Honestly I believe France already has quite a strong 6.7 lineup on ground. If they gave the Pershing to either the UK or the USSR it would be outrageous, to say the least.
Besides, if the battlepass is named “The last Legionnaire” it definitely has to do something with France or Italy.
Tbf they probably only added the kingtiger to sweden since they stated the KV-1B would never be added to finland, so they replaced the only other heavy tank aside from the meh KV-1A
I just had a quick look online and I can’t find anything about M47s (or M48s) being leased to other nations, so unless I am missing something a M26 for France (via Belgium), Britain or Russia or a M46 for France or Italy would be the only tanks matching Gszabis leak
To be fair I am going off of Wikipedia, but considering that no modifications are known to have been conducted and almost vehicles were eventually returned, it seems quite plausible that M46s were temporarily leased to the nations of Italy, France, and Belgium as trainers for the eventual shipment of M47s, which all three nations were known to have modified.
If its regarding well established soft balancing measures such as shells, weaponry, missiles ordinance etc then yes, those can be done if a vehicle is where it is intended to be. But whats not what was asked.
The question I was responding too was regarding the specific historical performance of certain things (such as radars) which are not rejected due to balancing.
Could it be perhaps that payment for the M47s included a lease of M46s that would be paid for upon shipping of the former?
And to be fair, I don’t imagine that Gszabi would’ve done all the more research than he needed for his hints (he does more than enough for the community already lol), so it’s possible he just used what was already written in the “service history” section of the M46 wiki page.
I am just curious as it came up, “how much” information is actually needed to really nudge a weapon system to be considered, are pictures of a 1 off enough if the source is valid (such as from the builders historical archive)? Or does it need to have full documentation as well about it being tested (often hard to cite for 3rd world countries which are more prone to experimentation when times get tricky).
As gaijin moves on to adding more trainer/COIN operation vehicles and assets, I just hope gaijin isnt “too strict” at times on this side of thing where experiementation and non standard systems start to come up.
I mostly ask as this is an area I very much enjoy looking at and into, the “not so big name” wars and conflicts often forgotten about on the sidelines and just hope that we dont miss out on interesting modifications that way (its partly how I ran into images of Strikemaster with miniguns on it and both it/jet provost with BL 755s on display together at shows, randomly armed “semi civilian” aircraft pressed into use, etc, but mostly just poor countries strapping bombs that were not conventional to their military jets).
Really won’t be that good, it’s main upgrades just bring the J-10 up to the standard of aircraft like the Rafale and Typhoon when it comes to TWR, avionics, hardpoints and weapons compatability, it’s certainly not a wunderwaffe that belongs 0.7 above a typhoon
It is really subjective to the who/what/when where. There generally is no one size fits all limit on this. It can depend on a multitude of factors depending on what this one source can tell us. Full documentation simply isn’t always possible in all cases. So that for sure is not expected in every case.