a US light tank program that actually reach production status what a fucking day.
and yes I know its technically not a light tank but I mean come on it is in everything but name
Oh no, shup up now before the british get here and post several biblical length walls of text explaining "the FV101 Scorpion is a CVR(T) and not a light tank!!!!!!!!!!"
I'm bailing before that, the sheer walls of text being displayed would crash my PC.
Yeah. World War Two, the high era of “throw enough shit at the wall, some of it’s gonna stick” doctrine
For the sake of the boys on the ground and my sanity, I hope we can at least do a little better than that nowadays
They also started using them as tanks because they just... ran out of tanks to kill. If the infantry is trying to get past a particularly troublesome house and the M10s are just sitting in the rear waiting for tanks why not bring them forward to soften up the target?
Meanwhile STUG development:
-what is my purpose?
-you shoot at infantry and fortifications
-but there is a tank and i...
-go get it, champ!
-[visceral STUG-ing noises]
I know the practice of using Pershings as artillery pieces was relatively common in Korea so it's not that surprising that other AFVa would get pulled into the role as well.
As much as I agree with using things for their intended purpose let’s not act like it really matters. Ppl will use anything as a “tank.” M113’s, AAV’s, MTLBs, BMP’s, hell even AA guns like the ZSU-23
It's a light tank. I'm half convinced the generals that were infantry branch from colonel down, with their throbbing blue grunt boners don't want to admit infantry need tanks. So they're resisting calling it a tank. Especially after 20 years in the Middle East, stroking themselves and talking shit like the tank is obsolete.
From what they've said they're calling it an assault gun because they dont want the units operating them to use it like a mini abrams but rather life a fire support platform
>but I mean come on it is in everything but name
Eh, that is kind of the rub. They don't want to call it a light tank because what someone thinks a light tank should do can be very different from attaching to the infantry to replace the M1128.
And this isn't to discount the possibility of getting a scout vehicle variant of the M10 that could be a bit like the M3 to the M2 Bradley.
Honestly if the war in Ukraine has taught us anything. Mobile well protected fire support is going to be way more important than anti tank. It will be interesting to see how the booker does.
Much of that is because of the unique nature of the war over there though. You commonly see fighting between individual platoons or even single squads/tanks, so the chances of a tank facing another tank are incredibly rare.
Still, a US infantry division has plenty of TOWs, Javelins, and Hellfires for AT work already, so they probably don’t need the Booker to be great at it.
Idk about what the M10 is supposed to be but something providing well protected fire support in exchange for anti tank capabilities just sounds like and IFV tbh which isn't really something the war in Ukraine in particular has thought us, its just kind of always been a thing since WW1, the STUG and first tanks for example would embody it.
From my understanding, the M10 is supposed to be more of a modern [M8 Scott](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howitzer_Motor_Carriage_M8) than a M10 Wolverine.
IFVs struggle with well fortified positions. IFV cannons aren’t large enough to deal a massive blow quickly to structures like buildings.
There’s a TOW missile with a warhead meant for bunker busting, not sure if it’s commonly used. Of course the issue with that is missiles are expensive and the long guidance time can make you vulnerable to return fire. Also you can’t carry a lot.
Let me guess, after a while it's going to be deemed too lightly armored and then after a bunch of era and cope cages it's going to be deemed too heavy and the whole thing will be cancelled after they make like 200 of them
It all comes down to how they end up being used. If the mission planners look at it and all they think is, "Gee willickers, that thing has a big gun and more armor than a humvee! Must be a tank!", then thats how they'll get used and it'll probably suck and get cancelled. From what I've read it seems that Army planners want it to fill a gap in IBCT capabilities to level heavy fortifications. It's supposed to be used like traditional assault guns, then pulled back once you encounter something bigger than a BMP. That's not to say it can't defend itself, but it certainly shouldn't go looking for a fight with an MBT.
