally, so they were forced to buy US/USSR equipment. 

 

On 25/05/2023 at 10:33, Loongsheep said:

But the truth is that UK was the bigger aircraft industry since the beginning of powered flight until today.

 

Despite "big" and "important" are two different categories you might realize that despite the the UK produced before 1945 remarkable and iconic planes like the Sopwith Camel and the Supermarine Spitfire - the excelled after that with just 3 planes: Comet, Harrier and TSR 2. The other 2 were bi- or multinational ones: Concorde and MCRA Tornado. Output says nothing about quality.

 

On 25/05/2023 at 10:19, Loongsheep said:

Meanwhile, Britain was a major aircraft manufacturer that exported globally.

 

GB/UK exported mainly sup-par/mediocre stuff to former colonies and/or simply poor countries - interwar and after 1945. 

 

The only historical significant export was the technologically inferior radial jet engine RR to the USSR - allowing them to copy it and to produce MiG 15 fighters....

 

Don't get me wrong: GB played a great and significant part in Aviation history and everybody loves the shape of a Spitfire or knows who Sir Wallis was. But looking down at a German player (no clue if he is German or not, idc) is a little bit bold with your arguments and i am sure that you wrongly assumed the "minor nation" was aimed at GB/UK as a whole - and not for the numbers playing it in wt.....   

 

[lukeskylicker 69]

7 hours ago, Uncle J Wick@live said:

The first part is flat wrong, after rearming in 1955 it could establish within 10 years a significant Air Power.

Careful, your bias is clouding what the argument is actually about which is the production of domestic aircraft, not the quantity of aircraft in service or doctrine that those aircraft used while in service of which Germany was very definitely a minor power. The first non-experimental domestic fighter aircraft Germany flew after the second world war is the Alpha Jet (which is why it's been asked for several years now because of it's uniqueness in that regard) which was still cost-shared/developed jointly with Dassault.

7 hours ago, Uncle J Wick@live said:

After having 5 years of technological advance (Quote Eric Brown) in 1945 and 10 years without domestic aircraft industry what do you expect? It was logical that the US forced/bribed the GAF to buy available US products to rearm. After 1965 it was simply too expensive for any nation active in Nato/Warsaw Pact to develop own fighters locally, so they were forced to buy US/USSR equipment.

That's a contentious statement to make. The F-104 was rightfully a scandal but I wouldn't say Germany was 'forced' to buy from the US. Once the Korean war was over, if you didn't have a thriving domestic aircraft industry, were NATO or NATO-adjacent, and didn't have very unusual doctrinal requirements that cannot be met by doing so, if you wanted fighter aircraft, you bought American or licensed the right to build your own. That still holds true even today, hence the mass adoption of the F-15, F-16, F-35, and to a lesser extent the F/A-18.

7 hours ago, Uncle J Wick@live said:

Despite "big" and "important" are two different categories you might realize that despite the the UK produced before 1945 remarkable and iconic planes like the Sopwith Camel and the Supermarine Spitfire - the excelled after that with just 3 planes: Comet, Harrier and TSR 2. The other 2 were bi- or multinational ones: Concorde and MCRA Tornado. Output says nothing about quality.

The list is way bigger than that and 2 of your 3 aircraft are dubious at best. The Comet, while a fine aircraft in the end, it's biggest contribution was basically committing the mistakes that other aircraft manufacturers would have made had they been quicker to develop their jet airliners (most notoriously, metal fatigue being poorly understood until the Comet's reputation was too disastrous to salvage). The TSR.2 meanwhile, although cutting edge for it's time, was so damned delayed that they couldn't even get the second of the three prototypes flying before development was officially terminated.

If you want to talk about planes the UK has produced which are excellent, you're looking at the Vampire, the Venom, Canberra, the Gnat which would see frontline service in India as the Ajeet, and the Hawk, possibly the most widely produced trainer aircraft ever built, even being licensed and modified by the US as the Goshawk. And, of course, the topic of this thread, the Hunter, which may very well be the longest served jet aircraft in history.

7 hours ago, Uncle J Wick@live said:

GB/UK exported mainly sup-par/mediocre stuff to former colonies and/or simply poor countries - interwar and after 1945. 

 

The only historical significant export was the technologically inferior radial jet engine RR to the USSR - allowing them to copy it and to produce MiG 15 fighters....

