The “muh freebrams” people will get mad b/c they “don’t have a viable SPAA option”
Oh, also, not to mention the M1A2 AIM should be in the British tech tree, but nah, it went to the US.
3 Likes
It’s lazy, the T77 and others would have filled the gap better
4 Likes
I’m a British main its total shit…
Yup
I’m not going to condemn that fact, but USA mains think it’ll be helpful.
Yeah, the Sherman, that tank that almost every nation on the face of the planet has used, even Sweden…
Are US mains generally speaking that this is their thoughts, or just the dumb and vocal minority?
If you Google the skink on Reddit you will see the dumbest, whiniest cope posts. Most of the awful opinions come from there
5 Likes
Unlike most Sherman’s in other nations, the Canadian Grizzly (Sherman) is 100% built in canad
3 Likes
The weirdest thing for me is I have to spade it for the second time. Lul
Sure. 368,226 Froints please aka 10,000 USD, please. For them to model the damn thing(referring to the size of the vessel also accounts for this cost and why do you think vehicle packs cost so much?
I never really thought about it however the more you think about it, it costs them this much, which is rather expensive especially when you consider that minimum wage is only 266,800 Hungarian forints which is only around 733 dollars and 18 cents per month. That’s 14 months worth when you do the math.
I don’t like copying and pasting but it is far cheaper to just re-add what exists than make a completely new model.
Besides that, the Engine and transmission are both American designs. Training, and building the factories likely got a lot of assistance from the US. This would be a valid excuse to add it as there would mostly be a minority arguing that it shouldn’t.
Besides that this same minority that’s arguing it were the ones defending it to only be in the British tech tree. Well, now it’s on both trees so everyone’s happy. It’s another typical case of pettyness.
The same thing happened with the PG02. Some loved the fast BRT on the ship. Others aka the Japanese wanted historical authenticity which i sided with. Now we have both, its a modification.
I think it also comes down to timing. I don’t know how long it takes to spin uo a new vehicle. For example; data, visual appearance, model, physics etc. and work that into a release.
While I definitely think its possible to add more faithful american spaa, I also highly doubt that it’s a big priority in the pipeline. Especially when you consider how underutilised the existing SPAA is. I think it makes a lot of sense, it’s not the best choice but it’s certainly not a bad choice adding the skink to the US tech tree
It’s more of a case of cost. That is why they aren’t adding a new US SPAA at the moment. My guess new stuff is being prioritized for the next update or something.
By extension ofcourse it’s cost ofcourse. Regardless of the yelling and gnashing of teeth, SPAA in war thunder is a pretty poor investment. Hence the lack of a premium SPAA vehicle.
It seems as though every update we recieve new SPAA, many times at the same BRs that America would need filled. Often these are of relatively new models, or a new weapon system on an existing chassis, which is many of the proposed filler for the American AA line.
So I just can’t see any excuse about how “SPAA is low priority” or “a new model would be a waste of time” when almost every other nation as of late has recieved new anti-aircraft vehicles.
Review of new SPAA from this year:
"Alpha Strike" (March)
Zerstörer 45 (Germany 6.0)
- Mostly new hull, an enlarged Panzer IV superstructure taken from the Mobelwagen, which is not in-game yet.
- Mostly new weapon system, the 30mm quadmount is a new design whilst the 30mm MK103/38 can be found on the Kugelblitz and a couple of ships.
- Foldable side armor left over from the aforementioned Mobelwagen, therefore they are similar to that of the VFW, but ultimately are of new design.
ZSU-23-4M4 (Russia 9.3)
- Remodeled ZSU-23-4, more clutter added around the tank, sideskirts, remodeled radar disk.
- 9M39 missiles found on many different Soviet helicopters, they have new mounts that attach to the back of the Shilka.
VTT DCA (France 3.0)
- Hull is copy pasted from AMX-13, nothing new here.
- Rather than a turret, however, a new superstructure is placed on the back to house the armament.
- Armament is the M45 Maxon mount with quad M2HBs from the American M16, it is entirely copy paste.
"Seek & Destroy" (June)
ZSL92 (China 6.7)
- Mostly copy paste hull from the PTL02/WMA301, propellers have been added in the rear to make it amphibious.
- Entirely new turret and armament, the 25mm ZPT90.
