Clearly a unique vehicle since it has a different camo))))
we have talked about this in DMs before… its not the encyclopedia definition of the word, its the colloquial meaning in the context of this forum…
do you have any sort of proof for this? they look like EXACT copy paste with minor tweaks after the fact.
i nerver said anything about the T-72A.
all of the vehicles you listed before (except those three i said were unique) have a corresponding vehicle in another tech tree that it is at least 90% identical to both in terms of model and performance.
prove me wrong. NOT with words, but with proof. you can’t.
Being built by a nation, for research, testing, or combat service is not the same as a nation taking another’s for testing. The US had the Prinz Eugen heavy cruiser after WW2, but the US naval tree shouldn’t get Admiral Hipper class cruisers.
Having the snorkel covered up with a box, adding taillights and blinkers + a some random hook is not an “entirely separate model”, although I’m sure you already prepared a “well… TECHNICALLY” response so don’t even bother
2 Likes
Gaijin tends to reuse models and then modify them for “new” tanks.
The Italian M26A1 is a clear case. Gaijin took the model from the M26E1 and modified it a bit, which is why it has the structural steel counterweight at the rear of the turret, even though that would actually make the M26A1’s turret inbalanced in real life.
1 Like
Leopard 2A4 and A6 are copies from Germany and isn’t the B239 just the designation of the American Buffalo? Also the Arado is almost the same as the German one.
I will say the Finnish copy paste in the Swedish line was nessesary for the health of the line. Sweden had it’s own low tier tanks, but no gameplay variety. You got to snipe, or snipe. You could maybe put the Delat Torn into a flanking role if you were exceptionally careful, but that’s about it. If you got any map not inherently set up to support sniping (Like Sweden, ironically), you were just screwed. The Finnish vehicles added copy paste, no doubt, but they also added gameplay variety. You could brawl or flank with them, which was desperately needed.
As far as the King Tiger goes, historically, it sets a bad precident. The Swedish King Tiger was only imported for testing of the propulsion, and then as a target for guns in development. This is not a precident we want to set up unless you’re happy with the US getting just about every Soviet tank ever produced.
But, at the same time. Sweden does have a very intersting 6.7 with no real lineup to support it. The Tiger II makes it a somewhat viable lineup. Even though I think it’s a bad addition, I do at least see some value in it.
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
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.
3 Likes
Then what’s the point of tech trees?
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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
1 Like