tank/vehicle BAE Systems CV90120-T "Power at a Point"

[TerikG2014 1,389]

CV90120-T

Built around the already successful Hägglunds AB CV90 the CV90120-T (Not to be confused with the BAE  CV90120 twin moarter tank)  the CV90120-T is an export model of the CV90 built by BAE Systems after absorbing Alvis Vickers who had brought out Hägglunds in 1997 the whole owned subsidiary of BAE Systems PLC is called BAE Systems AB or BAE-Hägglunds. The tank was desgined powerful fire support on a lite mobile frame. The first prototype was constructed in 1998 (so strictly speaking it would initial have been produced by Alvis-Hägglunds AB as BAE didn't take over till 2004 when they brought out the parent company the then Alvis-Vicker(which happend in 2002). I know confusing at least it explains the excessive up gunning which is something Alvis liked to do a lot)  it completed its trials in 2001(so still Alvis-Hägglunds AB) and was put on the market unfortunately no buyers have yet brought the tank despite multiple upgrades to the desgine the latest being the CV90120-T Ghost which has stealth technology integrated. The 120mm gun is the Swiss RAUG land systems 120mm high-pressure smoothbore CTG 120/L50 gun capable of 14 rounds per minute with 45 rounds carried. It's base armour protection provides against 14.5mm AP fire, with add-on packages bringing it up to protecting against 30mm APDS and ERA for added HEAT protection. The Ghost upgrade includes things such as the ADAPTIV cloaking system which can change a tanks thermal signature or to completely mask the tank. Additional add-ons include Active protection systems. In addition to this there are also several different variants of the CV90120 featuring things like different FCS, Optics or secondary weapons.

 

Place in the game 

There are several possibilities for this tank. One option would be to have at in the British tech tree after all it was never used by any nation and throughout it's development Hägglunds as been owned wholey by one British company or another (well strictly speaking it could be said to be the same company under three differnt names) alternative it could be a premium due to its prototype nature (after all we have the Leo A1A1 with it's 120mm gun) alternative if a Nordic/Scandinavian/sweedish tech tree appears it could go there as this area was the target market for this tank.

 

 

Specifications

Weight: >40,000 kg GVW-R
Personnel: 3 (crew) + 2 jump seats
Length: ~8.3 m (gun forward)
Chassis: 6.6 m
Width: 3.3 m
Height: 2.8 m (panoramic sight) 2.4 m 
(roof top)
Speed: >80 km/h
Main armament: 120 mm 50 calibers
Rate of fire: 12-14 rds/min
Calibre and ammunition: 120 mm, NATO

Smoke launchers *16
Elevation range: -8 to +22 deg
Secondary armament: 7.62/12.7 mm Machine guns, 40 mm AGL cannon
Engine type Diesel: 4 cycle stroke
Power up to: 746 kW

 

Photos

CV90120-T Ghost with ADAPTIV system

ADAPTIV in action 

A slight road map of the process of the how BAE land systems was formed 

Sources

CV90120_A4-blad (1).pdf documents from BAE

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/cv90120t.htm

https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/cv90120--strong-agile-lethal

https://www.army-technology.com/projects/cv90/

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/cv90120.htm

Edited September 5, 2019 by TerikG2014

[leroyonly 4,311]

Open for discussion. 

[TerikG2014 1,389]

59 minutes ago, leroyonly said:

Open for discussion. 

Thanks

[eleks12 1,079]

+1 for all nations who operates the vehicle

[TheFuzzieOne 3,355]

Hold off for Swedish tree. Wouldn't make any sense for anyone else to use it.

[TerikG2014 1,389]

9 hours ago, eleks12 said:

+1 for all nations who operates the vehicle

No nation operates this vehicle

2 hours ago, TheFuzzieOne said:

Hold off for Swedish tree. Wouldn't make any sense for anyone else to use it.

