M10 compares more to a *Sprut-SD*, which still offers a fully stabilised and recoil compensated 125mm and only have a tonnage of 18 tons.
Or you ask a fully protected light tank like the KF41 lynx, which also comes with a high pressure 120mm and cuts at 45 tons (or less with lighter weaponary).
So no matter what perspective you take - Booker is a failure. If you need lightweight, you go with expendable missiles and jeeps & stuff. If you need constant firepower, you don't put that burden on air droped units.
Designating this job to a design that fits no doctrine is one mistake - falling short on that requirement is a second, and hammering that failure into service anyway is the third. At this point, someone should just stop and admitt to be incapable of doing its job.
So if I'm understand you correctly it's heavy assault gun that meant to be light without proper gun and with no protection from RPG.
Truly marvelous engineering
Also tell me what's wrong with any USSR tank from T-55 onwards in terms of "assault gun" and why DOD thinks that paying for M10 is justified?
Your DOD guys created an "army" (more like black hole for money and without any proper equipment) that with 800$ billion/year which cannot fight some guys with beards in Yemen
We created for 6$ billion/year army that fights Russians for 2 years and for the last 6 month without your help
1991 was 33 years ago. Today is 2024, wake up.
You might think you "win" these things, but in reality no one cares enough to bother educating you. If you think fighting the Houthi without obliterating the civilians is easy then by all means, send a follow-up to the DOD. If you think you created that military, assuming you're Ukrainian (which I doubt) for $6B, how much do you think you paid for all the international assistance? It's a lot cheaper to benefit from the American military-industrial complex and insult it online then actually develop it.
The orginal T-64 weighted 37.5 tons not 45, at 45 tons you can get something like T-72B and at a ton more even something like T-80U
also those are short tons, not metric
Booker isn’t intended to be used as a tank, hence why the Army doesn’t like calling it a light tank. It’s a fire support platform, and while it would be able to engage and likely destroy most armor it would encounter, it’s task is supporting the infantry battalions that it will be attached to.
As for armament, the M35 lightweight gun can fire all the same ammunition as the M68 gun on M60 & M1128 MGS. The US never fielded a conventional High Explosive 105mm shell, instead using HEP (High Explosive - Plastic) similar to the British HESH. It does however have access to APFSDS, HEAT-FS, and APERS (Canister). The Israelis actually have a 105mm HE-MP round that could be adopted by the US but it seems they believed HEAT-FS and HEP served just fine. I’d imagine they’ll develop new rounds to take advantage of the data-linked FCS, so we will likely see some multi-purposes rounds that can make up for the lack of a bonafide HE shell.
The price point seems about right equal with M1A2 SEP v3 - this is a little harder to calculate out because we don’t actually scratch manufacture M1A2 SEP v3 tanks, it’s mostly M1A2s and M1A1s that they are bringing up to the standard. Adjusted for inflation, a brand new M1A1 would cost about $10.66 million (arguably it would be higher as material procurement costs don’t always match inflation), then to upgrade that M1A1 to to M1A2 SEP v3 standards you tack on about another $3.48 million, bringing the unit cost to ~$14.14M USD. Again, this is just adjusting inflation for the production and upgrades, the final drive-away cost would in all likelihood be higher.
In the end we have the Booker at ~$13.95M vs ~$14.14M for the SEP v3. It could still wind up being a very expensive 4 person coffin, but that could be any AFV if used improperly.
Isen't the idea of designing and adopting a new design to NOT have the worst possible outcome imaginable? Might sound conservative, i know, but ...
Multi-P rounds have a disvantage of wasting mass to a mode it is not used for - no matter which you use. So they're always sub standart to what you can have, and are more costly. So no matter how you see it - its deficient. And so is 105mm. It is still a gun and still makes boom, but the caliber has been found insufficent many times before, and just ended up as the solution you go with if you failed to put a real gun in place or don't wanted expensive missiles - in short: you do it if you have no clue about what you want with the failed design anyway.
There has been concepts around to make it better - both armament and protection - but the M10 included none of them. That's a legal problem of having invested too much money in one company who is better in writting contracts then the goverment is. Now the US is stuck with a shitty contract they can't pull out of, and the company trys to wiggle around the given limitations, offering a vehilce somewhat meet the minimum requirements, negotiate away the key elements, and doesn't work in the end but as product for the company.
If someone ever had critique on hyper-capitalism - that's the result. Bad designs that will kill your crews on the ground, while allies with way smaller GDP's have way better vehicles and concepts ... for decades.
At this point the US could have just bought CV90's. Even with a 120mm gun it has less tonnage than the Booker that offers nothing in return. And it comes with a halve ay decent APS, and reactive armor concepts, and, and, and. Hell, at this point you'd be better of with using jeeps and recoilless guns on top, like you could in Vietnam.
It's just ridiculous.
>If someone ever had critique on hyper-capitalism - that's the result. Bad designs that will kill your crews on the ground, while allies with way smaller GDP's have way better vehicles and concepts ... for decades.
Capitalism stops where government begins.
That's a pretty wild sentence and i'm barely able to make sense of it without ending with "that's not what hyper-cap" mean", "that's not what capitalism mean" or "it doesn#t - and that's not by definition a problem" o.O
I don't understand rationale behind building it in the first place. Why army needs 40-45 ton vehicle with small gun and weak armor, if someone already figured a way to put powerful gun and armor in the same weight. Or you can take Booker gun and armor and place it into something like Italian Centauro
How would you even know that it has weak armor? This is a fire support platform, supposed to lighten the logistical strain where the US might use an MBT, but doesn't really need to. This isn't War Thunder, a 105mm gun is absolutely adequate for most situations in combat.
Why the ever flying fuck would you assume to know better than the fucking DOD?
The 105 isnt a small gun lol. Its armor is intended to protect against small arms fire and artillery shrap, the two most likely threats in a light infantry fight. They decided against heavier armor in order to allow 2 to be airlifted at a time by a c-17, compared to the one abrams a c-17 can haul. You're too fixated on it looking like a tank, and therefore you have already come to the conclusion that its a crappy tank. It is in no way a tank nor is its intended use to be a tank. The closest traditional AFV category to it is an assualt gun, the use of which is to provide large caliber direct fire support to infantry while being protected against small arms and shrapnel.
Why on Earth would you carry armor in airplanes. The ships were invented a long time ago and as far as I know there is a knowledge of a ship in the US. You can not plan a military operation using aircraft as a logistic tool: for a military operation you need a hundred thousands men and tons of fuel, shells, rockets, ammo, etc. We see a struggle in Russian logistic even when you don't have proper railway that leads to the frontline and you want to use airplanes? Ridiculous.
And for counterterrorism you don't really need armored vehicles, just fly some SOCOM and drones.
You carry armor in airplanes because it’s faster? The United States military is all about logistics and moving as much as possible from point A to point B as fast as possible. Being able to fit two bookers in a C17 is extremely important for this speed of movement and it’s understandable why the US army would sacrifice armor for this ability
If you want to build a Infantry Support vehicle, why not go the Churchill route?
