The M4A3 Firefly would be a cool event vehicle. The British never converted any M4A3 for the Fireflies, it’s a uniquely American vehicle rather than a British one.
Aside from the ones which were just used for testing, I don’t see why any of them shouldn’t be added.
If it gets added it shouldn’t be an event considering it was actually used, 2 army groups where equipped with them for a year, And only a bit over half where the A3 model.
They could make the other models an event, But the A3 should be TT.
There were only 80 to 90 converted and no photographs or service records of the M4A3 Fireflies actually remain. Their service was so entirely unremarkable that there is no concrete answer as to what even happened to them and no record of their combat usage.
It’s a perfect event vehicle and none of them should be tech tree.
Why would any of that disqualify them for tech tree when we literally have prototypes that where never put into production in every tech tree already.
We even have tech demo’s which are even less than a prototype since those where never meant to be produced from the start (HSTV-L & TTD)
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.
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.
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?
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.
How is that pathetic?
Thailand used it
USA very much didn’t
perdy simple. USA shouldn’t get it
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
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
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’.
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.