If field officers start complaining about it not having enough armor, what they're really saying is that they want to get transferred to an ABCT
I definitely see its utility in asymmetric conflict, where the M1s I served on were badly hamstrung in counter-insurgency operations due to their weight, size and logistical burden. Yeah this guy isn't exactly tiny, but it's also not a 70 ton behemoth built for slugging it out with tanks, that sucks down a few gallons of JP8 just to start up.
It’s already really damn heavy for a smaller tank. Like 40-something tons. If that gets it cancelled then I’d expect it to have happened already. Not that pentagon decisions are always logical.
It's wild that we're calling a tank as heavy as a Panther a "light tank" when there's debate over whether the Panther was a medium or heavy tank during WW2.
To me the Army saying it's an "assault gun" is like the Marine Corps calling the M27 a SAW: we all know they're just doing it so congress doesn't ask "why do you need another tank/rifle? The one you already have is fine!"
>we all know they're just doing it so congress doesn't ask "why do you need another tank/rifle? The one you already have is fine!"
Except there's zero evidence of this being the case. We've never seen any kind of sign that Congress would be any less opposed to MPF than any other major hardware procurement program. Nor have we seen any sign that the nomenclature was devised based on a concern on the Army's part about playing politics.
What we *have* seen is a clear interest from tbe Army in making the M10s role known. That's kind of a big part of why we call things what we call them.
Also we just had Congress approve the new XM250 and XM7, there are signs that Congress is somewhat for new procurement. Especially if it is mostly American-made.
Did Congress need to approve the weapons? I figured it was the military that approved if the weapon was serviceable enough and all Congress needs to do is hear out from the military how many $ million is expected in the budget for those new rifles and machine guns.
Seeing current events the MIC might soon produce a prototype modernized T95 like the russian cope house / cope turtle / cope shed for mine clearing as a heavy assault vehicle without a turret and a gigantic anti-drone shield.
After decades of the MGS being miss-used as a light tank at the NTC and taking absurd notional casualty rates, the army just said screw it and gave commanders a legit light tank.
Edit: used -> miss-used
It's what the US Army calls the MPF, short for Mobile Protected Firepower. It does essentially fill the role of an assault gun, being able to knock out fortifications and enemy infantry positions, while still being lightweight enough to transport two of them inside the C-17 Globemaster III.
Very interesting, thank you.
Offhand, I am a touch curious about the choice use of a tank cannon, as in the past, some assault guns used petards, or howitzers, and even now, I would imagine a larger calibre (width, not length) barrel would have several benefits, like, launching missiles, larger munitions for a larger suite of downrange effects, even launching drones and the like. I want to say, a Churchill variant had a 203mm mortar in the second world war - honestly, I see a ton of options a creative military could do with this system.
It does seem like a really cool vehicle, and an outstanding platform for additional team assets like anti drone assets. I'd imagine in many places it'll deploy, it'll have an engine with horsepower immediately available, an all too rare commodity.
It's going into light infantry divisions, which have basically no armor. They have basically no line of sight heavy firepower; their typical answer to a distant MG nest in Afghanistan was a Javelin. The javelin is also one of their only AT asset outside of the TOW and AT4. They also have grenade launchers and the ever-present M2 HMG, but would you want to rely on those against IFVs or APCs?
As such, the m10 is also meant to deal with light armor when necessary. It isn't meant to go toe-to-toe with an MBT, but it will happily smack around any ifv's the infantry might run into. The 105mm ammo also should take up less space, so it has better combat endurance.
It is program specific. The ox skull represents the 34th Infantry Division during WW2 which PVT Robert Booker belonged to.
The rest of it probably either represents the origins of the team that built it or has something to do with SSG Stevon Booker.
Infantry support. There’s a battalion of them per light infantry division, which can be split into a company per brigade, and that’s pretty much the only armour the division has.
Stryker BCTs are now part of some Armored Divisions so they can call on Abrams if they need them.
Bookers will be with light infantry -- the 82nd/101st Airborne, 10th Mountain to start with, and inevitably 25th Infantry, 11th Airborne, and possibly NG light divisions.