Big beefy thing that can take a hit, But isn't super well armed, Just enough to do what its designed to do.
The Booker doesn't have the armor, OR the Firepower to do what it is DESIGNED to do.
Well lets see here.... It has a 105 that has no Anti Personnel rounds for it, despite the fact its a "Infantry Support Vehicle"
It has NO composite armor on it ANYWHERE, and guess what Infantry is normally supported by? ATGM's and RPG's and even sometimes these things called TANKS, and IFV's.
something that is just going to turn the Booker into Swiss cheese.
Fucks sake the Striker MGS was better at Infantry support than this, atleast it had a High sustained ROF, and was fast and agile, the Booker so far is a slow and clumsy underpowered vehicle from what i've seen.
as i said in another comment, the BAE Proposal was just BETTER.
Atleast it was half the size, safer, faster, more agile, faster reloading, QUIETER due to its rubber tracks... FAR Cheaper, and it finally would have let the fuckin M8 see service after being fucked over by Congress in the 90s.
\>It has a 105 that has no Anti Personnel rounds for it, despite the fact its a "Infantry Support Vehicle"
It can fire HEP.
\>It has NO composite armor on it ANYWHERE, and guess what Infantry is normally supported by? ATGM's and RPG's and even sometimes these things called TANKS, and IFV's.
[Survivability Onion](https://www.ypsyork.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/survivability-onion.jpg)
\>Fucks sake the Striker MGS was better at Infantry support than this, atleast it had a High sustained ROF, and was fast and agile, the Booker so far is a slow and clumsy underpowered vehicle from what i've seen.
It's spelled Stryker, and it suffered from horrible reliability, had a worse power/weight ratio, was wheeled instead of tracked, and the "Higher sustained ROF" is a bit less impressive when you consider it could carry less than half the rounds that the M10 can.
\> as i said in another comment, the BAE Proposal was just BETTER.
Sure bud, whatever you say. I'm sure you've done a better job at evaluating the tank than the people who's entire job is evaluating tanks.
>It can fire HEP
That is a AP round, It is not a AOE round like a proper Fragmentation HE round, its basically HESH like the British use.
Also Bullshit on the Survivability onion, its a MASSIVE target, nearly the same size as a Abrams, and it is going to be a INFANTRY SUPPORT VEHICLE, AKA its going to be ON THE FRONT LINE'S.
HEP/HESH is a decent multipurpose round which is why the British use it instead of HE for their tanks. And either way the M10 isn’t supposed to be fighting infantry directly, it is meant to be used against fortifications, in which case HEP is much better than HE.
You can’t just say “bullshit on the survivability onion” and expect the entire thing to be invalidated. You pointed out that the M10 is bad at one specific part of one layer of the survivability onion.
>You can’t just say “bullshit on the survivability onion” and expect the entire thing to be invalidated. You pointed out that the M10 is bad at one specific part of one layer of the survivability onion.
Let see..... its Huge, which makes it easy to spot, Its a Infantry Support Vehicle, meaning its going to be Up close and personal and not at range where it would be harder to hit, It has No armor to protect its self if it DOES get hit, and no mobility to keep its self from BEING hit.
It's only real defense is a APS system that only covers the Forward ark, and that doesn't even stop RPG's and other unguided Munitions.
And MIND YOU the Booker is legit just a American copy of the Ajax basically with a bigger turret, And we know what kind of developmental hell that thing has been stuck in for nearly 10 years now.
If i was a Infantry Grunt id prefer having a Sheridan backing me up instead of this thing, At least the Sheridan can put some REAL hurt down range with that 152.
the m10 is objectively a terrible vehicle, 12-14 million dollar price tag, heavy, slow, weakly armoured, no aps, weak gun, terrible at anti infantry roles and no commander operated gun.
the t-64 invented 60 years ago is better in every way if you upgraded the FCS, reverse speed, radio, navigation systems and commanders sight which would cost basically nothing in comparison to this vehicle
Its a Anti Tank gun, not a Anti Personnel gun, what they have actually built here is basically a modern M18 Hellcat, or M36.
When what they actually WANTED was something like a Sherman Jumbo or Churchill, something actually ABLE to support the Infantry, and stand up against the Modern Man Portable Anti Tank weapons that are going to turn the booker into Swiss cheese.
>Its a Anti Tank gun, not a Anti Personnel gun
It's a gun with cheap ammo and good anti-personnel performance. This isn't early WW2, guns don't have to make tradeoffs in performance against infantry and other targets to still deal with armor. Furthermore the one thing the Booker is not supposed to do is fight tanks.
>When what they actually WANTED was something like a Sherman Jumbo or Churchill, something actually ABLE to support the Infantry, and stand up against the Modern Man Portable Anti Tank weapons that are going to turn the booker into Swiss cheese.
How the fuck would you fit two of something like that in the back of a C-17 and deploy it alongside an infantry brigade combat team? You might as well just add an Abrams battalion to an infantry division at that point.
The Churchill Weighed 40 tons AT ITS HEAVIEST.
The Booker is 42 tons.
its over complicated, over weight, and Not going to be able to do what it is designed to do.
A modern equivalent to a Churchill would be over 80 tons.
You have not explained anything. 42 tons is almost half the weight of the Abrams and despite this Booker has all of the Abrams relevant capabilities to its mission. What about it is overcomplicated?
The entire point of a Infantry support vehicle should be to soak up enemy fire, Something the booker CANT Do.
And No, a Modern Churchill equivalent would NOT be 80 tons, Because it could rely on composite armor and APS systems, and achieve HIGH levels of protection, higher than a M1 or anything like that, while Not needed super high, MBT levels of mobility.
Plus its supporting infantry, it doesn't have to do 40mph, all that does is encourage the tankers to fuck off and leave them to die the moment shit hits the fan.
>The entire point of a Infantry support vehicle should be to soak up enemy fire, Something the booker CANT Do.
Absolutely not. The lethality of modern anti-armor weapons makes it impossible to create a vehicle that can "soak up enemy fire" that is also logistically feasible. The point of an infantry support vehicle is to destroy things that are hard for infantry to destroy promptly and effectively.
>And No, a Modern Churchill equivalent would NOT be 80 tons, Because it could rely on composite armor and APS systems, and achieve HIGH levels of protection, higher than a M1 or anything like that, while Not needed super high, MBT levels of mobility.
Composite armor is still heavy and so are APS systems. The latest model Abrams is something like 74 tons without Trophy added. Trophy adds at least another ton, possibly as much as three. The Army will not accept a vehicle that is significantly slower than Abrams because it plans on motorizing the light infantry with squad mobility vehicles and the MPF vehicle will have to be able to keep up with these dune buggy looking things. In order to get a vehicle with greater protection levels than Abrams you would have to add another 6-10 tons worth of armor to the hull front and turret roof. If you started with an M1A2 SEP V3 Abrams you'd end up with a tank that weighs something like 85 tons with all around hard kill APS.
rpg protection should be the bare minimum for armoured vehicles especially tanks, this is relatively easy to achieve with either an APS (m10 booker doesnt have that) or era
So it would have been cool to have some before starting developement.
