VT5 has worse shells(492 pen) compared to m10 booker (530pen) and worse protection.The rest of those two vehicles are nearly identical however VT5 BR is 1.0 higher than m10 booker,which makes no sense.So either VT5 should be downtiered to 10.7 or M10 booker go uptiered to 11.7,or those two vehicles all be placed at a br between 10.7-11.7
22 Likes
VT5 is better in multiple ways, but I do agree that the VT5 should either be fixed or moved to at least 11.0.
4 Likes
i think its more of a case of both should be 11.0/11.3
1 Like
VT5 has acces to ATGM while the M10 Booker only have shells and no ATGM. The VT5 should be 11.3 in the tech tree.
1 Like
I don’t think ATGMs are used extensively in top-tier engagements, except in niche situations (for example, engaging a moving helicopter). Because of that, using ATGM access as a primary justification for assigning a vehicle a battle rating of 11.3 is weak reasoning.
Light tanks such as the 2S25M, which sit 1.7 BR lower, have notably stronger ammunition options—better APFSDS, better ATGMs, and better HEAT-FS—while only giving up a modest amount of armor protection. Additionally, most Soviet/Russian MBTs have access to ATGMs, yet in practice it’s rare to see players rely on them in MBT gameplay.
From a practical performance standpoint, I would rather have an additional ~40 mm of APFSDS penetration—something consistently valuable in typical engagements—than ATGMs that are situational, difficult to employ effectively at top tier, and often not even brought into matches by most players.
18 Likes
It should stay at its BR. Anything lower and it’s not fair.
Entirely correct, atgms are EXTREMELY niche, I always take around 4 of them with the ZTZ-99A and the only moments they see use are when I see a heli hovering carelessly or when I already exhausted my apfsds stock, otherwise it’s easier and more practical to just shoot apfsds or HE
1 Like
no
1 Like
ATGM is not a reason by far, but how versatile a vehicle can be, the high explosive variable time fuse is something else, given that the M10 Booker is a infantry support/armor support vehicle lacks these, at least in-game, VT-5 has much more reasons being at higher battle rating. VT-5 also being lighter has somewhat better engine when you consider power-to-weight ratio which is massive compared to the M10 Booker making it much more faster in terms of acceleration, not so much in top speed. I’m not taking part of the DevServer but the gun handling may be better in the M10 Booker. Although I might say that GP105 (ATGM-Tandem) fit a niche environment but doesn’t stop of being useful against more armored vehicles.
VT5 actually has better gun handling than the M10. Both have around 40°/s horizontal while the VT5 has 20°/s vertical vs the M10 with 10°/s vertical (Both vehicles fully spaded and with an expert crew).
Like overall the better mobility, slightly better survivability, the 5 second autoloader, more versatile firepower and the smaller profile are imo what makes that the VT5 should be a higher BR than the M10. However I think a full 1.0 BR higher is a bit much.
Not sure if this is a hot or cold take, but I actually think that the M10 is mostly fine at 10.7 (although it would still be fine at 11.0), however the VT5 could be moved down to 11.0-11.3 without causeing much trouble.
I personally think VT-5 is a vehicle to master, it’s at battle rating 11.7 in realistic battles and in my opinion is fair, I thank you for clarifying about M10 Booker gun handling, which makes much more sense the battle rating differences, if the mobility in the M10 Booker doesn’t suffer any positive change, I’m afraid that will stay at its current battle rating, a nice tank destroyer in War Thunder’s environment, meaning it should take distances rather than sneaking around enemy lines when compared to VT-5.
1 Like
I agree, the M10 Booker should be 11.7.
Also no tank in the game at these BRs have anywhere close to 400mm of flat armor, they don’t even have 250mm.
1 Like
lmao <20p/w booker
Actually it has ~21.4 P/W ratio since the weight was changed from 42 t to 38,1 t on the dev.
It’s mobility lines up pretty well with the fully kitted out SEPv2 in game. Which isn’t really great for a light tank, but still managable for 10.7-11.0.
Agree with this
1 Like
The main issue of VT-5 is that it should have better armour, otherwise much of its advantage over the booker would be pretty niche considering u are only likely getting anything out of them when u go head on with MBTs which is not where u wanna be with a light tank. VT-5’s advantage is worth 11.3 max, and considering they are on a tank hardly able to utilise them, 11.0 may seem more fitting, but I would much prefer not to let VT-5 see 10.0 tanks so fixing the armour to an extent where it is a bit more kinetic resistant, just enough to at least ignore small calibre apfsds on the turret and much of the hull is fine, then 11.3 would be fully justified. I do agree however it is hard to produce any evidence.
1 Like
Not that good, rather have sabot and laser.
Yeah. It’s kind of odd to point out the atgm as an advantage instead all the actual advantages that the VT5 has over the M10.
I just crewed the VT4 and kinda disappointed because it’s inferior in pretty much everywhere to the WZ1001 but for some reason they are at the same br, now I have developed VT-phobia so if I have to spend eagles to get VT5 or the Oplot, I’ll take the Oplot.
1 Like
At this point giving thailand VT-4 is a massive war crime, forcing them potentially to grind out this before OPLOT will be … cruel at best.
1 Like