Canada used Grizzly ^^
wait really? I did not know this, could you link an example of a time when they did this
Just give the UK Avro Arrow as a CBT pack first. I know its a bit niche, but looks like fun in SB and my kind of playstyle
MICA is quite strange though, it’s designed to fight in middle and close range, long range is for Meteor, but in game, it’s good in long range.
PL12 is another problem, the data now is considered close to early SD-10, but this is probably coincidence.
Israel does not start at rank one and is copy and paste all the way until top tier, Canada could start at rank 1 and would have original vehicles at all tiers
1 Like
I know that, say that to every person who yell “c&p”
Canada wanted Nuclear powered subs for the Artic. Oh, and they wanted to build them themselves.
1 Like
I say this to my friends but then they only focus on the c&p aspects of it
1 Like
Cheers
For real, playing a line of centurion/Leopard even if it’s c&p sound so good!
Unfortunately, Canada is subject to the “Top-tier/MBTS” only problem. Where people either or just look at the name unwilling to do research to find it’s either a Canadian-built variant or is a Canadian vehicle first and then adopted by a “Major”.
2 Likes
Are there any other major examples of this that I can look into
There a page for a “futur” Canadian tree
No, it wouldn’t. It would be a garbage addition.
Off the top of my head no.
The Arrow for the longest time had this idea. But that was just NATO’s dumb mistake that the USSR would go full ICBMS.
Oh, not the same thing but Northrop had more or less forced Canada to adopt the F-5 over the better options Canada wanted with an inside guy. The RCN wanted the A-4 and the A-7 was a recommended aircraft. The F-5 was removed almost immediately as it was not what Canada needed.
2 Likes
Alright thanks
AAM-4 its more comparable to AIM-120B, and AAM-4B its just AIM-120C on steroids so its really weird, what makes AAM-4 much better than AIM-120 is that they have much faster acceleration, top speed and guidance but the guidance its the main thing that helps the AAM-4 to keep the 100KM cuz it burns fuel fast due to the faster acceleration and top speed, this also means better electronics, idk about warhead tho, only thing making AAM-4’s better over the americans its electronics, and speed but that’s rather redundant at a certain degree, if i was to list the capacities of the AAM-4 to make it over its lack of explosive mass and capacities this would be longer than needed
1 Like
Ah got it, i vaguely know the capabilities of each if them. What i was comparing is the range of the missile, hench the AAM-4 and AIM-120C.
To be honest i really want to see what AAM-4B capable of when they really model them correctly. Probably a cope but i hope that DMM will do something about it
Israel is missing a bunch of domestic vehicles (and exports) and has a defence industry which means the tech tree has a future. Canada you could maybe get away with ending at 9.0 since there’s nothing more to add above that, but it’s also not very unique unless you call every-which-way-you-can-slap-an-ATGM-on-a-M113-chassis “unique”. There’s much better options for tech trees.
1 Like
canadian service rifle is basically a copy of the m16a3, and is made by colt, an American company. and the canadian aircraft are almost all license made American stuff, though to be fair there are distinct canadian modifications of certain aircraft. Honestly US and Canada use very similar equipment and strategies, they are very physically close to each other and politically close. and 2a4m could be a nice 10.7, but if its 11.0 id say give it to germany or UK they lowkey need it more