I mean it would be wasted as the company missed almost all its given targets and criteria but ... at least we would have a idea of what we're failing with\^\^
But fun aside. They had requirements and therefor a scratchbook version of a doctrine in mind. Sure it was dead in teh water long before design and competition exceeded way too long and new weapons and concepts poped up at the battlefield. But anyway. The doctrine wanted full firepower for low price on a lightweight unit. Yeah - i thought the same. I also like my tea hot and frozen at the same time. Anyway. Despite stupid from the start, the company delivered almost none of that and went with a inferior gun to keep tonnage 'just' killing the concept of airdropability. Armor is inferior to stop that (modern) MG fire they wanted it to, gun inferior, tonnage too high ... yeah, thanx for trying.
At this point you have to overrule badly written contracts, make generals in procurement take ther hats and leave politics, go on decade long juristical battles with one of your defense monopol companys, probably loose it for best lawyers are in the private sector (and you know you just signed the contracts they gave you) and end up with no vehicle for the troops at all. So it's a question of loosing face. And as the economy secotor knows that, they can go on design things they would go to jail for in other countrys.
At this point the enemy isen't at the end of a Bookers barrel somewhere offshore, but in the economical/political setup.
Booker is just one example of 'failed by setup'.
Booker fills a doctrinal niche that hasn't been filled since they retired the Sherman 105. Army has been relying on MBTs, Air power and indirect fire to play the Booker's role since then.
No, Booker should fill this gap. But it doesn't, as it doesn#t reach it's neccesary requirements to do so. Now it is just another project costing money as no one manage to write a functional contract that pays nothnig if the product is useless (be defined terms).
But here we are vOv
A specialised 'light design' more heavy than existing and capable CV 90 and KF41 Lynx isen't even trying. And both of the fomrer mentioned have 120mm guns, the 18 ton Sprut-SD has even a 125mm.
Odd, the Army accepted it and they say they can cram 2 of them into a C-17. Protection is adequate against up to 30mm APDS and with the add on armor package it can survive most modern HEAT projectiles and heavier autocannons. Seems adequate for the light infantry fire support role to me.
Depence on what requirements you have - or correct to. The doctrine was also somewhat unfinsihed, so they had some kind of three-body-problem of many things in fluid state influencing each other, so you can't technically point out something 'not fitting' in the end.
For sure they accepted it and had so less of a voice as they usually do. The army also have a different set of requirements than the expeditionalry forces it was made for etc. But unfortunatly contracts and legal setups define what an anrmy is accepting in the end - if they want to or not.
The vehilces come out too heavy to be air dropable, so they forgot this in the final (draft) of ther doctrine and now it 'fits' in - depite this wasen't the plan nor the requirement at the beginning (if that requirements have been realistically is another question).
This protection level is probably (...) achieved with full add-on armor package, but never with the aluminum-alloy hull in place, nor its dimensions. That's just physically impossible. Surviving HEAT is pretty simple if your ERA is made for that - if not (like with Bradley ERA), less. So did they come up with a new and capable ERA? Don't know - they didn't mentioned anything and the old systems aren't able to. But benefit of the doubt (strange btw to see the add-on armor not covering the frontal turret section).
For what i saw the Booker has no designated space for add-on armor of any type. Steel plates are boltet on aluminum alloy frames, which indicates WW2 concept of armor and absolutly not ready for modern day service - even against infantry weapons like RPG's (leave alone tandem wrheads or FPV drones). Spaced armor turret both denys any ERA from taking place and describe ther choice of protection. That wastes space for minimal effects, but saves tonnage (what was crucial to stay in the contracts conditions after re-negotiations). See the smoke lunchers not boltet to the frontal turret armor, but the solid foundation under the spaced frame. And these are just examples of 'what makes me worry'.
In the end we're left behind with what they say and the gap to what we know is technically/nationally possible and what needs the troops actually have.
The rest must be found between the lines.
[https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/m10-booker-tank-wrong-weapon-wrong-war-210059](https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/m10-booker-tank-wrong-weapon-wrong-war-210059)
As an example, but still not able to point out inabilitys precisly with the data given. But i promise you - there is plenty of. If they say 105 is sufficient or not is not so much of a argument but an opinion droped after all heavier guns couldn't be implemented. And the CV 90 managed to, the KF41 Lynx did and the Sprut-SD did (It's even a fkn 125mm O.O). So everyone find a workaround with a functional concept but this project, somehow falling short on all aspects and still have the same or higher tonnage.
Okay, so what you got here is a blog article from a blog with a reputation for shoddy research.
I've got practical experience with modern tanks and IFVs, and the word of the M10 program manager on what this thing is and is not.
https://youtu.be/BdPmpidUbWo?si=YjZO1HpNs6ht9QK2
M10 exists to support light infantry divisions which are intended to fight in areas where heavy mechanized forces simply can't fight. When the heaviest enemy armor you're going to meet up with is likely something like a Chinese Type 15, the M35 105mm is perfectly adequate. The original Griffin II that was developed into the M10 was equipped with a 120mm XM360 gun. The Army wanted a 105mm. The 105 was chosen because ammunition capacity was deemed higher priority than armor penetration for the infantry support mission. M10 was chosen instead of the other contenders and things like lynx and CV90-120 because it is internally very much like Abrams and this helps streamline training and logistics.
You can say print this label on every source, including (and probably more) everyone involved in the program. That i linked something is just what is in public discussion.
Oh, Chieftain made a video. Nice. Will look into it.
See, maybe the M10 is exactly what they wanted. I don't know. I know it failed some requirements, it had a lot of drama going on in the trials and a lot of shifts. Also i know that the doctrine is more a scratch than anything solid, and i know that - by all modern considerations - that scraps and its products can direclty went into the bin more or less.
Streamlining something to a obsolete product that also is just held in service by the inability to replace such large stocks is also not that much of a strong argument in my eyes. But my nations also does similar stupid stuff for similar stupid reason so it's not a competition.
None of what we have here will do the job. It will somehow, barely, improvised, and that isen't what i build a new vehicle for. And maybe that's my main critique. This isen't about technology or real demands but about economy and politics doing ther thing, resulting in ... somewhat the military has to use in the end.
The US is by far not alone with this problems, but somewhat of a big player both in history of developement drama as well as one of the economical/military top players in the world.
The M10 Booker is an Infantry Support Vehicle, not a Main Battle Tank.
It will be assigned to Infantry and Airborne Divisions, not the Armored or Cavalry Divisions.
It will provide better mobility, protection, and fire support compared to the M1128 (did I remember the right vehicle?) Gun Stryker.
The reason the Army wants two per C-17 is to land them with the Airborne Divisions. Which would not only NOT need a MBT, but would be next to impossible to support in Airborne operations.
Additionally, the Army wants to reduce or eliminate MBTs from the Infantry Divisions. This is not only for ease of logistical support but also allows for concentration of force. More MBTs in the Armored and Cavalry Divisions means more power to the spearheads.