That's some what untrue it could find it's way into he British tree in a similar manner to the Vickers MBT swing how throughout it's development and initial production it was Alvis-Hägglunds

Edited September 5, 2019 by TerikG2014

[eleks12 1,079]

2 hours ago, TerikG2014 said:

No nation operates this vehicle

That's some what untrue it could find it's way into he British tree in a similar manner to the Vickers MBT swing how throughout it's development and initial production it was Alvis-Hägglunds

What i mean is whoever has acces to this tanks variant

[TheFuzzieOne 3,355]

9 hours ago, TerikG2014 said:

That's some what untrue it could find it's way into he British tree in a similar manner to the Vickers MBT swing how throughout it's development and initial production it was Alvis-Hägglunds

 

The UK developed the Vickers MBT though.

 

Sweden developed the CV90120.

[TerikG2014 1,389]

25 minutes ago, TheFuzzieOne said:

Sweden developed the CV90120.

Well strictly spekaing the CV90120 was develped by Alvis-Hägglunds wich was a british owned company

[stefffff1871 2,448]

On 05/09/2019 at 17:51, TerikG2014 said:

No nation operates this vehicle

welp. hate me but then i dont support this tank ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

i only support vehicles that entered army-service of a specific country.

and i know there are already vehicles like that ingame (vickers mbt) 

[TheFuzzieOne 3,355]

On 06/09/2019 at 02:30, TerikG2014 said:

Well strictly spekaing the CV90120 was develped by Alvis-Hägglunds wich was a british owned company

 

Made in Sweden, by Swedes, using Swedish tech, mostly aimed at Sweden. I know BAE owns things, but I don't think that should be a reason to include, and I say that as someone who wants more stuff in the UK tree. But this would be like asking the US vehicles that BAE "owns" to be in the UK tree.

 

21 minutes ago, stefffff1871 said:

welp. hate me but then i dont support this tank ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

i only support vehicles that entered army-service of a specific country.

and i know there are already vehicles like that ingame (vickers mbt) 

 

Out of curiosity, how would you handle and balance the massive BR gaps or thin lineups if some countries can't use functioning prototypes?

Edited September 7, 2019 by TheFuzzieOne

[stefffff1871 2,448]

3 hours ago, TheFuzzieOne said:

Out of curiosity, how would you handle and balance the massive BR gaps or thin lineups if some countries can't use functioning prototypes?

hm maybe u can give me an example?

but:

more sub variants of a vehicle

copy&pastes of course

sth like free backup vehicles depending on how many vehciles of the same BR are available for the country

 

i am talking here only about normal tanks and maybe tank destroyers since they are basically the only thing a country "really" needs to work ingame.

[Stridswombat 1,089]

On 07/09/2019 at 16:04, stefffff1871 said:

hm maybe u can give me an example?

but:

more sub variants of a vehicle

copy&pastes of course

sth like free backup vehicles depending on how many vehciles of the same BR are available for the country

 

i am talking here only about normal tanks and maybe tank destroyers since they are basically the only thing a country "really" needs to work ingame.

There simply wouldn't be enough vehicles to fill out a tree without them. That's certainly true for the smaller trees and even the larger trees would be guttered. What you're suggesting is a state that will either make all nations in the game unplayable or remove all but 3 gutted trees from the game. It's simply not realistic.

 

Oh btw the irony isn't lost to me that you're basically advocating for no prototype vehicles, but are also advocating having no mass produced premiums... Which means no premiums at all (because you'd remove all the prototypes) like that's going to happen.

Edited September 8, 2019 by Stridswombat

[stefffff1871 2,448]

1 hour ago, Stridswombat said:

There simply wouldn't be enough vehicles to fill out a tree without them. That's certainly true for the smaller trees and even the larger trees would be guttered. What you're suggesting is a state that will either make all nations in the game unplayable or remove all but 3 gutted trees from the game. It's simply not realistic.

well i dont know why it wouldnt work. but i also dont want to discuss this here since it is offtopic. but let me say this. i also dont support the whole system (atleast 6 vehicles per tier, nations need to start with Tier 1, etc) in this game that as u basically said promote the introduction of prototypes. and i also know that in the current state it makes actually no difference anymore. but i still wont support such vehicle. sorry

 

1 hour ago, Stridswombat said:

Oh btw the irony isn't lost to me that you're basically advocating for no prototype vehicles, but are also advocating having no mass produced premiums... Which means no premiums at all (because you'd remove all the prototypes) like that's going to happen.

well thats basically completly untrue. there are plenty of options

- captured vehicles

- vehicles of special units

- field modification

- pre production models

- vehicles that saw service but in a very small number

example germany without field modifications like the Panzerjäger 1B :

Spoiler

-M3 Lee - Panzerkampfwagen M3 747 (a)

-M3 Grant - Panzerkampfwagen M3-744 (a)

-M3 Stuart

-M4 Sherman (75mm) (Panzerkampfwagen M4-748 (a) (already ingame, very rare)

-M4 Sherman (76mm)

-M5 light tank

-M8 Greyhound

-M10 Wolverine

-T-48 57 mm GMC (SU-57)

-T-30 76 mm GMC

-BT-5 (Pz 742(r))

-BT-7

-T-28

-T-26 (Pz. 740(r))

-T-50

-T35 (Panzerkampfwagen 751(r)

-T-60

-Kw-1 (PzKpfw 759(r)

-T34 

-Is-2

-BA-10 (Panzerspaehwagen BA203(r))

-BA-6

-BA-27 (37 mm gun)

-Su-85

-Su-100

-Su-122

-Cruiser Tank Mk. I (A9) (Panzerkampfwagen Mk.IV 744(e))

-Cruiser Mk II

-Cruiser Mk IV

-Matilda II-Infanteriepanzer (Pz Kpfw Mk II 748 (e))

-Sherman Firefly

-Renault R35 8Pz. 35R 731 (f)

-Hotchkiss H-35 (Panzerkampfwagen H735(f))

-Hotchkiss H-39 (Panzerkampfwagen 39-H 735 (f))

-Renault Ft-17 (Panzerkampfwagen 17R/18R 730(f))

-PzKpfw AMC 738 (f)

-Char D1 (Pz. D1 732(f))

-Char D2 (Pz. D2 733 (f))

-FCM 36 Pz. FCM 737 (f))

-Somua S35 (Pz. 35S 739 (f))

-Char B1 (Pz. B-2 740 (f))

-Panzerspähwagen L202 (h)

-Beutepanzer 7TP

-Beutepanzer TK-S

-AB43 Spähpanzer (5cm Pak) with MG 42 or MG 34 

-Kampfpanzer M13/40 (Sd.Kfz. 735(i))

-P26/40 (Panzerkampfwagen P40 737(i))

-Semovente 75/18 (Sturmgeschütz M42(i))

-Semovente 90/53

-Fiat M15/42

-Fiat Semovente 75/18  (Sturmgeschütz M42 mit 75/18 850(i))

-Fiat Semovente 75/34  (Sturmgeschütz M42 mit 75/34 851(i))

-Fiat Semovente 105/25  (Sturmgeschütz M43 mit 105/25 853(i))

-AAC1937

-Landsverk 180/181

-Armored Car M8 "Greyhound" Panzerspähwagen Ford M8 (a) mit MG 151/20 "Drilling"

-M2/M3 Halftrack Gepanzerter Mannschaftstransportwagen M3 401(a) mit Wurfrahmen 40

-SPW U304(f) with 2 cm Flak 38

-Panzerkampfwagen 35R 731(f) with T-26 Turm

-Flakpanzer T-34(r)

-PzKpfw T-34 747(r) with Seitenschürzen

-Modified T-34/76 with German commander’s cupola

-early T-34/76 modified with german Tracks

-7.5 сm Pak 97/38(f) auf Pz.740(r)

-Pz.Kpfw. Panzerkampfwagen M15/42 738(i) mit Pz.Kpfw. 38(t) turm

-7,5cm Pak 40 Somua MCG (f)

-Ford F15 with 2 cm flak 30

-Beutespähwagen BA-10M with 2 cm KwK 30 L/55

-PzSpw. P.204 (f) with 5 cm

-Matilda with 5cm Pak "Oswald"

-Panzerjäger Bren 731 (e)

-S307(f) Vielfachwerfer (8cm Vielfachwerfer auf SOMUA MCG)

-7,5cm Pak auf FCM36(f)

-Sd.Kfz 135/1 with rus. 122-mm-Haubitze

-10.5cm LeFH 16 auf Geschutzwagen Mk.VI(e) (6 built)

-7,5-cm Pak 97/98 (f) auf T-26 PZ-740(r) (at least 10 built)

-russian BA-64 with 37 mm Pak 35/36 cannon

-Unic p107(f) with 2cm Flak 38

-15cm Panzerwerfer auf MTW Somua.

