As a former US Army Infantryman, my Armor buddies once told me that the term "Crunchies" does not come from when a tank runs an enemy soldier over and their bones break. The "Crunch" sound comes from when the old metal helmets got stuck in the track and kept making the crunch sound as the track moved. Usually a pivot steer would solve the issue. 🙂
This tank is named after two people by the Biden Admin! I am surprised he did not name it after a transexual/transvestite such as the "Corporal Klinger"! Hahaha
enemy soldiers? armor has killed just about more Americans than the enemy the most dangerous place as a ground soldier isn't facing the enemy its moving towards a friendly armor column
I happened to serve with Ssg Booker, the man for whom the M10 was named. I will never forget the unfortunate day my platoon lost him in Iraq during what came to be known as "the thunder run". He was a great tanker, mentor, and human being. Having this tank named after him is a well-deserved honor to his memory. R.I.P. SSG Booker. You will never be forgotten.
Ancient tanker here ... If the booker is going to follow current doctrine, I'd guess you're going to see them used in pairs (that's heavy armor doctrine) for mutual support. Beyond that, the wide open spaces of Ukraine isn't the target environment for light infantry. By doctrine, that's where you use heavy BCTs (ie M1 & M2). In all reality, the M10 is a small step up from a towed direct fire cannon. Its really there to help the crunchies eliminate targets that require more humph than a grenade launcher. Its not design to take on heavy armored vehicle (although historically commanders always seem to want to use that way). I will say that not having it as airdroppable seem to minimize its usefulness doctrinally with forced entry being the 82nd primary reason for existing....
@@johnbaker8512 if you look to Ukraine,russians convoys use a combination of APC,IFV and at least T-72 so what are the chances that M10 will destroy front armor of a MBT T-72 b3,T-80,T-90!The warzone it's impredictable what are the chances to target side armor in a direct confrontation between tanks.
in the current Ukraine war there is relatively little tank on tank combat. Tanks are mainly being used to suppress infantry to clear the way for friendly infantry.
@@craigmoffitt2374 StuG (Sturmgeschütz) means "assault gun", and as the name implies was meant to give infantry a powerful gun for assaulting enemy positions - and since that's _exactly_ what the M10 Booker is for, it is not inaccurate to call the M10 "a StuG"!
@@tankeriv you might be forgetting that is statement is assuming the factory that built that T-72 did it right, and didn't pull a T-34 moment, where they had varying degrees of quality (much of which not being good).
I too I was a crewman on the M551A1 Sheridan with 82nd Airborne. Back in the 80's. 4/68 and 3/73 (Airborne). My tank ran over a guys legs during night time conditions looking for a units OP. Unfortunately he feel asleep and as i ground guided the tank into the area, I didn't see him. Thank god, the sand was soft & he didn't suffer any permeant injury. Except maybe some serious PTSD. Exciting to hear they are bringing this back The 82nd need something like this to draw fire. No, serious... a fast moving, armored vehicle, that looks like a tank, put the fear of god into your enemy.
I've always heard the Sheridan was a rolling nightmare for the crews without offering enough armor to justify how big of a target it was. How different was your experience with the machine compared to claims? Or did the firepower just justify the potential downsides?
As a track vehicle mechanic in the late 70s and early 80s, I was not in love with the Sheridan. It was made out of aluminum and wouldn't stop a 50 cal or better. RPGs would eat its lunch, and they were maintenance hog. It would fire a missle, and conventional rounds, but required major changes to change between rounds. The only advantage was that it was able to be air dropped. Slow and underpowered was the best description I can come up with.
One very significant difference between the War in Ukraine and the wars the US has on the horizon is that Ukraine and Russia are wide open plains where as there is a wide of variety of terrain that the US will be fighting on. While back in WW2 the Russian plains were dominated by Heavy tanks just as they are now, if we look at the Pacific in WW2 we see lots of opportunities for effective use of light tanks. Japanese tanks, even though they were quite weak compared to Allied or German tanks still served a valuable role because of how light and mobile they were. Similiarly if we have a war in the Pacific like we did in WW2 we will want a light tanks that can be deployed on these islands and not get stuck or sink into the mud. It's valuable to learn from Ukraine, but to listen to it at the exclusion of all our historic military experience would be foolish.
Also costs half as much as the M1A2 sep 3. Which means you can deploy it two to one in a defensive posture. Which opens the M1 to be used on the attack or counter attack. The M1A2 sep 3 is too heavy to cross many bridges in Europe. Honestly the M10 has many roles to fill.
I dont see how this vehicle will be useful really in any capacity, anywhere in the world. The only thing it does well seems to be getting moved around by other more useful vehicles.
I was a crewman on the M551A1 Sheridan with 82nd Airborne in the 90s. The way we tended to be organized was with 1 company of Sheridans assigned to support 1 infantry BCT. In that configuration, the armor company commander (O3) would be present in the task force and would advise the BCT commander how to best use those assets. However, the BCT commander (O5) owned the task force had the ultimate say as to how the tanks would be used. Perhaps noteworthy is that 3/73 Armor was actually staffed with MOS 19D crewmen, not 19K. The idea there being that airdropped vehicles often crashed and the crewmen needed to function without it. This is a strong violation of the "death before dismount" ethos of 19Ks in general.
We had a Plt. assigned to us on the 8 lane hard ball going into Bagdad south of the Euphrates and An Nasiriyah. I remember talking to the guys as I was Combat Lifesaver and our Doc was showing me around meeting everyone. They said if the tank was on fire pull this switch and don't worry we are dead. Great guys just had a tank that was outdated by 20 years or so. We did like having the big guns with us and even though it is shit by todays standards their optics came in handy at night.
This tank is named after two people by the Biden Admin! I am surprised he did not name it after a transexual/transvestite such as the "Corporal Klinger"! Hahaha
@@JaimeGerman-vc5utgetting soldiers thru windows is cumbersome, plus if the windows closed and locked, now u have a loud entrance thats hard to get thru and is also covered in glass shards
This is why russians want their kids to be soldiers! Don't focus on learning calculus engineering whatever, you already have a chance to become a cosmonaut in a much easier way!
I don't think anyone is saying that it's NOT a tank. The designers were worried that if they called it a tank then battlefield commanders would default to using it like they would use an M1. By not using "tank" in the name they are forcing the commanders and crews on the ground to stop and think about how they should be using this new platform. From historical prospective this makes sense as it's been a whole generation since the US has had any tanks that are not M1s.
@@SkunkdMonk True, but since at least half the people who take one look at the Booker will think "tank", including officers that may use it in combat roles, and its crew ARE Tankers by MOS, I can almost guarantee you it will be called a "tank" anywhere but a PowerPoint briefing. You can't say that about, oh, a BMP, for example. Or a Bradley. I'm saying whatever the Army WANTS it to be, it will get used as a tank. I just hope the crews don't get in over their head.
HEP and HESH are both terms for a type of explosive projectile, but they differ in their terminology and how they are used: HEP: In American terminology, HEP stands for high-explosive plastic or plasticized. HESH: In British terminology, HESH stands for high-explosive squash head. Both HEP and HESH projectiles contain plastic explosive and are designed to conform to the surface of a target before detonating. This improves the transfer of explosive energy to the target. HESH rounds are thin metal shells that break open when they hit a target's armor. The plastic explosive then "pancakes" against the armor and explodes when the fuse hits the armor. This creates a shock wave that travels through the armor. HESH rounds are not armor-piercing, but they can defeat armored targets by causing spall.
M393 HEP rounds have a thin metal shell that is exactly the same as the British HESH rounds, function exactly the same, and are based on the British HESH rounds. Remember the 105mm M68 Gun was the British105mm L7 gun, except manufactured in the US under license. Fired enough rounds out of it over 12 years on the M48A5 and M60 series.... Cheers.
It's an armoured, tracked fighting vehicle with a main gun mounted on a turret. It's a tank. Edit: And crewed by 19 kilos: tank. It is lighter and less combat capable than an MBT. It's a light effing tank, I don't care what anyone says.
To be fair the M10 booker is a similar weight as the old Sherman tanks so i would just call it a medium tank. But at the end of the day who cares really.
If tank is designed for fighting in main battles against other tanks, it is main battle tank. If tank is designed to minimise weight and be used by airborne troupes against other light vehicles it is light tank.
So for reference, up until the army recently got rid of them, the MGSs were crewed by 19Ds for quite a while. They weren't infantry support vehicles for very long. The MGSs got put into the heavy weapons troop of a cavalry squadron. But similar to what you said about the 11Bs, 19Ds were not trained on the MGS in OSUT, there was just the chance you get assigned to that troop and then receive training on it. The weapons troop never really got assigned to any infantry company or battalion, they basically made them a division asset that you would have to request, like M1s.
(Former career tanker here). Most likely you’re right the bookers will stay at a battalion level, but since armor has always and probably will always work in the wingman concept I don’t think one book will go to each company instead, I think groups of four to stay consistent with current Armor doctrine). The Battalion Commander would assign them based on companies role in each mission.
No, that’s not gonna help infantry move under fire. You’re thinking only like a tanker. Nothing wrong with that but that’s not how an infantry company will use 1
I agree with that assesment on these of this vehicle, also must keep in mind as soon as you have tanks show up you are now in mechanized war fare, fast and furious.
