Yes but less production vehicles in the American tree end up in the side section. It’s more likely to end up there now, and probably follow the failed light tank trend now and end up there with the AGS, XM8, and CCVL. Hopefully it ends up being TT, but there’s a greater chance now that it won’t be if you ask me.
T1E1 x2, M6A1, 120S, HSTVL, M4/26, T25, XM800, XM803, MBT-70, XM975, T95E1, XM246, M247, T95, T32, T32E1, T92, T77E1… to name a few off the top of my head.
1 Like
Few of those mentioned are light tanks, and the ratio of non TT ones is greater, that’s my whole point really. Just looking at the precident it means it’s more likely to end up there, but there’s still absolutely a chance yes.
I just posted the precedent…
It’s not like the M10 Booker would have added anything to the US tree if it were added to WT. So it’s fine to come as some random event or premium vehicle.
its basically a more armored stryker that is slower it would sell better than the meteor tho
1 Like
Yeah in game it would likely be too big and slow to be good as a light tank but also too lightly armored to do anything else.
it definitely going to have the same play style as CV90120, but more armored, definitely resist certain auto cannon round and BR around 11.3 like the AGS
I disagree. The CV90120 has actual mobility which is a big reason why it can do what it does. The M10 has mediocre mobility for a light tank where even a lot of MBTs will beat it.
Anything above 11.0 makes it dead on arrival imo. The VT-5 is already a better LT at 11.0
Yes it would… Why lie?
There is no light tank for USA above BR 8.0. It’s only IFVs and auto-lights.
VT5 has a worse round, and worse gun depression.
@Master_Noodle
No it isn’t. The M10 Booker is not a wheeled vehicle.
It’s far more mobile than the Stryker because it’s a light tank.
Literally the mobility of a Leopard 1 which only maybe the Vextra barely matches due to acceleration and turn circle.
There has been nothing but USA hatred this week.
It’s HP/ton is comparable to the T-90A, which is widely considered one of the least mobile MBTs at 11.0-11.3
Mobility is about acceleration in reverse AND forward, as well as traverse rate.
T-90A is not that mobile because of its reverse speed and traverse rate.
All wheeled vehicles lack mobility compared to equally fast or slightly slower tracked vehicles due to having no traverse rate.
And I objected to the claim citing the precident for US prototype light tanks ending up in the side section more often that not.
id say its equal, better on spot manuverability(e.g using neutral steer or better movement all around but worse speed and acceleration)
1 Like
Which is marginal difference and can only get worse for the Stryker when Gaijin gets around to overhauls to transmission and traction.
Stryker can’t traverse nor reverse.
Its lack of gun depression makes it difficult to use on larger maps as well.
And the T-90A forward mobility is also nothing special and below average.
The M10 Booker, if added to the US 11.3 lineup, will be slower than any of the MBTs. Hell I think even the SEPv2 will beat it in mobility, which is the slowest Abrams in game.
Light tanks don’t need to be faster than MBTs, in-fact there are no tanks that are faster than MBTs in-game and there really never will be.
The fastest tanks in-game are an auto-light and a case-mate, and the case-mate’s an event vehicle.
Alright. Who was it.
1 Like
You do realize HP/Ton determines it’s acceleration. While I agree that it will be overall more mobile (because of it’s transmission) than a T-90A, it will not be more mobile than a abrams.
It’ll probably either be 10.3 or 10.7 and there’s already plenty of tanks at that at the 10.0-10.7 range that could do the same thing as the Booker.
We don’t need Booker because it doesn’t fill out a gap that the US desperately needs filled. It’s a vehicle that I could see in a minor update but not in a major one as it’s not needed.
That’s funny because I could’ve swore you made an argument that mobility matters when in the context of the HSTVL
Maybe… Just maybe… No one wants to see a vehicle that will only pad out a TT. We would rather like to see time spent on implementing vehicles/systems that will get rid of weaknesses that the US has right now.
2 Likes
Thanks for agreeing with me about HP/ton. Of course I never mentioned forward acceleration, that was others.
I mentioned mobility, which is rear and forward speed & acceleration, as well as traverse rate.
It’d be 11.0 most likely because it has Leopard 1 mobility with M900 as a light tank classification for War Thunder.
It’s very much needed.
As I said previously:
HSTVL’s mobility is why it’s arguably the best light vehicle in the game, if it was as-mobile as CV90120 it’d be worse than the CV90120 by far.
USA has NO LIGHT TANK ABOVE BR 8.0!
M10 Booker pads nothing out, it’s a wholly unique light tank that would fill a hole that’s been there for 3+ years.
USA’s highest BR light tank:
The rest are wheeled armored fighting vehicles or autocannon tanks.
Wheeled is situational, and given the opportunity one always chooses tracked of even similar mobility over a wheeled vehicle, especially wheeled vehicles with only 5 degrees of gun depression.
And yes, while HSTVL is great, it’s great because of its mobility not because of its anti-tank gun.
You give the 2S38 the HSTVL’s gun and it’s still 11.0 maximum.