The US has more to do with the Skink than the French had to do with the SK105.
No they don’t.
1 Like
The L44 was derived from the US 120mm Delta LASH program.
You are stupid
1 Like
Haha figures
May I see the US parts in the real Skink? Because I doubt a domestically made turret with Polsten uses US parts. Oh wait, it doesn’t.
This image, this right here:
It’s the beginning and end of the Skink.
This here is a Skink on the Grizzly hull (in the UK before it was tested in service (with guess what, the Canadian & British Army))
One of many forms the Skink would have taken.
So you’re claiming the US should have the Skink just because of one of the many hulls it could have been put on. It’s like claiming any of Markman’s vehicles that used a US hull to show it off, as the US didn’t make those; Markman did independently. At that point, claiming the Skink and “claiming the world” is the same thing.
And it’s been repeated multiple times: the US could have a claim to the Skink, with versions it used, but it REJECTED IT WITHOUT TESTING, meaning the US didn’t even want a part of the program, which means if the production line (as the Skink wasn’t a prototype but a production vehicle) it still wouldn’t have used it.
4 Likes
Eeeeeh, SK-105 uses CN 105-57, and its oscillating turrets are based on the AMX-13 turret design.
Unlike Skink, which the USA has ZERO Connection with.
3 Likes
Yes, the hull, engine and transmission. The tracks and speakers were American until the Canadians changed them later.
If you consider the Grizzly to be Canadian because they changed some of the M4, the Packard Merlin is American because it was completely redesigned and used American components.
Trust the licenced production is surely american
1 Like
Congrats on two things: not reading a word I said.
And stating every tank to use a L7 (or any other British gun) is a British tank.
2 Likes
Wdym, Skink was somewhat kinda of ‘Ancient version’ of the Marksman turret designed to be mounted on any Sherman hull.
I cannot wait to see your claims that the Firefly, M4A4 FL-10, and M-51 are ‘American tanks’ because of nothing but they also used same bloody sherman hull.
3 Likes
Sure, all L7 tanks can be British but the M68 isn’t an L7.
Sure, they can be added too.
Wow more stupid stuff. It’s just a licenced production of l7.
3 Likes
No, the M68 isn’t a licensed L7.
Yes it is lmao.
1 Like
Okay, all 75mm Shermans are French tanks because 75mm M3 are based on 75mm M1897 /s
And Cromwell is also a French tank because the QF 75mm uses the same ammunition as the M3
You are making things absurd.
Mate, you remind me of Crabbe.
You understood things the completely opposite way.
2 Likes
It’s not. You really should do research. The M68 was developed from the T254 105mm, which was designed to be compatible with L7 ammunition. The breech, recoil mechanism, barrel attachment system and bore evacuator are not L7 compatible.
It’s literally a US variant of the L7(it uses the L7’s gun tube and cartridges), and under your Skink logic, the UK can claim it.
Under your logic for the Skink, it means the UK can claim it because it uses a part from the L7.
2 Likes
But it’s not a licensed L7.