As someone below said, it fills the same role as the Sheridan, but with a s far more proven weapon type (a 105mm). It uses proven systems from the M1. It was designed with a lot of input with the infantry it will support. It feels like a system designed to not be perfect or highly innovative, but solid, dependable and very reasonably effective.
It costs a fortune for such a straightforward role. its essentially a tracked version of the MGS they claim has the latest tech to justify its insane price tag that is higher than most other countries MBTs.
Former tank commander here, there’s not an autoloader I know of in NATO or Warsaw that can outpace a trained loader (though would love to hear feedback if someone knows otherwise, I hear the Type 90 is pretty fast). I’m tracking the average autoloader takes between 6-8 seconds. You couldn’t be a loader in my company without being able to load consistently in 6 seconds or lower. I had a couple that could do so in about 4, and one that could do it in the 3s. Not even taking into consideration the million ways a 4th crewmember makes things more efficient versus another piece of equipment just waiting for a deadlining fault.
The Japanese autoloaders are fucking _fast._ If I'm remembering correctly, they crank out a staggering 20 rounds per minute, and maintain that rate of fire for the entirety of the tank's stowage. Soviet/Chinese-style carousel autoloaders typically take a bit longer, but cassete-style systems are second only to swing-breach guns like the XM274, and those require the use of CT (cased, telescoped) rounds. The old Swedish STRV 103 could crank out a similar rate of fire, and there was even a drop-in system for the Abrams that was developed with a slightly slower (around 4s) reload and managed to retain the 4th crew member, but wasn't adopted due to weight issues.
People love to harp on the autoloader's reliability but I have barely see any report of it being a main issue even in every intense combat operation in modern history (Afghanistan, Yom Kippur, Ukraine, etc.). Western tanks not adopting the autoloader is because they need the 4th crew member for maintenance and other stuff (doctrine), not because a person a better loader. The funny thing is that the French army already fixes that issue by putting the 4th crew members on escorting scout cars
@@Panzerfrank It's about maintaining that loading speed throughout the entire battle. At some point an autoloader will outpace the human in sustained combat.
@griffinfaulkner3514 thoroughly researched! @quakethedoombringer, I’m unfamiliar with the French solution. I’m guessing additional crewmen are still attached to the platoon in escort vehicles? @bl8danjil, you bring up a valid point for consistency. Fatigue would definitely set in the more they fire. I suppose a counterpoint would be that your track is unlikely to fire a massive degree of rounds in one burst since you’ll be constantly displacing and engaging with various weapon systems. But it’s true that sustained ops will bring the whole crew down in performance.
I always love listening to your videos, Kappy. Even though I hope we never get to see them in action, it's very entertaining and strangely relaxing to learn about these platforms.
Quick correction: The MRAP is actually going to be fitted with a new variant of the 30mm Bushmaster that Northrop just released. Its a dual feed gun with the ability to switch seamlessly between ammo types, for both countering incoming enemy vehicles, and UAVs. So the M10 will in theory have that backing it up as well, not just the .50 cal
This was the rationale for the 1970s/80s armored cav platoon with 4 tanks, 6 APCs working together day in and day out. The tanks provided overwatch and beat up anything the scouts pointed out. We had a rifle squad in one M113 at the start, and they were the main ground holders in each platoon. There's something about the day in, day out platoon cohesion that makes the tankers and the dismounts learn how to support each other.
I had some time to think about it and came to the conclusion that M10 is a 2024 American version of a mid 60s to early 80s Russian medium tank. At 41 tons, not only it is NOT a light tank, but weighs as much as T64 (38 tons) and T80 (42 tons) main battle tanks, and only 6 tons short of a T90M! It has significantly less armor & a weak gun with rare specialty ammo (designed in 80s) that is unable to effectively engage other tanks yet weighs so much that it faces similar limitations as a normal MBT. M10 should have weighted at least 10 tons less (as much as M36) or offered MBT-level protection at current weight to make any sense.
I've always been a fan of your channel and I appreciate all the time and effort that goes into research and presentation. However, I'm even more impressed with the number of authoritative channels that quote you as a reference source. It's good to see your influence grow and you receive the recognition you deserve.
This is actually a really good idea. The M10 is smaller, lighter and less expensive than the M1. We're able to make a shit ton of them and overwhelm the enemy taking a page from the WW2 playbook. The war in Ukraine is teaching us that quantity still trumps quality.
As an OLD 19K, so old that I have a 19E secondary (M60 tanker,) there is just so much to unpack from the glory days of the M1 era (late 80s - early 90s.) First, I find it very funny that the Army has been going back to having all these different ammo types. On the M60s (I was never a gunner, so I don't remember exactly what rounds there were, but there were 5.) We had of course the Sabot and HEAT rounds, the HE and HEP, and Beehive. I saw the Army was prototyping a beehive round probably 25 years ago, now there playing with HE and HEP rounds again. This is stuff from the 1960s. Of course they are modernized with programmable fuses and stuff. On our M1A1s, we only had Sabot and HEAT. The M10 fills a gap that the Sheridan once filled. It has been since the late 80s that we have had an air dropable tank. I'm not saying it can be dropped from 5000 ft, or whatever airborne drops from, but the Sheridan didn't drop from there either, as far as I know. I think they do that thing where the plane flies real close to the ground and the tank skids out of the back on a big pallet (I was not airborne, duh, so how the hell would I know any of that crap...) I think it's great for the tankers out there, because now they can go to jump school again. Crunchies. Yes crunchies. How many crunchies does it take to grease the tracks? One, if you hit him just right. 🤣Yes morbid, but that is the life we chose as combat arms, is it not?
just wondering as a civvie, dont you think abrams etc should also have anti personel HE frag rounds? most tank shots in ukraine seem to go into treelines and trenches, so only having sabot and heat for your tank seems like a big problem to me. imo tanks should always also be intented to support infantry, and not just be seen as an anti armour vehicle. air droppable seems like a bad idea to me, we've seen how light and amphibious vehicles fare in ukraine (god awful). luckily m10 booker is not that light. still i dont know why any light infantry would rather be supported by a booker than by a t90m, which only differs like 10 tons.
One thing that has changed since then though is that, as Justin Bronk, an expert in military aviation said in a UK parliamentary hearing, battlefield aerial insertion is dead. Dudes jumping out of planes like it was Market Garden isn't a thing anymore. The Russians learned this the hard way on the first day of the war. "SAM"bushes are a thing, with multiple SAM system types capable of knocking transport aircraft out of the sky at 300+ km. Thus the M10 would never have been airdropped, even if it, as a platform, had that capability. That times have changed can also be seen when looking at weight and protection. The M10 weighs 42 tons, more than the older T72 MBTs, and yet it is only rated to withstand 30mm cannon fire, and that only at 500m or more. Making it airdroppable would have required down-armoring or removing other systems to decrease the weight. Lots of countries (at least in NATO) are looking at upgunning their IFVs with 50mm cannons and the results will probably be seen in 5-10 years. If APC also get upgunned, e.g. with light, modern 30mm automatic weapon stations, a lighter airdropable M10 would have been threatened even by APCs. Where light infantry is supposed to operate, you're, afaik, not likely to run into MBTs and IFVs, but light APCs are, I would assume, much more likely, e.g. as rear-area security. And if those can take out your M10, then its utility would be quite questionable.
@slopedarmor well, the M1 series have an M240 7.62 x 54 (.30 cal) machine gun for a coax (which means it is aligned with the main gun, so it is also fired by the gunner,) and it has another M240 that the loader fires, and the M2 .50 cal machine that the tank commander operates, so the M1 can definitely handle personnel. Considering the M1 can only carry 40 rounds of main gun ammo, it's probably better that it doesn't have so many different types of rounds. Like Cappy mentioned, the M1 is a tank hunter, our main job wasn't necessarily to take out infantry. That's what our own infantry is for.
My brigade had a guy get squished by an Abrams in the early morning during an FTX. Still dark out and he was in his bag still asleep. It was nasty cold out and as everyone knows, the M1 is a heater from the back. Trying to get warm got him killed
@@sterlingroberts6240 ever not sleep for a few days during a field trading exercise? And to be honest, I'm not sure that the tank was ever shut down since he was behind it to stay warm from the heat vents in the back
In the 2nd Cav around 2012, the M1128 AGS Strykers were operated by 19Ks. They absolutely hated it and complained to no end because they had gone to school for M1s, but nevertheless, we had 19Ks in our M1128s.
@@DriveCarToBar You should check out the Ukraine War Trophies Display at Victory Park Moscow. You're bound to see some old friends not looking their best. Peace.
A major difference between the US Army and the Russo-Ukrainian war is that the US Army can rely on the US Air Force to enable manuever warfare instead of failing and letting a war become a war of attrition. The US army doesnt have to structure itself to bunker down and defend for years on end against a peer adversary. It can instead focus on offense. The Booker enables light infantry to create breakthroughs, which can then be exploited by helicopters and other vehicles.
Just don’t expect to have that air power advantage in Eastern Europe or Russians front doorstep without taking Vietnam levels of air attrition to A/A . The US army has to psychologically train its soldiers for attrition warfare with drones etc . With peer states as opponents you cannot solely rely on aviation . Also with the decreasing readiness of the Airforce due to budget cuts , platforms being retired and the spread out nature of air wings through different US commands around the world well it’s time to revisit some Cold War doctrines and remake them to fit the future .
