The Stingray was designed and built by America.
Japan already has good vehicles at 3.0-3.3 and 4.7
It doesn’t disqualify it, it just makes it a good candidate for an event vehicle.
The Stingray was designed and built by America.
So? It isn’t American, it’s Thai. The United States never purchased any and never attempted to.
Japan already has good vehicles at 3.0-3.3 and 4.7
So? There aren’t any SPAAs or TDs for those BRs aside from those. They fill in the gaps. You’re terrible at keeping your own logic consistent.
2 Likes
And the P-63 is Russian cause only Russia used it, and the Aim-54 is Iranian cause only Iran used it, and, welp hopefully you get the point.
There aren’t any Japanese vehicles AT ALL at those BRs. They created a gap just so they could shove copy slop into it.
And the P-63 is Russian cause only Russia used it, and the Aim-54 is Iranian cause only Iran used it, and, welp hopefully you get the point.
Lmao those are false equivalencies. The P-63 and AIM-54 both saw service within American forces, even if they might’ve never used them in combat.
The Stingray never saw service. American rejected the Stingray AGS prototype and the finished Stingray was purely an export to Thailand. It wasn’t even offered to the United States because they already rejected the AGS prototype.
There aren’t any Japanese vehicles AT ALL at those BRs. They created a gap just so they could shove copy slop into it.
There’s Japanese vehicles at 4.3 and 4.7. A difference of 0.3 and 0.7 doesn’t suddenly make the SPAAs and TDs unusable. That’s the gap they’re filling, because otherwise they would be stuck with 3.0-3.3 SPAA and TD, instead.
2 Likes
XD this is genuinly pathetic.
yes, they don’t need the M24 or M19A1/M42.
yes, they don’t need the M24 or M19A1/M42.
Both are needed. The reasons for why were already listed.
Does it hurt your brain when writing these comments?
1 Like
Your “reasons” literally proved my points better than I did.
It hurts my brain reading your slop.
Honestly, I have no idea why you’re so addicted to copy slop. I hope you can get over your addiction
Your “reasons” literally proved my points better than I did.
They really don’t. I can’t tell if you’re actually developmentally stunted or if you’re just trolling, but whatever the case there’s clearly no more discussion to be had.
2 Likes
How is that pathetic?
Thailand used it
USA very much didn’t
perdy simple. USA shouldn’t get it
2 Likes
Should every single prototype in Warthunder be removed cause they weren’t used?
I’m saying Thailand deserves it more than USA, and I’m more than fine with the Stingray in the US if they change it to the Stingray AGS
2 Likes
Nope. It was made by America, which is more relevant to the concept of the “tech tree.” The Stingray was not a technological advancement to Thai, they just simply bought some. Also, saying the Thailand uses the Stingray is abit of an overstatement. Despite being made in the 1980s, it’s only been involved in a single war in 2025.
Neither Stingrays should be removed, however the U.S. Stringray has more legitimacy in WT than the Thai Stingray.
No, because Thailand has it in SERVICE, but US didn’t even want it
that little detail makes the Thai one 1000x more relevant and legitimate than the US one
3 Likes
Yeah, even though I am now in quite a strange position, which looks like defending c&p, maybe because I believe it is a necessary evil of this game.
I usually try to understand both sides of the admit/dismiss c&p.
The C&P vehicle itself has its own history and its own receipt, and some of those are even filling the gap of lineup and
doing their part.
Still, it seems there should be a rearrangement of the standard for adding vehicles that might be needed.
First priority - Unique or domestic vehicles that were built or used, no matter the main or sub tree. (As a Brit main, I bring our vehicles as examples)
-Firefly with APDS ammunition
-some random extra churchills
-Tornado F.3 with ASRAAM
-Mirage F1CZ armed with R-73 or Cheetah from SAAF.
could be examples.
Secondly, copy pasted one, but it was essential to fill the gap or have a drastic historic heritage.
-JAS39C SAAF back in the day when EFT didn’t add yet(just giving AIM-120 for stop being inferior compared to other JAS39C would be fine)
-Merlin Mustangs, which we ordered, and giving an extra choice for either CAS or BnZ, with 50cal weaponry, unlike how we usually have (20mm or 7.7mm spam)
Least priority, copy pasted one, which is already another replacement in the tech tree.