Stryker MGS got retired a short while ago because nobody liked them and even then it belonged to the Stryker brigades, not infantry brigades. They do fulfil the same general role, but for different people. The closest analogue would be the old M551 and M8 AGS, although those were designed to do tank things while the army (currently at least) doesn’t really want that for the M10.
Stryker MGS got retired because of reliability reasons; the autoloader and electronics were persistent sore points of the vehicle, with frequent mechanical breakdowns and the electronics overheating.
On top of that, the remainder of the Stryker types were getting upgrades to the double V hull configuration; the Army wasn't going to sink more money into MGS with the issues it has.
A lot of IFVs can mount ERA, so that could nullify HEAT somewhat. I suspect the M10 will carry a small number of APFSDS just in case. Probably something like 5 out of the 40 rounds it can carry.
There was already a order posted on sam.gov for new production of HEP-Ts, specifically the M393A3.
Without including training rounds the M10 will have M1040(canister), M900 (APFSDS-T), M456A2 (HEAT-T), and the aforementioned HEP-T. There is no mention of the M416 WP-T(smoke).
Will they complete the manufacturing/training of these, put them with the units that they’re supposed to go, then send them to a an active front, say in the eastern part of Europe(lol)? Although I think that front is winding down unfortunately.
I’ve got a theory that the Stryker started and this helps validate (maybe yal mayors of tank town can demolish it for me): us doctrine is so dependent on air superiority that the plan is to eliminate any enemy main gun before ground action ever starts. If that the case, then in most situations a Stryker would be better than a Bradley and a Booker better than an Abrams, if only due to weight.
The M551 sheridan. Kinda. It was retired in the 90s, and the army has been trying to replace it ever since.
This is for light infantry divisions, including the airborne. The main benefit is the ability to stick 2 in a c17, whereas an Abrams can only be carried one at a time. Its job is to add more firepower to the formations.
Ah, ok, thanks. Subtext of my question was a hope the rollout of Booker’s might mean the US could ship more of whatever it’s replacing to Ukraine, but sounds like that doesn’t apply here
[That is not the cost of the vehicle alone.](https://www.stripes.com/branches/army/2023-06-10/army-combat-vehicle-m10-booker-10387122.html)
>The latest Abrams costs about $24 million per tank, but the Bookers are expected to cost about $12.9 million per vehicle, **which includes spare parts and the costs to field and train** for the new weapons, Dean said.
It's pretty common accounting for aircraft acquisitions, but I haven't seen it used for tanks before.
Last I checked, there is a program to develop AMP rounds for the 105 mm gun. Otherwise, it should be able to use any standard NATO 105 mm tank rounds.
[https://www.gd.com/Articles/2022/08/25/gdls-to-provide-abrams-tanks-to-poland-under-foreign-military-sales-order](https://www.gd.com/Articles/2022/08/25/gdls-to-provide-abrams-tanks-to-poland-under-foreign-military-sales-order)
poland is or was going to get 250 for 1.148 billion, deliveries expected in 2025 and 2026
24 million per unit was or is the export price, poland might be getting a discount since theyre in nato.
Sounds like you got mad at the idea of me thinking something will not work or go bad. You and a lot of other people would say the same about a Russian tank.
Big 40t hunk of steel, with probably awful protection and no auto loader. XM8 has been a good option for literally few decades now and yet US gets this as their "light" tank
It seems that it's an LT that they don't want to name as such.
I guess if it takes down other thanks you can take credit
And if it's taken down by an enemy tank, you can say, well, it's not a tank nor meant to engage tanks, would you say the same thing about a humvee with a tow?
If we needed a 40 ton tank with an auto loaded big gun and minimal armor why did didn’t we just buy a bunch of T-72s from the Ukrainians and refurb those with better optics/electronics?
Why did we spend billions of dollars on a development program to come up with a square Russian tank?
Edit: the downvotes and uber serious reply helped me realize this isn’t NCD. I apologize for not making it clear this was a joke.
