Allow me to disagree. TAM 2C does not suffer in 10.0. In fact, I always use it in 10.3. If the 2C had M900 it would be a beast in 10.3.
M900 has no problem fighting 11.0 tanks while M426 does. I usually take the wolfpack to 11.3 and it has no problem defeating opposing armors.
In terms of mobility, perhaps TAM is superior in reverse, otherwise the weight-power ratio is similar.
In terms of protection, it really doesn’t matter. They are not assault tanks. You may be able to withstand a 30mm bullet, but you won’t survive a barrage of them. Not even the Abrams survives the 30mm from the front.
These tanks are snipers and that is where Booker makes the big difference with M900 and better gun depression.
the mobility of the TAM 2C is easy to calculate 23.61 HP per ton and its a very very lowly armored vehicle being prone to 50 cal on the side and easy to overpressure, with a max speed of 76 km/h both foward and reverse meanwhile the M10 booker is much more mobile and depending on its armor configuration at best 28.7 HP per ton and at worst 25.48 HP per ton wich is still higher mobility but worse at top speed, overall the M10 booker is better in every aspect to the TAM2C except the thermals, the best BR i could put the M10 at its at 10.7 but unfortunately it dosent fit any lineup but still i take my TAM2C at 11.7 so maybe people will find good use of it at top tier
I agree and I do apologize. It’s sources conflicting one another 🤦♂️ one of the struggles of new vehicles and finding information on them. It could change to the upgraded engine as it enters a higher rate of production.
Look at YouTube and the info on there. 10 million cost per unit or 13 million cost, man that is 3 million difference lol. One guy says 800BHP another 1000 BHP ,etc etc .
Seems like your info comes not from tank experts but from kids with superior video editing skills lol .No wonder we are all confused.
the thing is that there is confusions because there is the initial package with a 800 hp engine and an upgrade one with 1000 HP wich many sources confuse and end up claiming stuff
Let me word that a bit better. There’s a lot of conflicting info in the initial term, it gets annoying to sort through. With these newer vehicles, it’s just a waiting game until we get more confirmation from the military on what it has or if one of the manufacturers states they’re producing something or changing something which gives the all-tell sign of what it has.
However, I will do my best to keep things cleaned up.
Some big variations there if you look at it. Kind of off topic but I wonder what the Booker is actually for. Too expensive for export apparently and too heavy. No faster that much heavier MBTs.
Supposedly for close infantry support but little in the way of MG .No 50 cal .
A bit “out there” but is this a beast made for America? The forthcoming civil war? Civil defense? National guard? If the Booker does get accepted, I would be interested to see its deployment geography in the United Stats itself.
Who buys them? Who gets them and why? Who is this thing made for?
I do think they’ll likely upgrade to a more powerful engine for that extra power eventually. The U.S. military tends to go the cheapest route at first, realize “wait we need more speed and power for mechanized operations post-airborne landing” and will throw in the new modified engine. Ongoing habit that can be seen with multiple acquisitions.
MTU 8V 199 de 800 HP of Rolls-Royce made in Aiken, South Carolina
At least so far, the Booker program is in its “pre-series” or LRIP (low initial rate production) phase with 96 units that will carry this engine, until 2025.
Serial production is scheduled to begin in 2026. Perhaps there, after the pre-series tests, changing the propulsion plant will be evaluated.
I think all militaries haggle. We have private sector vs Taxpayer in every country in every era, The gun is a potential issue. The need for speed is an issue in game but not in reality.
Doctrine seems to be the thing. This tank is for airborne/ 101st etc close support in urban areas? Named after a guy who bravely died on the roof of his tank but still requires others to do the same? Plenty of questions to ask.
The Booker is not a tank vs tank thing. It is about the infantry we don’t have in WT. Do we even need it in game?
It is a beautiful vehicle. It fits perfectly into the game, as a light tank. They are very fun and increasingly popular. CV90105, M1128 and TAM 2IP are hot sellers.
In addition to the M10, I would like the VT-5 to arrive soon.
All tanks are for fighting infantry
This tanks is made as sometimes you can’t get Abrams where want fast enough so you can send this a its lighter and be tranported easier
I definitely think it should be in-game as it’s going to be a core component of the airborne as well as it does have an anti-armor component not to mention a uniqueness with the acoustic sensor, however in terms of practicality IRL it could go either way. It provides a quick entry “assault gun” (since apparently it’s not a light tank per the Army), to provide both anti-armor and anti-fortification capability for the early steps of a conflict, prior to any arrival of Army mechanized units however, for the amount of development costs and such, the price of the vehicle with its armor capability and vulnerabilities, probably would’ve been more efficient to upgrade the M1128 to withstand the gun a bit better and improve the FCS. The commonality of the Stryker program would’ve saved a lot of money and still provide a similar mission. The M10 needs a drone jamming capability and an APS (which I think they’re going to add the Iron Fist to it) otherwise it’s just a more armored version of the M1128 but highly susceptible to armor penetrating drones or as you stated, ATGM’s in close environments. Could’ve just improved the M1128’s suspension, improved the FCS, integrated the Iron Fist and maybe added a more streamlined composite armor package to significantly increase its capability while maintaining an airborne function…or throw an upgraded gun on the StrykerX concept.
I don’t think this tank is any faster than an Abrams that is my point. It has the same power to weight and is no faster than any MBT. Unlike WW2 or Cold war light tanks which were. That is kind of an in-game issue.
This is a tank which will not have a speed advantage over MBT of the same era.
My knowledge is pure YouTube so by all means come at me with something better if you have it but do you see where I am coming from?
This is not Walker Bulldog vs Tiger scenario, is it? This is heavily armored infantry support vehicle not a tank buster. This tank is not made for fighting other tanks of its era.
