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.
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.
Okay great, so now it’s an even more unappealing choice when tanks like the IPM1 and M1A1 exists. The only thing do you get over the IPM1 is better thermals, commander thermals, a slightly better apfsds (along with mp), and the ability to scout. It comes at the cost of being less mobile and significantly less protected, both of which matter a lot more in that BR.
Light tanks are intended to be more mobile than the tanks at it’s BR. That stays true almost all light tanks. So if it’s no more mobile than the rest of the tanks, what purpose does it have?
So what? Not having a light isn’t what makes the US struggle. Again, we don’t need it now because there are much better vehicles that can actually make a difference.
No there isn’t. The M10 Booker is the best light tank USA ever came close to fielding. M900, good turret, plenty of ammo, 800HP for 40ish tons, 50 cal on top, compatibility with smart munitions…
Tanks are not added to War Thunder instead of other tanks, and there is no other light tank USA can get that’s better than M10 Booker.
There are no tracked light tanks more mobile than MBTs of the same BR in the higher BRs.
CV90120 is the most mobile and it’s still slower than MBTs.
Yes there is, US has plenty of vehicles at top tier that can scout, of which the HSTV-L is much better for that. And the IPM1 and M1A1 will fill the role of fire support much much better.
The US needs an MBT to help against the 2A7s and 122s and needs a new spaa.
You’re not listening to what I’m saying. I’m not arguing on whether it will or will not be the best light tank for the US. I’m arguing that it won’t fix a weakness that the US has right now.