-Drilling Mg 151 auf munitionsschlepper

-2cm Flak 38 auf Bren Carrier(e)

 

so if you want anything else from me, lets move to pm. but i support the swedish army and their vehicles that saw service there only when it comes to a swedish tree.  

[kamikazi21358 998]

On 05/09/2019 at 20:30, TerikG2014 said:

Well strictly spekaing the CV90120 was develped by Alvis-Hägglunds wich was a british owned company

As mentioned, every other aspect is Swedish.  If this is the case, as an American I would like to make a claim to take back the Firefly from the British tree, and put it in the American built American tree.  It may have been British used and modified, but the tank itself was designed and manufactured by America.

 

6 minutes ago, stefffff1871 said:

well i dont know why it wouldnt work. but i also dont want to discuss this here since it is offtopic. but let me say this. i also dont support the whole system (atleast 6 vehicles per tier, nations need to start with Tier 1, etc) in this game that as u basically said promote the introduction of prototypes. and i also know that in the current state it makes actually no difference anymore. but i still wont support such vehicle. sorry

 

well thats basically completly untrue. there are plenty of options

- captured vehicles

- vehicles of special units

- field modification

- pre production models

- vehicles that saw service but in a very small number

example germany without field modifications like the Panzerjäger 1B :

  Reveal hidden contents

-M3 Lee - Panzerkampfwagen M3 747 (a)

-M3 Grant - Panzerkampfwagen M3-744 (a)

-M3 Stuart

-M4 Sherman (75mm) (Panzerkampfwagen M4-748 (a) (already ingame, very rare)

-M4 Sherman (76mm)

-M5 light tank

-M8 Greyhound

-M10 Wolverine

-T-48 57 mm GMC (SU-57)

-T-30 76 mm GMC

-BT-5 (Pz 742(r))

-BT-7

-T-28

-T-26 (Pz. 740(r))

-T-50

-T35 (Panzerkampfwagen 751(r)

-T-60

-Kw-1 (PzKpfw 759(r)

-T34 

-Is-2

-BA-10 (Panzerspaehwagen BA203(r))

-BA-6

-BA-27 (37 mm gun)

-Su-85

-Su-100

-Su-122

-Cruiser Tank Mk. I (A9) (Panzerkampfwagen Mk.IV 744(e))

-Cruiser Mk II

-Cruiser Mk IV

-Matilda II-Infanteriepanzer (Pz Kpfw Mk II 748 (e))

-Sherman Firefly

-Renault R35 8Pz. 35R 731 (f)

-Hotchkiss H-35 (Panzerkampfwagen H735(f))

-Hotchkiss H-39 (Panzerkampfwagen 39-H 735 (f))

-Renault Ft-17 (Panzerkampfwagen 17R/18R 730(f))

-PzKpfw AMC 738 (f)

-Char D1 (Pz. D1 732(f))

-Char D2 (Pz. D2 733 (f))

-FCM 36 Pz. FCM 737 (f))

-Somua S35 (Pz. 35S 739 (f))

-Char B1 (Pz. B-2 740 (f))

-Panzerspähwagen L202 (h)

-Beutepanzer 7TP

-Beutepanzer TK-S

-AB43 Spähpanzer (5cm Pak) with MG 42 or MG 34 

-Kampfpanzer M13/40 (Sd.Kfz. 735(i))

-P26/40 (Panzerkampfwagen P40 737(i))

-Semovente 75/18 (Sturmgeschütz M42(i))

