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
The German and Finish T-72M1s very clearly share the same model, with some boxes tweaked so the tanks look different.
Capturing in a battle, as the Jpanther, Jtiger, and Maus where, or how Sweden bought their Tiger II p from the French government.
Finnish sub-tree very much counts, because it’s an integral and large part of the tree.
The more options in each tree, the better. The faster access every player has to a wider variation of vehicles, the better.
People are free to not play vehicles that don’t interest them, we have literally thousands to choose from, after all.
So what justifies adding the Tiger 2 to Sweden?
Finland is an acceptable example of copy-paste. Copy-paste isn’t inherently bad, useless copy-paste is bad. The Finnish subtree is an example of good copy-paste because it allows Sweden to build actual proper lineups.
It was bought from a foreign government, not captured in war, and I could care less if the others got those, as they captured them.
So you think Sweden should or should not get this Tiger 2?
I think UK should get a T80U
Should
Why should they?
Same reason they have the T80U
Assuming you are trying to join the discussion I’m going with, I shall respond. The T-80 UK was trialed for service by Sweden as a replacement vehicle. The Tiger 2 was not, it was aquired for weapons damage testing. Completely seperate reasons. It would make sense to add it if the Tiger 2 was being trialed for performance, but it was not. They wanted it to test weapon effects on heavy armor.
It doesn’t make any sense to add because of the reasoning that they had it. Unlike some of the single protoype vehicles that have been added, this tank was never going to be used as anything more than a target. Other vehicles they have added provided research and development to a nations AFV programs, but not to be simply destroyed because it was heavily armored. It would make more sense to add the Jagdtiger to the US tree because they actually captured one. Captured vehicle variants are in the game and make sense because they could have been used for combat.
If you want to justify that the technicaly owned a Tiger 2, which is correct, as the justification, then there are many, many more vehicles that would need to be added under that same justification. One great example is the Prinz Eugen cruiser, it would need to be in both the German tree and US tree because the US took ownership of it after the war. Same with Britain and Tiger 131. The logic needs to make sense for the vehicle (the Tiger 2 in this case) but also not apply to multitudes of other vehicles that would cause unusual spots within the tech trees.