The Ukrainians have proven themselves to be good at (albeit small) maneuver warfare. Imagine what they could achieve if they had a real Air Force. Now imagine what we could do with our air power. But also, don’t discount MANPADS and traditional AA systems. You’re speaking as if these systems wouldn’t cause massive disruption in air power on either side.
@@Miami1991 buddy during war with a near peer the budget & personnel count will sore out the roof for DoD. A war of attrition will not happen with USA unless it’s in the enemy backyard. No nation can effectively deploy troops on a mass scale outside its geographical region except the USA. With the F35, F22, b2, & b21 the sky will still be ours not to mention whatever that is replacing these systems that might make it to the battlefield early due to a possible near peer conflict. The problems face currently will not exist in wartime. The only thing weak about the DoD is our citizens back home. Honestly that’s most western countries problem, a weak home front who have the luxury to distance themselves from conflict. The moment your nation people start to question what we are fighting for or the objectives, you lost.
lol, u.s. air superiority does not exist. the us has not directly fought a peer adversary since ww2. 30% of planes in the us airforce are not airworthy at any given time. the u.s. spent twenty years smart-bombing illiterate goat herders and lost and they still think they're tough when in reality they're even more incompetent than the russians. who can't figure out hypersonic missiles while russia rains them down on ukraine? the u.s. cant.
@@lorwally13Your words about citizens in the US are true. How much Gruz 200 and 300 they can they accept? Moscovites are masters of deception and they will blow every possible horn to make as much noise as they can. They will blow their cells of "illegals" just to increase divisions between already polarised groups in the States.
Big brain critics saying that a light tank cannot resist an MBT round, well DUH. If you want to resist an APFSDS 105mm and upwards, you need a vehicle of 60+ tons.
It's kind of a silly argument anyway, tanks aren't being hit by other tanks. Someone could tally up the direct hits from main guns, tank on tank, in the Ukraine conflict, and I'd wager it's not more than a handfull. The tank on tank bias stems from looking at Germany in ww2, and there were unique things about their situation. 70% of Sherman's knocked out were due to a direct hit from a main battle tank or assault gun/tank destroyer. Couple of points here... no fuel, which means limited air campaigns. Tanks and tank destroyers largely sitting defensively not driving and waiting for an enemy attack. As such, because Germans had to fight this way, they speced their guns to secure the kill with virtual certainty on a hit. They would completely compromise mobility and suspension reliability by adding on weight to get this, and thicken the armor to the point of knowing they could tank the shots from the guns their enemies were fielding. But these tradeoffs were made in a context
But the type 10 MBT can do that while weighing 44t and being built for the pacific theater. If this were a 30t tank then I might agree, but it weighs nearly the same amount as lighter MBTs without benefiting from the armor or firepower.
It's more or less as valid an argument against a humvee or a truck as it is against a light fighting vehicle. It's a little like criticizing a WWII destroyer for not being able to take a battleship round. That's not what it's for.
small tanks, big tanks, they are all jobbers to anti-tank drones, same as how they have been jobbers to ATGMs like Javelin nowadays what's important (as a threat to the enemy) is the 105mm rifled gun can lob dozens of HEP shells around with impunity if not stopped
@@paulbrown4649 You clearly understand little of the realities. In a not so distant future will the be specialized vehicles that ONLY deal with drone threats. This development is going extremely fast.
Seems to be a variation on the old saw, "every ten years or so the Army reinvents the wheel". Congratulations, we've just reinvented the Sturmgeschutz! Seems like something handy to have alongside.
11:05 in my opinion the 2s25 is more of an equivalent to the booker than the bmp3, the bmp3 being an infantry fighting vehicle and the M10 Booker being more of a light tank as is the 2s25
I'd look at t62m, since both sprut and bmp3 are much lighter than booker, so no armour. And in case of bmp3 - no comparable firepower either. T62 on other hand has similar mission, weight, firepower and such. And both are likely to be used as main tank if need arises.
the sprut-SD is no where near production if anything, yea, the latest modernized versions T-62 & T-54/55 are probably the closest equivalent Russia has to offer against the American M-10 & the Chinese Type 15
@@DaoklT62m has a 115mm gun, it's far far more powerful than the 105mm on the Booker 😂 You can't compare the m10 booker to any legitimate MBTs, not even a T55. 😂
@@JamesOMalley-hb4tf less gun, more ammo was a conscious design choice. Moreover both guns would struggle with most modern mbt front armour and their main task is troop support, in Ukraine even mbt's mostly do that. Both t55/t62 were classified as medium tanks before they became mbt's (at least by soviets), one can argue that they are medium again.
They would still be using it with an improved gun. But keeping an ammunition factory for less than 200 tanks is not cost effective. They are adding new IFVs with 40 mm auto cannons though for anything short of main battle tanks.
i just found out Turkish and Pakistani HE rounds for their 105mm tank guns are just 105mm HE howitzer shells put in a 105x617mm propellant case and the Swedes used to make 120mm HE shell for smoothbore 120mm gun from modified 120mm mortar bombs putting high explosive on the 105mm rifled tank gun should be much simpler than a HEP round
It's a funny thing when military procurement doctrines specify this vehicle is designed to be an infantry support tank. It's main job is not to fight other tanks. We have these other main battle tanks/systems over here, that are going to fight enemy tanks. But then comes the day when the vehicles, men, doctrines and theories get put to the test on the crucible of the battlefield. That test tells us things like; The German Sturgeschutz goes from infantry support vehicle to the all time top scoring tank killer; that the M4 Sherman didn't 'just' perform as a break through and infantry support vehicle, but got shot up regularly by enemy tanks, (but wait, wasn't that the job of tank destroyers, like the M-10 Wolverine, to engage enemy tanks ?). Let's hope that the new M-10s have some serious anti-tank rounds on board before they deploy because like it or not, they're going to go up against serious enemy armor. History proves it every time.
You mist out the Swedish option the CV90.120 and the newer CV90.105 there is an option of the CV90.120 to add a cleaver Cammo this give the CV90.120 the nick name ghost tank .it's covered with ceramic tiles each can be cooled or heated so when you look at it with nods you don't see the signature of a Tank it could look like a car or a van
Even BAE didn't submit the CV90, preferring the M8 derivative instead. If they didn't want to submit it (And it's not as if other countries have been falling over themselves to buy it), it may not be as suitable for this role as some believe.
@@TheChieftainsHatch yes this is true but seeing as BAE has many fingers in both US and European military equipment they understand the peculiarities of differant goverments it's understandable that to have what you need built in your owen country . Also some people mite think that BAE has too much of a say in what is being built in the US for there military like the paladin the Bradley and the new turretless Bradley system so BAE backed the M8 system and slice of the pie seems good enough
You brought up a good point on whose really in charge. In Italy the M10 tank destroyers were attached with the infantry. The infantry would come up against tanks and fortifications and be tasked with leading the unit and assaulting. When the LTs or PSG would say "Um sir that's not our jobs we don't have the protection." The BN Commander would be like wtf I'm a LT Col do what I say now! You have more armor than my infantrymen!
A low recoil cannon of the same caliber and upgraded electronics and drive train. I would bet that they did a little classified something something with the armor as well.
Love the generals quote (5:11) that "the original M10 served....in an infantry support role in Italy and the pacific. The same role invisioned for today's M10." Sounds like the general declared war against Italy.
From the mouth of a 19A, task Org of the platoon is a 16 man platoon, with the 4 tanks manned by 4 Soldiers. The platoon is divided into 2 sections comprised of 2 tanks. The PL and PSG are the section leaders and their wingman is the E6 tank commanders, Other positions are the E5 gunner, E4 loader and the youngest least experienced soldiers are the drives. Hope that makes sense.
All true with the exception that often, in my personal experience, it was the lowest rank in the loaders position with the driver typically being the E-3 or E-4. At least that's the way it was done in my time in both 1-64AR and 2-7IN both in 3ID out of ft. Stewart Ga
The issues will always revolve around logistics. How many mechanics will units get to work on them? Are light units financially equipped for the uptick in maintenance costs? Do light units have the fuel capacity to support Bookers? Do units have a CLV storage capabilities to hold the sustainment loads for Bookers? If only self recovery for x2 Bookers then taking out one effectively takes both out of the fight. Those are the real questions. The Army will have to flesh that one out. You can give an infantry company an Abrams. But if the logistics behind it isn’t bolstered then it will be a giant NMC hinderance that units have to drag forward or leave behind.
I love how when talking about a 19k's training, you showed a PPT of a "low crawl." Son, we don't walk. We don't march. We don't ruck. We don't run (except during the PT test). We sure as hell don't crawl. We RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIDE.
I call it an Assault Gun because it is only meant to fulfill a fire support role. The light tank term/classification is obsolete with its roles taken by other vehicles, technologies, or munitions.
@@BalthasarGelt-x2d You are thinking of StuH that had a Howitzer. The StuG versions used regular tank guns and were used for regular tank roles although the larger versions had better guns then most tanks so were often used as TD. But the most produced one being Stug III, that had the same gun as the Panzer IV and were essentially used as an low cost replacement for regular tanks in the order of battle.
@@BalthasarGelt-x2d Uh, look up assault gun. They are direct fire platforms. The early ones just happened to use artillery guns. Because the Main Battle Tank made all other tanks obsolete with many of their other roles taken by other vehicles or technology, a more modern definition of assault gun is being defined.