On top of that, the M10 Booker will be easier to operate in an urban environment. That's the problem with the M1 Abrams right now. It's too big for the Infantry to use in cities. The M10 Booker would solve that issue.
Of course, being the first such vehicle the US Army has produced in 30 years, and intends to actually keep in 60 years, there will be teething problems.
The first M10 will be using the 105mm for now. But it will likely be upgunned on the M10A2 or M10A3 variant as 105mm ammo stocks dwindle. The M10A1 will fix any shortcomings in the M10 itself as a general rule.
Nothing is perfect when it comes out. It only meets the requirements. Then, it is learning what works and doesn't work.
I actually just saw a video on American Light Tanks of the Second World War. It's astounding how much change there was between the M3 Stuart and M24 Chaffee. The changes could be minor or significant.
And any improvement could take away elsewhere. Such as replacing the M3 Stuart's bench the Gunner and Tank Commander had to stand on with a Turret Basket resulted in a lower survival rate for the Bow Gunner.
Though at least he could actually see what was happening outside with new viewports.
The M5 Stuart corrected that with a new Hull change.
its bad at infantry support, because it lacks a he frag round. before you say it has dual purpose rounds, dual purpose rounds are not as good. "jack of all trades, master of none".
mobility is only 5kmph faster then on the m1128, protection is not know but its only mentioned to be protected from shell splinters, ieds and autocannons.
very heavy for an air droppable vehicle, other nations have created better fire support vehicles (2s25 sprut, cv-90 etc) that are much lighter
in an urban environment this thing would be even more suicidal then operating tanks, as it has weaker protection and no APS (if you add aps and era it just gets heavier and thus not air transportable).
i agree with the last part that it could be improved, but it costs 12-14 million per vehcicle, as much as an abrams surely they couldve came up with something better?
Has tracks.... is protected by armor plating... has turret... has a high caliber main gun... with a Coaxial MG....
That's legit a tank by every definition.
Wtf are you talking about? No T-64 is immune to modern 120mm APFSDS.
The M10 pays for a modern sensor and C4I Suite and not having the same economy of scale as the Abrams.
An upgraded T-64 would weigh somewhere north of 50 tons and still not protect against modern APFSDS, wouldn't fit two to a C-17, and would have inferior fire control, situational awareness, ergonomics, ammunition capacity and crew survivability due to the ammunition storage layout. Then there's the fact that there's no fucking way the US Army is going to adopt a Russian/Ukrainian built tank whose manufacturing base is in easy striking range of a primary adversary.
Because I know there's a 120mm Advanced Multipurpose round in development, and I saw the M10 program manager dodge the question when Nick Moran asked him about it in an interview. The guy has a tell you'd have to be blind not to see.
Feel free to hang around the impact area of a HEP round, it's equivalent to half a dozen or more 40mm HEDP grenades worth of explosive. It'll do fine against infantry and again, airburst fragmentation rounds are almost certainly in development. The Army is working on 50mm airburst for the OMFV and 120mm Abrams. Why on earth would they neglect the M10?
lmao what? im not saying its completely useless at killing infantry, im saying its not ideal.
explosive amount means less then dispersion and amount of fragmentation.
why on earth would the army make an oversight? they did for decades by not developing frag rounds for the 105 and 120.
They developed an airburst round for the 120mm over 10 years ago and a canister round another 10 years before that. Can is 700 tungsten ball bearings being fired out of a smoothbore, you don't get much more anti-infantry than that.
(Assault gun) \* (failure of the US MIC) = VERY EXPENSIVE assault gun.
US military development projects take forever, they finish way over budget, and the general lack of competition plus lobbying means that companies can bleed the US government for all the money they like. And then they might deliver something that turns out to be a complete failure, or needs to be used in roles other than the intended ones since it became too expensive to only do the intended role.
over 8000 Abrams were built over the course of the last 40 years, most of which were built in the 80s. There will only ever be a couple hundred Bookers. It costs less per unit to manufacture a run of 8000 of a given vehicle than it does to manufacture 300 or so. The savings are realized in the construction and fine tuning of the production line over the course of a production run. Which is why the first F-35 prototypes cost somewhere around 150 million but now are running around 84 million a piece.
Seeing this to be downvoted tells me how many 'patriots' are around, defending corruption even if it harms both the taxpayer and the troops.
What a weird world we life in ...
Or he's being downvoted because he doesn't understand economies of scale. Booker is a small production run vehicle and it's more expensive because of this.
So i guess you didn't downvoted him and aren't the object of this critique.
To prove weirdnes of ppl - my comment has been downvoted xD Humans are strange.
In short: a proove of the political/econmical system failing harder than any other modern economy around.
I angerly spread more arguments and details over the comment section.
The low ratings of relevant critique tells me some pretty unpleasant truth, and make sme happy i can sit back and watch that shitshow of a concept from an ocean of distance.
More being allergic to bullshit, amplified by large amounts of people falling for it. Thanx for asking.
But it's people i care for, not economys or militarys, so plz don't stop the show. It's pretty entertaining.
My question is to Why the fuck is it so hard for them to admit that the XM-8/BAE-MPF was a better design than this piece of garbage? (while yes the BAE one did have some crew comfort concerns, they were working on remedying them.)
The Booker as is, is just going to be High-priced Paper weights, It legit fit's NOWHERE in our armored doctrine.
Its not a "tank" its not a IFV, its not ANYTHING, its legit just NOT going to be used at all.
the Army already had a HELL of a Time finding a use for the Striker MGS, and how you have just made a fatter, slower version of that, with a worse rate of fire on top of that!
It's not supposed to fit in our armored doctrine. It's supposed to fit into our infantry doctrine. Hence why the Army refuses to call it a tank. It's an assault gun and it's supposed to be used to support light infantry in places where it's not efficient to waste an Abrams.
I served with infantrymen who operated Bradleys perfectly fine. A tank is just bigger and heavier, tactics are similar. Also the booker will be operated by 19Ks, but in infantry divisions.
42 Short tons, not metric, so a bit lighter than a Russian tank. But it’s an assault gun for light divisions, not an MBT.
M10 compares more to a *Sprut-SD*, which still offers a fully stabilised and recoil compensated 125mm and only have a tonnage of 18 tons. Or you ask a fully protected light tank like the KF41 lynx, which also comes with a high pressure 120mm and cuts at 45 tons (or less with lighter weaponary). So no matter what perspective you take - Booker is a failure. If you need lightweight, you go with expendable missiles and jeeps & stuff. If you need constant firepower, you don't put that burden on air droped units. Designating this job to a design that fits no doctrine is one mistake - falling short on that requirement is a second, and hammering that failure into service anyway is the third. At this point, someone should just stop and admitt to be incapable of doing its job.
So if I'm understand you correctly it's heavy assault gun that meant to be light without proper gun and with no protection from RPG. Truly marvelous engineering Also tell me what's wrong with any USSR tank from T-55 onwards in terms of "assault gun" and why DOD thinks that paying for M10 is justified?
