Canadian Leopards and Abrams AIM
It was combat capable. The EAP wasn’t.
That’s correct. It would have been integrated into the Soviet Union.
All combat capable.
Canadian ADATS
2 Likes
plus your putting nuts in your mouth as well ^^
A.C.I, A.C.IV, Boomerangs, Wirraway, Beaufort, Beaufighter Mk 21, etc were all either based on British equipment, operated by Britain as well or built by Australia.
1 Like
Combat capable…
Yes.
Wasn’t Radkampfwagen turret non-rotatable?
Do you need smins explanation for the choice of where Canadian or Aussie vehicles go?
i think we’ve tormented Smin enough this week
1 Like
The only thing I have read about it is that it didn’t have driver ports, however, even then, there were plans for it that were later cancelled due to the ending of the Cold War, so it’s another Yak-141 situation.
I think you are the one who needs it. Smin has said plenty of times that they will just add them wherever they feel like adding them.
2 Likes
So if you plan to make something combat capable it becomes combat capable?
It was able to move, and its gun was functional. This makes it combat capable.
Both, neither, and all three.
The statement was that a nations needs and the relevancy are major factors when it comes to where Canadian or Aussie vehicles go.
Britain had a need for the ADATS and it fit based on relations between Britain and Canada.
Britain had no need for the Leopards or the Abrams AIM, so they went to the manufacturers tree
This is where the policy line implodes. They claim the Brits don’t need either but then add the soviet based Indian tanks instead. These don’t fix gaps, don’t fix a needed role or playstyle, don’t match the doctrine or game play of the tree and aren’t generally wanted by the British player base and have no relevant connection since ww2.
But it doesn’t matter anyway because it’s not relevant for this thread and they just do what they want despite what been done or said before.
3 Likes
I mean does UK need a supersonic bomber?