Yeah....I'm sure every company 2IC will love having to organise the logistics of a toy tank on top of keeping 3 platoons and an anti-armour section alive and in supply. This sounds like it will be popular right up until contact with the enemy and they'll end up in the division vehicle park as a QRF.
The concept of the M10 Booker is a heavy assault breaching vehicle. But against non-peer adversaries who do not have access to large amounts of Anti-Tank Guided Missiles or Anti-Tank/armored vehicle drones.
Thank you for providing me a quick publically available information run down on weapon systems. This provides me a quick catch up on what is going on! Great work and keep cranking!!!!
That HEP round can also take out quite a few enemy vehicles of the BMP class , self propelled artillery, etc. Basically anything that doesn't have reactive armor. The blast wave will also sweep over the vehicle removing infantry , radio antennas and sensors.
i am surprised no one in Western militaries has considered of modifying a 105mm HE howitzer shell, fit it to the 105x617mm propellant case of the 105mm rifled tank gun, and use it as a HE shell Turkey and Pakistan have done that (well, except Sweden who modified some 120mm mortar rounds into 120mm fin-stabilized HE shells for the 120mm smoothbore gun, but that's another story for another gun)
@@williamyoung9401 yeah thats called casual stock piliing.. there's no need to create 5 million rounds a year.. russia is on full war mode and half of their garbage doesn't even work not having electronics is creating issues, unable to supply proper equipment, and so forth
I'm no expert, but from the descriptions I've read, anything with a good modern sandwich would probably need something more than the HESH round. Anything with conventional rolled armor is probably screwed though, so you're probably right about the BMP line. Unfortunately, we may end up finding out definitively before long.
@@williamyoung9401 Got to get a factory going first for new ammo. Meanwhile any of the old ammo can be shipped to Ukraine. They can test it out with their Leopard I's.
I’m not sure if it will be super competitive with other allied equipment in the pacific though. I’m sure it will get the job done, but it’s hard to imagine a situation where I’d choose the M10 instead of something like a Type 10 MBT (44t) or Type 16 MCV (8x8 105mm). I could see the benefits if the M10 was closer to 30t, but 40t is heavy when you’re only bringing a 105 to the party.
@@Talpiot_Program Bold, NATO couldn't find their own in Afghanistan for 2 decades. Hold on ill say it again for the people at the back, 20 years... America lost and gave gifts to the Taliban...
This would make for an ideal Armored Cav tank if it had better main gun depression. The Armored Cav, with a mission of: sneak, peak, report, engage from the enemy's flanks, attack and destroy their trains areas while just worrying the living piss out of the enemy command and control folks.
It's not 1980 anymore, sneaking tanks on a battlefield is a joke. $5000 electric drone with thermals flying at 15000 feet is impossible to lock with IR missiles and can spot any tank on the ground. US has no beam riding missiles to take such out. And I doubt an amraam would work very well against something with 200g of metal parts at most.
@@0thPAg I'm very much aware that it's not 1980 anymore. But if a guy (long retired from what was once the largest phone company in the world) can down drones from his back yard utilizing bits and pieces from his electronic hobby shop, the biggest pieces being a salvaged "roof top" satellite TV dish and a generator he purchased at a yard sale a few years ago I'm equally sure that, like any "weapons system", even the most advanced drone has a shelf life of sorts. I asked the above-mentioned fellow retiree why he did not offer his invention to the military and make a few bucks in the process. His response was that he had maybe a year to live (cancer), had all the money he needed, and was having too much fun frying drones from over a mile away with his "toy". The way he figured it, if a 79 year old retired phone company employee could cobble together a drone killer from a few spare parts he had in his shop, there was no reason why any major electronics lab, or a 13 year old with a flair for electronics, could not get the job done as well or better than he could.
"Crunchies"! LOL Yes! It's the same in the Artillery! I saw a guy get run over by an ammo carrier on the FP one day. I just knew he was up for reorder... When the track pivoted, YES PIVOTED over him, it covered him in earth & protected him from getting crushed. Never thought I'd hear crunchies again lol.
I was going to say the same thing. I got to Bragg in 94 and the Sheridan vanished the following year. The mindset was all wars were going to be low intensity conflict with multi-national coalitions. Clinton’s RIF decimated the Army.
My son decided to join the Army. I was showing him my old job (19k) when I stumbled on this video. I was selected, in basic, for a new MOS. "Airborne Tanks" we were going to be Airborne and jump out after the tank. It was later declassified as the XM8 AGS. The MOS was canceled when I was in Airborne training. I was gutted. I'm amazed they brought it back (sort of) . Please could you do a video of the history of the XM8?
No the marines won't go back to these vehicles. To quote the marines "We are no longer doing amphibious landings with armored vehicles because the enemy is dug in and we would take massive causalities while attempt to land. So we are attempting to switch to be a helicopter force because the enemy won't be dug in or have air defense, so we won't take massive casualties!"
Reminds me alot of the IKV91 which entered service in Swedens army in the late 70's. IKV91 stands for Infantry Canon Tank 91 millimeter. it was fully amphibic, was meant to fight with the infantry and work also as a highly mobile tank destroyer. it was extreamly light and had very low levels of armour as it only weighted around 17 metric tonnes. It was also extreamly technological advanced with digital computers and laser finders from the start in the 70's, much pulled over from STRV103 which entered service in 1967 as the first MBT A multitude of systems including Autoloader and Computer and digital rangefinder. Its chassie was also the inspiration for the CV90 which took over for both IKV91 and the PBV302 IFV. It is indeed intresting that we go back towards designs that was often used during the cold war. best regards.
The M10 Booker, is filling the hole the canceled M8 Buford was supposed to fill, and that is the role the M551 Sheridan filled. A key role for tanks, support infantry with direct fire support to reduce fortifications and obsistcals, some that as old as the tanks themselves. AS for light, medium, or heavy tanks, the US Army abandoned those as classifications and uses the gun size...the Abrams was both classed as 105mm gun and 120mm gun for example. My belief is they aren't calling it a tank, so some bright spark doesn't think one of these could draw down on a T-90.
A recent video by Perun pointed out a mistake that the Russians have made. The Russians spent a lot of time and money making the BMD air droppable. But, based on confirmed losses, when they get destroyed, they shatter. No survivors. Focusing on making a tank air droppable would be a mistake. Why spend money and training for a mission that will never be used again. The US will never dedicate the transport aircraft for a brigade parachute delivery of troops to the battlefield against a near peer opponent. Against modern air defense systems we would lose too many troops and planes to justify the mission. Those cargo planes are too valuable to waste on paratroopers. Air deliverable by cargo plane is the right focus for the M10. Don’t throw out the design because it can’t be delivered by parachute.
I think it's that coupled with its mediocre performance that kindve gives a "worst of both worlds" kindve feeling. I dont really understand how this vehicle will be useful on a modern battlefield.
An issue with the BMD is that it basically forces the VDV to write a doctrine that circles around the vehicle as well, as in instead of a bunch of lightly armed dudes in buggy that prioritizes quick and surprised attack (motorized), you have a much more offensive force that prioritizes taking and keeping the objective more aggressively (mechanized). The problem is that the BMD isn't as fast or maneverable as wheeled vehicles while basically have no armor, so
Since Argentina recently reasserted their claim over the Falkland Islands for the 1st time since 1982, it would be cool to see a T&P do a video on if Argentina could repeat their invasion or if the UK could repeat their recapture
Well seeing as the Argentine armed forces are actually worse off than they were in 1982, it's pretty much a non starter. Plus the Royal Navy has better ships (fewer, but better) and hasn't this time made the idiotic mistake of selling our top destroyer to the Argentines which was the only reason they managed to sink a couple, because they knew the weak points. It was a labour government that made that idiotic f up, so let's hope this even worse Labour government we have now don't repeat it!
It most definitely isn't a light tabk. At 42 tonnes, it's just as heavy as a leopard 1 and only a few tonnes lighter than an M60. Uppon doing some research I found that it's only 4 tonnes lighter than a t72
As a former 82nd Airborne M551 Sheridan tanker, this is a welcome addition to the 82nd's arsenal. They have had nothing for almost 30 years now. As to the ability to withstand enemy tank fire, the Sheridan had aluminum skin with foam filler that would stop up to a 50 caliber bullet. (NOTE: the soviets used a 51 caliber). So, face to face armor combat was never an option in the past. We operated with a company of 17 Sheridan's to a company in support of each infantry brigade, each with platoons of five, later four vehicles in support of an infantry company. The Sheridan was called the "Armored Reconnaissance Assault Vehicle". The title "TANK" is no where to be found when describing it. The Sheridan system a 152mm main gun that took a minimum of seven seconds to reload and refire, with four types of rounds: Heat - Anti Tank, Canister - Anti Personnel (Flachets) , High Explosive - Anti Bunker, and the Shillelagh Missile - LONG range Anti Tank Round. Also included were a 7.62 coaxial machine gun and the M2 50 caliber on top. We had no cameras for driving, and did crunch a couple of infantry guys, sorry, so there are a lot of features this vehicle has that are a great improvement. BUT, deploying a single vehicle to an infantry platoon does seem a bit skimpy, however this means there would be multiple vehicles available at the company level which could be deployed as a fully maneuverable unit. The initial deployed vehicle was designed to shake out any issues as stated, prior to full production. I am of coursed biased by my experiences with the 82nd, however I too will reserve any judgement on the long term use and training while using the M10. Best of luck to our 19K crews with their new mission. Make us division vets proud.
