And you can see the camera/surveillance camera in the bottom 2 photos
1 Like
Going by the book it would make that LAV an LAV-II/Coyote
Now that is a pole but like the Jap vehicle added sadly we won’t get it to extend that much.
1 Like
Decals idea for the tree?
1 Like
We had one of those with the 2A4M CAN, didn’t we? it was removed.
Maybe some historical ones that are not in service but not the service emblems.
1 Like
Some things I have found quite recently, and will find likely ATI for primary source images:
Somerford Tankbuster - a Dodge Armadillo rebuilt, and armed with a 6 pdr Hotchkiss gun by Canadian Army Overseas. Armoured cabin for driver, with exposed gun and crew.
20mm Equipped Armoured Car - No photos presently, but data held in RG24. Likely this:
15 cwt with Quad Bren - mentioned it earlier, but it’s a seated, armoured mount with 4 Bren guns with drum magazines. Likely based on this:
These are a bit more goofy, but still a some value if you’re looking for variety. Just wanted to have some fun with it.
Thanks,
Hydroxideblue
1 Like
Also here’s another book I bought when I got the other book
Shows off, well like the title says, various Leopard models and what changes were made
The RCAC book I showed earlier also shows off the various changes that Canada has done to the Centurion over the years that we had used it
1 Like
Oh? Those are? Also, does it say anything about what Mk 5 Centurion variant Canada used? As I found some things that say it is 5/2 but I can’t verify it.
From what I could find, it states it’s the Mk 5/1.
Mk 5/2 has the Royal Ordnance L7 105mm gun but the Mk 5/1 has two coax MGs, one .30 (7.62) and one .50cal and the main cannon is the 84mm (20pdr)
And here’s the image from my book
1 Like
Thanks for that.
Ah, that talks about upgrading the Mk 5s with the 105mm gun. Well, the book calls it the Mk 11 that modification is also referred to as Mk 6 and Mk 5/2 from what I’ve found. (more things seem to say Canada used the Mk 6. so it’s likely Canada used the MK 3, 5, 6 and 11 by the number of things claiming this list.)
Huh the Ontario Regiment RCAC Museum claims it 5/2 LR is a Canadian one. But I’m not sure it’s a 5/2 at all.
I’m looking at my book and it says:
" ‘C’ Squadron was equipped with 21 Centurion Mk III tanks, with a 20-pdr, in January 1952."
“The Canadians’ first choice for the new tank was the American M-48 Patton - three divisions worth - with the M-47 as a back-up, but production problems prevented delivery of the vehicles in the 1951-52 time frame that was required, so the order was cancelled.”
“The Corps then focused on the British Centurion, which had by this time developed an exceptionally good reputation in Korea, to the point that even the Americans were contemplating an order.”
“In 1964, an additional nine Armoured Recovery Vehicles were acquired, and four Centurion bridge layers were purchased in 1966. Bought as Mk IIIs, the Corps upgraded the Centurions to Mark V standards by replacing the original Besa co-axial machine-gun with a .30 Browning.”
I did look into the Royal Canadian Dragoons “C” Squadron though and found this:
So most of the Canadian Centurions kept the 20pdr but the ones in Europe were upgunned to the L7-105mm
1 Like
So Canada had both the 5/1 and the 5/2, the 5/1 was used in Canada while the 5/2 was used in Europe
1 Like
I think it’s fair to say Canada used the 20-pdr Mk 3 and 5 at home and 105mm Mk 5/2 or Mk 6 and Mk 11 in Europe for all this we found.
Well that solves that problem, thanks for helping look into that.
1 Like
I decided to check to see what Centurions Canada would’ve used are ingame and found some:
https://wiki.warthunder.com/Centurion_Mk.5/1
https://wiki.warthunder.com/Centurion_Mk_3
Yeah this is Australian but its close enough. Was looking for the co-axial 50cal if anything.
The Israeli “Sho’t” is a Mk V but it doesnt have the co-axial 50cal.
2 Likes
Rank IV and V is just ATGM-carriers, recoilless rifles and IFV’s. 💀. Are you trying to make things even worse? I might just pray tonight that this tech tree never comes to the game lol.
Not to be super snarky, but:
There’s also a fair bit more than those. I think OPs intent was adding broad variety. If someone were to implement the tree, they could have selection to choose something to fit a certain category.
2 Likes
Just don’t comment then lmao, simple as that.
Bait used to be believable
God forbid people discuss something that they both have in common
3 Likes
right and so i pressed the “no” button in the poll lol
This is a suggestion thread. Whats wrong with me objecting with the proposal?