War Thunder International Tank Tech Tree - Canada! - video Dailymotion

Toreno

In this episode of the War Thunder International tank tech tree series, we take a look at potential Canadian tanks that could be added to an international tank tech tree, discussing their stats, history and how I think they will play in War Thunder!  00:00 Introduction. 00:13 History of Canadian tanks. 02:23 Cruiser tank Ram I (40mm/2 pounder) & II (57mm/6 pounder). Ram II added as M4A5 Ram II in Update 1.61 "Road to Glory". 13:57 Cruiser tank Gizzly I (75mm and 17 pounder). 18:46 Bren carrier with 2 pounder gun. 20:36 Sexton SPG. 24:37 Skink SPAA (added in "Drone Age" update). 26:43 Canadian events. 28:17 Conclusion.  International Tank Tech Tree series Argentinian Tanks: https://youtu.be/Z6p0kXANlrI Austrian Tanks: https://youtu.be/cha99aucLPY Australian Tanks: https://youtu.be/Z-P0xkdHQZQ Belgian Tanks: https://youtu.be/IPUmZ1TFaIs Canadian Tanks: https://youtu.be/dlkyfIcukqs Czechoslovakian Tanks: https://youtu.be/OgGtRi07OIM Egyptian Tanks: https://youtu.be/TXeQki7i854 Finnish Tanks: https://youtu.be/1SzQl9kRQiE  Link to Skink SPAA image: http://i.imgur.com/7EQkcKr.jpg  Sources: Bishop, C (2000) WWII: The Directory of Weapons. London, Greenwich Editions, Pages 30/120/181 Hoggs, I.V. and Weeks, J. (1980) The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Military Vehicles. London, Quarto Publishing Limited, Pages 68/159  Picture citations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_tank  http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AGrizzly_sherman.jpg By geni (Photo by User:geni) [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC BY-SA 4.0-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0)], via Wikimedia Commons  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ASexton.JPG By Halibutt (Own work) [GFDL  (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)], via Wikimedia Commons  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ASexton_25-Pounder_Self-Propelled_Gun_Howitzer.jpg By Laing (Sgt), No 5 Army Film & Photographic Unit.  Post-Work: User:W.wolny [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ASexton_self-propelled_artillery_vehicle.jpg By Bdrieu (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ASexton_CFB_Borden_2.jpg By JustSomePics (Own work) [CC0], via Wikimedia Commons  http://the.shadock.free.fr/Surviving_Grizzlys.pdf  Social Media Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/toreno.bsky.social Twitter: https://twitter.com/Toreno17 Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/Toreno4 Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/toreno5/videos  Game: War Thunder  #warthunder #canada #tanks #tank #canadian #toreno #ram #grizzly #sexton #skink #bren

Transcript

00:00Hello everybody, Tereno here and welcome back to another episode of my proposed international

00:04tank tech tree series.

00:06Now in today's episode we're going to be looking at potential Canadian vehicles that could

00:10be incorporated into the international tank tech tree.

00:14Now Canada didn't really have many tanks before World War 2, it had a couple of old American

00:19World War 1 tanks, but it hadn't really built tanks before, but it was a bit unlike Australia

00:25which we looked at a few episodes ago, it was a bit more industrialised, so it was able

00:29to produce them more readily than some other Commonwealth countries.

00:34Canada itself provided a vital role during the war, it actually had out of a population

00:40of 11 million people, 10 million people, about a million served in the Canadian Armed Forces,

00:46that's about 10% give or take, which is just ridiculous, also if I'm reading some of these

00:53sources right, had the 4th largest air force and 5th largest naval surface fleet in the

00:57world at the end of the war.

00:59Canadian forces also fought in pretty much every theatre of war, they fought in the Pacific,

01:04they fought in Italy, in the Mediterranean, in Europe.

01:08On D-Day, of the five beaches, Canada actually had charge of Juno beach, where primarily

01:13Canadian troops stormed the beaches, and they actually got the farthest of any of the landing

01:18forces, farther than troops at Utah, Omaha, Gold, Sword, so they were very tough fighters

01:25and they did very well and gave great service during the war, they were also primarily responsible

01:30for liberating much of the Netherlands.

01:33Canada itself was also attacked when fire balloons launched by the Japanese actually

01:37reached Canada, fortunately there was no casualties.

