What a strawman here
Do you know why this was made
to show that our boxer that we have can have a 40mm turret is we wanted
https://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/boxer/
We use the boxer
This suggestion is a private venture and not in-service with the British. Private ventures should go to the country of origin for the company that developed it.
Can you point out which part of the vehicle is actually British?
Base turret is of the Warrior CSP of which was a main stay for a while upgrading the Warrior to Warrior 2 level standard, this version was an attempt at export yet the basis of the turret lies in the BRITISH development flr the warrior. Its legit a british project my fellow.
2 Likes
And this one isn’t you aren’t making any sort of point there.
The Patria Chassis is Finnish, this modification is British, Britain is a nation in-game ergo, it goes to the British tree.
It’s completely different, because Sweden didn’t build the T-80U, they didn’t do something like switch the gun out, they just trialled it, these are nothing alike.
No, it isn’t. The Boxer IFV is a turret from Rheinmetall Germany, on a hull designed by 3 nations, Germany, the Netherlands and Britain. The Australian subsidy is entirely just manufacturing it and did not design it. Furthermore, the Netherlands isn’t in-game and the UK dropped the project and rejoined, however the turret being German means if should go to Germany.
These are nothing alike. Lockheed Martin UK design their own things, away from their corporate centre in the US. Again the Bradley is made by BAE US (BAE Inc.) however it’s designed by the American subsidiary ergo it goes to the US tree.
Not sure where you got that idea, but regardless CTAI international is an Anglo-French company, however the turret is designed by Lockheed Martin UK, therefore its biggest contributor is Britain over France, you could argue it can go to Finland for the Finnish tree, but what makes it unique is a British modification.
But you know what all of these have in-common.
They are not nearly so silly and frankly daft as this:
Like what.
You know what the US can have it if Britain can get the GDLS-BAE Griffon (Griffon is based on parts of AJAX), or the BAE M8 AGS. That one didn’t go into service, right? So by your assessment the UK and US have equal claim to it and it used a British L7 derivative?
You see how that sounds…
2 Likes
The turret. You know the thing that makes it not just an unarmed hull?
1 Like
Its legit the CSP turret slapped on a Patria hull the turret of which was mainly and fully designed for Britain this was mearly an attempt to gather export for it like the Desert Warrior
1 Like
On a real note, if it went to Finland I wouldn’t even care because at least they have the argument of the hull. (Not that they need it because there are like 7 different armed variants of Patria, but equally we don’t need it either).
But to suggest the US, hell not even France… That had to be rage bait that I fell for.
1 Like
Finland doesnt need it as they have alternatives
1 Like
I agree. But after the UK they’d be next in-line.
I doubt the fella read any of the suggestion let alone the CSPs
2 Likes
totally agree for it to be in US-UK tech tree
Cope, US had 0 part in the tank like says due to the fact that BAE made the CV90 it should be in the uk tree
3 Likes
My fella they have legit 0 claim
2 Likes
Do you want the Warrior CSP next, it was also developed by LHUK
2 Likes
British made for Britain im not seeing the US anywhere
1 Like
UK and USA are known allies sharing every part of their technologie together, why would they add it for UK and not USA too, it lacks IFVS so why not
Cos they didnt make the thing
1 Like
Thats not even an argument
1 Like
We did, its a UK only endeavor my fella
1 Like
it is if you open your little brain for a bit.