See my previous paragraph. There's also the Harrier which you yourself mention, one of only a handful of times the US would ever purchase a foreign design after the first world war for any of it's branches.

7 hours ago, Uncle J Wick@live said:

Don't get me wrong: GB played a great and significant part in Aviation history and everybody loves the shape of a Spitfire or knows who Sir Wallis was. But looking down at a German player (no clue if he is German or not, idc) is a little bit bold with your arguments and i am sure that you wrongly assumed the "minor nation" was aimed at GB/UK as a whole - and not for the numbers playing it in wt.....

Re-read the conversation. He is upset that other nations are getting German vehicles (in his example Sweden getting the Leopard 2A6 because of Finland) and that if a minor nation has gaps that's on them for not producing their own vehicles. By this logic though, every single aircraft Germany currently has after Rank V except for the Tornado IDS is ahistorical and shouldn't be in game by his own logic.

Edited May 31, 2023 by lukeskylicker

[Real K Soze@live 407]

47 minutes ago, lukeskylicker said:

Careful, your bias is clouding....

 

I have zero clue why you use "your bias" or multiple times "you" or "your" in your reply. First i never claimed to be a German and in fact even if i would have had German roots (like 40% of US citizens) you simply paint a misleading picture based on remarkable profund aircraft knowledge in certain aspects, but you do not consider economic developments/realities or political decisions/circumstances. 

 

1 hour ago, lukeskylicker said:

which is the production of domestic aircraft

 

Measuring the production has nothing to do with being significant. Arguing that the Canberra/B-57/RB-57, the famous Harrier or some trainer aircraft used by the US or small "minor nations" would imply any serious impact of the UK aircraft industry on a global scale in the context of domestic production is comprehensible, but imho wrong regarding quality or actual relevance.

 

We have outside the US/RU/CHN currently just 2 nations which were able to develop and fund modern fighters after 1970 on their own: Sweden (they could afford it) and France (they could not, but they are proud like hell) - nobody is talking about UK or Germany as single nations.

 

After reading your comment as a whole, i suggest that you might invest some time/research in the economical history of the GB/UK Aircraft industry and economic realities from 1945 until today. Some details in your reply show a profund knowledge level of aircraft - but your examples are actually supporting my claim that UK was mainly producing "below average stuff" after 1945 (with very few exceptions) and exported this to former colonies and less developed/poor countries which weren't able to buy "top notch" stuff. 

 

The UK aircraft industry has imho the same success story like the UK car industry. The few very good aircraft after WW2 were not able to beat economical and political realities: The country was bankrupt after WW2 and they lost their empire. Necessary cut of defensive spending made it incredibly hard to compete with the US regarding increasing development cost.

 

The industry was politically forced to merge and with the Comet incident they missed their last chance to play a significant role at least in the commercial sector. Their engineers had the endurance to keep up with the US/USSR until the 1950/60s (please consider development times), but then it was simply the cost pressure (and ofc the long term results of "Operation Paperclip" and the Sowjet equivalent) which resulted in the inevitable decline of this industry. 

 

2 hours ago, lukeskylicker said:

but I wouldn't say Germany was 'forced' to buy from the US.

 

I am not sure if you had the chance to read about the actual reasons behind the rearming of a former enemy.

 

Korea was extremely expensive and rearming Germany was an easy way to cut own expenses and to earn money. And if UK aircraft were that good like you tried to explain - Germany was able to afford to buy the best weapons available. US technology was simply better/better advertised and available in large quantities. The F-104 is a story of it's own...

 

1 hour ago, lukeskylicker said:

He is upset that other nations are getting German vehicles (in his example Sweden getting the Leopard 2A6 because of Finland) and that if a minor nation has gaps that's on them for not producing their own vehicles.

 

I mean this whole tread is about people getting upset about "nations" in a video game and throwing arguments around to support their claims. I do actually enjoy reading this stuff as a kind of 1st world problem without taking a side as idc. 

 

47 minutes ago, lukeskylicker said:

By this logic though, every single aircraft Germany currently has after Rank V except for the Tornado IDS is ahistorical and shouldn't be in game by his own logic.

 

Imho it is very bold that you use the word "ahistorical" in this this context. WT was never something with serious approaches to be realistic or historically correct; almost every possible aspect of realism is sacrificed to make a video game "playable" for masses.