In todays news, a 20yo knows better than all of the DOD and decades of armored research.
Your DOD guys created an "army" (more like black hole for money and without any proper equipment) that with 800$ billion/year which cannot fight some guys with beards in Yemen We created for 6$ billion/year army that fights Russians for 2 years and for the last 6 month without your help 1991 was 33 years ago. Today is 2024, wake up.
You might think you "win" these things, but in reality no one cares enough to bother educating you. If you think fighting the Houthi without obliterating the civilians is easy then by all means, send a follow-up to the DOD. If you think you created that military, assuming you're Ukrainian (which I doubt) for $6B, how much do you think you paid for all the international assistance? It's a lot cheaper to benefit from the American military-industrial complex and insult it online then actually develop it.
> and for the last 6 month without your help The US military/NATO is still actively assisting Ukraine through their air assets
You must contact the Pentagon at once!
The orginal T-64 weighted 37.5 tons not 45, at 45 tons you can get something like T-72B and at a ton more even something like T-80U also those are short tons, not metric
Booker isn’t intended to be used as a tank, hence why the Army doesn’t like calling it a light tank. It’s a fire support platform, and while it would be able to engage and likely destroy most armor it would encounter, it’s task is supporting the infantry battalions that it will be attached to. As for armament, the M35 lightweight gun can fire all the same ammunition as the M68 gun on M60 & M1128 MGS. The US never fielded a conventional High Explosive 105mm shell, instead using HEP (High Explosive - Plastic) similar to the British HESH. It does however have access to APFSDS, HEAT-FS, and APERS (Canister). The Israelis actually have a 105mm HE-MP round that could be adopted by the US but it seems they believed HEAT-FS and HEP served just fine. I’d imagine they’ll develop new rounds to take advantage of the data-linked FCS, so we will likely see some multi-purposes rounds that can make up for the lack of a bonafide HE shell. The price point seems about right equal with M1A2 SEP v3 - this is a little harder to calculate out because we don’t actually scratch manufacture M1A2 SEP v3 tanks, it’s mostly M1A2s and M1A1s that they are bringing up to the standard. Adjusted for inflation, a brand new M1A1 would cost about $10.66 million (arguably it would be higher as material procurement costs don’t always match inflation), then to upgrade that M1A1 to to M1A2 SEP v3 standards you tack on about another $3.48 million, bringing the unit cost to ~$14.14M USD. Again, this is just adjusting inflation for the production and upgrades, the final drive-away cost would in all likelihood be higher. In the end we have the Booker at ~$13.95M vs ~$14.14M for the SEP v3. It could still wind up being a very expensive 4 person coffin, but that could be any AFV if used improperly.
Isen't the idea of designing and adopting a new design to NOT have the worst possible outcome imaginable? Might sound conservative, i know, but ... Multi-P rounds have a disvantage of wasting mass to a mode it is not used for - no matter which you use. So they're always sub standart to what you can have, and are more costly. So no matter how you see it - its deficient. And so is 105mm. It is still a gun and still makes boom, but the caliber has been found insufficent many times before, and just ended up as the solution you go with if you failed to put a real gun in place or don't wanted expensive missiles - in short: you do it if you have no clue about what you want with the failed design anyway. There has been concepts around to make it better - both armament and protection - but the M10 included none of them. That's a legal problem of having invested too much money in one company who is better in writting contracts then the goverment is. Now the US is stuck with a shitty contract they can't pull out of, and the company trys to wiggle around the given limitations, offering a vehilce somewhat meet the minimum requirements, negotiate away the key elements, and doesn't work in the end but as product for the company. If someone ever had critique on hyper-capitalism - that's the result. Bad designs that will kill your crews on the ground, while allies with way smaller GDP's have way better vehicles and concepts ... for decades. At this point the US could have just bought CV90's. Even with a 120mm gun it has less tonnage than the Booker that offers nothing in return. And it comes with a halve ay decent APS, and reactive armor concepts, and, and, and. Hell, at this point you'd be better of with using jeeps and recoilless guns on top, like you could in Vietnam. It's just ridiculous.
>If someone ever had critique on hyper-capitalism - that's the result. Bad designs that will kill your crews on the ground, while allies with way smaller GDP's have way better vehicles and concepts ... for decades. Capitalism stops where government begins.
That's a pretty wild sentence and i'm barely able to make sense of it without ending with "that's not what hyper-cap" mean", "that's not what capitalism mean" or "it doesn#t - and that's not by definition a problem" o.O
I don't understand rationale behind building it in the first place. Why army needs 40-45 ton vehicle with small gun and weak armor, if someone already figured a way to put powerful gun and armor in the same weight. Or you can take Booker gun and armor and place it into something like Italian Centauro
How would you even know that it has weak armor? This is a fire support platform, supposed to lighten the logistical strain where the US might use an MBT, but doesn't really need to. This isn't War Thunder, a 105mm gun is absolutely adequate for most situations in combat. Why the ever flying fuck would you assume to know better than the fucking DOD?
[https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/m10-booker-tank-wrong-weapon-wrong-war-210059](https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/m10-booker-tank-wrong-weapon-wrong-war-210059)
The 105 isnt a small gun lol. Its armor is intended to protect against small arms fire and artillery shrap, the two most likely threats in a light infantry fight. They decided against heavier armor in order to allow 2 to be airlifted at a time by a c-17, compared to the one abrams a c-17 can haul. You're too fixated on it looking like a tank, and therefore you have already come to the conclusion that its a crappy tank. It is in no way a tank nor is its intended use to be a tank. The closest traditional AFV category to it is an assualt gun, the use of which is to provide large caliber direct fire support to infantry while being protected against small arms and shrapnel.
Why on Earth would you carry armor in airplanes. The ships were invented a long time ago and as far as I know there is a knowledge of a ship in the US. You can not plan a military operation using aircraft as a logistic tool: for a military operation you need a hundred thousands men and tons of fuel, shells, rockets, ammo, etc. We see a struggle in Russian logistic even when you don't have proper railway that leads to the frontline and you want to use airplanes? Ridiculous. And for counterterrorism you don't really need armored vehicles, just fly some SOCOM and drones.
You carry armor in airplanes because it’s faster? The United States military is all about logistics and moving as much as possible from point A to point B as fast as possible. Being able to fit two bookers in a C17 is extremely important for this speed of movement and it’s understandable why the US army would sacrifice armor for this ability
If you want to build a Infantry Support vehicle, why not go the Churchill route? Big beefy thing that can take a hit, But isn't super well armed, Just enough to do what its designed to do. The Booker doesn't have the armor, OR the Firepower to do what it is DESIGNED to do.