U-SH 204GK (Sweden 5.3)
- Similarly to the ZSL, the hull is copied from the U-SH 405, with essentially no difference.
- Also similar to the ZSL, the turret and armament are completely new, being the Oerlikon 204 GK, although many of the stats and sound were likely copied from the R3/TPK’s Oerlikon KAD.
"Dance of Dragons" (September)
ZSU-23-4M2 (Russia 7.3)
- Uses the updated model from the M4 version.
- External and internal radar components are removed, internally replaced with more ammunition, no other changes.
Stormer AD (Britain 10.0)
- Updated Stormer HVM model, removes addon side armor and commander sights.
- In place of the Starstreak launcher is a Blazer turret, but not the same as on the LAV-AD, it is entirely new.
- Armament consists of the GAU-12/U 25mm rotary cannon found on the LAV-AD and AV-8B Plus, and the FIM-92E/K Stingers also found on the LAV-AD and a handful of other SPAA.
Antelope (China 10.3)
- Completely new “hull”, which is actually a 4x4 Toyota Truck not found anywhere else in the game as a result of its civilian nature.
- Launcher and radar are also unique, as a result of the Antelope being designed indigenously by Taiwan.
- TC-1L missiles are an evolution of the SIdewinder but are exclusive to the Antelope.
Of course some of these are mostly copies for the sake of filler, but they have enough in the way of unique features or models that I don’t think America would be particularly hard to give priority to for a completely new vehicle.
There should be no excuse why China (and I’m not complaining about its addition) can have a completely new anti air with a unique model and armament for a BR gap of 2.7 meanwhile America, an easily more popular nation, cannot get the same treatment for its gap of 4.0.
nether was the sergeant york field, tested yes but not actively fielded. Yet here we are.
The US is one of those nations with a strange ground anti air doctrine and internal development problems (LettheAirforcedealwithitdoctrine).
1 Like
The US refused the project
We don’t need more prem SPAA’s.
More? I didn’t realise we had any.
1 Like
This is not off-topic mods, someone asked the question, and I responded.
The Sargeant York was rejected due to multiple reasons, most of which were technical and jamming failures.
" DIVAD called for the gun to acquire a target and start firing within five seconds (later extended to eight) of it becoming visible or coming into its 3,000 m range, and had to have a 50% chance of hitting a target with a 30-round burst. In addition to all-weather capability, it also needed to have optical aiming capabilities, including a FLIR and laser rangefinder.[6]"
"Despite the bad press and development problems, the Army continued to press for the system’s deployment as they had no other system in the pipeline to replace it. To add to the problems, another generation of Soviet helicopter and missile designs was pushing their envelope out to 6,000 meters (6,600 yds), rendering DIVADs ineffective at long range. In response, the Army announced it would consider adding the Stinger missile to the DIVAD system, leading to even more cries about its ineffectiveness.[6]
As Washington became increasingly fed up with the DIVAD’s problems, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger ordered a $54 million series of battlefield-condition tests. Congress authorized production money to keep the program alive through a test-fix-test cycle but with a caveat; the funds would be released only if Weinberger certified that the gun “meets or exceeds the performance specifications of its contract.” The tests were monitored by the Pentagon’s new Director, Operational Test and Evaluation Office (DOT&E), mandated by Congress in 1983 to serve as an independent watchdog.[22] The tests were carried out late in 1984.
The results were abysmal. When the gun proved unable to hit drones moving even in a straight line, the tests were relaxed to hovering targets. The radar proved unable to lock even to this target, as the return was too small. The testers then started adding radar reflectors to the drone to address this “problem”, eventually having to add four. Easterbrook, still covering the ongoing debacle, described this as being similar to demonstrating the abilities of a bloodhound by having it find a man standing alone in the middle of an empty parking lot, covered with steaks.[23] The system now tracked the drone, and after firing a lengthy burst of shells the drone was knocked off target. As it flew out of control, the range safety officer had it destroyed by remote control. This was interpreted by the press as an attempt to “fake” the results, describing it as “sophomoric deceits”.[24] From that point on, every test success was written off as faked.[25]"
It failed to do its job effectively due to its limitations and inability to hit the needed targets.
Germany has several SPAA-related vehicles that are prems, same as Russia though unsure if I consider it an spaa causeit’ss slow asf. I wasn’t referring to the US and we do not need SPAA’s as prems at all.