♥️
We shall see. I hope its good.
1 Like
even with superior power-weight the halftrack would have lower mobility than the M24. the mobility is not all about top speed or power-weight. it’s also about transmission and handling. the halftrack have a much poorer handing than the Tracked or wheeled vehicles. it do have the traction of the tracked and a speed close to the wheeled, but the maneuver are bad. the M3 half-track also have an inferior gearbox than the M24 making it less reactive in combat. if the halftrack had a power-weight of 20,00 hp/ton, maybe it would match the M24, but it’s far from it.
not really, with the volumetric rounds and the sight in the front of their head, it would be blocked by the famous round-eating system. only a small bullet can pass by the very small space on the side. it would be about as effective to hit the head of the gunner on the M16 MGMC turret who is much more exposed, yet few people do it because it’s a tricky shot. it’s easier to just punch the turret with the main gun.
it’s the same as much SPAA until 5.0 and often more. you still find plenty SPAA with a turret rotation of 60°/sec even at a much higher BR. the BTR 152 has 46°/sec for more speed but less mobility, less protection, less sustain fire, higher penetration and sit at BR 4.0
1 Like
to be good, i have no doupt this SPAA will be a great improvement over the M16 MGMC, i would also not deny more SPAA coming to fill the game as it would be indeed needed. at 4.0 there would still need some other SPAA
the T36 GMC at 3.3 & rank 2 (the 40mm will still be capable to be used against most tanks and the tank is having decent protection but it’s not as good as the Sherman)
the T52 MGMC at 4.3 & rank 3 (it’s not going to be as effective as the T77E1 against aircraft but it is still very capable as SPAA and the 40mm is making it capable to also engage ground targets. so you might like to have it if there is not many planes)
the M114A2 5.0 & ranks 4 (it’s pretty much the equivalent of the SUB-I-II in firepower & protection but has much lower mobility)
3 Likes
I believe they will, with current battle rating, it wouldn’t make sense to put it to 4th rank.
These too.
M19 (T22)
75mm with 45 rounds per minute with proxy rounds.
M113A1 (HS.820)
3x HS.820 20mm guns.
M2 Halftrack (Elco)
4x 20mm and 2x .50 cals.
T249 Vigilante
37mm T250 cannon. Not to be confused with the other 2 versions that had radar.
4 Likes
for sure there is no ack of choices.
but I really like the T36 and T52 as it can deliver some punch and have some armor.
1 Like
Absolutely. That’s why I’ve been saying there’s no need for Skink. There’s like 2 dozen choices between 2.7 - 7.3
7 Likes
True, I was wondering how much of the “wheeled vehicle bonus” half-tracks have (where the “wheeled vehicle bonus” is how the hp/ton of wheeled vehicles can be lower than fully tracked vehicles but still have better mobility).
The issue with that is that in my experience, people have no issues getting their MG rounds through such a small gap (hence my prior mention of the R3).
It’s got less mobility and protection, but it also has better armament for AA and AT roles, so it wouldn’t be surprising to see the T77E1 at 3.3-3.7.
1 Like
That’s because the devs gave it the wrong ammunition. It should use the same rounds as the British Hispanos, specifically the AP, SAP-I, HE-I, and HE rounds. There’s already been a bug report on it (see below), which if implemented would make the Skink a lot better.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/7FDACLWvYpZ4
You made a little mistake with br, I’ll fix it.
the [T36 GMC ] at 4.7-5.0 like Ostwind - War Thunder Wiki
the [T52 MGMC] at 6.0 like Kugelblitz - War Thunder Wiki
the [M114A2] at 6.0 like R3 T20 FA-HS - War Thunder Wiki
This argument is pretty ridiculous.
If you slap an Abrams turret on a Challenger hull/chassis it doesn’t suddenly become a vehicle solely attributable to the U.S. It’s not like the turret is more important than the chassis. We might as well just give the British the turret and the US the chassis and see how useful they are without each other, that is, if you want to restrict nations to their domestic contributions.
If you want to make an argument from who used it in service, fine. That’s probably the best way to do it. But there are plenty of vehicles in the game which break that rule, such as the F-16AJ.
i recommend you to take the RB BR as it’s the one almost everyone uses. the Arcade BR are based on the arcade performance which are boosted randomly at a value that Gaijin decides and twists as they like. it makes it impossible to predict what BR it would end up with while the realistic BR is based on the actual real-life performances.
it will avoid you to wrongly assume people had put the wrong BR
the M114A2 is nothing close to the R3 T20 as the mobility is much poorer. it is a tracked vehicle, and while the top speed is good, thanks to its transmission, it has a bad power-weight ratio of just a bit over 10 hp/ton which makes it slow to accelerate and very slow to react.
the best reference is really the SUB-I-II which has the same level of armor, the same firepower, same configuration but much better mobility.
the T36 is not comparable to other Ostwind but comparable to the Crusader AA Mk.I or Anti-II, the armor is not that great, the mobility is medium and the firepower is identical to those 2.