-Semovente 90/53

-Fiat M15/42

-Fiat Semovente 75/18  (Sturmgeschütz M42 mit 75/18 850(i))

-Fiat Semovente 75/34  (Sturmgeschütz M42 mit 75/34 851(i))

-Fiat Semovente 105/25  (Sturmgeschütz M43 mit 105/25 853(i))

-AAC1937

-Landsverk 180/181

-Armored Car M8 "Greyhound" Panzerspähwagen Ford M8 (a) mit MG 151/20 "Drilling"

-M2/M3 Halftrack Gepanzerter Mannschaftstransportwagen M3 401(a) mit Wurfrahmen 40

-SPW U304(f) with 2 cm Flak 38

-Panzerkampfwagen 35R 731(f) with T-26 Turm

-Flakpanzer T-34(r)

-PzKpfw T-34 747(r) with Seitenschürzen

-Modified T-34/76 with German commander’s cupola

-early T-34/76 modified with german Tracks

-7.5 сm Pak 97/38(f) auf Pz.740(r)

-Pz.Kpfw. Panzerkampfwagen M15/42 738(i) mit Pz.Kpfw. 38(t) turm

-7,5cm Pak 40 Somua MCG (f)

-Ford F15 with 2 cm flak 30

-Beutespähwagen BA-10M with 2 cm KwK 30 L/55

-PzSpw. P.204 (f) with 5 cm

-Matilda with 5cm Pak "Oswald"

-Panzerjäger Bren 731 (e)

-S307(f) Vielfachwerfer (8cm Vielfachwerfer auf SOMUA MCG)

-7,5cm Pak auf FCM36(f)

-Sd.Kfz 135/1 with rus. 122-mm-Haubitze

-10.5cm LeFH 16 auf Geschutzwagen Mk.VI(e) (6 built)

-7,5-cm Pak 97/98 (f) auf T-26 PZ-740(r) (at least 10 built)

-russian BA-64 with 37 mm Pak 35/36 cannon

-Unic p107(f) with 2cm Flak 38

-15cm Panzerwerfer auf MTW Somua.

-Drilling Mg 151 auf munitionsschlepper

-2cm Flak 38 auf Bren Carrier(e)

 

so if you want anything else from me, lets move to pm. but i support the swedish army and their vehicles that saw service there only when it comes to a swedish tree.  

I actually am very anti-prototype in the main tree (I am so very glad the Maus is being reallocated for example), but I think no prototypes whatsoever is too extreme even for me.

 

> I don’t see the problem with premium prototypes, there should be plenty of captures as well and all, but prototypes and low production I don’t see that much of a problem.  Premium and event vehicles is a good way to get every vehicle that exists in the timeframe of War Thunder in game, but somewhat limit as well.

 

> Some nations do require them.  For example, I mean Japan just needs them. Which I don’t think just because nations have limited numbers of vehicles gives them free backups or whatever, they should be allowed some prototypes to help them out.  Only when they need them.

 

My problem is when nations don’t need them, or have options of real vehicles in place.  Like the T-44-100, or the Ob’yekt 906 — who asked for these?  We shouldn’t be forced to grind these!  Give us T-44Ss, T-44Ms, T-44MSs, more BMP-1 and 2 variants, BMD series, etc.

 

But if for example, there is a big gap between the T-26E1-1 and the M103, some prototypes that had multiple made (like 4 or more made) I don’t have a problem with.

[stefffff1871 2,448]

6 minutes ago, kamikazi21358 said:

I actually am very anti-prototype in the main tree (I am so very glad the Maus is being reallocated for example), but I think no prototypes whatsoever is too extreme even for me.

