is it? my bad then, i must’ve never noticed it there
this is sarcasm right
Just Alvis’s usual contrarianism, access to better rounds, better suspension, mobility, profile, and secondary weapons apparently means the same BR
9 Likes
The AMX-13 is inherently worse than the EBR 1954 because of its horrible reverse vs. godlike.
Since the EBR was moved up while not having the APCBC, it probably means that next time the EBR is going to 7.3.
Then again it’s just that effective.
It runs circles around WW2 vehicles and has that super fast turret traverse speed.
1 Like
don’t mind me i’m just doing a little experiment
Point is, yes, those tanks can work at 10.0, but are they really worth 10.0 ? I don’t think anyone would argue that’s the case
2 Likes
Do you mean the one with 200mm pen solid AP round? Honestly, that thing is goated.
Truly this is a sign of French technological supremacy
1 Like
Give it time
Don’t forget 3 mgs, which includes a 50 cal.
1 Like
The AMX-13 in 7.0 is an insult.
4 Likes
should be 2 50cal actually
Still can’t believe the AMX-13 (regular - not SS.11) is 6.7/7.0
Ruins the early Israel lineup - who wants to uptier the m51 that much in order to use them together?
Weak mg, meh reverse, barely faster than a T44, solid shot (but NOT apds), no heat, no stab, 3 crew
Only thing it has going for it is auto-loader, which only comes into play if it’s not killed on first hit.
You could make a case the m18 at 5.3/6.0 can perform better a a light tank.
1 Like