Idc much about skink tbh, t77 prolly better anyways
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
3 Likes
Neither does the Skink and the USA. Your point being?
2 Likes
This isn’t true. The British sent tank designers and experts to Canada. They helped design the Ram.
1 Like
Bc Skink being made on a license built US designed chassis means the skink has nothing to do with the USA, right?
I’m sorry but this is just outright wrong.
Of course, they wouldn’t train us, we were training them. It’s called the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan (BCATP). Like, that was so big that like 90% of all airfields in Canada can be traced to that. Heck by the end American pilots where being trained by Canada.
Typically a nation dose that itself. So why would the UK fix Canadian stuff when Canada had its own people trained to do that?
Once again Canada did that itself. And if you talking about vehicles take a look a the large number of licensed-built stuff that is British, and on top of that, the Ram was started with British help.
Odd, if that was the case Canada should have a post-war debt to the US, I can’t find one. You know what I did find? Canada giving the UK financial aid.
You wouldn’t find the UK helping Canada because Canada was helping the UK, just about everything Canada built had to be sent to the UK to see if they would use it. As almost everything Canada built was to supply itself and the UK.
On top of that Canada would build stuff for the Soviets, India, and even America.
Let’s put it this way: Canada was never a receiver of Lend-Lease, It was a SUPPLIER
What did you think Canada did? Sit on its thumbs and cry to the US? No of course not Canada did everything to keep the British from falling, and on top of that, it was treated like an equal by the British. You don’t get a D-Day beachhead for nothing.
7 Likes
Yes, because the US didn’t build the Grizzly. Canadian hands did. The US didn’t design or build the Skink. Canadian minds and hands did.
The US took no interest in the project and didn’t even want it.
With your logic we might as well add all the unique British, French, and Israeli Sherman’s to the US tree. Cause they’re actually built on US built hulls.
3 Likes
Better for different tasks within SPAA. One’s better for saturation fire the other one is good for punching the enemy.
Potato potato, find me the proof to prove me wrong other wise i stand by what i said.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
5 Likes
The grizzly literally just had different tracks and sprocket vs a regular Sherman
Also, I wonder why the US wouldn’t be interested in a very slightly modified license made version of a tank the US was already producing a ton of.
Wait…
1 Like
Yeah GD never did get what they wanted with that.
Why? UK already has firefly, and that chassis had more different from the UK firefly’s than the difference between the chassis on the skink and an M4A1
You guys are acting like I’m trying to get the skink removed from UK, it honestly belongs in both trees
Note, the Grizzly also has smoke launchers.
However the Skink program wasn’t the hull. It was the Turret. Canada was trying to make a universal SPAA turret for the Sherman.
It was built on a Grizzly because that’s what Canada had. but if Skink made it to production you’d find it one M4A4 and other Shermans.
3 Likes
CDP tracks and the sprocket came later in production. Not all Grizzly’s had that.
Also, we’re talking about the US not wanting the Skink.
1 Like
You know what? Fair enough, but it’s too late. Snail has set its mind to it.
Was spaa needed for US? Ofc
Did it have to be the skink of all things? No
Fair point about it being a turret program though
The info I gave you is common enough you can find it on Wikipedia.
Here you go:
This here is one of the best sources for all things Canadian vehlcies outside a Wiki. It’s got most of the info I got for my suggestions I currently have. All of which have ties to(or was used by) the UK.
4 Likes
Let’s see Silverhawk dot com, Let’s also see Wiki-pedia dot com.
By default invalid bud. Try again. Wikipedia is more invalid cause people can BS their info.