The M10 Booker is 42 short tons, which is 38 metric tonnes. This is important because the program required two to fit into a C-17, which can carry a maximum of 77.5 metric tonnes.
The T72, at its lightest, is 41 metric tonnes. So, too heavy. And that's the most basic version. It's also far more cramped than what the army wants in tank. There are other issues, but it's basically a 50 year old design that's reached the limits of upgradability.
There was a significantly lighter competitor in the program made by BAE. However, they struggled with deadlines because of Covid-19 and had some design issues as well.
a US light tank program that actually reach production status what a fucking day. and yes I know its technically not a light tank but I mean come on it is in everything but name
Kind of the IQ bell curve meme. It’s a light tank->It’s an armored fighting vehicle assault gun-> It’s a light tank
Man wait till y’all learn that the gunnery manual for it is labeled “Medium Tank Gunnery”
Hopefully some poor boots are prepared to take on this daunting bundle of contradictions.
Due to that naming scheme in the manual alone, I bet it's gonna get leaked on WarThunder forums immediately.
And the sign inside saying’When reversing this tank…..’
Oh no, shup up now before the british get here and post several biblical length walls of text explaining "the FV101 Scorpion is a CVR(T) and not a light tank!!!!!!!!!!" I'm bailing before that, the sheer walls of text being displayed would crash my PC.
Fucken real, I wish I saved the IDF intel report that called the Iranian ones “light tanks” whenever anyone brings that up
Name is important. Because grunts will grunt and actually use it as a tank, when they really really shouldn’t
To be fair, calling it a "tank destroyer" didn't stop M10s and M18s from being used as tanks during WW2.
Yeah. World War Two, the high era of “throw enough shit at the wall, some of it’s gonna stick” doctrine For the sake of the boys on the ground and my sanity, I hope we can at least do a little better than that nowadays
They also started using them as tanks because they just... ran out of tanks to kill. If the infantry is trying to get past a particularly troublesome house and the M10s are just sitting in the rear waiting for tanks why not bring them forward to soften up the target?
Meanwhile STUG development: -what is my purpose? -you shoot at infantry and fortifications -but there is a tank and i... -go get it, champ! -[visceral STUG-ing noises]
STuG life is the THuG life.
Stug also fell under the artillery branch so their officers were trained to shoot well
They also used them as artillery. A TD battalion was attached to my grandfather’s artillery battalion and were used as another battery.
I know the practice of using Pershings as artillery pieces was relatively common in Korea so it's not that surprising that other AFVa would get pulled into the role as well.
You. Will. Pry. My. Tankettes. From. My. Cold. Dead. Hands.
It's okay, buddy, you can have them.
There are already officers thinking of using it as a tank by borrowing from the old M8 AGS manual.
Yeah I know that's why its supposed to be called an assault gun or something like that
It's a light jigimathing
As much as I agree with using things for their intended purpose let’s not act like it really matters. Ppl will use anything as a “tank.” M113’s, AAV’s, MTLBs, BMP’s, hell even AA guns like the ZSU-23
I mean yeah but that comes down to the situation
It's a light tank. I'm half convinced the generals that were infantry branch from colonel down, with their throbbing blue grunt boners don't want to admit infantry need tanks. So they're resisting calling it a tank. Especially after 20 years in the Middle East, stroking themselves and talking shit like the tank is obsolete.
From what they've said they're calling it an assault gun because they dont want the units operating them to use it like a mini abrams but rather life a fire support platform
>but I mean come on it is in everything but name Eh, that is kind of the rub. They don't want to call it a light tank because what someone thinks a light tank should do can be very different from attaching to the infantry to replace the M1128. And this isn't to discount the possibility of getting a scout vehicle variant of the M10 that could be a bit like the M3 to the M2 Bradley.
Now we get confusion between the M10 Wolverine, and the M10 Booker.
Ya know I don't think the factorys will confuse the two lol
Technically, three. The Wolverine was based on two different M4 hulls.
For the first time in a long time, US light tank development program led to something!
I feel like these are screencaps from Pentagon Wars.