 

> I don’t see the problem with premium prototypes, there should be plenty of captures as well and all, but prototypes and low production I don’t see that much of a problem.  Premium and event vehicles is a good way to get every vehicle that exists in the timeframe of War Thunder in game, but somewhat limit as well.

maybe i were a bit extrem aswell here. i guess i could live with premium prototypes but after seeing so many mass produced vehicles added to the game as premiums while other prototypes are researchable... well that let me developed a little bit of hat against protos in general

 

9 minutes ago, kamikazi21358 said:

> Some nations do require them.  For example, I mean Japan just needs them. Which I don’t think just because nations have limited numbers of vehicles gives them free backups or whatever, they should be allowed some prototypes to help them out.  Only when they need them.

hm i understand this. but i  still think a bit different here

Spoiler

well as i somehow already mentioned it in my post before. its a different system as gaijins one. 

 

13 minutes ago, kamikazi21358 said:

My problem is when nations don’t need them, or have options of real vehicles in place.  Like the T-44-100, or the Ob’yekt 906 — who asked for these?  We shouldn’t be forced to grind these!  Give us T-44Ss, T-44Ms, T-44MSs, more BMP-1 and 2 variants, BMD series, etc.

exactly. i mean i am not an expert in sovjet arms but i guess we can agree on that

 

14 minutes ago, kamikazi21358 said:

But if for example, there is a big gap between the T-26E1-1 and the M103, some prototypes that had multiple made (like 4 or more made) I don’t have a problem with.

well for me it doesnt matter how many of those were built. but i also guess i cant discuss on this speciific topic to much since i have nothing against gaps. i am not sure about ur exact example because a 6.7-7.7 (RB) gap with some 7.0 and 7.3 tanks in other lines dont seems so bad. 

[kamikazi21358 998]

20 minutes ago, stefffff1871 said:

maybe i were a bit extrem aswell here. i guess i could live with premium prototypes but after seeing so many mass produced vehicles added to the game as premiums while other prototypes are researchable... well that let me developed a little bit of hat against protos in general

Yeah, I can relate to this.  Produced before protos - if a produced vehicle could be in game at a place, it should be in the main line before the prototype.  The few prototypes I support in the main line are

> ones that fill gap that simply no other vehicle could fill (more prominent in more minor trees like France or Japan)

> 'high produced' prototypes - for example, the T25 series had over 40 made, the MBT/KPz-70 had over a dozen made, etc.  Would prefer these in expandable subfolders first however.

> prototypes (that had more than at one made minimum) that have historical signifigance - for example, the Sturer Emil had 2 made, but at least one had over 30 kills painted on it's barrel for example.  Wouldn't mind premium as much, but something like that is 'alright, fair enough' enough - (combined with not too many options being available in it's range for the line it's in).

 

> The above, but I would prefer (unless the 'fills gaps' part) in expandable subfolders - players shouldn't be forced to grind prototypes if they don't want to.

 

 

(Also for reference, the T-44M/S/MS are modernised T-44s:

T-44S - stabilised

T-44M - 1960s modernised

MS - both combined

I could for-see the S 6.7, M 7.0, and MS 7.3, easily replacing the proto 100 version)

[Wolf_89 2,525]

Hell yes!

[PantherAl 4,883]

On 05/09/2019 at 21:30, TerikG2014 said:

Well strictly spekaing the CV90120 was develped by Alvis-Hägglunds wich was a british owned company

 

If we use that as the measure for what tree a vic belongs in, then all the 113 based vehicles and the Bradley belongs in the UK tree.

 

No, this is a Swedish Tree sort of vic.

 

 

That said, we need all the CV90's....

[Stridswombat 1,089]

On 06/09/2019 at 03:30, TerikG2014 said:

Well strictly spekaing the CV90120 was develped by Alvis-Hägglunds wich was a british owned company

That's not entirely true. The CV90 was developed by Hägglunds with the help of Bofors and FMV (Försvarets MaterielVerk, aka defense materiel organization) of the Swedish military. Sweden was directly taking part in the development of the CV90.

 

At the time the CV90 was being designed Hägglunds wasn't owned by BAE either (and still remains a Swedish company even afterwards).