01:41There was also an attack by the Japanese submarine I-26 which shelled a lighthouse on Vancouver

01:46Island.

01:47Canada also contributed economically, for example providing rare materials, building

01:52weapons for the other allies.

01:55The Canadian military pack truck for example, something like half a million of them were

01:58built for Canadian and allied troops.

02:02After the war, Canada became one of the founding members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation

02:06or NATO.

02:08So that's a little background knowledge of Canada in this period of history, like I said

02:12they contributed massively to the allied cause, in industry, men, equipment, you know

02:17all sorts of things.

02:19But now that we've got all that out of the way, we'll get straight into the episode.

02:24Now the first Canadian tank we're going to look at is the cruiser tank RAM.

02:28In 1940, after the Battle of France, Britain had lost most of its tank force, it had either

02:33been destroyed or abandoned during the evacuation from Dunkirk, and in June 1940 the British

02:39government approached the Canadian railway industry and asked them if they could produce

02:43valentine tanks for Britain.

02:45And not long after this, there was an order placed for Canadian valentine infantry tanks

02:49for the Canadian Armoured Division.

02:51However, the valentine tank was an infantry tank, and Canada still needed a cruiser tank

02:57to go along with this.

02:59Infantry tanks in British doctrine were basically heavily armoured, slow-moving tanks to support

03:04the infantry, while the cruiser tanks were fast, lightly armoured tanks which were to

03:10exploit breakthroughs created by the slower-moving infantry tanks.

03:15As I said at the beginning of the video, Canada didn't really have tank manufacturing capabilities,

03:20so this had to be developed while the tank itself was being designed.

03:24Now at first it was considered to be the M3 medium tank, which was being produced for

03:29Britain at the time, but unfortunately the main disadvantage of this tank was that the

03:34main armament was in the side sponson, the 75mm gun.

03:39So it was decided to take, quoting from my book World War 2 The Directory of Weapons,

03:44the main mechanical, hull and transmission components of the M3, but allie them to a

03:49new turret mounting a 75mm gun.

03:52But there was no prospect of a 75mm gun at the time, so the readily available 40mm weapon

03:57was chosen for the initial installations, with the chance of fitting a larger gun later.

04:03This turned out to be the 6-pounder 57mm gun, unquote.

04:07Now in one of my other books, the Illustrated Encyclopedia of Military Vehicles, goes into

04:11this in a bit more detail.

04:13Apparently they could have put the 6-pounder gun on straight away, but this went into opposition

04:18because basically all cruiser tanks had 2-pounder guns, so the ram tank obviously had to have

04:23a 2-pounder gun, even though it's smaller and weaker, and the first 50 actually had

04:28this.

04:29It actually mentions in the next passage that they only put the 6-pounder gun version into

04:33production, quote, as soon as sanity had prevailed.

04:36Now as I mentioned earlier, the turret was designed to take a 75mm gun, but there wasn't

04:40any available at the time.

04:42But when they were available, they actually decided not to fit them with the 75mm gun,

04:47and the reason for this was that the 6-pounder actually is better at anti-tank work.

04:52I didn't realise this, and I was looking through my books, I actually triple-checked, and they

04:56all gave about 70mm at 60 degrees.

04:59Now this confused me, because that sort of penetration capacity is better than pretty

05:03much every American tank gun all the way up to tier 5, but I actually found a way of comparing

05:08the performance of the 75mm and the 6-pounder in-game.

05:12The Soviet premium Su-57 is armed with a 57mm M1 cannon, which is basically a British 6-pounder

05:19gun built in America with a slightly different carriage.

05:22So I compared the penetration characteristics of the two guns, with armour-piercing and

05:26armour-piercing-capped ballistic-capped, and the 57mm gun, 6-pounder, basically wins

05:32out at all ranges, at all angles.

05:35The only place the 75mm is better is with armour-piercing at about 1000 metres.

05:41That is literally the only way the 75mm is better.

05:45And with armour-piercing at 500 metres at 0 degrees, the 6-pounder has something like

05:5020mm more penetration at 30 degrees, 18.

05:54So basically it's better than the 75mm in every possible way, except for that one example

06:00at 1000 metres at 60 degree angle.

06:03Now moving on to the armour, this is a bit harder to work out.