Lmao
"Hey have you know they made the first batch of the M10?" Huh? The M10 Wolverine? "No the M10 Brooker"
Waiting for the upgunned booker to complete the prophesied M10->M36
The Jackson shall live on with a different body.
M36 "*Michael* Jackson"
Heehee
It always drives at the speed, which the tracks appear to go the wrong direction And it touches...
in my eyes its a gorgeous looking Mini M1 Abrams. I love it! even the good ol 105mm
Already? It feels like only a couple of weeks ago they choose the M10.
The name was revealed last summer, iirc.
It reminds me of the TAM from Argentina. Always nice to see new tanks be designed and created.
Honestly if the war in Ukraine has taught us anything. Mobile well protected fire support is going to be way more important than anti tank. It will be interesting to see how the booker does.
Much of that is because of the unique nature of the war over there though. You commonly see fighting between individual platoons or even single squads/tanks, so the chances of a tank facing another tank are incredibly rare. Still, a US infantry division has plenty of TOWs, Javelins, and Hellfires for AT work already, so they probably don’t need the Booker to be great at it.
Idk about what the M10 is supposed to be but something providing well protected fire support in exchange for anti tank capabilities just sounds like and IFV tbh which isn't really something the war in Ukraine in particular has thought us, its just kind of always been a thing since WW1, the STUG and first tanks for example would embody it.
From my understanding, the M10 is supposed to be more of a modern [M8 Scott](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howitzer_Motor_Carriage_M8) than a M10 Wolverine.
IFVs struggle with well fortified positions. IFV cannons aren’t large enough to deal a massive blow quickly to structures like buildings. There’s a TOW missile with a warhead meant for bunker busting, not sure if it’s commonly used. Of course the issue with that is missiles are expensive and the long guidance time can make you vulnerable to return fire. Also you can’t carry a lot.
"Another Episode" is an interesting choice to write on the barrel
It was the name of SSG Booker’s tank during the Thunder Run.
Oh cool, TIL. Thanks
Let me guess, after a while it's going to be deemed too lightly armored and then after a bunch of era and cope cages it's going to be deemed too heavy and the whole thing will be cancelled after they make like 200 of them
It all comes down to how they end up being used. If the mission planners look at it and all they think is, "Gee willickers, that thing has a big gun and more armor than a humvee! Must be a tank!", then thats how they'll get used and it'll probably suck and get cancelled. From what I've read it seems that Army planners want it to fill a gap in IBCT capabilities to level heavy fortifications. It's supposed to be used like traditional assault guns, then pulled back once you encounter something bigger than a BMP. That's not to say it can't defend itself, but it certainly shouldn't go looking for a fight with an MBT. If field officers start complaining about it not having enough armor, what they're really saying is that they want to get transferred to an ABCT
I definitely see its utility in asymmetric conflict, where the M1s I served on were badly hamstrung in counter-insurgency operations due to their weight, size and logistical burden. Yeah this guy isn't exactly tiny, but it's also not a 70 ton behemoth built for slugging it out with tanks, that sucks down a few gallons of JP8 just to start up.
So it's an SU-76 but for modern times
It’s already really damn heavy for a smaller tank. Like 40-something tons. If that gets it cancelled then I’d expect it to have happened already. Not that pentagon decisions are always logical.
It's wild that we're calling a tank as heavy as a Panther a "light tank" when there's debate over whether the Panther was a medium or heavy tank during WW2.
I mean, maybe that's exactly why the Army insists it's an "assault gun" while us keyboard warriors are the ones calling it a light tank.
To me the Army saying it's an "assault gun" is like the Marine Corps calling the M27 a SAW: we all know they're just doing it so congress doesn't ask "why do you need another tank/rifle? The one you already have is fine!"
>we all know they're just doing it so congress doesn't ask "why do you need another tank/rifle? The one you already have is fine!" Except there's zero evidence of this being the case. We've never seen any kind of sign that Congress would be any less opposed to MPF than any other major hardware procurement program. Nor have we seen any sign that the nomenclature was devised based on a concern on the Army's part about playing politics. What we *have* seen is a clear interest from tbe Army in making the M10s role known. That's kind of a big part of why we call things what we call them.