-Indian Rafale, Su-30, or Mirage 2000s.
These vehicles might gonna be added eventually, but it needs to take at least months delay before introducing them compared to the original nation. Just c&p it, right next update isn’t required.
Of course, later might be better gameplay-wise if we don’t care about the sub-tree’s legitimacy, but I reckon they also might need to be added at some later point. They might wants to play their best vehicle in this game, I don’t think I have rights to gatekeep those friends from commonwealths.
I understand who dislikes c&p, Gaijin’s current stance is lame as f, and it slowly decays tech-tree uniqueness itself.
But… just those guys whom with double standards make me sick.
Such as…
‘Stingray to us, but no Stingray to Thai’
or
‘M1A2T to us, but no VT-4 to Thai’.
3 Likes
A pretty pathetic attempt to move the goalpost.
What we meant is
If you want to remove C&P vehicles, for your theory, ‘greater good for less C&P and cleaner WT’
Thailand deserves more than the USA, so the USA should be the one who needs to lose Stingray.
Nobody is saying that every single prototype in War Thunder should be removed.
Then, with exaggeration for intended joking, is M48 Patton and P-51 mustang have more legitimacy with us than you?
Because either the M68 cannon and the V-1650 Merlin engine were originally designed by ‘us’?
Justifying and rationising gatekeep with ‘tech’-tree words seems really ridiculous.
You told us that C&P vehicles that fill the gap are fine, such as the Italian M24.
But also, you just keep gatekeeping literally every american built ground vehicles from Japan.
This double standard seriously lets us believe that you want to gatekeep those because nothing but you is an imperialist who hates them.
Man, even our great grandad weren’t acting like this.
3 Likes
All of this could be solved if everyone understood this simple image…
3 Likes
America researched and made the Stingray. That’s the important detail when it comes to tech trees, AKA research trees.
Thailand has 0 history significance with the Stingray. After 40 years, then only used it in a single war. Japan also has nothing to do with the Stingray.
It’s actually quite unneccessary in almost every single circumstance.
So, you make yourself sick.
An American Company researched and developed it for export use. the US looked at it and then decided they didn’t want it and then Thailand bought it and used it themselves while US rejected it for service in the US Army, henceforth why the US needs it less.
i feel like I am arguing with a brick wall xD
Also THAILAND actually has more history with the Stingray than US
3 Likes
Yes, Gage Cadillac researched Stingray PRIVATELY for EXPORT REASONS while you guys had fun with cool-looking junk such as Sheridan.
I really wonder why the heck you keep oversimplifying the goddamn problem ffs.
Of course, it is an important detail when it comes to tech trees, just like how we should receive Mustangs, which WOULD NEVER BE BORN IF WE DIDN’T ORDER a Kittyhawk copycat to North American.
Just like how Stingray SURVIVED thanks to the Thailandians.
No, as an intended exaggeration take, just for mirroring your take, the USA has 0 history significance with Stingray, because
YOU guys TESTED FIVE YEARS LATER than the Thai army, as a part of goddamn AGS projects, and Congress and MoD dropped her, AFAIK.
Too heavy to be used as an airborne tank.
After 40 years, only used a single war?
It seems Thailand still has obviously better legitimate than the USA, which has no service history and has not been used in any war at all.
I am fine to see Stingray(US) while Thai keeps Stingray(Original), but, if you really want to push your reasons, which you brought up to gatekeep American vehicles in the name of [better war thunder by no C&P vehicles], if we really need to remove one of two.
then US one has less legitimacy than the Thai, so Stingray(US) is the one which needs to be removed.
Double standard, again.
You rationalised those ‘C&P, which is being added with like Italian M24 and M4 being added for a proper lineup’
Oh, don’t ever think about playing the ‘ALMOST’ card just like how Slick Willie does.
You already disapproved nearly every C&P which exist in japanese tech-tree no matter how it fills gap or not.
I reckon that this is a typical example of projection. I don’t make myself sick because I didn’t made double standard about C&P.
I think I explained my stance well in the comment written to @RDXRooster63.
Oh, of course, the one which YOU QUOTED. It seems you didn’t read, but you just skipped it to nothing but find a weakpoint-ish points to veto any vehicle addition to the Japanese tech tree.
2 Likes