06:06The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Military Vehicles says 13-76mm of armour.

06:12My other book, World War II, the Directory of Weapons, says it's about 25-89mm of armour.

06:18Meanwhile, Wikipedia says it's 25-85mm, and TanksEncyclopedia.com just says 87mm maximum.

06:27I don't know where the discrepancies come from.

06:29It's possible there was some upgrade in armour between the Mark 1 and Mark 2.

06:34Like I said, the Illustrated Encyclopedia seems to be a bit of an outlier.

06:38So I believe the armour is in the upper 80s, 80mm, but I don't know what the exact maximum

06:45thickness is.

06:46I believe it's also the turret.

06:48We know the lower hull from the M3 Grant already in-game is about 50mm, so I'm guessing most

06:54of that additional armour is going to be around the turret and upper hull, but again I don't

06:58know for definite because I can't find any information on it.

07:02Now one other thing I should point out with regards to armour, the early models did have

07:07some sort of machine gun turret on the front of the hull.

07:10It was some sort of leftover design flaw from early British cruiser designs, and it was

07:15a bit of an armour weakness.

07:17It caused all sorts of problems.

07:19It was removed in later models, but it could cause some problems with regards to armour

07:23and penetration in the early variants of the RAM, such as the RAM Mark 1.

07:28With regards to speed, pretty much all of my sources agree it was about 25mph top speed,

07:34and crew, there was about 5 crew.

07:36If I'm correct it was a driver, commander, gunner, loader, and some sort of bow machine

07:41gunner in the later models, or the turret machine gunner in the early models.

07:46So where should these tanks go on the tech tree?

07:49Now I've split it up into the two different Marks, the Mark 1 with the 40mm and the Mark

07:532 with the 57mm.

07:56Now the Mark 1 with the 2 pounder gun, the 40mm, my book The World War 2 and the Directory

08:02of Weapons says it could do about 53mm at around 500m.

08:07It actually has the same muzzle velocity, penetration at 500m and a very similar projectile

08:14weight to the M5 cannon on the M3 Stuart.

08:19Now the Stuart's a battle rating of 1.3, but it also has some very similar characteristics

08:23or penetration characteristics to the Panzer III F and J with the KWK 38 50mm cannon.

08:31Now the Panzer III's with the KWK 38 50mm cannons are battle rating 2.3.

08:37The Ram has a similar gun, or a gun with similar characteristics, but it has very thick armour.

08:44So I think it should be battle rating 3 perhaps?

08:48I know that seems a bit high, but if I put it lower it's armour is just going to be a

08:52massive problem for lower tier tanks or lower battle rating tanks, but at 3 it's armour

08:59should be able to protect it well enough.

09:01It will have a pretty okay gun, and 3.3 is where the Germans get their F2 and 3.7 is

09:10where the T-34 1942 comes into play, or 3.3 for the T-34 1941, so they'll be able to deal

09:18with the Ram hopefully.

09:21To put it in context, the KV-1 L-11 is tier 2 battle rating 3.7.

09:28It has slightly less armour, or frontal armour, 75mm, so this seems the fairest place to put

09:35the Ram Mk1 at least.

09:38Now for the Ram Mk2, well we know the 6 pounder gun's better at destroying tanks than the

09:42Sherman 75mm, and the 75mm Shermans go up to a maximum battle rating of 4.3.

09:51Again this is really hard to decide a battle rating for it.

09:55I think battle rating 4 is the best I can think of at the moment, or it's a bit below

10:01the 75mm M4A2 Sherman, which is the top 75mm Sherman battle rating wise.

10:09It would go against Shermans with 75mm guns then.

10:13It would go against KV-1 L-11s quite regularly, they'd be a little bit lower.

10:19It would be going against T-34 1942s and STZs, and Germany it would probably be going

10:26against Panzer IV F2s or Panzer IV Gs.

10:30So it's armour wouldn't be massively overpowered, and it's guns should be able to do well at

10:35those tiers and battle ratings.

10:38Again it's a really hard decision to come to, and I'm sure people will disagree in the

10:42comments with my battle ratings, but I honestly cannot think of a better way to do it.

10:49So that was the Cruiser Tank RAM, and like with the Australians, the Canadians had built

10:54a very good tank that was in many ways superior to contemporary British and even American

10:59designs.

