No they are mbts
With paper armor and oversized weakspots…yup.
1 Like
My guy artie has paper armor and doesn’t make it not a mbt
If you think Abrams weakspots are oversized then T-80BVM must be a walking weakspot to you.
It’s not a light tank though, it’s speed is similar an Abrams already, it’s just smaller but gains no speed advantage, 42tons for a “light tank” as some of you have claimed it outrageous. This is literally a “baby Abrams” so they can fit 2 of these bad boys in a c17. I believe it to be better armored with the 42ton weight to HP ratio. That’s my opinion. I hope one day they come out with more info on it.
1 Like
T80’s are for me the easiest to deal with once you understand Russian tanks(in WT) while using Abrams) But the Abrams is by far the easiest to defeat while playing all other nations.
The chassis is based on the ASCOD, which in its base form can only protect against 14.5 AP rounds from HMGs, US of course up armoured it to a degree by mounting additional steel plates, but don’t expect it to be better armoured than most IFVs.
At 38.1 metric tons of weight, it will actually be less armoured than the Puma (that is currently massiely underperforming as well).
The side armour on the M10 is basically non-existent, don’t count on it. The only place that has somewhat proper armour is the turret front, but again don’t expect it to stop any MBT level firepower, it will already be a miracle if it stops 57mm APFSDS from the 2S38.
3 Likes
Here we go again, people claiming something isn’t or doesn’t fulfill the specific roles that a light tank performed cause “it’s too heavy” therefore it has the same armor as the Papa’s and the Mama’s.
M24 Chaffee *Laughing in the background knowing its armor was roughly around the same. For its period.
you dont get it do you?
Well, imo you’re just being petulant and I’m not going to let you goad me into an argument so you can flag me, then get on your alt acct and flag me again leading to a forum ban…sorry.
What’s your source? Reminder: the stanag level +- specified for a vehicle from a customer is used as a baseline requirement.
In which war is the PUMA under performing in?
I think the point is its not a light tank in the way light tanks are viewed or used in the game. Its no faster than a full MBT and has similar power to weight if the current stats are to be believed.
Its never been designed to face off against other tanks without infantry support like it will in the game either so we have a fundamental problem before the thing is even in the game.
Stand by for more cries of Russian bias.
1 Like
Statement from the army recognition website-
“The vehicle incorporates components and systems from the ASCOD armored tracked vehicle platform fully designed and developed by GDELS (General Dynamics European Land Systems). The M10 Booker vehicle is fitted with additional armor panels and under-vehicle protection against improvised explosive devices (IEDs).”
Which portion of this statement specifically states armor values? “Additional armor panels”basically means- they added more armor but they can’t disclose the exact protection values. You assuming it’s total armor protection is nonsense.
1 Like
What war is the M10 Booker struggling in? Exactly none. The Puma IFV is struggling due to poor logistics. Germany has been dealing with this for years and has stated numerous times that they are not prepared for a proper war as of right now. Their underequipped, and poorly trained for an offensive engagement as much of their equipment was modified or designed for a defensive one.
All of Germany’s vehicles suffer from poor logistics yet they have one of the best high tier tanks in the game. You don’t know how good the PUMA is until it sees combat. You’re just making assumptions to fit your narrative. I’m making assumptions based on its weight and size. That’s it. It could be a giant weak POS…… but I highly doubt its armor resembles a light tank.
1 Like
Iran is the logistical and tactical nightmare for NATO I have that one good authority from a former intelligence officer I work for. Maybe its made for a war to come. It might be made for the possibility of major civil unrest in the USA who knows.
It seems too heavy and too expensive for the export market but either way it’s for troop support and to be supported by troops. Seems like a poor warthunder candidate but then so does the M109 on paper.
1 Like
Where the heck did you find this? I’m still amazed at some of your outrageous claims you’re posting on here as if it’s a fact.
1 Like
It’s basic common sense dude, not a narrative. The fact you want to make a half-baked assumption that the M10 magically has protection such as the M1A1 or M1A2 Abrams Tanks already says a lot.
Hell, this entire discussion just keeps going since you want to defend your empty claim. By making simple assumptions.
1 Like
Look at the variation on YouTube in terms of info given.10 million per unit cost or 13 million per unit, that’s a three million difference depending on whose film you watch ,800BHP or 1000 bhp, so much conflicting info.
Looks like these videos are made by kids with superior video editing skills and no military knowledge. If people are using those as info then no wonder we have such debates.
1 Like