Much of the criticism levelled against Booker could have also easily been applied to the WW2 Sturmgeschutz III - which had thinner armour, a less powerful gun, and lacked a rotating turret - so it was vastly inferior to Panther and Tiger tanks. Yet the StuG III was the most successful axis tank of WW2, destroying more allied armoured vehicles than any other type. It's also worth noting that, like Booker, the StuG III was initially designed as an assault gun to provide fire support for infantry. As Germany retreated in Europe towards the end of the war, it became a defensive weapon. So no reason why Booker, especially with newer APFSDS natures cannot also be an equally effective tank destroyer.
I think you made a strong case for the Marine Corps getting in on this procurement. I may not agree with them abandoning their armor capability wholesale, but I can see the point that the Abrams was too heavy, not easily or rapidly deployable for an expeditionary service, especially in amphibious assaults, and didn’t support the light infantry focus of the Marines very well. But this looks like the kind of armor tailor-made for their mission and use case. I think the importance of armor, particularly the M4 Sherman, in the Pacific Theater of WWII is often overlooked, because instead of major tank-on-tank battles, they provided much-needed support for light infantry. But look at battlefield footage, and you will often see a tank in the mix, neutralizing fortifications, breaking stalemates, or bridging the gap between mortars and artillery. The Booker is only slightly heavier than the Sherman, so in theory that mass of vehicle should be suitable for Pacific island operations.
I would suggest a larger autocannon then what the Bradley uses like 40-76mm, making it able to take those MBT flank shots or well armored IFVs that the Bradley can't. That might even solve the air drop problem.
I am a old 19K(Tanker) and 19D(Scout). I served between 1999 to 2008. As a Scout I went immediately to a Bradley company. I can see this deploying to a combat zone of no known enemy tanks. Having two shipped on a plane instead of one Abrams can be beneficial. But if you can't air drop them, then you still have to secure an airfield somewhere. Just like when you bring in tanks. So same doctrine. Why hamper yourself with a less powerful, less armored war machine? If the Air Force can land a jet once, they can do it over and over again. One thing the Air Force has plenty of is heavy cargo planes so that's not an issue. Bradley's weigh less than the Bookers so if they can fit on C5's, C17's, or whatever, why not use those instead? Plus Brad's have Anti-Tank capabilities (Tow Missiles) already built in. Sounds like despite the 105 cannon the Booker has, it's a downgrade of the Bradley. So if you need an airfield, Bring Brad's or Abram's depending on the threat level or terrain assessment. No need for the Booker. I admit, I have no idea how to combat drone strikes. Wasn't an issue when I served
@@GreenBlueWalkthrough I would note that the M8 HMC was used in US Army's assault gun platoons in WW2 for a while, and that fits exactly the same definition you just listed.
this is my first time seeing a video from your channel and i like that you give us so much insight into the perspective of not only the people who will be operating the the system, but also the perspective of every surrounding role when it comes to many of the people who are to be expected to be working either with or around it based on whatever the surrounding contexts of it mission are depending on everything from where to why to how it will be deployed! it was very interesting to see information that relates to its production contracts as far as what we should expect its production volume and frequency to initally be as well. i also like how you included the perspectives of 3rd party critics and analists in a way that helped to increase the visibility of its possible strengths or percieved weaknesses it may have based on both history and also current events in relation to the reality of what most somewhat similar historical and currently operated allied and enemy systems that it compares most closely to while at the same time emphasizing how the different types of warfare it will apparently be involved in will often distinctly differ in terms of the fundemintal narutes and goals of its deployment and roles of it intended position. it was also interesting to learn about how well its defencive capabilities (based on testing and prior research discoveries) can be expected to compare and/or endure against the various types of enemy systems that it will most likely be encountering most frequently based on the on the due to the specific nature of zones it was enginrered occupy in the battlefeild in terms of its proximity to every other system and force it has been stratagized to either be accompanied by or deployed in support of. i like that you highlighted the various types of enviroments in which the element its speedy deployment capabilities enable it to be more uniquely utilized than any its predassors and rival systems as far as its ability to be more easily be deployed in some of even the most exotic and remote theaters of combat in the world are concerned. thank you for sharing such an angle of perspective with us. it was highly facinating, educational, and overall very entertaining to view! i'll definately be watching a lot more of your channel from now on too! thank you! -subscribed
I joined the Army when Reagan was president and plan to retire next year. I'm old enough to remember when the news was going on about how "useless" the Bradley was and how it should have (basically) been a heavy tank instead. Over three decades later, it has served with distinction and is an absolute unit in its Ukrainian service today. So now idiots want to get rid of the Booker because it isn't "what already was" and does not fight "as we previously have". Great! Order me a few thousand, immediately! Those morons can keep fighting the last war; I'd like to be prepared for the next one.
@@BalthasarGelt-x2d I kind of disagree and consider both failed in the same way. 105mm doesn't quite cut it to deal with MBT making the benefits of mounting something larger then an autocannon rather minor. Anything between 40-75mm would essentially be able to deal with the same amount of armored targets, be able to carry much more ammo for fire support and/or be made to be quite a lot lighter making it even better at being transported or handling terrain. It's quite possible to mount a 120mm gun on that size of chassis as well making that option also better. Either direction would be better then 105mm. Also, if artillery support is wanted then self propelled mortars are much better.
@@znail4675 The 105mm is for fortified positions while also being a smaller round for more ammo capacity. An AMP round is also in the works so the M10 doesn't have to use different rounds to get a different effect. 120mm is just overkill for most structures and fortified positions. An Assault Gun is not meant to take on a MBT or anything with that level of armor. That's the anti-tank infantry's job or the M1 Abrams job. The "why not just put a 120mm on it" train of thought is why all other tanks dissappeared, because the main battle tank took over their roles. The difference today is the Army needs the direct fire support of a main battle tank, but in a more logistical friendly armored fighting vehicle. Hence, the assault gun role.
Actually, the Booker appears to be a great idea, and piece of equipment, for both the airborne and...light CAV. Small, hits hard, and easy to maintain. Just wish that the Army had seen fit to field that light recon track with the semi auto 76mm gun back in the 70s. Not all of the targets will be MBTs. And even on that subject, didn't a Brad mess up a T-90 this year?
Two Bradley's managed to damage a T-90M's turret causing it to spin around uncontrollably, the Russian tankers panicked and tried to ditch their tank which lead to them getting picked off by a drone. A Bradley with a 25mm Bushmaster can't directly take out a T-90 without a TOW missile while a M10 Booker can punch through a T-90s armour with its 105mm tank gun.
The bmp3 is a direct result of the Bradley in the 1st gulf war. That is its equivalent not a light tank. Russia has all kinds of weird tracked and wheeled vehicles in its Arsenal. Their first chat use was in Grozny in 1995. And they lost a bunch of them. The reason Russia lost so many BMP3' is it has way too many weapon systems and ammunition. The gunner sits on a flat pad on top of ammo boxes. The rear that is supposed to carry infantry? The Russians decided that that was the best place for the engine and fuel. So it's amazingly awkward to get in and out of. There is almost no room for them. The 100mm and it's coax a 30mm have the carousel of ammunition seen in Russian tanks. So when they get hit? They tend to disintegrate. The French panhard? It's a reconnaissance vehicle that Ukraine isn't using it for. Plus it does not have a stabilized main gun. I think the best equivalent to the booker would be the terminator. That is Russia's infantry support vehicle. Russia has lost half of them so far. For some reason, Russia doesn't use them in a support told but to head out and shoot up Ukrainian positions. And just like every other tank or bmp they tend to be by themselves which causes their destruction pretty quick. If you want to see how bad cabinet arms is with the Russian army? Go watch their BMPs, all 3 vehicle's, infantry dismount and promptly get ran over. Either the driver backs up or it pivots to leave. No commander standing up. It's pretty appalling videos but it tells you everything about Russia's combined arms.
Keep in mind about PDS debt is that it is not a loan. They set up a brokerage account where you will have to pay into. Your debt that you’re trying to have PDS debt take care of will STILL BE ACTIVE and you are told NOT to make ANY payments into the debt you’re trying to recover from. It could be years before PDS debt reaches a solution to your bank(s)/loaner(s) and you could be subjected to lawsuits and/or collections. Items that were purchased by those loans maybe subjected to repossession. In my opinion, PDS debt should only be utilized if you are in such a significant financial situation and you have no other means of absolving your debt besides bankruptcy
As an 82nd Speed bump from the Gulf War, I see pros and cons on this vehicle. Pro light weight and fast like we want to be, big gun go boom, again plus, can carry wounded out of a hostile area, great. Cons no TOWs, No heavy Machine gun, Fuel and Ammo resupply. Idk if it is or not but it better be amphib cause we cross a lot of water. The Sheridan served a purpose, even though it was outdated since Vietnam, but before we all had FLIR or Thermals they did and could spot things we couldn't plus on a Road Block, big gun goes boom. When I was in the NG as Light Inf. I got attached to Scouts and they had Bradley's and since we were the Crunchies and it was Scouts there were only 3 of us in the back and was great. I was almost always assigned to be the RTO, so I could talk to the tanks around us and call for fire if and when we needed it. I do like that Lt. Inf. will have a vehicle for direct support instead of waiting an hour for a Plt. of tanks to show up and tell us they can't do the what we need them to do cause the road is to narrow or the ground is to soft. If they add TOW system and some kind of anti-drone along with Mk-19 and M2, that would make it far better in the Role of Infantry. The other down side is if the crew are taken out the vehicle is dead as the Inf. don't know how to operate it, unless they do some cross training. I am talking about if the Crew gets hit while out of the vehicle and not if the vehicle takes a direct hit and is dead anyways.