11:00But in the end it was never used in combat, basically there was just enough Shermans to

11:06go around for all the other allied nations.

11:09So as part of standardisation the Canadian units were equipped with the Sherman tank,

11:14and plus while the Cruiser Tank RAM may have had a better gun for dealing with enemy tanks,

11:20it wasn't so good at dealing with enemy infantry, it didn't really have a very good high explosive

11:24shell, something that the Sherman 75mm gun did.

11:29So the Sherman was there in greater numbers, it helped make logistics a lot simpler, and

11:35it was a better all-round tank for dealing with enemy infantry and enemy tanks, whereas

11:40the RAM was just much better at dealing with enemy tanks.

11:44However this wasn't the end for the Cruiser Tank RAM, many were actually sent to the UK

11:49to equip Canadian armoured divisions for training, and when they were finished with training

11:54they were converted to other uses, for example an armoured personnel carrier, command tanks

11:59for artillery units, and the chassis was used for the Sexton self-propelled gun, which we'll

12:04be looking at in a little bit.

12:06However this still wasn't the end for the Cruiser Tank RAM, at least in its gun tank

12:09form, because many were actually sent to the Netherlands, according to Ironsides Canadian

12:15Armoured Fighting Vehicle Museums and Monuments, the Dutch army got permission from the Canadian

12:21government to take RAM tanks that were in dumps on Dutch territory, so some of them

12:28must have been sent to the Netherlands as gun tanks for whatever reason.

12:33But even more interestingly, in 1947, quoting here, the UK provided 44 RAM tanks from its

12:40stocks that were in better condition, 40 of these had been rebuilt for the British 75mm

12:45gun, so Britain had gone to the trouble of actually putting the 75mm gun in at some point,

12:54in semi-decent numbers, which I don't know why they did that, they'd already agreed they

13:00weren't going to use it as a gun tank, so why they then rebuilt it with a 75mm gun I

13:05do not know.

13:07Maybe the RAM tank of the 75mm gun could be put in the Netherlands part of the tech tree?

13:14Because it doesn't seem like Britain actually used the RAM tanks of the 75mm guns, I still

13:20get the impression they were in storage, and Netherlands I don't think actually used them

13:25in combat, but I think they did put a few in place for fortifications, they basically

13:31got the hull buried in concrete so just the turret was sticking out, and maybe it could

13:35be used in some alternate history events involving the Netherlands, so I may include that in

13:39the Dutch part of the tech tree.

13:41But overall, the RAM tank was a very good tank, maybe a little bit too late to be useful

13:47because the Sherman came about, but I think if the Americans hadn't got involved in the

13:52war, or if they'd got involved a bit later and the RAM was actually used as a gun tank,

13:55I think it would have been a pretty good tank.

13:57Now the next tank we're looking at is the Grizzly Cruiser tank.

14:00Now there's actually two variants we're going to be looking at, one with a 75mm gun and

14:04one with a 17 pounder gun, but we're going to start with the 75mm gun version first.

14:10Now this is basically a Canadian built M4A1 Sherman, but with some minor and some major

14:16differences.

14:17It uses the same gun as the early variant Shermans, the 75mm gun.

14:23It's got the same crew, commander, gunner, loader, driver, co-driver, slash hull gunner.

14:28Has about the same speed, 24mph.

14:31The differences between the Grizzly and the Sherman tanks are to do with the tracks and

14:35the armour.

14:36With the tracks, it uses Canadian dry pin tracks, which are a bit lighter and don't

14:40use rubber, which was harder to get a hold of because a lot of it comes from South East

14:44Asia where Japan had invaded a lot of countries and territories.

14:48But the most interesting change is to do with the armour, which is according to Ironsides

14:53which I quoted earlier, and my other online sources, sloped to a higher degree than the

14:59normal Sherman and also has thicker armour.

15:02Unfortunately none of the sources say where the extra armour is.

15:06I would have thought it would be around the hull, but I've heard some suggestions that

15:09it's around the right cheek of the turret, which seems like a really odd place to put

15:14extra armour, like a pretty specific place as well.

15:18So unfortunately I can't say for certain where the additional armour is on the Grizzly

15:22cruiser tank.

