Even if the Turret was fully French, you seem to ignore that the base Vehicle is still Singaporean.
3 Likes
France is its own tech tree first and foremost. Singapore isn’t. If Singapore was its own independent tech tree I would say that it should go to Singapore only as it has greater claim. But Singapore isn’t its own tech tree. Adding the Cockerill 3105 MPF to Japan is nothing but shoehorning vehicles into the Japanese tree that it has nothing to do with.
Remove the turret and please tell me how effective the vehicle is. You seem to ignore that the turret (the most complex part of the vehicle) is Franco-Belgian :)
Considering there are several Cockerill 3105 turret prototypes, at least concerning the carriage/hull, it would be very weird to claim all of them as Franco-Belgian…
3 Likes
I’m not claiming all of them. This vehicle just so happens to be a project that Belgium and France were involved in. Something like the Zorowar would only go to the UK because there was no involvement from either Belgium or France outside of selling the turret for the Indians to modify themselves.
It even says in the historical section of this post:
May I interest you in this then?
Vextra POLE - Suggestions - Devs / Passed - War Thunder — official forum
2 Likes
I see! Then again, it would make more sense for Gaijin to add the prototypes that more closely align with the BeNeLux/France first to France, namely:
==> This one was once in the Belgian STAR-plan
==> This one is part of the Dutch development for mobile AT capabilities for its Boxer orders and modifications. (although at the moment the Netherlands is only an observer in the Belgian-German project)
+1 for a future Singaporean subtree
I’d say it would fit alongside Thailand with Japan.
5 Likes
Being a Sub- or Independed-TT doesn’t make Singapore any less represented as a Nation; a Sub-TT in any form is still a representation of a Nation, just like South-Africa, India, Hungary and Finland.
4 Likes
This specific vehicle is pretty closely aligned with France since France is involved in the MPF programme which this vehicle was specifically designed for.
And yet you are completely discounting French representation… go figure, hey?
Yet they were only partially involved with the development of the Turret ? I didn’t know the NGAFV is French. And if we are talking about the MPF program, even America has at least an equal claim as France, since this vehicle was provided and tested for and by the US.
As someone who supports the BeNeLux sub-TT and is helping with the Rafale, I am the one who discounts France as a Nation but Singapore / minor Nations ? As if there weren’t other options already pointed out, with the very same Turret.
3 Likes
T’would be a shame seeing as the turret was co-developed with France. The 105mm HP gun is different from the previous 105mm CV gun (produced in Belgium) found on the XC-8 and CT-CV turrets and is made in France. The weapon itself is produced in France and then the housing is produced in Belgium
And what about the hull? Are you saying that just because something has a French component, it should go in the French tech tree regardless of who made it? By that logic, wouldn’t anything with an L7 belong in the British tree? Would the T-72AV go in the French tree because it uses a French FCS?
5 Likes
You mean the turret which uses a weapon system made in France for the housing to be constructed by Belgium? Franco-Belgian defense cooperation is hand-in-glove when it comes to Cockerill. Saying it just “has a French component” is obtusely misrepresenting the facts.
France was selected by the US to integrate pretty much all the electronics for whatever the MPF would be. The Cockerill 3105 MPF was a Franco-Belgian-Singaporean proposal at the end of the day.
Just because the Japanese tech tree sucks doesn’t mean that other countries should get screwed over and out of their vehicles.
Exactly, its also a Singaporean development.
Other Nations should not get screwed, just beceause France doesn’t have domestic options and already pointed out options, even from Belgium, don’t seem to fit enough.
2 Likes
If we’re placing event vehicles in tech trees purely based on who made their turret, then the Vilkas should have been put in the Israel tech tree. The Patria CT-CV and the CV90105 (before the turret got changed) should have been put in the French tree. Britain shouldn’t have gotten the ADATS, Etc. Are you starting to see the flaw in your reasoning now?
2 Likes
But this is a French option? France was directly involved both in the construction of the vehicle and in the programme the vehicle was designed for.
And this vehicle fits in Japan which has no connection to this vehicle?
I mean… It’s a Singaporean development for a US competition using domestic Singaporean chassis, Belgian turret provided through partnering with a Saudi subsidiary of a Belgian company, yet the French being involved with the turret is the main focus here? I’d argue even the US has more of a claim here, but most importantly it’s a Singaporean vehicle, best placed in a Singaporean subtree.
It fits Singapore, since it’s Singaporean. If Singapore goes to Japan, yes it does. Think your own subtree, did France make the Spitfire? The F-104? The F-16? No, but they are Belgian/Dutch respectively.
5 Likes
Its still not a French vehicle.
Plz, don’t change up my original words;
3 Likes
And this vehicle fits in Japan which has no connection to this vehicle?
Singapore is geographically close to Japan. That’s the same reason the Thai F-5E got added to the Japanese tech tree, and I don’t see why Gaijin wouldn’t use it reason for a Singaporean vehicle as well.
1 Like