 

On 08/09/2019 at 23:07, stefffff1871 said:

well i dont know why it wouldnt work. but i also dont want to discuss this here since it is offtopic. but let me say this. i also dont support the whole system (atleast 6 vehicles per tier, nations need to start with Tier 1, etc) in this game that as u basically said promote the introduction of prototypes. and i also know that in the current state it makes actually no difference anymore. but i still wont support such vehicle. sorry

The issue with this is that at that point you're not staying within the confines of the game. You're describing what you want the game to be, not what it is. Those changes would require such drastic measures that we wouldn't even be speaking of the same game afterwards. Kind of like turning a 1st person shooter into a 3rd person shooter. It's not so much a case of changing the game, but going into an established game with the wrong expectations of what it is in the first place..

Quote

 

well thats basically completly untrue. there are plenty of options

- captured vehicles

- vehicles of special units

- field modification

- pre production models

- vehicles that saw service but in a very small number

example germany without field modifications like the Panzerjäger 1B :

  Reveal hidden contents

-M3 Lee - Panzerkampfwagen M3 747 (a)

-M3 Grant - Panzerkampfwagen M3-744 (a)

-M3 Stuart

-M4 Sherman (75mm) (Panzerkampfwagen M4-748 (a) (already ingame, very rare)

-M4 Sherman (76mm)

-M5 light tank

-M8 Greyhound

-M10 Wolverine

-T-48 57 mm GMC (SU-57)

-T-30 76 mm GMC

-BT-5 (Pz 742(r))

-BT-7

-T-28

-T-26 (Pz. 740(r))

-T-50

-T35 (Panzerkampfwagen 751(r)

-T-60

-Kw-1 (PzKpfw 759(r)

-T34 

-Is-2

-BA-10 (Panzerspaehwagen BA203(r))

-BA-6

-BA-27 (37 mm gun)

-Su-85

-Su-100

-Su-122

-Cruiser Tank Mk. I (A9) (Panzerkampfwagen Mk.IV 744(e))

-Cruiser Mk II

-Cruiser Mk IV

-Matilda II-Infanteriepanzer (Pz Kpfw Mk II 748 (e))

-Sherman Firefly

-Renault R35 8Pz. 35R 731 (f)

-Hotchkiss H-35 (Panzerkampfwagen H735(f))

-Hotchkiss H-39 (Panzerkampfwagen 39-H 735 (f))

-Renault Ft-17 (Panzerkampfwagen 17R/18R 730(f))

-PzKpfw AMC 738 (f)

-Char D1 (Pz. D1 732(f))

-Char D2 (Pz. D2 733 (f))

-FCM 36 Pz. FCM 737 (f))

-Somua S35 (Pz. 35S 739 (f))

-Char B1 (Pz. B-2 740 (f))

-Panzerspähwagen L202 (h)

-Beutepanzer 7TP

-Beutepanzer TK-S

-AB43 Spähpanzer (5cm Pak) with MG 42 or MG 34 

-Kampfpanzer M13/40 (Sd.Kfz. 735(i))

-P26/40 (Panzerkampfwagen P40 737(i))

-Semovente 75/18 (Sturmgeschütz M42(i))

-Semovente 90/53

-Fiat M15/42

-Fiat Semovente 75/18  (Sturmgeschütz M42 mit 75/18 850(i))

-Fiat Semovente 75/34  (Sturmgeschütz M42 mit 75/34 851(i))

-Fiat Semovente 105/25  (Sturmgeschütz M43 mit 105/25 853(i))

-AAC1937

-Landsverk 180/181

-Armored Car M8 "Greyhound" Panzerspähwagen Ford M8 (a) mit MG 151/20 "Drilling"

-M2/M3 Halftrack Gepanzerter Mannschaftstransportwagen M3 401(a) mit Wurfrahmen 40

-SPW U304(f) with 2 cm Flak 38

-Panzerkampfwagen 35R 731(f) with T-26 Turm

-Flakpanzer T-34(r)

-PzKpfw T-34 747(r) with Seitenschürzen

-Modified T-34/76 with German commander’s cupola

-early T-34/76 modified with german Tracks

-7.5 сm Pak 97/38(f) auf Pz.740(r)

-Pz.Kpfw. Panzerkampfwagen M15/42 738(i) mit Pz.Kpfw. 38(t) turm

-7,5cm Pak 40 Somua MCG (f)

