and? so whats your point , in the first place the class 3 (p) was added before the south african tree even existed , fact is at the point it had more to do with germany then britain, additionaly this is british weapon systems not south african
can they just give us the Ajax or the CTAS Bradley or warrior
A literal the patch before, but not before both Rooikats were already in the main british tree. The logic used for its implimentation for germany, means they should also have gotten the 76mm rooikat seeing as they both have a german powerplant system, but that is semantics.
again you seem to dont understand the use of event vehicles, it isnt like they added it in the tech tree itself. You can cry about like you want, it wont change the situation
It just needs reminding, as its a common theme for the british tech tree to be skipped over on stuff that for all intents and purposes they should have recieved.
1 Like
could you stop going on about a SA event vehicle in the German tree
The british tree is a special case, the list is larger then the other trees combined
Their is British IFV that they need to add unlike fighters
Its not just the light tanks, that is the big one, and i am mainly refering to ground, the only two real events for planes was the mess that was teh swiss hunter, and my personal irk the NF metor 13. In regards to ground the list is long before you even factor in the SA ground malaise
I have suggested about 30 now, finished off another one today. You can basically go from about 4.7 to top tier with them
yes and so does israel, china, japan and france, if we are talking realy top tier lights only italy, sweden and US
so does every other tree have complains
neither did any german want a copy paste swiss hunter which isnt that great to begin with, was supposed to be for A2G use for germany, but it isnt even that great in it. Everyone else would have prefered sth else like the Alpha jet even if it performs worse without guided armaments
4 Likes
Well the alpha jet is the logical choice, which is why that was a double edge sword. And you would be surprised, there are quite a few ifvs most are super obscure ;)
but in regards to tanks, here are just a few off the top of my head
M4A4 - British were the largest operatior, something like 95% of all made, with all the ones present in the other trees being tanks given to the respective nations by britian
Boarhound - British were the only operator, made for their requirement through lendlease
M1 AIM- all other australian vehicles are in the british tree, with ozzie planes being in the british air tree both as prems and in the actual lines since britian was added
Ram 2 - In the us tree for some reason with a designation that never applied to it, and was added at a time when the brits were simply gagging for any premiums.
2 Likes
I wouldn’t mind some of the 76 Shermans in the British tree. Specifically the Sherman IIa (M4A1 76). It would be an interesting alternative to the Firefly.
2 Likes
that trend will continue, australia as well as canada are not pure trees for britain, they will be added where they fit best, just like leopard mexas. I see the KF41 australian version being added in germany as well
1 Like
The ozzies are an odd one, but at this point i half expect them to start shoving in indian stuff in the british tree to “plug” gaps in a low effort manner, though we might have been saved from that seeing as no one bourght the vijayanta and the t-90 added nothing so i have seen very few of them. so they might have realized no one particularly cares for them, sort of like how quickly the Hungarian/ Israeli players evaporated.
Yes, the Indian tree is good, and its 2S6 and Strela-10 are a great complement to the British tree’s current shortage of available air defense systems
There is no shortage of air defence systems, just no one bothers to look for them, i currently have one pending, and have suggested more then a dozen across a wide range of brs
5 Likes
Idk where else to post this but can we vote this in? It’s landing lights for aircraft carriers.
Unsure if it’s something someone has already posted about but figured this may help consolidate some knowledge around the CHARM 3 projectile.
According to “Challenger Service Inqiury, Castlemartin Incident”, Published by the British Government Defence Safety Authority, 14th of June, 2017 - The L29A1 (The Challenger 2’s CHARM3 training round) has a total penetrator length of 660 mm
The L29A1 projectile simulates the CHARM 3 projectile but has a different tail design to increase its drag and reduce range as seen below:
The differences between L29A1 and L27A1 is only this tail fin design, so we can pretty safely say the length of L29A1 and L27A1 should be roughly the same, so as to correctly simulate the L27A1 round. Give or take 30mm ± due to the change in fin design that may alter the penetrator length.
I’m not able to find much in the way of weight and diameter (i’m aware there’s the 23mm diameter number but I can’t source it). Anyone else have anything to add to this? I have a sneaking suspicion that by Gaijin using the Lanz Odermatt formula, we’re getting some very rough projections for penetration that don’t represent the actual capability of CHARM 3…
1 Like
Don’t doubt it, they used this formula.