Had only 60 rounds of ammo and is not fully enclosed, The top has big holes in it.
It would be far worse than the Skink, Being only marginally better than the Ostwind.
Also more in line with the Wirbelwind in terms of protection, Firepower would heavily depend on the shells it gets, And nearly everyone on the suggestion post for it seems to agree it would be 3.7 or 4.0.
Again, Not the BR area of the Skink.
Considering the AMX-10P is 6.3, This would be too, Again not in the same BR that the devs said they where trying to fill.
No way that would be Skink BR, Stabilized 30mm carrier would be too much at that BR, That would be where the Falcon is if anything.
Possibly, But would highly depend on how its modeled, Probably the closest thing to be suggested so far for there.
Also doubtful, After seeing what happened to the XM800 from getting APDS, I imagine this would also be really high if it gets it, And 6.0 at minimum if it doesn’t, It would be similar to the R3.
Had to look it up but apparently that had the same “XM701” designation but was later called the XM765.
Not super familiar with it, But looking at the “extended US tech tree” post the poster does put it at 5.7, But they also put the T100 at 7.0 when thats more of a 7.7 vehicle so im not entirely sure how good that poster is at judging BR placement.
Yeah this is an incredibly frustrating pattern that’s been happening more and more often: instead of putting in the legwork to add domestic designs to address gaps, we see tons of designs, often from subtrees (or third party nations), added that don’t actually fill gaps and/or are just the most expedient thing to model to slap in a tree (prtl, Leo 1a5BE, Skink).
It’s especially frustrating with the current SPAA situation, since 1 vehicle model (Vickers Valkyr H.20 for Britain) could open up quite a few in game options for relatively light modeling loads:
Other Vickers Valkyr vehicles for Britain
Other H.20/TA20 spaa for the French 6.3-8.7 SPAA gap (AMX, ERC, VAB, M3)
They are entitled to them so long as these are added. But that doesn’t mean if they aren’t added at all that suddenly is a double standard.
There are thousands of vehicles not in game yet, this is nothing special, and being an import or not is generally not the main way to choose what to add.
A nation like Italy that actively used American ground vehicles following WWII will more likely get them than a nation that simply captured them for example, since they are more relevant to that nations history. Similarly there’s also gameplay concerns, so a vehicle might be added if it’s simply the best functional fit for a role like the M36 for Japan, but the chance of seeing the M37 HMC that was bought under similar circumstances is lower since there is more relevant alternatives like the Type 56 or Type 74 SPH.
It would have an exposed gunner like the SUB-1-II, so I’d expect it to be at the 5.3 BR. Would be a very nice addition to have. Not entirely the 5.0 Skink though
Especially as of late, where the few ok with the idea are gone due to other events, but those probably interested in Canadian stuff never once supported the idea, as said here:
These are the two ways primarily supported; there is the CAN-ANZAC tree that has started to overtake the just Canada tree, but well…
I do find those that repeat the “Canada is not a sub-tree” statement (they also did the same with Australia and well, it’s not as strong an argument as they think)
Either hate that nation and its people, or more likely want to be able to claim any vehicle from that nation at the expense of those actually interested in the nation and its vehicles, to the point they’d even start claiming they are domestic to their nation.
In addition to that, the US seemingly offloaded a lot of older ammunition onto the Soviets under lend-lease. The American 37 mm gun in Soviet services has velocities of 2600 ft/s listed for the AP rounds instead of 2900 ft/s. The US had increased the charge to achieve 2900 ft/s around late 41’ or early '42, but these newer batches evidently weren’t being supplied initially, though I’d imagine they still eventually got these rounds by later in the war.
It would be *interesting to see the Soviet Lee dropping to 2.0 with weaker 37 mm AP and no 75 mm APHE, though it would be a radical change I don’t see Gajin making. Alternatively, it could retain 75 mm APHE, but make it one of the early models without a stabilizer for the 75 mm, so that it only drops to 2.3.
Just a comment on this old topic but with a recent copy paste addition there is discrepancy that needs to be said to the gaijin team.
I am not against copy paste vehicle when it does solve issues of gap. But I don’t want to spend hours after to search for additional data that the dev teams missed or didn’t bother to look for. The best example is the leopard 1a5: it is in 4 different trees 3 of them are pure copy paste except for decorating so all of them should share the same values and data. Then the leopard 1A5BE was added to the French tech tree. Everything is fine the vehicle is good but then I went on comparison with the other 1A5… All of them share the exact same data with the Belgian one, but they have the additional armor package on the turret and have the same weight as the Belgian one?
So gaijin modelled the new turret with specific optics, removed the additional armor ( which is historical) but didn’t search for weight data on the Belgian leo which is most likely lighter. Like I said I’m not against filler vehicle when it’s needed but you have to make the job of gaijin after the introduction…
Technically the Leopard 1a5BE does have differing ammo, but only half of what it should have
The HE and HESH are the Belgian versions, but it’s still missing its MECAR apfsds rounds
On top of that a Belgian firm tested out MEXAS turret armor on the 1a5BE which I firmly believe should at least be a researchable add on for the Belgian version we have in game