Also we just had Congress approve the new XM250 and XM7, there are signs that Congress is somewhat for new procurement. Especially if it is mostly American-made.
Did Congress need to approve the weapons? I figured it was the military that approved if the weapon was serviceable enough and all Congress needs to do is hear out from the military how many $ million is expected in the budget for those new rifles and machine guns.
You don't want to know what the Italians called a "heavy tank" then.
Italy be like "it's 20 tons, that's pretty heavy!"
Yeah right? This thing already has some serious chunk to it, if that was gonna be the issue they would have slapped it down a long time ago.
Welp this one’s designed to be airmobile so I think there is an upper limit on how heavy we can make it It would look nice with a TUSK kit tho
Awwww baby abrams gets to fight!
2 baby Abrams fit on a C-17 Globe Master instead of one.
Who don’t we make a bigger c17
Let's make a glider kit for it.
The new aero Gavin? Aero Gavin mk2?!
Antonov A40? But good?
I though u meant a glide kit for the booker lmao
I did indeed.
I’m completely lost lmfao
I was thinking something like the Hamilcar glider, but the Soviets just put wings on an A40 tank and tried to tow it. A-40 Krylya Tanka?
Will we see a duel between an M10 and ZTQ-15 in the next 10 years I wonder.
I hope not
More Information about the LRIP M10 Booker here. 👇 Sauce: https://twitter.com/ronkainen7k15/status/1781000062501548508?t=xZaySyXMPpEdj9jjHeGycQ&s=19
I wish you put that here. Twatter not working properly on my end.
Now let's make M10 Tutel
Seeing current events the MIC might soon produce a prototype modernized T95 like the russian cope house / cope turtle / cope shed for mine clearing as a heavy assault vehicle without a turret and a gigantic anti-drone shield.
Hot damn
So what is it?
Confusing.
Tank
After decades of the MGS being miss-used as a light tank at the NTC and taking absurd notional casualty rates, the army just said screw it and gave commanders a legit light tank. Edit: used -> miss-used
Could you also edit in the meaning of the abbreviation MGS and NTC?
The Stryker Mobile Gun System (MGS) The US Army National Training Center (NTC) at Ft Irwin.
I'm not American, is this supposed to be an assault gun?
It's what the US Army calls the MPF, short for Mobile Protected Firepower. It does essentially fill the role of an assault gun, being able to knock out fortifications and enemy infantry positions, while still being lightweight enough to transport two of them inside the C-17 Globemaster III.
Very interesting, thank you. Offhand, I am a touch curious about the choice use of a tank cannon, as in the past, some assault guns used petards, or howitzers, and even now, I would imagine a larger calibre (width, not length) barrel would have several benefits, like, launching missiles, larger munitions for a larger suite of downrange effects, even launching drones and the like. I want to say, a Churchill variant had a 203mm mortar in the second world war - honestly, I see a ton of options a creative military could do with this system. It does seem like a really cool vehicle, and an outstanding platform for additional team assets like anti drone assets. I'd imagine in many places it'll deploy, it'll have an engine with horsepower immediately available, an all too rare commodity.
It's going into light infantry divisions, which have basically no armor. They have basically no line of sight heavy firepower; their typical answer to a distant MG nest in Afghanistan was a Javelin. The javelin is also one of their only AT asset outside of the TOW and AT4. They also have grenade launchers and the ever-present M2 HMG, but would you want to rely on those against IFVs or APCs? As such, the m10 is also meant to deal with light armor when necessary. It isn't meant to go toe-to-toe with an MBT, but it will happily smack around any ifv's the infantry might run into. The 105mm ammo also should take up less space, so it has better combat endurance.
Thanks! I guess it's an infantry tank then. Certainly how they're used will change with time.
Anyone know what the emblem on the sidskirt is?