The lack of drone protection and no remote controlled mg are, I think, the most important criticisms of this tank. The second two are the weight and the (relatively) high velocity gun For an infantry support vehicle, the MG is a crucual tool. And drones are very common now-a-days, so not having the protection on it is questionable, judging by how fast the LEO 2s were taken apart in the counteroffensive. The 42 tons do seem like a lot, but if its mostly spent on armor then maybe its worth it. But you could get a T-72 for that much weight. Booker probably has better all-around protection, rather than frontal. The fact that the gun is so high velocity does mean than it will have to be used for direct fire, unlike BMP-3s which you mentioned, which can work like automatic mortars. This capability is useful with a drone spotter. But then again, nothing is stopping the U.S. military from just creating a low velocity round which flies slower and has more HE filler.
As for me, another thing that US army needs is something called "trench destroyer" it would be a tool to fast crossing trenches as well as tools to protect army from being uncovered while traveling open fields
This is interesting. I served in 98’- 01’ in the 82nd as D. CO. 3/325th as an 11H, which was the Anti-Armor Company for the Battalion. It’ll be interesting to see how the M10 will change or integrate the Airborne Battalion’s organization.
They'll just keep adding shit until it evolves back into an Abrams
It does have the advantage of starting on a lighter chassis though
so it's like how everything in nature keeps evolving into crabs?
@@HVAC1actual I wouldn't doubt it. 😂🤣 I wouldn't even be surprised if it gained weight over the years comparable to the current Abrams.
@@kyb5203 i think the m10 booker should be used for the marine corps, a tank that can be dropped in via a nice chonky helicopter.
@@ixonal8843 I can ;live with that. A Crab tank with a fat piece of armoured artillery on it.
As a former US Army Infantryman, my Armor buddies once told me that the term "Crunchies" does not come from when a tank runs an enemy soldier over and their bones break. The "Crunch" sound comes from when the old metal helmets got stuck in the track and kept making the crunch sound as the track moved. Usually a pivot steer would solve the issue. 🙂
Jalisco Cartels: Ayy Gringo, hold our TEQUILAs 🥃
@@KamBar2020 there's no multiple cartels in Jalisco, only one..., and what's the relation between the M10 and the cartel (or cartels)?
This tank is named after two people by the Biden Admin! I am surprised he did not name it after a transexual/transvestite such as the "Corporal Klinger"! Hahaha
I thought crunchies stood for the light vehicles getting crushed, while squishies stood for crushing infantry.
enemy soldiers? armor has killed just about more Americans than the enemy the most dangerous place as a ground soldier isn't facing the enemy its moving towards a friendly armor column
I happened to serve with Ssg Booker, the man for whom the M10 was named. I will never forget the unfortunate day my platoon lost him in Iraq during what came to be known as "the thunder run". He was a great tanker, mentor, and human being. Having this tank named after him is a well-deserved honor to his memory. R.I.P. SSG Booker. You will never be forgotten.
M10 BOOGER, MY FAVORITE TANK
Ancient tanker here ... If the booker is going to follow current doctrine, I'd guess you're going to see them used in pairs (that's heavy armor doctrine) for mutual support. Beyond that, the wide open spaces of Ukraine isn't the target environment for light infantry. By doctrine, that's where you use heavy BCTs (ie M1 & M2). In all reality, the M10 is a small step up from a towed direct fire cannon. Its really there to help the crunchies eliminate targets that require more humph than a grenade launcher. Its not design to take on heavy armored vehicle (although historically commanders always seem to want to use that way). I will say that not having it as airdroppable seem to minimize its usefulness doctrinally with forced entry being the 82nd primary reason for existing....
@@johnbaker8512 if you look to Ukraine,russians convoys use a combination of APC,IFV and at least T-72 so what are the chances that M10 will destroy front armor of a MBT T-72 b3,T-80,T-90!The warzone it's impredictable what are the chances to target side armor in a direct confrontation between tanks.
@@xmindk Abrams are taking out tanks from the side, so...maybe?
Going to be interesting to see what they can do to ships.
You can't air drop in contested airspace so it doesn't matter
in the current Ukraine war there is relatively little tank on tank combat. Tanks are mainly being used to suppress infantry to clear the way for friendly infantry.
M10 In 1941: Tank destroyer
M10 In 2022: Light tank
Funny, it has also been compared to the StuG.
@@craigmoffitt2374 StuG (Sturmgeschütz) means "assault gun", and as the name implies was meant to give infantry a powerful gun for assaulting enemy positions - and since that's _exactly_ what the M10 Booker is for, it is not inaccurate to call the M10 "a StuG"!
Yeah but the M36 could destroy a Tiger. The M10 Booker cannot destroy a T72.
With what logic did you deduce this?
If the 105mm gun on a M60A3 and an M1IP can penetrate a T-72s armor, why do you think this can't?
@@tankeriv you might be forgetting that is statement is assuming the factory that built that T-72 did it right, and didn't pull a T-34 moment, where they had varying degrees of quality (much of which not being good).
I too I was a crewman on the M551A1 Sheridan with 82nd Airborne. Back in the 80's. 4/68 and 3/73 (Airborne). My tank ran over a guys legs during night time conditions looking for a units OP. Unfortunately he feel asleep and as i ground guided the tank into the area, I didn't see him. Thank god, the sand was soft & he didn't suffer any permeant injury. Except maybe some serious PTSD.
Exciting to hear they are bringing this back The 82nd need something like this to draw fire. No, serious... a fast moving, armored vehicle, that looks like a tank, put the fear of god into your enemy.
Tell me more.
How was your experience with the Sheridan
The sand was so soft that a TANK pushed a man's legs into the ground without causing permanent injury?
There’s been at least two incidents of a soldier setting up camp or falling asleep near a Stryker. Things didn’t end well
I've always heard the Sheridan was a rolling nightmare for the crews without offering enough armor to justify how big of a target it was. How different was your experience with the machine compared to claims? Or did the firepower just justify the potential downsides?
As a track vehicle mechanic in the late 70s and early 80s, I was not in love with the Sheridan. It was made out of aluminum and wouldn't stop a 50 cal or better. RPGs would eat its lunch, and they were maintenance hog. It would fire a missle, and conventional rounds, but required major changes to change between rounds. The only advantage was that it was able to be air dropped. Slow and underpowered was the best description I can come up with.
One very significant difference between the War in Ukraine and the wars the US has on the horizon is that Ukraine and Russia are wide open plains where as there is a wide of variety of terrain that the US will be fighting on.
While back in WW2 the Russian plains were dominated by Heavy tanks just as they are now, if we look at the Pacific in WW2 we see lots of opportunities for effective use of light tanks.
Japanese tanks, even though they were quite weak compared to Allied or German tanks still served a valuable role because of how light and mobile they were. Similiarly if we have a war in the Pacific like we did in WW2 we will want a light tanks that can be deployed on these islands and not get stuck or sink into the mud.
It's valuable to learn from Ukraine, but to listen to it at the exclusion of all our historic military experience would be foolish.
Based. There are a bunch of factors shaping the war in Ukraine that won’t be present in many other places.
Well said
Also costs half as much as the M1A2 sep 3. Which means you can deploy it two to one in a defensive posture. Which opens the M1 to be used on the attack or counter attack. The M1A2 sep 3 is too heavy to cross many bridges in Europe. Honestly the M10 has many roles to fill.
I dont see how this vehicle will be useful really in any capacity, anywhere in the world. The only thing it does well seems to be getting moved around by other more useful vehicles.
This is a big brained post. You have a big brain.
I was a crewman on the M551A1 Sheridan with 82nd Airborne in the 90s. The way we tended to be organized was with 1 company of Sheridans assigned to support 1 infantry BCT. In that configuration, the armor company commander (O3) would be present in the task force and would advise the BCT commander how to best use those assets. However, the BCT commander (O5) owned the task force had the ultimate say as to how the tanks would be used.
Perhaps noteworthy is that 3/73 Armor was actually staffed with MOS 19D crewmen, not 19K. The idea there being that airdropped vehicles often crashed and the crewmen needed to function without it. This is a strong violation of the "death before dismount" ethos of 19Ks in general.
We had a Plt. assigned to us on the 8 lane hard ball going into Bagdad south of the Euphrates and An Nasiriyah. I remember talking to the guys as I was Combat Lifesaver and our Doc was showing me around meeting everyone. They said if the tank was on fire pull this switch and don't worry we are dead. Great guys just had a tank that was outdated by 20 years or so. We did like having the big guns with us and even though it is shit by todays standards their optics came in handy at night.
This tank is named after two people by the Biden Admin! I am surprised he did not name it after a transexual/transvestite such as the "Corporal Klinger"! Hahaha
Yeah the BCT concept these will kick butt...
As a Brazilian civvie I have no idea how these videos got recommended to me but hot damn I'm loving them!
Welcome our Brazilian friend.
The algorithm has smiled on you
MERICA
welcome back M3 Stuart
😂😊
42 tons stuart
fat stuart
Stuart is back from hibernation, and he's a little tubby.
