🤨
The only way a Canadian Air TT would work at all is if it’s paired with Australia to give it needed variety
1 Like
Here’s what I picture a Canadian TT would look like if it’s paired with Australia
Spoiler
Note: Even though there’s a dedicated Australian and Canadian Fighter lines Both do operate some aircraft that are on the other line so they’ll be represented as a skin
Note: The main reason why the F-4E is classified as a “Strike” aircraft is that they lack any AAM’s due to Australia not equipping them with any other than AIM-9B’s. Not helped by the fact that the F-4E had a very short service life in the RAAF functioning as a stopgap until the first Aardvarks are put into service. The CF-101’s and CF-105’s are absent due to balancing concerns
Tier’s VII & VIII are sparse due to very few options. The CF-18A & CA-36A suppose to represent the very early variants
Make them skins instead of repeated aircraft when there is an identical model in the UK tree, jets could go here and there between gaps, the CF-188 could probably go to the end of the line behind Harriers or something.
Sub tree in UK or USA would be better -1
1 Like
Hey why not, the company I work for does. Both use and abuse.
I sincerely believe that it would be more judicious to implement only the most original models among these proposals within a tech-tree of the Commonwealth. I think first of India and Australia, but the others are concerned too. This is also a bit what Gaijin started to do in the UK TT.
This way we would see more original designs in the same tree, avoiding adding more and more copies, even if they have minor modifications due to licensed productions as finely justified by OP.
We have the brits , just put them there, most of the stuff is theirs anyways
1 Like
If you’re gonna suggest a Canadian Tree, at least spell “Sabre” right
4 Likes
AAAAAA! I see it now.
No matter how many times you check for errors something always gets through, and we even had a good group of people looking at it. I bet there are other errors I missed then…
Well, now that I’m here I might as well bring up some of the planes I had to remove:
We couldn’t find photos of these two, so we had to remove them.
- Hurricane Mk XII/Late
What I’d say is this was looking to be the best Hurricane variant, as this Canadian-built one has better engines, with the 4 20mm, despite a number of websites saying it existed we couldn’t find photos so it was removed.
- Mosquito FB Mk 24
I don’t have much to say, just a Canadian-built mosquito with only two built so photos, we couldn’t find.
Honourable mentions:
Lancaster 10O
A Lancaster equipped with the Orenda engines that were for the CF-100s. From what I found/heard it was lost in a fire.
CL-52
A B-47 equipped with an Iroquois engine for the CF-105. It was given back to the US but had to be scrapped after no longer being air worthy after testing. Wither that was due to the power of the engine or how it was mounted I have no clue.
Both of these served as test beds for the engines and in turn were unarmed and not WT possible despite this being the only way Canada could have gotten a jet bomber without another nation(tho, out of the two the Lancaster, I find is more reasonable of the two.)
1 Like
annnnnnd germany if you include ground
Could say a similar thing about your Greco-Iberian suggestion.
After all these are suggestions and regardless of their implementation not everything can and will be added.
My Greco-Iberian tree is about 21% copy-paste, I even say so in the post. I intentionally tried to limit it wherever possible. Most of them are domestic upgrades that differ pretty substantially from their base counterparts, like the M48A5E3, or AMX-30EM2, and there’s still a decent number of wholly unique vehicles in there as well.
This Canadian tree, however, has far more copy-paste than that.
Not so sure of this as the different armaments and differences due to license production would by your definition not constitute as “direct copy paste”
If you can provide me numbers for how many vehicles suggested here actually have notable differences to vehicles in-game (or potential additions in-game in their home trees), and it’s actually a good majority of the vehicles, then I will change my mind. But from my knowledge and looking at the post, it’s not that high.
Again, I don’t want to be too negative, I think the work done here is impressive, I just really don’t think it’ll work as a standalone tree.
Indeed, no TT proposal is final, just an idea of how it could work. BRs, placements, and additions could all change and not be how it is here(or on any tree proposal).
This tree has more C&P because it was done on purpose.
I did say this was a “Blanket Tree”.
Ex. Added everything the nation could get, C&P or not. Even if it leads to many redundant additions. It’s meant to be dirty, just a “here is everything the nation could have”
Well you are describing an “Idealist Tree”
Ex. Limit C&P and try and add only unique, even if that means escalating the number of nations or other things. It’s meant to be pretty. a “here is an ideal way of doing it”
It’s Apples vs. Oranges, well similar they were done differently.
I will be frank, Canada air won’t ever be its strong point and this mostly exists to complement the ground tree(hence why it was done in the same way), as that is Canada’s strong point. If you want a strong air for Canada it needs another nation and I’ve said my thoughts on that(all it really needs is the ANZACs.)
I’ll be honest here. Both the air and ground trees are almost wholly British. Definitely either should be a British sub tree or a combined tree with ANZAC. At least option 2 stops the crying over what nation gets Canuk/Aussie vehicles.
2 Likes
Update #1
Fixed Sabre spelling in both post and photo
Fixed location of Vampire F.B. 5 specs.
Added updated link for CL-41R
Now that the updates are out of the way, onto two other things I remembered I couldn’t add…
CF-103
This plane was meant to be a super-sonic stopgap between the CF-100 and CF-105, but due to the fact, the CF-100 was able to go Mach 1 if you pushed it made it so this never happened and ended up being mock-up only. Personally, I think it looks really nice and wish it had happened.
Venga TG-10
This was meant to be a trainer(with an armed variant planned). Its only prototype would be destroyed in a fire before being flown.
2 Likes
How unfortunate.