15:24But the additional sloping is a massive help.

15:27At the moment, the front of the M4A1 is between 70mm effective thickness and about 100mm depending

15:34on where you shoot, and that's sloped at between 48 degrees and about 60, again depending

15:40on where you shoot.

15:42So additional sloping should manage to boost that up, you know, probably from the 70s up

15:47to the 80s minimum.

15:49So that's, you know, quite a massive improvement.

15:52Now the other variant I wanted to talk about is basically a Grizzly cruiser tank, but with

15:56a 17 pounder gun.

15:58Again according to Ironsides, some of these were produced and used for training, but never

16:02used in combat.

16:04So I've sort of bolded and underlined it because I don't know if it should be added.

16:08The 17 pounder was one of the best guns of the war, so that's a massive firepower boost

16:13for this tank, and for the international tank tech tree as a whole.

16:16So where should these tanks go on the tech tree?

16:19Now the 75mm Shermans go up to battle rating 4.3, and then it jumps to battle rating 5

16:26for the M4A1 Sherman with the 76mm gun.

16:30Now I think the Grizzly tank with the 75mm gun could go up to battle rating 4.3 or 4.7.

16:37This puts it before the 76mm guns, and around the same battle rating as the M4A2 Sherman.

16:43Now this has 63mm of armour, but it's sloped at 47 degrees, which gives it an effective

16:49thickness of around 90 to 80, depending where you shoot it.

16:54The Grizzly tank should have more sloped armour, and potentially thicker armour, so that should

16:59make it, you know, more armoured than the M4A2 Sherman, or at least about the same armour

17:04effectiveness.

17:05So it could go, like I said, either 4.3 or 4.7.

17:11For the 17-pounder version, I think it should go 6.7, very possibly 6.3.

17:17If it goes any lower than 6.3, you know, 6 or something, it would be going against the

17:22Tiger 1s, and it would absolutely slaughter them.

17:256.3 would put it above the early Tigers, and nearer the Tiger 2s, 6.7s would put it at

17:33the same level as the Tiger 2s.

17:35I think that's pretty much the best place to put it, like I said, possibly 6.3, depending

17:40on how Gaijin feel about the tank and all that, and the gun.

17:44Yeah, I think that's a pretty good place to put it, 6.7, 6.3, preferably 6.7 though.

17:50So that was the Cruiser Grizzly tank, and it actually ended up sharing a similar fate

17:54to the RAM tank.

17:57Basically it wasn't needed, enough Shermans were being built in America to be given to

18:02pretty much all of the allied nations, they only built a few hundred of these, and a lot

18:06of them were actually given to Portugal, who were using them up until the 70s or 80s I

18:10think.

18:11I've heard somewhere that most of the, or a lot of the surviving Shermans around today

18:14are the Grizzly variant, I don't know how true that is, but that would be quite a significant

18:20thing considering only a few hundred are actually built.

18:24They did use the chassis for various other things, some ended up being used for the Sexton

18:29self-propelled gun, some ended up being used for the Skink self-propelled anti-aircraft

18:34vehicle, or tank, so yeah, it was a pretty good tank, just wasn't particularly needed,

18:40but again, it showed Canada could make and design and build pretty good tanks if needed.

18:47Now the next vehicle we're looking at is the Bren carrier with a two pounder gun.

18:51Now this could actually go in either the Australian part of the tech tree or the Canadian, both

18:56nations built Bren carriers with two pounder guns, and as far as I'm aware they both used

19:01them only for training, but like I said it is basically a Bren carrier with a two pounder

19:06gun on it.

19:07Now as I said the armament is a two pounder gun, armour, I believe the armour is about

19:12seven to ten millimetres, I don't believe they changed it for these two pounder conversions,

19:17speed is about thirty miles an hour, crew, my books say it had a crew of two as a Bren

19:23carrier, online sources say three, I'm assuming there would have been three crew for the gun,

19:28so you know, something like commander, loader, gunner, plus driver and maybe a wireless operator

19:34or something like that, I don't know where the other crewmen came from on the regular

19:38Bren carrier, so between five and six crew probably.