Make TOYOTA 🗾 Great Again 😎 Scotty Kilmer
I mean... if you said an M10 tank hunter. The wolverine.
An M3 ? 😂 come one man... even a Bradley is bigger than it 😅
"...Teething problems that still need ironing out." - I absolutely love mixed metaphors.
so my question is why is the front door always the option when the building or house Has windows
Ha!
Ironing out issues that require teething
So you don't iron your baby's teeth?
@@JaimeGerman-vc5utgetting soldiers thru windows is cumbersome, plus if the windows closed and locked, now u have a loud entrance thats hard to get thru and is also covered in glass shards
Announcing ammo production numbers is amazingly smoothbrain.
bmp-3 is so lightly armored that ANY hit on it turns the crew into aspiring cosmonauts
lol that's fucked up
Pretty sure its frontally protected against its own 3UBR 30mm firing AP rounds. Sides are a different story
or spam.
i think that is more so the BMP-1 and BMP-2 which are terribly armored.
This is why russians want their kids to be soldiers!
Don't focus on learning calculus engineering whatever, you already have a chance to become a cosmonaut in a much easier way!
I don't think anyone is saying that it's NOT a tank. The designers were worried that if they called it a tank then battlefield commanders would default to using it like they would use an M1. By not using "tank" in the name they are forcing the commanders and crews on the ground to stop and think about how they should be using this new platform.
From historical prospective this makes sense as it's been a whole generation since the US has had any tanks that are not M1s.
DOD is saying that. Take from that what you will.
It is not a tank. It does not fit the role of an MBT, NOR the role of Light Tank.... soooo not a tank.
@@SkunkdMonk And yet, it has a turret, tracks, and a main gun sticking out the front.
@@MM22966 a lot of vehicles that aren't tanks have that.
@@SkunkdMonk True, but since at least half the people who take one look at the Booker will think "tank", including officers that may use it in combat roles, and its crew ARE Tankers by MOS, I can almost guarantee you it will be called a "tank" anywhere but a PowerPoint briefing.
You can't say that about, oh, a BMP, for example. Or a Bradley.
I'm saying whatever the Army WANTS it to be, it will get used as a tank. I just hope the crews don't get in over their head.
HEP and HESH are both terms for a type of explosive projectile, but they differ in their terminology and how they are used:
HEP: In American terminology, HEP stands for high-explosive plastic or plasticized.
HESH: In British terminology, HESH stands for high-explosive squash head.
Both HEP and HESH projectiles contain plastic explosive and are designed to conform to the surface of a target before detonating. This improves the transfer of explosive energy to the target.
HESH rounds are thin metal shells that break open when they hit a target's armor. The plastic explosive then "pancakes" against the armor and explodes when the fuse hits the armor. This creates a shock wave that travels through the armor. HESH rounds are not armor-piercing, but they can defeat armored targets by causing spall.
M393 HEP rounds have a thin metal shell that is exactly the same as the British HESH rounds, function exactly the same, and are based on the British HESH rounds. Remember the 105mm M68 Gun was the British105mm L7 gun, except manufactured in the US under license. Fired enough rounds out of it over 12 years on the M48A5 and M60 series.... Cheers.
It's an armoured, tracked fighting vehicle with a main gun mounted on a turret. It's a tank.
Edit: And crewed by 19 kilos: tank.
It is lighter and less combat capable than an MBT. It's a light effing tank, I don't care what anyone says.
I think the military did this to annoy us
Definitely a light tank with that big a cannon and tracks
To be fair the M10 booker is a similar weight as the old Sherman tanks so i would just call it a medium tank. But at the end of the day who cares really.
@@L0neW0lfL0ganlittle to nimble for a medium tank, light she is 😂
If tank is designed for fighting in main battles against other tanks, it is main battle tank.
If tank is designed to minimise weight and be used by airborne troupes against other light vehicles it is light tank.
Welcome back M10 tank destroyer.
2024 new version!
So for reference, up until the army recently got rid of them, the MGSs were crewed by 19Ds for quite a while. They weren't infantry support vehicles for very long. The MGSs got put into the heavy weapons troop of a cavalry squadron. But similar to what you said about the 11Bs, 19Ds were not trained on the MGS in OSUT, there was just the chance you get assigned to that troop and then receive training on it. The weapons troop never really got assigned to any infantry company or battalion, they basically made them a division asset that you would have to request, like M1s.
(Former career tanker here). Most likely you’re right the bookers will stay at a battalion level, but since armor has always and probably will always work in the wingman concept I don’t think one book will go to each company instead, I think groups of four to stay consistent with current Armor doctrine). The Battalion Commander would assign them based on companies role in each mission.
Mama mia
No, that’s not gonna help infantry move under fire. You’re thinking only like a tanker. Nothing wrong with that but that’s not how an infantry company will use 1
Auto correct from Battalion?
I agree with that assesment on these of this vehicle, also must keep in mind as soon as you have tanks show up you are now in mechanized war fare, fast and furious.
As someone below said, it fills the same role as the Sheridan, but with a s far more proven weapon type (a 105mm). It uses proven systems from the M1. It was designed with a lot of input with the infantry it will support. It feels like a system designed to not be perfect or highly innovative, but solid, dependable and very reasonably effective.
It costs a fortune for such a straightforward role. its essentially a tracked version of the MGS they claim has the latest tech to justify its insane price tag that is higher than most other countries MBTs.
Thank you Cappy for another excellent update. I believe that this vehicle fulfills a valuable slot. From the info in your video, I'm a fan!
Some call it an armored vehicle, some call is a light tank, I call it a metal walled tracky thingy with a boom-boom
I just call it a metal bawks
Now you have to write the song about the metal-walled tracky- thingie boom boom.
Big badda boom! 💥
LOL
I like thingie boom boom.
Former tank commander here, there’s not an autoloader I know of in NATO or Warsaw that can outpace a trained loader (though would love to hear feedback if someone knows otherwise, I hear the Type 90 is pretty fast).
I’m tracking the average autoloader takes between 6-8 seconds.
You couldn’t be a loader in my company without being able to load consistently in 6 seconds or lower. I had a couple that could do so in about 4, and one that could do it in the 3s.
Not even taking into consideration the million ways a 4th crewmember makes things more efficient versus another piece of equipment just waiting for a deadlining fault.
The Japanese autoloaders are fucking _fast._ If I'm remembering correctly, they crank out a staggering 20 rounds per minute, and maintain that rate of fire for the entirety of the tank's stowage. Soviet/Chinese-style carousel autoloaders typically take a bit longer, but cassete-style systems are second only to swing-breach guns like the XM274, and those require the use of CT (cased, telescoped) rounds.
The old Swedish STRV 103 could crank out a similar rate of fire, and there was even a drop-in system for the Abrams that was developed with a slightly slower (around 4s) reload and managed to retain the 4th crew member, but wasn't adopted due to weight issues.
People love to harp on the autoloader's reliability but I have barely see any report of it being a main issue even in every intense combat operation in modern history (Afghanistan, Yom Kippur, Ukraine, etc.). Western tanks not adopting the autoloader is because they need the 4th crew member for maintenance and other stuff (doctrine), not because a person a better loader. The funny thing is that the French army already fixes that issue by putting the 4th crew members on escorting scout cars
@@Panzerfrank It's about maintaining that loading speed throughout the entire battle. At some point an autoloader will outpace the human in sustained combat.
@griffinfaulkner3514 thoroughly researched!
@quakethedoombringer, I’m unfamiliar with the French solution. I’m guessing additional crewmen are still attached to the platoon in escort vehicles?
@bl8danjil, you bring up a valid point for consistency. Fatigue would definitely set in the more they fire. I suppose a counterpoint would be that your track is unlikely to fire a massive degree of rounds in one burst since you’ll be constantly displacing and engaging with various weapon systems. But it’s true that sustained ops will bring the whole crew down in performance.
@@griffinfaulkner3514 The japanese Type 90 has an autoloader speed of 3-4 seconds.
The Type 10 has an autoloader speed of 1.8 seconds.
Top notch content Cappy, as always. As a member of the light tank master race on World of Tanks. This baby makes me gooey in all the right places.
I always love listening to your videos, Kappy. Even though I hope we never get to see them in action, it's very entertaining and strangely relaxing to learn about these platforms.
Quick correction:
The MRAP is actually going to be fitted with a new variant of the 30mm Bushmaster that Northrop just released. Its a dual feed gun with the ability to switch seamlessly between ammo types, for both countering incoming enemy vehicles, and UAVs.
So the M10 will in theory have that backing it up as well, not just the .50 cal
a pair of Shorad Strykers could support the M10's as well.
And the defense industrial complex smiles
The AC-130 J has used a dual feed 30mm Bushmaster for years
This was the rationale for the 1970s/80s armored cav platoon with 4 tanks, 6 APCs working together day in and day out. The tanks provided overwatch and beat up anything the scouts pointed out. We had a rifle squad in one M113 at the start, and they were the main ground holders in each platoon. There's something about the day in, day out platoon cohesion that makes the tankers and the dismounts learn how to support each other.
The Booker is more like the M36 Tank Destroyer which was basically an M10 but with a 90 mm main gun.
But it has a fast turrent rotaion and well uisn'y open toped...