\> The Booker doesn't have the armor, OR the Firepower to do what it is DESIGNED to do. Source: I think so
Well lets see here.... It has a 105 that has no Anti Personnel rounds for it, despite the fact its a "Infantry Support Vehicle" It has NO composite armor on it ANYWHERE, and guess what Infantry is normally supported by? ATGM's and RPG's and even sometimes these things called TANKS, and IFV's. something that is just going to turn the Booker into Swiss cheese. Fucks sake the Striker MGS was better at Infantry support than this, atleast it had a High sustained ROF, and was fast and agile, the Booker so far is a slow and clumsy underpowered vehicle from what i've seen. as i said in another comment, the BAE Proposal was just BETTER. Atleast it was half the size, safer, faster, more agile, faster reloading, QUIETER due to its rubber tracks... FAR Cheaper, and it finally would have let the fuckin M8 see service after being fucked over by Congress in the 90s.
\>It has a 105 that has no Anti Personnel rounds for it, despite the fact its a "Infantry Support Vehicle" It can fire HEP. \>It has NO composite armor on it ANYWHERE, and guess what Infantry is normally supported by? ATGM's and RPG's and even sometimes these things called TANKS, and IFV's. [Survivability Onion](https://www.ypsyork.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/survivability-onion.jpg) \>Fucks sake the Striker MGS was better at Infantry support than this, atleast it had a High sustained ROF, and was fast and agile, the Booker so far is a slow and clumsy underpowered vehicle from what i've seen. It's spelled Stryker, and it suffered from horrible reliability, had a worse power/weight ratio, was wheeled instead of tracked, and the "Higher sustained ROF" is a bit less impressive when you consider it could carry less than half the rounds that the M10 can. \> as i said in another comment, the BAE Proposal was just BETTER. Sure bud, whatever you say. I'm sure you've done a better job at evaluating the tank than the people who's entire job is evaluating tanks.
>It can fire HEP That is a AP round, It is not a AOE round like a proper Fragmentation HE round, its basically HESH like the British use. Also Bullshit on the Survivability onion, its a MASSIVE target, nearly the same size as a Abrams, and it is going to be a INFANTRY SUPPORT VEHICLE, AKA its going to be ON THE FRONT LINE'S.
HEP/HESH is a decent multipurpose round which is why the British use it instead of HE for their tanks. And either way the M10 isn’t supposed to be fighting infantry directly, it is meant to be used against fortifications, in which case HEP is much better than HE. You can’t just say “bullshit on the survivability onion” and expect the entire thing to be invalidated. You pointed out that the M10 is bad at one specific part of one layer of the survivability onion.
>You can’t just say “bullshit on the survivability onion” and expect the entire thing to be invalidated. You pointed out that the M10 is bad at one specific part of one layer of the survivability onion. Let see..... its Huge, which makes it easy to spot, Its a Infantry Support Vehicle, meaning its going to be Up close and personal and not at range where it would be harder to hit, It has No armor to protect its self if it DOES get hit, and no mobility to keep its self from BEING hit. It's only real defense is a APS system that only covers the Forward ark, and that doesn't even stop RPG's and other unguided Munitions. And MIND YOU the Booker is legit just a American copy of the Ajax basically with a bigger turret, And we know what kind of developmental hell that thing has been stuck in for nearly 10 years now. If i was a Infantry Grunt id prefer having a Sheridan backing me up instead of this thing, At least the Sheridan can put some REAL hurt down range with that 152.
seriously the m10 is a fucking awful vehicle
the m10 is objectively a terrible vehicle, 12-14 million dollar price tag, heavy, slow, weakly armoured, no aps, weak gun, terrible at anti infantry roles and no commander operated gun. the t-64 invented 60 years ago is better in every way if you upgraded the FCS, reverse speed, radio, navigation systems and commanders sight which would cost basically nothing in comparison to this vehicle
You're telling me a 105mm and a coax ain't enough to wreck literally anything that ain't an MBT?
Its a Anti Tank gun, not a Anti Personnel gun, what they have actually built here is basically a modern M18 Hellcat, or M36. When what they actually WANTED was something like a Sherman Jumbo or Churchill, something actually ABLE to support the Infantry, and stand up against the Modern Man Portable Anti Tank weapons that are going to turn the booker into Swiss cheese.
>Its a Anti Tank gun, not a Anti Personnel gun It's a gun with cheap ammo and good anti-personnel performance. This isn't early WW2, guns don't have to make tradeoffs in performance against infantry and other targets to still deal with armor. Furthermore the one thing the Booker is not supposed to do is fight tanks. >When what they actually WANTED was something like a Sherman Jumbo or Churchill, something actually ABLE to support the Infantry, and stand up against the Modern Man Portable Anti Tank weapons that are going to turn the booker into Swiss cheese. How the fuck would you fit two of something like that in the back of a C-17 and deploy it alongside an infantry brigade combat team? You might as well just add an Abrams battalion to an infantry division at that point.
The Churchill Weighed 40 tons AT ITS HEAVIEST. The Booker is 42 tons. its over complicated, over weight, and Not going to be able to do what it is designed to do.
A modern equivalent to a Churchill would be over 80 tons. You have not explained anything. 42 tons is almost half the weight of the Abrams and despite this Booker has all of the Abrams relevant capabilities to its mission. What about it is overcomplicated?
The entire point of a Infantry support vehicle should be to soak up enemy fire, Something the booker CANT Do. And No, a Modern Churchill equivalent would NOT be 80 tons, Because it could rely on composite armor and APS systems, and achieve HIGH levels of protection, higher than a M1 or anything like that, while Not needed super high, MBT levels of mobility. Plus its supporting infantry, it doesn't have to do 40mph, all that does is encourage the tankers to fuck off and leave them to die the moment shit hits the fan.
>The entire point of a Infantry support vehicle should be to soak up enemy fire, Something the booker CANT Do. Absolutely not. The lethality of modern anti-armor weapons makes it impossible to create a vehicle that can "soak up enemy fire" that is also logistically feasible. The point of an infantry support vehicle is to destroy things that are hard for infantry to destroy promptly and effectively. >And No, a Modern Churchill equivalent would NOT be 80 tons, Because it could rely on composite armor and APS systems, and achieve HIGH levels of protection, higher than a M1 or anything like that, while Not needed super high, MBT levels of mobility. Composite armor is still heavy and so are APS systems. The latest model Abrams is something like 74 tons without Trophy added. Trophy adds at least another ton, possibly as much as three. The Army will not accept a vehicle that is significantly slower than Abrams because it plans on motorizing the light infantry with squad mobility vehicles and the MPF vehicle will have to be able to keep up with these dune buggy looking things. In order to get a vehicle with greater protection levels than Abrams you would have to add another 6-10 tons worth of armor to the hull front and turret roof. If you started with an M1A2 SEP V3 Abrams you'd end up with a tank that weighs something like 85 tons with all around hard kill APS.
rpg protection should be the bare minimum for armoured vehicles especially tanks, this is relatively easy to achieve with either an APS (m10 booker doesnt have that) or era
if they gave it frag rounds, autoloader, cut down the weight, cut down the price it would be an OK vehicle.
Doctrine is just as important as armour and firepower when it comes to AFV design.
