Far more indications of an entirely new model. The turret being entirely different except for general mounting positions.
Dents and other 3D model differences in hull indicates entirely different hull.
@PointyPuffin
Germany does not have a tank with the Finnish 2A6 or 2A4 turrets, period.
USA doesn’t have a Buffalo with 1820-G5 or 12.7 LKk machine guns.
Have you played Swedish 6.7? There are two tanks and a plane, we need something to fill the gap, stop complaining about losing German tech to another tree.
Then what’s the point of tech trees?
just stop digging that hole dude. they are THE SAME.
Another example is the Giraf, it’s just the M113 TOW with a bunch of bits added to the model, which in early dev server was super obvious.
Funnily enough there is one “minor variant” vehicle that has a completely new model, and it’s a Chinese one, the T-34-85 Gai.
Anyhow, I don’t care if a Swedish Tiger gets added. Copy-pastes don’t bother me except when they copy-paste a vehicle that’s bad or unfun to play. For me that’s the Chinese ISU-152 or the Finnish Charioteer.
A person’s opinion =/= fact.
I bet you think IPM1 and M1 Abrams are copy paste.
alrighty then, what’s the difference?
your opinion =/= fact.
i want proof.
(sidenote, that is Gaijin dev stream, not “some person”)
Its full of copy paste bro that all.
I provided proof. A top-down view of T-72M1. Where you can see the entirely different turret.
Mike is also a person with their own opinions.
Well, the dumb ass fact is, Its historical, not some made up shit, so no one should be mad in the first place, and second of all, all tree’s, no matter their specific orgins or operator, should get that vehicle if its historical, especially if its to fill a gap. There could be BGM-71 (or the TOW) in every tech tree except for USSR, because everyone uses it, but no one complains when a TT gets another lousy TOW.
What do you think about the US also getting the Prinz Eugen, the US getting the Jagdtiger, the British getting the Jadgpanther, or the British getting the Tiger 131? They owned them at some point, so it would make sense to give them to them right? Not exactly. The integrity of national tech trees is more important than each nation having every single vehicle they captured. I mean, that even means you would need to put the Maus in the Russian tree because they captured it. Especially with the WW2 era vehicles, since they were genuinely unique designs and not widely shared or collaborated on for production like the more modern cold war/NATO stuff. So Sweden doesn’t have much of a 6.7 lineup, cool story. Use them with the Charioteer for a 6.7 lineup, throw them in with the ZSU-57-2 for a 7.0, or even with the 7.7 lineup. They will do fine in any of those situations.
Yeah, but there’s also a damn difference between capturing and obtaining, in the case of the “Maus Trap” they did get it, in a non-working order. The British oversaw the production of 11 more jadgpanthers after the European theatre ended, and as for the Jagdtiger, I have no clue.
I mean it kinda feels like it’s a lose lose situation no matter what heavy tank sweden goes for
Tiger? Copy paste
Churchill? Copy paste
Strv KRV? UNFINISHED PROTOTYPE, GERMANY MUST GET BACK THE COELIAN BECAUSE OF THIS!
I’d prefer the KRV since it would be unique and a breath of fresh air for what people are gonna complain about
tho no idea what BR it would function in
You didn’t. You provided an image with blue circles where the Italian version looks exactly the same.
Where is the difference?
Not only that but you have absolutely no proof so far. Whatsoever. On any of the vehicles. Only statements and nothing else.
So where does this Swedish Tiger 2 fall for you? It wasn’t captured, it was obtained.
Where is the difference? The Russians owned the Maus. The Americans captured a Jadgtiger. The British captured a Jadgpanther. You said yourself that the origins or operator doesn’t matter if they had it, but then say there’s a difference between capturing and obtaining. Which is it?
Why should it matter when you specified that the two T-72M1s were different?
IM NOT COMPARING IT TO THE T-72A AND I NEVER HAVE.
you have nothing to come with to prove that any of the vehicles you listed are any different in any meaningful way.
I specified the that the T-72M1 for Finland in Sweden was built from the ground up.
And that the German one that came later was also different though less so, but still different.
My statements never changed.
Are you sure about that?
and