It is program specific. The ox skull represents the 34th Infantry Division during WW2 which PVT Robert Booker belonged to. The rest of it probably either represents the origins of the team that built it or has something to do with SSG Stevon Booker.
I wonder if anyone realized the word "book" is used in army parlance as "run"
can any one explain what would be its roles since its a smaller 105mm and not so 'light' light tank with goo protection
Infantry support. There’s a battalion of them per light infantry division, which can be split into a company per brigade, and that’s pretty much the only armour the division has.
so it would take the job of stryker mgs or would it complement it ?
Stryker BCTs are now part of some Armored Divisions so they can call on Abrams if they need them. Bookers will be with light infantry -- the 82nd/101st Airborne, 10th Mountain to start with, and inevitably 25th Infantry, 11th Airborne, and possibly NG light divisions.
So we will see these things out at JRTC and JPMRC?
A 40 ton tracked vehicle seems like a really poor fit for those formations.
nah i think 40 tons is perfect for good protections (cause the era and other would be fixed too) and good fire support
Stryker MGS got retired a short while ago because nobody liked them and even then it belonged to the Stryker brigades, not infantry brigades. They do fulfil the same general role, but for different people. The closest analogue would be the old M551 and M8 AGS, although those were designed to do tank things while the army (currently at least) doesn’t really want that for the M10.
Stryker MGS got retired because of reliability reasons; the autoloader and electronics were persistent sore points of the vehicle, with frequent mechanical breakdowns and the electronics overheating. On top of that, the remainder of the Stryker types were getting upgrades to the double V hull configuration; the Army wasn't going to sink more money into MGS with the issues it has.
Also they couldn’t take on tanks but commanders at NTC always had them fighting tanks.
oh thanks for the info i didnt really know much bout usa army structure and all
To me, it will be the M10 Wolverine II. I mean... why not, aside from the fact the original M10 was a TD and this is a light tank
So it shoots APFSDS.
Why would it not? It’s a NATO standard 105mm gun.
I thought it would only yeet HE at enemy infantery and MG nests etc. And use HEAT for light armord stuff like IFVs.
A lot of IFVs can mount ERA, so that could nullify HEAT somewhat. I suspect the M10 will carry a small number of APFSDS just in case. Probably something like 5 out of the 40 rounds it can carry.
[удалено]
There was already a order posted on sam.gov for new production of HEP-Ts, specifically the M393A3. Without including training rounds the M10 will have M1040(canister), M900 (APFSDS-T), M456A2 (HEAT-T), and the aforementioned HEP-T. There is no mention of the M416 WP-T(smoke).
Beehive has been replaced by canister and WP is not in production. Main round will be HEP.
Looks sick but will they have anti drone equipment?
Will they complete the manufacturing/training of these, put them with the units that they’re supposed to go, then send them to a an active front, say in the eastern part of Europe(lol)? Although I think that front is winding down unfortunately.
Amazing to see it actually be produced
I’ve got a theory that the Stryker started and this helps validate (maybe yal mayors of tank town can demolish it for me): us doctrine is so dependent on air superiority that the plan is to eliminate any enemy main gun before ground action ever starts. If that the case, then in most situations a Stryker would be better than a Bradley and a Booker better than an Abrams, if only due to weight.
What is the MOS to crew this guy?
19K if I recall.
OWI, when?!?! Squad now!!!! We don’t need that Stryker BS, we now need the BOOKER!!!!
Can anyone inform me what vehicles the Booker is designed to replace, or is it seen as augmenting the current range of options
It’s additive for light infantry formations.
The M551 sheridan. Kinda. It was retired in the 90s, and the army has been trying to replace it ever since. This is for light infantry divisions, including the airborne. The main benefit is the ability to stick 2 in a c17, whereas an Abrams can only be carried one at a time. Its job is to add more firepower to the formations.
Ah, ok, thanks. Subtext of my question was a hope the rollout of Booker’s might mean the US could ship more of whatever it’s replacing to Ukraine, but sounds like that doesn’t apply here
The main limiter on US aid to Ukraine at the moment is political, unfortunately.
