I never understood when people say it has a worse kinetic round as I would take less pen for more damage. But mainly because it has a lrf and aph round which is a deadly combo against pretty much anything you’ll be seeing. If it can’t be penned by aphe then you can switch to apfsds or even an atgm if it’s real heavy. Chieftain your stuck with using an apds round with intermittent damage and nothing else to swap to.
4 Likes
I’d argue the Mk 10 is great where it is now, The additions of thermals would warrant a BR increase to 9.3 atleast and id rather not have what is a great tank at 9.0 be made into a mediocre tank at 9.3 or 9.7 because of thermals.
Gen 1 thermals wouldn’t warrant a br increase. The mk10 is good but only in specific maps which are dad and few between. They wouldn’t help it on city maps or maps like japan with terrible hull down spots due to gaijin. So all it would do is help in target accusations.
1 Like
You say this but we both know how gaijin views thermals and how they balance them (as if theyre a all seeing eye when realistically thats only true for gen 2 or 3) so it would be upped in BR, hell the Khalid which is just a mk10 with a actual engine is 9.3 so i can totally see gaijin making the Mk11 9.3.
Gen 1 thermals do indeed warrant a BR increase. Chieftain Mk10 and Khalid share the same ammo.
See M60s. Shot Kal Delat, etc.
@Tachikaze45154
My longest range ground to ground kill in War Thunder remains with gen 1 thermals at 3.3+km; so I try not to discount gen 1 thermals these days.
The khalid has mobility, and good mobility at that. That’s why it’s at 9.3 because of how strong that is. It also gets l23 which helps tremendously compared to the shitty damage of the apds round. Thermals really don’t do much, but this is British I guess. VFM5 still stuck with no thermals and worse reload at the same br as the American XM8 AGS. (Still pissed off that this still hasn’t been addressed, dm33 does not make up for that much bullshit).
Gen 1 is great for spotting, but on a chieftain it really wouldn’t help much as it would buff it in areas it’s already good at but not do much for when it’s on a cqb map like Breslau and your side scraping and such. Which are the maps you mainly see at this br sadly. If we got more maps the mk 10 could be good on 9.3 would be warranted but it’s a coin toss to even see a map that’s playable let alone good. ( I just leave maps like seversk due to how much I dislike them).
Gen 1’s help in spotting but are generally only good at extreme ranges or for pixel spotting in forests imo otherwise they are generally no better than the old mk1 eyeball.
Yes but Gaijin would see it as a tradeoff between the mk11 and Khalid, where one has thermals but the other gets superior mobility to counter that lack of thermals at 9.3.
And as ive stated the Mk 10 at 9.0 is in a great spot with a working lineup if you were to move it you would only be nerfing britain lol.
I wouldn’t say great line up, I would rather it be 9.3 so I can bring my buccaneer and maybe oliphant mk 2 (and hopefully the MTTD with xm 63 instead of it’s bloody dm23). Not like it’s not gonna see the aids Russian 10.0 lineup every game. May as well have something to combat them at distance.
Imo the Mk11 would struggle to compete at 9.3 due to the Oliphant,which has Gen 3 thermals and DM-63 105 alongside the Rooikat 105 and bringing the MTTD up to 9.3, not to mention the fact that at 9.3 like you say your basically in the hell BR anyway of fighting constant 10.0/10.3.
The oliphant mk 2 is worse than the mk 10 for me. I always get my turret ring sniped in it. No matter how well I’m hull down I get half my crew taken out and so I’m gimped for the rest of the match. Just could never get it to work so I bring out my shot cal instead. Which I honestly prefer over the mk 10 even due to it having better mobility.
Can’t be a Mk 10, it doesn’t have stillbrew.
I think that bringing the Mk11 in might provide an actual parallel alternative to the Olifant Mk2 though. Since what the Mk10 is currently missing to be an alternative to the Olifant Mk2 is thermals.
I’d usually use the Olifant Mk2 for really wide and forested maps where its Gen 2 thermals and better reload help quite a bit. The Mk11 if added would provide practically the Chieftain Experience™️ but now with actual functioning thermals. Basically, an Olifant Mk2 but with more armour, a smaller profile, and a bit less mobility. A lot more suited for big dune-y/hilly maps with long ranges like big Sinai where going hull down is a lot more practical. Also because having a little foldered Chieftain Mk11 with extra thermals would be kinda nice tbh, helps fill in the 9.3 lineup.
Also if the reload buff gets implemented for the Chieftains, I might just say that I won’t need the Mk11 anymore, if it gets implemented that is.
2 Likes
am i the only person who cant use the oliphant, i just find that going hull down simply doesnt work as your turret ring can always be seen and shot at if your shooting back at someone. meaning i always get one shot by rounds that should have hit the composite screens. what i would do for a mk 11 just so that i can spot tanks and then switch it off for more precise aim.
speaking of british tanks. can someone explain why the centurion and chieftain weighs almost as much as a leopard 2?
both because there old and the chieftain because we made the magnificent decision to stick with the multi fuel engine. modern tanks have multiple areas where we have shaved weight off, two of the big factors being the gun and engine. plus the centurion and chieftain are well armoured all round with rha unlike modern mbts.
the chieftains massive weight increase is due to nato wanting to introduce a multi fuel engine to eas supply lines but in true nato fashion (im saying nato but it may have just been for England, america and Germany. i cant remember) everyone backed out apart from us. this caused the original design of 40 tons not being possible as the changes to the engine and cooling system caused the weight of the tank to sky rocket due to the larger room needed to accommodate all of this.
in the end we were stuck with a tank with the same amount or on average less horse power than the centurion with more weight. not to mention we gave the engine contract to Leland of all people…
6 Likes
no no, NATO wanted everyone to have Multifuel engines because the fear was in the event of a war, it’d be a pain in the backside to find one fuel or another.
Trouble was that basically no one else in NATO stuck to this requirement and so we got stitched up. And to make it worse we refused to change it. 30% Serviceability for the win.
1 Like
I hope they fix this some day.
I wouldn’t say fix, but re balance. The mk 5 should get a lrf, the mk 10 should become a mk 11 (or better yet, add a mk 11 separately) and give it thermals. The reload should be buffed like on the challengers, just without the stupid 5 round ready rack which has been shown to be wrong. Oh, and maybe un fck sabots finally so i stop shattering on 20mm of steal due to it being at a 45 degree angle.
9 Likes
So basically fixed.