if a tank has a stabiliser the skill ceiling is really damn low.
but being able to play something like a challenger well theoretically means you should be able to do better with a similar vehicle thats better in game.
ill be researching the AIM as a squadron vehicle once i have the HMS Liverpool so i guess we will see how i personally do then
Thank you for the clarification. Still doesn’t change the point i was making that. Many still whined when it did come to the US tree, despite all of the documentation backing up it and made a lot of sense to why.
The documentation proving the skink is american:
I didn’t say the Skink was American; I am talking about the fact that the transmission and engine were licensed out, but would still be produced and manufactured in the US of A. Before being shipped out to Canadian factories, it could be assembled and planted into said vehicles.
But if all you took from what I said was “it was American,” despite me not saying that. Then you clearly need to seek therapy.
Generally I would agree, but seeing how badly people do in the Shermans, early ish Centurions and Conqueror I sometimes wonder if I should lower my standards for what I consider a low skill ceiling.
It kind of depends, I have played the CR2 OES CR2 and CR3 TD ready to buy during the sale) and all the Abrams tank in game (excluding the upcoming M1A2T I guess) and I feel like the Challenger 2 is slightly more forgiving, even though the Abrams has a lot more potential.
Spall liners, armor layout and not having the turret basket means that making a mistake doesn’t get punished quite as hard.
It wasn’t just trialed, It was straight up adopted in the final months of the war, They had 80+ of them split between 2 armies, Half of them where built from M4A3’s that where sent over specifically to be refitted for American use.
shermans have no excuse, at least the centurions and conquerors can blame the horrible spalling and shell shatter problems (its still mostly a skill issue)
id somewhat agree but the lower plate is a permanent “shoot here to win” area thats bigger than the ones on every other tank of the BR,
Yeah, i get it for countries which have no other option but ABRAMS for China? they aleady have their own MBTS
Leopards for Italy? they have Ariete, Centauro, etc. No need for Leopards
Leopards for France? They have Leclerc and other vehicles. No need for Leopards.
Sweeden? ok fair, we can undestand them having Leopards, its the only mbt they have + they have CV90 as their own.
Im against Gaijin copy-pasting vehicles to nations who don’t need it
but well, its a topic where a lot of people differ and im fine with that
China uses the Abrams as its Main Battle tank.
Italy is one of the largest users of Leopards in Europe. So is Hungary.
I agree, they are however Dutch leopards. Also a very large user of that platform. Benelux should have been a separate Tech Tree.
One used which modified a ton of leopards, obviously yes.
They are not copy-pasted, even the dutch ones that differ only slightly in playstyle from the german TT ones aren’t and do get their own 3D model.
All of these leopards are major vehicles in the defence/army of these nations and are very important for these nations to be represented.
what
Off topic, but it’s called the RoC. The Chinese tech tree are both the PRC and the RoC.
They could have had South Korea and got the multitude of joint project vehicles but people whined too much and got Gaijin to announce it as a separate tree (their air tree will literally only have one unique plane).
The Philippines are another option, They made various modifications to the things they bought from the US.
Several South American countries have or had close ties and use US made equipment that they made significant changes to like Paraguay with their Stuarts or the Colombian M8 LAC fitted with a TOW launcher.
Most of the export/copy-pastes everyone gets exist where they have domestic options or already have something similar even if its not on the exact same BR so thats irrelevant, And that goes for “export” vehicles in general not just the US ones.
Germany already had the 15cm SiG/KV-2/Brumbar yet they got a copy-paste of both the M44 and M55 while also having several yet to be added options like the Hummel.
china uses the abrams. you didnt know?
Shhh 🤫 don’t set them off
So wanting a Korean TT because the Ground Tree offer a lot is whining but UK mains wanting all commonwealth vehicles isn’t?
The US has many alternative countries with a smaller collection of vehicles like Qatar, Jordan, Saudi and several other countries you mentioned.
So when is the US getting some British vehicles and aircraft, the UK leased/loaned several vehicles and aircraft to the US for testing.
The UK loaned or sold the US the Challenger, Centurion, Sherman Firefly, Spitfire variants, Meteor and etc
Qatari 2A7 for America would be lit
I don’t want a Chinese Abrams.
Not because the Abrams can’t be used in other trees (although it would be nice if it wasn’t, I can’t help that their are a total of like 2 vehicles that the US ever built that are export limited and that the US uses Military Supply and Aide as a way to be friends with countries)
But because Chinese players through a fit when other trees got their own vehicle. And also vehemently through a fit when the idea of a Republic of China (Taiwan???) flag was proposed to be an option for their country (even though nations like, say, the US can be “Iran”. Backwards double standard to use the political argument).
Also, it’s a bit frustrating to have what is realistically the best variant of your top tier tank not in your TT. I felt the same way towards Germany when they didn’t have the best Leopard (I am not a German Main to be fair). It’s unfortunate. But can’t fix it now sadly.
The American TT is home to British aircraft, like the Mustang Mk.1A, Spitfire LF Mk.IX, B-57A Canberra and Harrier I.
Im aware so now lets add the rest of all these loaned and purchased vehicles.
If and when they fit sure (I desperately want to see US Spitfire Mk.V since it was their most used variant)