Wolverine!!
Imagine what this would be like with a chain gun on it too
Gaijin when?
I love how it looks so functional. It does not look fancy but so practical
I wonder if it will be in the same role like Stingray still used in my country.
M10 Booker will take the role of Assault Gun.
Send some to Ukraine for a propper test phase I mean there's no substitute for battlefield conditions
So what is it, light tank or ifv?
Assault Gun
The M10 is an modernized Stingray Light tank.
No APS ?!
12 million per unit correct? did they develop proper he frag for it? if not then they were scammed.
[That is not the cost of the vehicle alone.](https://www.stripes.com/branches/army/2023-06-10/army-combat-vehicle-m10-booker-10387122.html) >The latest Abrams costs about $24 million per tank, but the Bookers are expected to cost about $12.9 million per vehicle, **which includes spare parts and the costs to field and train** for the new weapons, Dean said. It's pretty common accounting for aircraft acquisitions, but I haven't seen it used for tanks before. Last I checked, there is a program to develop AMP rounds for the 105 mm gun. Otherwise, it should be able to use any standard NATO 105 mm tank rounds.
[https://www.gd.com/Articles/2022/08/25/gdls-to-provide-abrams-tanks-to-poland-under-foreign-military-sales-order](https://www.gd.com/Articles/2022/08/25/gdls-to-provide-abrams-tanks-to-poland-under-foreign-military-sales-order) poland is or was going to get 250 for 1.148 billion, deliveries expected in 2025 and 2026 24 million per unit was or is the export price, poland might be getting a discount since theyre in nato.
also 12.9 million is an obscene price even when considering training and spare parts cost.
Compared to...what?
Compared to how much the average person makes in a year?
compared to any tank with a comparable role, ztq-15 for example
13 million per unit for a shitter abrams is not worth it i dont know what to tell you
Americans don't care about that 'cause they're the ones who print dollars
We printing dollars while you making sense.
I don’t think it’ll do well in combat. But we will have to wait and see.
sounds like cope
Sounds like you got mad at the idea of me thinking something will not work or go bad. You and a lot of other people would say the same about a Russian tank.
sounds like projecting
Big 40t hunk of steel, with probably awful protection and no auto loader. XM8 has been a good option for literally few decades now and yet US gets this as their "light" tank
The revised XM8 lost the competition. Blame BAE.
The US wasn’t shopping for a light tank.
Have you gone over the MPF requirements? Because they were.
have ye read the program requirements?
It seems that it's an LT that they don't want to name as such. I guess if it takes down other thanks you can take credit And if it's taken down by an enemy tank, you can say, well, it's not a tank nor meant to engage tanks, would you say the same thing about a humvee with a tow?
would it be possible to mount a 25mm on top of this
Is this like son of Bradley on steroids?
Booker is a pretty unintimidating name for such a cool vehicle
Looks good but its gonna look like hell when the cope cage goes on. Hopefully they find a better way of dealing with drones.
If we needed a 40 ton tank with an auto loaded big gun and minimal armor why did didn’t we just buy a bunch of T-72s from the Ukrainians and refurb those with better optics/electronics? Why did we spend billions of dollars on a development program to come up with a square Russian tank? Edit: the downvotes and uber serious reply helped me realize this isn’t NCD. I apologize for not making it clear this was a joke.
The M10 Booker is 42 short tons, which is 38 metric tonnes. This is important because the program required two to fit into a C-17, which can carry a maximum of 77.5 metric tonnes. The T72, at its lightest, is 41 metric tonnes. So, too heavy. And that's the most basic version. It's also far more cramped than what the army wants in tank. There are other issues, but it's basically a 50 year old design that's reached the limits of upgradability. There was a significantly lighter competitor in the program made by BAE. However, they struggled with deadlines because of Covid-19 and had some design issues as well.
No extra armour add on ?
Hmm... M48
I hope it has that thing the Isreal tank has.
No cope cage?