+1 for US where it is needed and where it should be
1 Like
if the Thailand sub tree comes for Japan it should go their
6 Likes
+1 for whatever tree Thai vehicles enter the game in, be it a combined ASEAN tree or Japan sub-tree.
USA can get the Stingray II, which remained a prototype.
10 Likes
Absolutely not. Japan has no need for it, and has NOTHING to do with it. The US made the vehicle and it should only be in the US tree.
1 Like
US should get both at different BRs, similarly to the TAMs.
They made the damn vehicle and should be a priority to have the Stingrays added to them.
If they get a Thai sub tree which is very likely they should get it
Its as simple as that
12 Likes
As long as the US gets it as well, I don’t care if Japan does or doesn’t. It should be in the US tree.
No US never used it so it doesn’t get it
4 Likes
Neither did Japan, and Japan definitely didn’t create the vehicle and produce it, unlike the US. What an argument.
1 Like
Nobody is suggesting a Japanese Stingray. The vehicle was operated by Thailand, and the connection with Japan would be a Thai subtree. This is the same as Italy not operating the KF41, yet they got it in the Hungarian subtree.
If you want the Stingray for the US, there are more than enough other Stingray variants than the one operated by Thailand for you to suggest.
Spoiler
Stingray II; Developed in the US but never adopted by any nation.
Stingray turreted M551; Once again a US vehicle never adopted by any nation.
Stingray turreted M41; This one was tested by Thailand in a similar configuration, however if you really wanted you could argue that the 50. cal machine gun that was not present on the Thai vehicle makes this a different, US only tank.
Stingray “(P)”; This one seems to be a prototype for the Stingray, though I didn’t look into the image much. Notable differences to the Thai tanks seem to be the smoke launcher positioning and a smaller drivers hatch. While those differences might be enough to argue for it as a different vehicle, it would still perform the same.
So I feel like this whole argument is pointless.
19 Likes
Very pointless, aye. The Thai Stingray can go to Japan, one of those Stingrays can go to the US. It’s a non-issue that’s being blown out of proportion for no reason.
8 Likes
Simple solution: generic Stingray in the USA tree now (and folder it with some of the other variants). If and when a Thai subtree is added, the Thai service Stingray can go there as well.
3 Likes
Possible solution but the US never adopted the tank. Hence Thailand should get it first before the US. What I mean is that it should be released as part of the Thai subtree, which is looking more & more towards Japan, ergo Japan should get the Stingray first before a version is released for the US tree or it at least together.
5 Likes
How would you know that lol. US doesn’t have gaps like Japan, but if it’s really a problem add it to both nations
6 Likes
So basically, Stringray is only adopted and used by RTA (Royal Thai Army) so The Stingray should be added to Japan Techtree (Thai Sub-tree). And for US Techtree, you can have either Stringray II (proto) or Stringray AGS (also proto), and btw there’s already Stringray in US Techtree if you’re smart enough to notice.
3 Likes
Well considering that Japan already has the Type 74s and Type 16 as tanks with good mobility that fill the same role as the Stingray, and that they are at the same BR as the Stingray would be, yes, there is no need for it in their tree.
On the other side, the US doesn’t have ANY tech tree light tank that isn’t an IFV in the 8.3-9.7 range, and it NEEDS it because the light tanks that should have been in the tree, ended up as FOMO event vehicles.
US should get a standard Stingray at 8.7 where they heavily lack vehicled in general, not just light tanks. And then the Stingray 2 should be at a higher BR with better ammo.
Japan does not deserve to get this vehicle, at least not exclusively and not before the US does. They have nothing to do with it and it would be extremely unfair to not give the US this vehicle. I don’t why it’s such an insane concept for you people to give a country the vehicle it made AND needs.
And nothing is keeping you from suggesting those two. I even provided a pretty comprehensive list consisting purely of US Stingray variants that even included both of these:
What it didn’t include however, was the Stingray in Thai service, which is what this suggestion specifically is about. Which brings me to this:
This is not a suggestion for a US vehicle for Japan, it’s a suggestion for a Thai operated vehicle in a Thai subtree. It was paid for by Thailand, they deserve it because they paid for it.
It would be going to Japan with a Thai subtree, which offers support for one nation (Japan) in exchange for representing the military of another without forcing their players to jump trees (Thailand).
I am not saying US shouldn’t get a Stingray, they absolutely can, go suggest it. But a Thai operated Stingray in a Thai subtree is far from unreasonable.
Going by this for need/no need I’d also like to mention that in this specific BR range the US has as many MBTs as Japan has tanks in total. I agree that the US could use a cannon armed light tank in the tree, but then go suggest one. This argument is just silly.
9 Likes
You mean good acceleration, the Type 74 has bad reverse speed and the top speed is capped at 54km/h because of the subpar transmission. I don’t want to downplay the acceleration because it truly is amazing compared to other tanks at its br, but “mobility” is more than just hp/t ratio
Also the Stingray with M426 would be 10.X tier, especially if it gets 5s ace reload
4 Likes
Dam, you beat me to it
Anyways here’s some more specific specifications for the vehicle from the suggestion I was working on (like a month ago lol, now I know why it was rejected)
21.2 tonnes
6.45m long
9.30m long gun forward
2.71m wide
2.55m tall
4 crew
550hp 8V-92TA Diesel
XTG-411-2A automatic planetary transmission
4 forward gears, 2 reverse gears
70km/h max forward speed
25.9hp/tonne
Neutral steering
Protection
Proof frontally against 14.5mm, all-around against 7.62mm
Maximum armour thickness 25mm
Turret and hull provide equivalent protection
2x4 turret-mounted smoke grenades
Optional additional mesh spaced armour
Firepower
105mm LRF
Twin-plane stabilized
360 degree traverse, 30deg/s
-7.5/+20 degree elevation, 40 deg/s
Manually loaded, max 10RPM (6s reload)
3 round ready rack next to breech
5 additional rounds in turret
24 rounds in hull
M156 HESH: 127mm at all ranges, all angles
M456A2 HEAT-FS: 400mm/200mm at all ranges, 0/60 degrees
M735A1 APFSDS: 275mm/159mm at 1km, 0/60 degrees
M774 APFSDS: 358mm/207mm at 1km, 0/60 degrees (uncertain if used)
M426 APFSDS: 409mm/237mm at 1km, 0/60 degrees
Roof-mounted .50cal M2HB, 11x 100 rounds
Coaxial 7.62mm M240, 6x 400 rounds
NV-52, M36E1 Day/Night sights for Commander, Gunner
Duplicate Commander Fire Controls
Laser Rangefinder
Some pics
Gallery
Expand
Stingray prototype
Stingrays advancing during the 2010 border dispute with Cambodia
Stingrays during training exercises
Lotta stingrays
Cool digital camo
Stingray with mesh armour
Stingray internals
And sources
6 Likes
Nice pictures :D
But no, this is not the reason why it was rejected. If the US trialed the Stingray (this one), then Suggesting it for the US is still possible, as with all the other varaints of it (Stingray II, Prototypes etc).
3 Likes