The T52 is also not comparable to the Kugelblitz. it’s having a much lower firepower and the turret can’t rotate entirely on 360. the closest comparison is the Skink at 5.3 but it is also much inferior to it. or the Lvkv 42 which the T52 is a fair bit better.
the best reference is really the SUB-I-II which has the same level of armour, the same firepower, same configuration but much better mobility.
Canada Manufactured the Hull and the Turret in regards to the skink.
2 Likes
Was the chassis/hull a Canadian or US design?
The base line model deaign was US as it was license built. However there were slight modifications done that were specific to the Canadian Grizzly’s. I will agree mechanical wise the hull’s were similar if not the exact same as the American made one’s.
As the Skink operator manual specifically states in Part One - Vehicle Operations Instructions, Section 1,
ParaScope, sub
As Montreal Locomotive Works were the sole manufacture of Grizzlies in Canada.
To be clear also in regards to this manual. The skink turrets were also planned to be sold as conversion kits to take some of the the industrial requirements of manufacturing a full stand-alone vehicle off of Canada and with provided instructions/manuals they would be able to modify their own Sherman’s into Skink’s.
To be clear USA was interested at one point but did not purchase any skinks or turrets. From my knowledge they were present at some of the demonstrations/trails of the early versions of the skink as they were keeping an eye on the development and progress as depending on the turn of the war these kinds of vehicles may have been needed. However due to all of the delays and setbacks it took too long for the skink to be ready and by the time it was deployed to the theater there were not as many German planes in the skies to allow the skink to be useful.
Also to clarify the idea of the requirements for an AA platform that ended up becoming the Skink was first brought up by the Commanding officer of the First Canadian Army. Here is an excerpt from my write up on the Skink that I posted to the WarThunder Wiki.
In May 1943, the G.O.C.-in-C. of the First Canadian Army requested a vehicle be developed that had the following requirements:
- Accommodate 4 guns
- Ammunition stowage for one minute of fire
- 360° traverse at minimum 40° per second and maximum 50° per second.
The requirement for AA at the time could only be filled by using the Crusader or American AA equipment. However, the First Canadian Army did not want to use the Crusader AA, and information requests for American equipment at the time were not forthcoming. The project was assigned project number 47(DVA).
Overall I really don’t care where it get’s added as I’m just glad to see more Canadian vehicles be added to more nations in game. If you ever have any questions about Skink or any other Canadian Vehicles feel free to ask. (I’m no expert I just enjoy researching into these things)
Also the T77E1 looks cool, and I’m curious on the degrees of fire it will have.
8 Likes
Canadian. it was a grizzly, not a Sherman, which is a review variant of the Sherman to meet the reality of the Canadian factory
but even if it wasn’t the case, it remain that UK was the one that designed the variants, funded and tested it with the Canadians. Canada was still involved in the design and trial but their main contribution was to produce it (which is not a small contribution for sure)
USA has nothing to do with the Skink and it UK has everything to do with it. Giving the Skink to the USA is only fleeting the greedy main 3 nations once more off the back of the minor nations. and at the same time, it locks the American tech tree from getting an actual unique design made in America, for the American as there would already be the Skink taking the spot. in the end, the American tech tree does not win at all.
4 Likes
A Grizzly is literally a licensed M4A1 with a few negligible modifications which likely aren’t even represented in the game, such as radios. Canadian manufacturing of the grizzly literally stopped because the U.S. could produce all the M4s the allies needed.
The shape of the hull isn’t even unique to the grizzly, even if it isnt in the US tree yet. It’s literally just a late production US M4A1.
Once more? Most of the minor nations would be non-existent if they didn’t piggy-back off of major ones. China, Israel, Italy, and Sweden all depend on copy-paste vehicles. Rarely is it the other way around where a minor nation has to share a domestic vehicle with big three nations.
You could even say that minor nations have made big three nations less relevant. Sweden and Italy have better top tier line-ups than Germany does for their leopards.
What minor nations?
Britain is by no means “minor” having full ground, air, heli, and naval trees.
Japan and Israel are the only tech trees that can really be considered “minor” currently, all others are massive in scale.
USA has the best 12.0 ground lineup, but that does not mean it has anti-air in the mid BRs.
USA will be getting more unique SPAA in the future. Vehicle additions do not “lock” tech trees from anything, and you should know this more than anyone else with how many suggestions you have which I and many others have respect of you for posting.
Do not let your mind wander from the truth into fake conspiracy.