I saw it on the news, I send the link?
Sure, I just know of the video of them offering… If it’s in there must not have watched it all the way oops.
Imagine if they demanded the AS9 model and South Korea had Australia build it for Canada.
1 Like
Curious *if canada gets them if there will be any unique modifications that might change the designation
4 Likes
Indeed, at the very least it’s sounding like at least part of the fleet would be built in Canada if we get them.
2 Likes
considering the weather situations etc, i would think canada getting the norwegian configuration being more likely
I had a quick look over the Norwegian VIDAR and didn’t really see any special modifications mentioned due to operating climates. At any rate, the Australian AS9 Huntsman variant is based on the Norwegian VIDAR with further options added on, different armour etc.
I don’t think the Australian version is on the cards here, although it’s one of the most recent versions so any potential Canadian version may use some of its features. I just thought it was amusing the thought of one country building a tank for another country at the behest of a third country. Also, Canadian-ANZAC tech tree is something many people want. Further collaboration would only further the cause.
1 Like
Sadly they didn’t option the stuff that matters for War Thunder (LRF and thermal imager)
What makes you think that?
FYI
https://www.hanwha-defence.com.au/news/hda-signs-contract-with-safran-electronics-defense-australasia-for-land-8116
Oh nice
2 Likes
The Mack 6x6 25pdr looks awesome, a shame we don’t have more info on it.
As a side note, I just noticed the BR of the 25pdr vehicles are probably all way too high, not that it matters much for a suggestion.
I was going to point out how they should be pretty good, then I double checked and saw the Sexton II was 4.0, ya that a BR too high, but at least the Sextons should be fine in the 3.X range if a bit more like 3.3 and under.
With the lack of info on the Mack, I can’t say.
1 Like
Possibly id need to look into the performance of the AP rounds again
1 Like
Yeah sadly there isnt a lot of information on the vehicle we just know it existed but information on it isnt well documented.
1 Like
I would prefer for the vehicles to join in as standalone in the existing British and US trees, not as a separate tree. There are a lot of vehicles that are copy-paste (as imports from US, Britain etc.) and we already have issues with this situation in-game (like Strela, M144, M109 etc), plus another tree will divide further the playerbase and make the grind harder.
The problem isn’t copy and paste, as there is no issue with a tech tree receiving vehicles they used: The problem is Subtrees.
Apart from the combined tech trees of ANZAC, Scandinavian, BeNeLux, and ASEAN I see no place for any other nation to recieve a “sub tree”. Britain does not need India, Sweden, France, Israel, Canada, or Australia in it’s tree yet it does - why?
I see no reason why, given a complete tree, Canada cannot be added as a unique tech tree.
1 Like
The issue is that the current treatment, and with WT being a line-up-based game, screws over those interested in Canada as you rip their tech courses all 10 trees and lock them behind things that make them unattainable. Along with having to fight against things that served together, as you can’t make a line up with them.
Exactly. Well, the order “C&P” is added in is a bit of an issue, but having the nation receive tech they used isn’t a problem.
As for sub-trees, they are a good idea on paper, but Gaijin added them poorly, so they are a failure, and need a rework to be even ok.
1 Like