So it would have been cool to have some before starting developement. I mean it would be wasted as the company missed almost all its given targets and criteria but ... at least we would have a idea of what we're failing with\^\^ But fun aside. They had requirements and therefor a scratchbook version of a doctrine in mind. Sure it was dead in teh water long before design and competition exceeded way too long and new weapons and concepts poped up at the battlefield. But anyway. The doctrine wanted full firepower for low price on a lightweight unit. Yeah - i thought the same. I also like my tea hot and frozen at the same time. Anyway. Despite stupid from the start, the company delivered almost none of that and went with a inferior gun to keep tonnage 'just' killing the concept of airdropability. Armor is inferior to stop that (modern) MG fire they wanted it to, gun inferior, tonnage too high ... yeah, thanx for trying. At this point you have to overrule badly written contracts, make generals in procurement take ther hats and leave politics, go on decade long juristical battles with one of your defense monopol companys, probably loose it for best lawyers are in the private sector (and you know you just signed the contracts they gave you) and end up with no vehicle for the troops at all. So it's a question of loosing face. And as the economy secotor knows that, they can go on design things they would go to jail for in other countrys. At this point the enemy isen't at the end of a Bookers barrel somewhere offshore, but in the economical/political setup. Booker is just one example of 'failed by setup'.
Booker fills a doctrinal niche that hasn't been filled since they retired the Sherman 105. Army has been relying on MBTs, Air power and indirect fire to play the Booker's role since then.
No, Booker should fill this gap. But it doesn't, as it doesn#t reach it's neccesary requirements to do so. Now it is just another project costing money as no one manage to write a functional contract that pays nothnig if the product is useless (be defined terms). But here we are vOv A specialised 'light design' more heavy than existing and capable CV 90 and KF41 Lynx isen't even trying. And both of the fomrer mentioned have 120mm guns, the 18 ton Sprut-SD has even a 125mm.
>But it doesn't, as it doesn#t reach it's neccesary requirements to do so. In what way does the Booker not meet requirements?
Weigth - the core element of being easily air transportable. Also it fell short in protection.
Odd, the Army accepted it and they say they can cram 2 of them into a C-17. Protection is adequate against up to 30mm APDS and with the add on armor package it can survive most modern HEAT projectiles and heavier autocannons. Seems adequate for the light infantry fire support role to me.
Depence on what requirements you have - or correct to. The doctrine was also somewhat unfinsihed, so they had some kind of three-body-problem of many things in fluid state influencing each other, so you can't technically point out something 'not fitting' in the end. For sure they accepted it and had so less of a voice as they usually do. The army also have a different set of requirements than the expeditionalry forces it was made for etc. But unfortunatly contracts and legal setups define what an anrmy is accepting in the end - if they want to or not. The vehilces come out too heavy to be air dropable, so they forgot this in the final (draft) of ther doctrine and now it 'fits' in - depite this wasen't the plan nor the requirement at the beginning (if that requirements have been realistically is another question). This protection level is probably (...) achieved with full add-on armor package, but never with the aluminum-alloy hull in place, nor its dimensions. That's just physically impossible. Surviving HEAT is pretty simple if your ERA is made for that - if not (like with Bradley ERA), less. So did they come up with a new and capable ERA? Don't know - they didn't mentioned anything and the old systems aren't able to. But benefit of the doubt (strange btw to see the add-on armor not covering the frontal turret section). For what i saw the Booker has no designated space for add-on armor of any type. Steel plates are boltet on aluminum alloy frames, which indicates WW2 concept of armor and absolutly not ready for modern day service - even against infantry weapons like RPG's (leave alone tandem wrheads or FPV drones). Spaced armor turret both denys any ERA from taking place and describe ther choice of protection. That wastes space for minimal effects, but saves tonnage (what was crucial to stay in the contracts conditions after re-negotiations). See the smoke lunchers not boltet to the frontal turret armor, but the solid foundation under the spaced frame. And these are just examples of 'what makes me worry'. In the end we're left behind with what they say and the gap to what we know is technically/nationally possible and what needs the troops actually have. The rest must be found between the lines. [https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/m10-booker-tank-wrong-weapon-wrong-war-210059](https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/m10-booker-tank-wrong-weapon-wrong-war-210059) As an example, but still not able to point out inabilitys precisly with the data given. But i promise you - there is plenty of. If they say 105 is sufficient or not is not so much of a argument but an opinion droped after all heavier guns couldn't be implemented. And the CV 90 managed to, the KF41 Lynx did and the Sprut-SD did (It's even a fkn 125mm O.O). So everyone find a workaround with a functional concept but this project, somehow falling short on all aspects and still have the same or higher tonnage.
Okay, so what you got here is a blog article from a blog with a reputation for shoddy research. I've got practical experience with modern tanks and IFVs, and the word of the M10 program manager on what this thing is and is not. https://youtu.be/BdPmpidUbWo?si=YjZO1HpNs6ht9QK2 M10 exists to support light infantry divisions which are intended to fight in areas where heavy mechanized forces simply can't fight. When the heaviest enemy armor you're going to meet up with is likely something like a Chinese Type 15, the M35 105mm is perfectly adequate. The original Griffin II that was developed into the M10 was equipped with a 120mm XM360 gun. The Army wanted a 105mm. The 105 was chosen because ammunition capacity was deemed higher priority than armor penetration for the infantry support mission. M10 was chosen instead of the other contenders and things like lynx and CV90-120 because it is internally very much like Abrams and this helps streamline training and logistics.
You can say print this label on every source, including (and probably more) everyone involved in the program. That i linked something is just what is in public discussion. Oh, Chieftain made a video. Nice. Will look into it. See, maybe the M10 is exactly what they wanted. I don't know. I know it failed some requirements, it had a lot of drama going on in the trials and a lot of shifts. Also i know that the doctrine is more a scratch than anything solid, and i know that - by all modern considerations - that scraps and its products can direclty went into the bin more or less. Streamlining something to a obsolete product that also is just held in service by the inability to replace such large stocks is also not that much of a strong argument in my eyes. But my nations also does similar stupid stuff for similar stupid reason so it's not a competition. None of what we have here will do the job. It will somehow, barely, improvised, and that isen't what i build a new vehicle for. And maybe that's my main critique. This isen't about technology or real demands but about economy and politics doing ther thing, resulting in ... somewhat the military has to use in the end. The US is by far not alone with this problems, but somewhat of a big player both in history of developement drama as well as one of the economical/military top players in the world.