19:42So where would this go on the tech tree, there's not actually many tier one tank destroyers

19:47to compare it to, there's only the M3 GMC and the StuG IIIA, the Russians actually don't

19:52have a tier one tank destroyer anymore, they all got moved up to tier two or above, I'd

19:58say possibly two, very possibly 1.3, two seems the best place for it, that would put it 0.3

20:05below the M3 GMC and the StuG IIIA, but like I said it's got similar penetration to the

20:13M3 Stuart, so it's not going to be too overpowered, the M3 Stuart is at 1.3, this is going to

20:18be a little bit higher, I think 1.7 would be best place for it, you know, it would be

20:24able to do okay at that level, it wouldn't be completely slaughtered, but it wouldn't

20:29be completely overpowered, so yeah that seems like the best place for it and it would be

20:33good to have this vehicle in the tech tree.

20:36Now the next vehicle on our list is the Sexton self propelled gun, now according to my books

20:41the British Purchasing Commission had gone to America to sort of decide what vehicles

20:46to buy from the Americans and they quite liked the M7 Priest, which was a self propelled

20:52gun with a 105mm howitzer, but they didn't want the 105mm howitzer, not because it was

20:59a bad gun, but you know, logistical problems, so Britain wanted something that could take

21:04their own gun, in this case the 25 pounder gun, so the Americans went away and they produced

21:09something called the T51, which was basically an M7 with a 25 pounder gun, now my sources

21:15disagree on why this wasn't built, some say the Americans refused to build it because

21:19they weren't going to use it themselves, some say the Americans were just too busy to build

21:23it, you know, they had all their production facilities building their own vehicles, and

21:28some of the online sources say that the prototype just didn't work, including a situation where

21:33the gun was destroyed during the prototype testing.

21:37Knowing they weren't going to be getting a 25 pounder M7 Priest any time soon, Britain

21:42went to the Canadians, remember the Ram tank at this point had just been put into production,

21:47but was already slated to be replaced by the M4 Sherman, so there was already a production

21:53line for the Ram tank that wasn't going to be used anymore, so they just altered the

21:57design and, you know, came up with the Sexton self propelled gun.

22:01This became the Sexton 1, they actually produced a Sexton 2, another variant, which was basically

22:07the same but based on the Cruiser Tank Grizzly hull instead of the Ram.

22:11Now most of my sources agree the armour was maximum 32mm, but one of my books, the Illustrated

22:16Encyclopedia of Military Vehicles, says it went up to 108mm, I'm going to assume that's

22:21a typo or wildly false, I don't know if maybe they're looking at the Grizzly tank chassis

22:26or hull, because that did have thicker armour than the regular Shermans, but even then,

22:31I think that must be wrong, because that's, you know, thicker than most battle tanks.

22:36The speed was about 25mph, so decently fast, and it had a crew of 6, now I know for definite

22:43that's probably going to be a driver, gunner, commander and loader, the other two, looking

22:47online they say it's more to do with the artillery role of the vehicle, gun layers, wireless

22:53operators, that sort of stuff, so they may not be needed so much in the vehicle, but

22:58they can replace other crew members when they're knocked out or knocked unconscious.

23:03So where should this go on the tech tree? Well that's actually quite hard to work out,

23:07because none of my books list any armour penetration figures, and some of the online ones may not

23:13be right, I've seen one that says at 350m at 0 degrees it can do 70mm, another source

23:20says at 30 degrees it can do 62mm at 500m and 54mm at 1000m. When I did my episode on

23:28Australian tanks I actually said the Settner AC3 with a 25 pounder gun should be between

23:334.3 and 4.7, although that had a lot more armour. One thing that does help a little

23:39bit is the Stur 42G, which is basically a StuG III with a 105mm howitzer. Now, I think

23:47the 25 pounder is a little bit superior to the Stur 42G, but not by much, so I think

23:54a battle rating of between 3.7 and 4.3 would be best for the Sexton. I mean, it was used

24:00as an anti-tank gun in real life, so it must have some capability of destroying tanks,

24:08and that battle rating would lead it to go against Panzer IVs and Panzer IIIs, maybe

24:14some of the early Sherman variants as well, and possibly some early variants of the T-34.

24:20T-34 1942 is 3.7, KV1 L11 is 3.7, so I think that's the best battle rating for it, at least

24:30until I can get more reliable facts and figures about the anti-tank capabilities of the 25

24:35pounder gun.