 

It might look that gaijin is taking care about realism or accuracy, but as soon a vehicle is too realistic or accurate (meaning successful) it gets "balanced" with increased BR/repair cost and/or gets open or hidden nerfs,

 

As a final statement:

 

I agree to disagree and i really appreciate the time you invested for your reply, so i added an "upvote" to your post.

 

Have a good one!

 

[nathan2601 58]

This going to the German tech tree was a daylight robbery and yet it remains there.

[AspandaIV 376]

Should the Swiss Hunter be moved out of Germany and in a different TT: yes.. eventually

Should it moved to either the French and/or British TT: No

The Swiss Hunter should be added in a Independent Alpine TT since the former mentioned nation France, contrary to what people say France has plenty of Aircraft to choose from (it just Gaijin is way too lazy to add them). Also if adding the Swiss Sub-tree to France, Gaijin the would likely not add the French Vampire (Mistral) or Venom/Sea Venom (Aquilon) since Switzerland operated both the Vampire and the Venom (inspite the fact that the Mistral and Aquilon are unique within their own right and arguably more unique then their Swiss counterparts), i'm stating this because a similar phenomena is happening in the British Ground TT where ever since the South African Sub-tree is added Gaijin has not added any new Light tanks, SPG's or even SPAA operated by the British Army (both in unique designs or lend-lease/brought from other countries)

As for Britain, they have plenty of Hunter variants both in terms of variants they operate and variants used by other commonwealth nations to choose from, also another option is to buff the existing F.6 & FGA.9 so it can equip countermeasures so it is not entirely helpless against all aspect AAM's (i'm not sure if either of them used any AGM's or similar weaponry)

That is not mentioning that whoever will get a Swiss sub-tree where ever if it is France, Germany or the UK will have a completely bloated Ground TT since Switzerland operated a lot of Ground vehicles, not only in terms of prototypes and export vehicles but also in terms of production vehicles and vehicles from other nations that the Swiss used

[nathan2601 58]

5 hours ago, AspandaIV said:

Should the Swiss Hunter be moved out of Germany and in a different TT: yes.. eventually

Should it moved to either the French and/or British TT: No

The Swiss Hunter should be added in a Independent Alpine TT since the former mentioned nation France, contrary to what people say France has plenty of Aircraft to choose from (it just Gaijin is way too lazy to add them). Also if adding the Swiss Sub-tree to France, Gaijin the would likely not add the French Vampire (Mistral) or Venom/Sea Venom (Aquilon) since Switzerland operated both the Vampire and the Venom (inspite the fact that the Mistral and Aquilon are unique within their own right and arguably more unique then their Swiss counterparts), i'm stating this because a similar phenomena is happening in the British Ground TT where ever since the South African Sub-tree is added Gaijin has not added any new Light tanks, SPG's or even SPAA operated by the British Army (both in unique designs or lend-lease/brought from other countries)

As for Britain, they have plenty of Hunter variants both in terms of variants they operate and variants used by other commonwealth nations to choose from, also another option is to buff the existing F.6 & FGA.9 so it can equip countermeasures so it is not entirely helpless against all aspect AAM's (i'm not sure if either of them used any AGM's or similar weaponry)

That is not mentioning that whoever will get a Swiss sub-tree where ever if it is France, Germany or the UK will have a completely bloated Ground TT since Switzerland operated a lot of Ground vehicles, not only in terms of prototypes and export vehicles but also in terms of production vehicles and vehicles from other nations that the Swiss used

Three hunters but all of them are rubbish at their BRs!!

Its a British plane and therefore should have been put in the British tech-tree, same reason for the Vijayanta being put in it. Why was the M1A1 AIM put in the American tech-tree? Because its American.

[CamVPro 15]

Should've been in the British tree from the start, their logic makes no sense (i.e. there isn't any)

If they refuse to move it from the German tree then they need to add a British version to the British Tree

[nathanclawfish 647]

On 15/06/2023 at 10:21, CamVPro said:

Should've been in the British tree from the start, their logic makes no sense (i.e. there isn't any)

If they refuse to move it from the German tree then they need to add a British version to the British Tree

they mentioned something about adding an equivilent, but as normal it seems fobbing off the brit tree has defaulted