-Ford F15 with 2 cm flak 30

-Beutespähwagen BA-10M with 2 cm KwK 30 L/55

-PzSpw. P.204 (f) with 5 cm

-Matilda with 5cm Pak "Oswald"

-Panzerjäger Bren 731 (e)

-S307(f) Vielfachwerfer (8cm Vielfachwerfer auf SOMUA MCG)

-7,5cm Pak auf FCM36(f)

-Sd.Kfz 135/1 with rus. 122-mm-Haubitze

-10.5cm LeFH 16 auf Geschutzwagen Mk.VI(e) (6 built)

-7,5-cm Pak 97/98 (f) auf T-26 PZ-740(r) (at least 10 built)

-russian BA-64 with 37 mm Pak 35/36 cannon

-Unic p107(f) with 2cm Flak 38

-15cm Panzerwerfer auf MTW Somua.

-Drilling Mg 151 auf munitionsschlepper

-2cm Flak 38 auf Bren Carrier(e)

Most of these types of vehicles that could be put in already exist in the current trees, certainly for the smaller nations. Even with all of those categories combined I'd be willing to hedge a bet that it would add relatively few vehicles to these trees and certainly not as many as the prototypes that would be removed. Another crucial point is would these vehicles fit into a BR gap to adequately fill the position that removing prototypes would leave vacant? In the case of France for example there isn't very much that could be done for filling out rank 2 this way without it.

 

Another thing, wouldn't pre-production vehicles essentially be prototypes? I mean that's what they are. An early version of the vehicle for testing.

Edited September 9, 2019 by Stridswombat

[stefffff1871 2,448]

10 hours ago, PantherAl said:

That said, we need all the CV90's....

-_-

 

6 hours ago, Stridswombat said:

 

The issue with this is that at that point you're not staying within the confines of the game. You're describing what you want the game to be, not what it is. Those changes would require such drastic measures that we wouldn't even be speaking of the same game afterwards. Kind of like turning a 1st person shooter into a 3rd person shooter. It's not so much a case of changing the game, but going into an established game with the wrong expectations of what it is in the first place..

 

well thats why i said: 

On 08/09/2019 at 23:07, stefffff1871 said:

[...] and i also know that in the current state it makes actually no difference anymore. [...]

well i wouldntchange so much about the gameplay, it is basically mainly the research mechanic and the selection of vehicles.

 

6 hours ago, Stridswombat said:

Most of these types of vehicles that could be put in already exist in the current trees, certainly for the smaller nations. Even with all of those categories combined I'd be willing to hedge a bet that it would add relatively few vehicles to these trees and certainly not as many as the prototypes that would be removed. Another crucial point is would these vehicles fit into a BR gap to adequately fill the position that removing prototypes would leave vacant? In the case of France for example there isn't very much that could be done for filling out rank 2 this way without it.

talking about premiums: in my opinion gaijin exaggerates it with premium-vehicles. i mean there is still the talisman-mechanic ingame. but i guess this discussion is about the attitude towards the game in general.

talking about the main tree and gaps: well i guess this is again about the attitude towards the game in general, france wouldnt have so much trouble with it with enough copy/paste vehicles that they actually used during ww2 in the forces of free france and after the war in the french army. but i know that many ppl dont like them. but many others do (me included). 

 

7 hours ago, Stridswombat said:

Another thing, wouldn't pre-production vehicles essentially be prototypes? I mean that's what they are. An early version of the vehicle for testing.

 technically u are right. but i should have clarified it maybe a bit more: its not about prototypes in general, it is a bout vehicles that were put in service. vehicles like the Sturer Emil and the dicker Max are completly fine for me, since they were put in service and even saw combat.

 

this whole discussion is about opinions and u won´t change mine, i wont change yours. it maybe makes no difference anymore but i stick with opnion.  

[TerikG2014 1,389]

Well now we have Sweeden in game I t seems likely we might finally see this that'll be good fun.

[leroyonly 4,311]

As the CV 90120 has been implemented with update 1.97 Viking Fury,

 

Moved to Implemented Suggestions.