24:37Now the last vehicle on that list is the Skink SPAA, or self-propelled anti-aircraft gun.

24:42Now there are pictures of it, but they're all sort of behind copyright, and I don't

24:45want to get in trouble, so I'll link you to where you can find those pictures. But basically,

24:50it was a design for a self-propelled anti-aircraft gun, based on the chassis of the Grizzly tank.

24:56Now using online sources, because none of my books list it, it has four 20mm cannons.

25:02These were originally going to be Hispano Suiza cannons, but they eventually changed

25:07it to the 20mm Polston cannons. Armour was okay, 50mm maximum, speed of about 24mph,

25:16and a crew of four. I'm guessing it's going to be driver, loader, gunner, commander, or

25:20something along those lines.

25:22Now changing the cannons from Hispano cannons to the Polston cannons delayed the project

25:27quite a bit, and by the time it was ready, there was just no need for the vehicle. The

25:30Luftwaffe had basically been wiped out over Northwest Europe, they just didn't need a

25:35self-propelled anti-aircraft vehicle. Three of them were produced in the end, and one

25:39was actually sent to Britain and then on to the Canadian units fighting in France. Again,

25:45it wasn't used in its actual intended role of shooting down aircraft, but with four 20mm

25:50cannons, it was still pretty useful against enemy infantry and other soft targets.

25:56So where should this go on the tech tree? Well, the most similar vehicle, or pretty

25:59much the only similar vehicle to the Skink, is the Flak Panzer IV Verbal Wind, which is

26:05at tier 3, battle rating 3.7. So I think the Skink should go 3.7, possibly 3.3. I think

26:15it's got slightly less armour than the Verbal Wind, so maybe that could lead to it being

26:21put down a little bit in the battle rating, but 3.7 is fine, possibly 3.3. And I think

26:27it would be a nice useful little self-propelled anti-aircraft vehicle for the tier 3. It's

26:32pretty much the only one I've got, or it is the only one I've got at tier 3, so I think

26:37it would be a nice useful vehicle at that tier. Not too overpowered, but not too weak

26:41either.

26:44So now that we've looked at potential Canadian vehicles that could be added into War Thunder,

26:48how could Canada itself be added into the game via events and such? Well, we know some

26:53of the vehicles, such as the Sexton, were used in quite large numbers, so you could

26:58use your regular bog-standard events, such as D-Day invasions, fighting across Europe,

27:03to incorporate some Canadian vehicles. Others, such as the Ram, the Skink, or the Cruiser

27:10Tank Grizzly, and possibly the 2-pounder Bren carrier, you may need alternate reality events

27:16for those. For example, maybe having America not join the war, or join the war much later,

27:21to give a reason for the Ram tank to be incorporated in events. You know, if America wasn't in

27:26the war, the Ram tank presumably would have gone into full production. You could also

27:30have maybe an event where the American factories have been sabotaged, so they've had to rely

27:36on the Cruiser Tank Grizzly more. Maybe the Bren carrier was taken out of training, perhaps

27:42because Canada itself was invaded, perhaps by Axis powers in some sort of Wolfenstein

27:46the New Order type scenario, or Japan invading Western Canada, maybe even America itself

27:51joining the Axis and invading from the south, which is far-fetched, but again, the excuse

27:56to give somebody's vehicles a reason to be in-game. The Skink could be incorporated,

28:01perhaps because the German Luftwaffe introduced jets a lot earlier and didn't lose air superiority

28:06so easily. You know, perhaps they're still a threat, so the Skink is put into service.

28:11So there are lots of ways that Canadian vehicles that weren't used in combat could be incorporated

28:15into War Thunder events.

28:18So that's it for today's longer-than-usual episode. The next episode will either be China

28:22or Czechoslovakia. I may need to get some more information on the Chinese tanks, I may

28:28rename it People's Republic of China, because I haven't been able to find anything for the

28:31nationalist side of China so far. So I may go to Czechoslovakia, it depends how much

28:37information I can find on Chinese tanks. But anyway, I hope you've enjoyed today's episode.

28:42Leave a like if you did, subscribe if you like these sorts of videos, leave feedback,

28:46could always do with more feedback. Thanks for watching, I'll see you next time.

War Thunder International Tank Tech Tree - Canada!

Category

Transcript

Recommended