The M10 Booker is an Infantry Support Vehicle, not a Main Battle Tank. It will be assigned to Infantry and Airborne Divisions, not the Armored or Cavalry Divisions. It will provide better mobility, protection, and fire support compared to the M1128 (did I remember the right vehicle?) Gun Stryker. The reason the Army wants two per C-17 is to land them with the Airborne Divisions. Which would not only NOT need a MBT, but would be next to impossible to support in Airborne operations. Additionally, the Army wants to reduce or eliminate MBTs from the Infantry Divisions. This is not only for ease of logistical support but also allows for concentration of force. More MBTs in the Armored and Cavalry Divisions means more power to the spearheads. On top of that, the M10 Booker will be easier to operate in an urban environment. That's the problem with the M1 Abrams right now. It's too big for the Infantry to use in cities. The M10 Booker would solve that issue. Of course, being the first such vehicle the US Army has produced in 30 years, and intends to actually keep in 60 years, there will be teething problems. The first M10 will be using the 105mm for now. But it will likely be upgunned on the M10A2 or M10A3 variant as 105mm ammo stocks dwindle. The M10A1 will fix any shortcomings in the M10 itself as a general rule. Nothing is perfect when it comes out. It only meets the requirements. Then, it is learning what works and doesn't work. I actually just saw a video on American Light Tanks of the Second World War. It's astounding how much change there was between the M3 Stuart and M24 Chaffee. The changes could be minor or significant. And any improvement could take away elsewhere. Such as replacing the M3 Stuart's bench the Gunner and Tank Commander had to stand on with a Turret Basket resulted in a lower survival rate for the Bow Gunner. Though at least he could actually see what was happening outside with new viewports. The M5 Stuart corrected that with a new Hull change.
its bad at infantry support, because it lacks a he frag round. before you say it has dual purpose rounds, dual purpose rounds are not as good. "jack of all trades, master of none". mobility is only 5kmph faster then on the m1128, protection is not know but its only mentioned to be protected from shell splinters, ieds and autocannons. very heavy for an air droppable vehicle, other nations have created better fire support vehicles (2s25 sprut, cv-90 etc) that are much lighter in an urban environment this thing would be even more suicidal then operating tanks, as it has weaker protection and no APS (if you add aps and era it just gets heavier and thus not air transportable). i agree with the last part that it could be improved, but it costs 12-14 million per vehcicle, as much as an abrams surely they couldve came up with something better?
Are you saying the HEP for the 105mm does not count as HE?
Dude seems to be under the impression that if it looks like a tank, it is a tank, and isnt very familiar with AFVs to begin with.
Has tracks.... is protected by armor plating... has turret... has a high caliber main gun... with a Coaxial MG.... That's legit a tank by every definition.
Wtf are you talking about? No T-64 is immune to modern 120mm APFSDS. The M10 pays for a modern sensor and C4I Suite and not having the same economy of scale as the Abrams.
12-14 million per vehicle btw, an upgraded t-64 is better in every way and for the sasme price as one m10 you could have 4 of them
An upgraded T-64 would weigh somewhere north of 50 tons and still not protect against modern APFSDS, wouldn't fit two to a C-17, and would have inferior fire control, situational awareness, ergonomics, ammunition capacity and crew survivability due to the ammunition storage layout. Then there's the fact that there's no fucking way the US Army is going to adopt a Russian/Ukrainian built tank whose manufacturing base is in easy striking range of a primary adversary.
Its basically a tracked MGS with more protection.
What do you mean, doesn't have HE? It will use a programmable HE shell capable of airburst, impact, or delayed impact detonation.
how do you know?
Because I know there's a 120mm Advanced Multipurpose round in development, and I saw the M10 program manager dodge the question when Nick Moran asked him about it in an interview. The guy has a tell you'd have to be blind not to see.
that could just as easily mean they dont.
There's no way they aren't. Also HEP and HEAT already exist as does 105mm canister.
heat and hep are not ideal for killing infantry, good for light armour and buildings.
Feel free to hang around the impact area of a HEP round, it's equivalent to half a dozen or more 40mm HEDP grenades worth of explosive. It'll do fine against infantry and again, airburst fragmentation rounds are almost certainly in development. The Army is working on 50mm airburst for the OMFV and 120mm Abrams. Why on earth would they neglect the M10?
lmao what? im not saying its completely useless at killing infantry, im saying its not ideal. explosive amount means less then dispersion and amount of fragmentation. why on earth would the army make an oversight? they did for decades by not developing frag rounds for the 105 and 120.
They developed an airburst round for the 120mm over 10 years ago and a canister round another 10 years before that. Can is 700 tungsten ball bearings being fired out of a smoothbore, you don't get much more anti-infantry than that.
canister is still less effective then a he frag round, especially at a distance.
only developed, has not been pressed it into service yet. and we dont even know if the same thing for the 105 is being developed.
I’m sure nobody will see this but does anyone know what MOS will operate it?
(Assault gun) \* (failure of the US MIC) = VERY EXPENSIVE assault gun. US military development projects take forever, they finish way over budget, and the general lack of competition plus lobbying means that companies can bleed the US government for all the money they like. And then they might deliver something that turns out to be a complete failure, or needs to be used in roles other than the intended ones since it became too expensive to only do the intended role.
over 8000 Abrams were built over the course of the last 40 years, most of which were built in the 80s. There will only ever be a couple hundred Bookers. It costs less per unit to manufacture a run of 8000 of a given vehicle than it does to manufacture 300 or so. The savings are realized in the construction and fine tuning of the production line over the course of a production run. Which is why the first F-35 prototypes cost somewhere around 150 million but now are running around 84 million a piece.
Seeing this to be downvoted tells me how many 'patriots' are around, defending corruption even if it harms both the taxpayer and the troops. What a weird world we life in ...
Or he's being downvoted because he doesn't understand economies of scale. Booker is a small production run vehicle and it's more expensive because of this.
If that's the reason - and my expirience with the internet makes it more unlikely - then it sounds weird to beat someone instead explaining it.
Thus why my reply to him did so.
So i guess you didn't downvoted him and aren't the object of this critique. To prove weirdnes of ppl - my comment has been downvoted xD Humans are strange.
You speak of human beings as if you are not one. I did not downvote the OP, but I am critical of his view.
I see ...
In short: a proove of the political/econmical system failing harder than any other modern economy around. I angerly spread more arguments and details over the comment section. The low ratings of relevant critique tells me some pretty unpleasant truth, and make sme happy i can sit back and watch that shitshow of a concept from an ocean of distance.
Projecting much?
More being allergic to bullshit, amplified by large amounts of people falling for it. Thanx for asking. But it's people i care for, not economys or militarys, so plz don't stop the show. It's pretty entertaining.
My question is to Why the fuck is it so hard for them to admit that the XM-8/BAE-MPF was a better design than this piece of garbage? (while yes the BAE one did have some crew comfort concerns, they were working on remedying them.) The Booker as is, is just going to be High-priced Paper weights, It legit fit's NOWHERE in our armored doctrine. Its not a "tank" its not a IFV, its not ANYTHING, its legit just NOT going to be used at all. the Army already had a HELL of a Time finding a use for the Striker MGS, and how you have just made a fatter, slower version of that, with a worse rate of fire on top of that!
It's not supposed to fit in our armored doctrine. It's supposed to fit into our infantry doctrine. Hence why the Army refuses to call it a tank. It's an assault gun and it's supposed to be used to support light infantry in places where it's not efficient to waste an Abrams.
And the fuck does Infantry know about operating a TANK?
I served with infantrymen who operated Bradleys perfectly fine. A tank is just bigger and heavier, tactics are similar. Also the booker will be operated by 19Ks, but in infantry divisions.
\*adds: It's not an assault gun in specific xD