Infantry direct fire support, yes. I dont think “light” Part of its formal name.
I mean, it can do that. But so can a BMP-1/2/3, an infrantry guy, M2A2 Bradley, or literally any somewhat ok size artillery piece.
The 152mm on the M551 could kill tanks, its not what it really did, but it did happen once (singular) .
If tanks was its main target, then the 120mm options would be picked (they are afterall plenty available in XC-8 turret or otherwise)
Complaining about M10 Booker is peak processing.
The 105mm was chosen because it has a wider range of ammunition types than 120mm and because its primary mission is not anti-armor, but infantry support, (ie: soft targets) .
At least go read a wiki or something.
Well also for any given volume you can just store more 105mm rounds than what you can with 120mm rounds.
Probably partially the reason why jumping from 120/125mm to 140/152mm isnt exactly being persued very hard.
Of course you would support the m10 booker- lightly armored and lightly armed- easy target for you Russian fellas. You would totally support this tank lol
This is correct, when dropping the bookers off away from supply lines the more it can carry the better.
The turret is similar, the hull is different yes, but different how I wonder?
I do like the ammo, I doubt the cool stuff will be added to it though, they would have to up the BR above Stryker I think. If they did add it- being able to sense someone shooting at us wont help much vs a 120mm sabot.(only against 30mm)
Not ideal. if there were terrorist trying to shoot it with rpg’s maybe.
LOL!
The fact you call USA “Russia” is hilarious bigotry.
I want M10 Booker cause M900 light tank is what I’ve been wanting for my top USA lineup for a while.
America is America, and Americans are Americans.
Not Russia.
We already have a light vehicle with the m900 troll. I bet your name is Vladimir jk lol this was just a joke. Can we please have some humor lol
I’m not trying to be rude, but I’m not sure what you’re getting at honestly. It’s an “assault gun” (label from the army) with a heavily modified ASCOD hull with a custom turret that was designed to be similar to the Abrams for training purposes which means the crew should be spaced out decently and will have blow out panels so it should have decent survivability. Not to mention a forward engine. As I said before, it has solid ammo so it should be able to penetrate most things in-game. Good optics, the acoustic sensor, etc. I think that’s pretty different in a positive way.
I’m asking about hull armor. I could have just said that. So my apologies. I’m curious about the armor layout & design &materials, etc. (DU,ALM,STEEL) this tank may be super well armored because how the heck could this thing weigh 42 tons? That would change my mind.
I would be fine if it’s added, I just don’t see how it would help. That’s all. I would still use it for sure.
It’s not a light tank. Stop saying that. It weighs 42 tons with the same speed as the Abrams. It has no weight advantage.
It’s a light tank for the purposes of War Thunder.
you know the PUMA a IFV weighs around the same
No it’s not. It has no speed advantage which is a requirement for light vehicles/tanks.
I had no clue. That’s interesting.
I just googled this, with the best added puma armor is 43 tons - base is 23 tons.
The booker is 42tons before any armor addition
I believe it’s 42 t base.maybe not though
Gotcha, well hull armor wise I think it’s likely similar to the ASCOD family. Likely composites to deter small arms fire, up to 30mm APFSDS at a range of 500m, +/- 30 degrees on frontal arc (STANAG 4569 Level 6) which means up close this thing is probably a bit better than in-game CV9030FIN (just for comparison purposes). With add on armor, which we don’t know about yet, probably comparable to the 9040C but we’ll see. I haven’t seen anything on DU, it’s highly likely it’s just adaptable composite armor.