Oh noooo, a nation not having a light tank at a specific BR.
Also, what 9.3 line-up? XM-1 + MBT-70? That’s not a line-up lmao
If this was a SPAA that would fill an actual gap that arguement would be good, but not for a light tank.
Real US suffers moment
3 Likes
I really hope you add other vehicles than just this and the rumored T-84. The gap of no ground vehicles between 9.7 and 11.7 is enormous and should be addressed and fixed ASAP.
1 Like
Does Japan or other asian countries even have something for that gap?
Not sure if this is for the Stingray or Stingray II, but this brochure claims the Stingray can go upwards of 71 kp/h. As well as that, it can optionally have thermals installed. Stingray Brochure | PDF
1 Like
I would assume that the thermals were for the Stingray II, the speed could possibly apply to the Commando, however it could be a value that would only be reached by disabling limiters
why not give the US the Stingray II? bit more unique that way
7 Likes
I know the II definitely can have thermals, but this document seems to be just the Stingray Commando. I know they wanted to sell off and export this vehicle to any country that wanted them, so I guess the thermals are just an add-on. I wonder if Thailand ever bought them with it?
It’s hard to say, you would have to find someone that knows the ins and outs of Thai tanks
But you’re right, the brochure must be for the Commando Stingray
Over 4 vehicles are confirmed already.
@KhorneFlakez1337 's post stating “America suffers” just because they’re getting a trialed home vehicle is funny.
USA has no SPAA gap anymore. M247, Chaparral, M60 TTS, MBT-70, XM803, and now Stingray.
And for me: XM-1 and Merkava Mk1.
A stacked 9.3 lineup and that’s before the air force.
They could be getting the Stingray AGS or Stingray II and I would still feel the same.
Complaining about not having a light tank between 8.3 and 10.0 is a “US suffers” moment.
And again, that’s not a 9.3 line-up it’s s 9.0 line-up with at most two 9.3 tanks
1 Like
those are not the same thing?
Not the same thing. The USSR tree would in theory include all former Soviet nations.
A Russian tech tree would just be Russia.
3 Likes
The US one is likely a bit different. The 550hp engine for example was a change made for the Thai variant, so the US one might be an earlier demonstrator with the original 535hp engine.

It could also be something like the Stingray II or other Stingray-based development.
3 Likes
You are actually first to mention in this topic that US trialed the Stingray
Original post just says US gets it because US company manufactured it
The Stingray is also joining the US ground forces tree, since the designer and manufacturer is American company Textron Marine & Land Systems
1 Like
The thing is, even IF the M551 replacement trials didn’t happen, the rule of tech trees getting prototypes from host countries still applies.
1- The M551 replacement trials happened. [Which is what my posts were referencing.]
2- The Stingray was a prototype as well as service vehicle for other nations, prior to other nations adopting. Which is also part of addition rules.
3- There is currently no unlockable light tank in USA’s tech tree around the BR this will be.
I don’t understand how people keep forgetting the rules of adding vehicles because they never get amended.
It’s so consistent that one rule just flat out got removed: No more paper vehicles.
In any case, the US should be getting the Stingray II, Stingray AGS or that Stingray prototype.
Just not the Commando Stingray, as Germany didn’t get the KF41 despite this being the same situation.
3 Likes
As long as they don’t get the Thai variant of the Stingray I don’t really care what they get. But yeah it’d make the most sense to get either the demonstrator or any of the variants actually proposed for US service.
5 Likes
Not the Commando Stingray.
Give the US the prototype then, not the Commando Stingray.
Again, US suffers.
2 Likes
That would be Stingray AGS, I assume?