I had some time to think about it and came to the conclusion that M10 is a 2024 American version of a mid 60s to early 80s Russian medium tank. At 41 tons, not only it is NOT a light tank, but weighs as much as T64 (38 tons) and T80 (42 tons) main battle tanks, and only 6 tons short of a T90M! It has significantly less armor & a weak gun with rare specialty ammo (designed in 80s) that is unable to effectively engage other tanks yet weighs so much that it faces similar limitations as a normal MBT. M10 should have weighted at least 10 tons less (as much as M36) or offered MBT-level protection at current weight to make any sense.
I've always been a fan of your channel and I appreciate all the time and effort that goes into research and presentation. However, I'm even more impressed with the number of authoritative channels that quote you as a reference source. It's good to see your influence grow and you receive the recognition you deserve.
This is actually a really good idea. The M10 is smaller, lighter and less expensive than the M1. We're able to make a shit ton of them and overwhelm the enemy taking a page from the WW2 playbook. The war in Ukraine is teaching us that quantity still trumps quality.
As an OLD 19K, so old that I have a 19E secondary (M60 tanker,) there is just so much to unpack from the glory days of the M1 era (late 80s - early 90s.) First, I find it very funny that the Army has been going back to having all these different ammo types. On the M60s (I was never a gunner, so I don't remember exactly what rounds there were, but there were 5.) We had of course the Sabot and HEAT rounds, the HE and HEP, and Beehive. I saw the Army was prototyping a beehive round probably 25 years ago, now there playing with HE and HEP rounds again. This is stuff from the 1960s. Of course they are modernized with programmable fuses and stuff. On our M1A1s, we only had Sabot and HEAT.
The M10 fills a gap that the Sheridan once filled. It has been since the late 80s that we have had an air dropable tank. I'm not saying it can be dropped from 5000 ft, or whatever airborne drops from, but the Sheridan didn't drop from there either, as far as I know. I think they do that thing where the plane flies real close to the ground and the tank skids out of the back on a big pallet (I was not airborne, duh, so how the hell would I know any of that crap...) I think it's great for the tankers out there, because now they can go to jump school again.
Crunchies. Yes crunchies. How many crunchies does it take to grease the tracks? One, if you hit him just right. 🤣Yes morbid, but that is the life we chose as combat arms, is it not?
The Sheridan was air droppable on a special corrugated pallet and three huge parachutes. If it landed upright, it was good to go.
just wondering as a civvie, dont you think abrams etc should also have anti personel HE frag rounds? most tank shots in ukraine seem to go into treelines and trenches, so only having sabot and heat for your tank seems like a big problem to me. imo tanks should always also be intented to support infantry, and not just be seen as an anti armour vehicle.
air droppable seems like a bad idea to me, we've seen how light and amphibious vehicles fare in ukraine (god awful). luckily m10 booker is not that light. still i dont know why any light infantry would rather be supported by a booker than by a t90m, which only differs like 10 tons.
One thing that has changed since then though is that, as Justin Bronk, an expert in military aviation said in a UK parliamentary hearing, battlefield aerial insertion is dead.
Dudes jumping out of planes like it was Market Garden isn't a thing anymore. The Russians learned this the hard way on the first day of the war. "SAM"bushes are a thing, with multiple SAM system types capable of knocking transport aircraft out of the sky at 300+ km. Thus the M10 would never have been airdropped, even if it, as a platform, had that capability.
That times have changed can also be seen when looking at weight and protection. The M10 weighs 42 tons, more than the older T72 MBTs, and yet it is only rated to withstand 30mm cannon fire, and that only at 500m or more. Making it airdroppable would have required down-armoring or removing other systems to decrease the weight. Lots of countries (at least in NATO) are looking at upgunning their IFVs with 50mm cannons and the results will probably be seen in 5-10 years. If APC also get upgunned, e.g. with light, modern 30mm automatic weapon stations, a lighter airdropable M10 would have been threatened even by APCs. Where light infantry is supposed to operate, you're, afaik, not likely to run into MBTs and IFVs, but light APCs are, I would assume, much more likely, e.g. as rear-area security. And if those can take out your M10, then its utility would be quite questionable.
What you're talking about with the Sheridan delivery was called LAPES. It was discontinued as being too dangerous to both tank and aircraft.
@slopedarmor well, the M1 series have an M240 7.62 x 54 (.30 cal) machine gun for a coax (which means it is aligned with the main gun, so it is also fired by the gunner,) and it has another M240 that the loader fires, and the M2 .50 cal machine that the tank commander operates, so the M1 can definitely handle personnel. Considering the M1 can only carry 40 rounds of main gun ammo, it's probably better that it doesn't have so many different types of rounds. Like Cappy mentioned, the M1 is a tank hunter, our main job wasn't necessarily to take out infantry. That's what our own infantry is for.
My brigade had a guy get squished by an Abrams in the early morning during an FTX. Still dark out and he was in his bag still asleep. It was nasty cold out and as everyone knows, the M1 is a heater from the back. Trying to get warm got him killed
Whoa, what!! He slept through the tank firing up?
@sterlingroberts6240 I've witnessed people sleep through more..
I would have woke up from the engine starting
@@scrubberjerms no way…a turbine engine?? Wtf.
@@sterlingroberts6240 ever not sleep for a few days during a field trading exercise? And to be honest, I'm not sure that the tank was ever shut down since he was behind it to stay warm from the heat vents in the back
In the 2nd Cav around 2012, the M1128 AGS Strykers were operated by 19Ks. They absolutely hated it and complained to no end because they had gone to school for M1s, but nevertheless, we had 19Ks in our M1128s.
-Ivan, do you know how americans call 42 tons tank?
-How?
-Light tank
-Ha ha ha
Funny thing is, at 42 tons it's almost as heavy as the IS-2's curb weight.
remember the amx-30 being roughly 30 tons ?
Remember the T-72 being almost 44 tons?
@@WaltyLeOttre with or without orbital turret?
@@DriveCarToBar You should check out the Ukraine War Trophies Display at Victory Park Moscow.
You're bound to see some old friends not looking their best.
Peace.
A major difference between the US Army and the Russo-Ukrainian war is that the US Army can rely on the US Air Force to enable manuever warfare instead of failing and letting a war become a war of attrition. The US army doesnt have to structure itself to bunker down and defend for years on end against a peer adversary. It can instead focus on offense. The Booker enables light infantry to create breakthroughs, which can then be exploited by helicopters and other vehicles.
Just don’t expect to have that air power advantage in Eastern Europe or Russians front doorstep without taking Vietnam levels of air attrition to A/A .
The US army has to psychologically train its soldiers for attrition warfare with drones etc . With peer states as opponents you cannot solely rely on aviation . Also with the decreasing readiness of the Airforce due to budget cuts , platforms being retired and the spread out nature of air wings through different US commands around the world well it’s time to revisit some Cold War doctrines and remake them to fit the future .
The Ukrainians have proven themselves to be good at (albeit small) maneuver warfare. Imagine what they could achieve if they had a real Air Force. Now imagine what we could do with our air power. But also, don’t discount MANPADS and traditional AA systems. You’re speaking as if these systems wouldn’t cause massive disruption in air power on either side.
@@Miami1991 buddy during war with a near peer the budget & personnel count will sore out the roof for DoD. A war of attrition will not happen with USA unless it’s in the enemy backyard. No nation can effectively deploy troops on a mass scale outside its geographical region except the USA. With the F35, F22, b2, & b21 the sky will still be ours not to mention whatever that is replacing these systems that might make it to the battlefield early due to a possible near peer conflict. The problems face currently will not exist in wartime. The only thing weak about the DoD is our citizens back home. Honestly that’s most western countries problem, a weak home front who have the luxury to distance themselves from conflict. The moment your nation people start to question what we are fighting for or the objectives, you lost.
lol, u.s. air superiority does not exist. the us has not directly fought a peer adversary since ww2. 30% of planes in the us airforce are not airworthy at any given time. the u.s. spent twenty years smart-bombing illiterate goat herders and lost and they still think they're tough when in reality they're even more incompetent than the russians. who can't figure out hypersonic missiles while russia rains them down on ukraine? the u.s. cant.
@@lorwally13Your words about citizens in the US are true. How much Gruz 200 and 300 they can they accept? Moscovites are masters of deception and they will blow every possible horn to make as much noise as they can. They will blow their cells of "illegals" just to increase divisions between already polarised groups in the States.
The 105 mm auto loaded gun in the 8*8 LAV was well thought of and I think would still make a good addition to any infantry unit!
Big brain critics saying that a light tank cannot resist an MBT round, well DUH.
If you want to resist an APFSDS 105mm and upwards, you need a vehicle of 60+ tons.
It's kind of a silly argument anyway, tanks aren't being hit by other tanks. Someone could tally up the direct hits from main guns, tank on tank, in the Ukraine conflict, and I'd wager it's not more than a handfull.
The tank on tank bias stems from looking at Germany in ww2, and there were unique things about their situation.
70% of Sherman's knocked out were due to a direct hit from a main battle tank or assault gun/tank destroyer.
Couple of points here... no fuel, which means limited air campaigns. Tanks and tank destroyers largely sitting defensively not driving and waiting for an enemy attack.
As such, because Germans had to fight this way, they speced their guns to secure the kill with virtual certainty on a hit. They would completely compromise mobility and suspension reliability by adding on weight to get this, and thicken the armor to the point of knowing they could tank the shots from the guns their enemies were fielding. But these tradeoffs were made in a context
But the type 10 MBT can do that while weighing 44t and being built for the pacific theater. If this were a 30t tank then I might agree, but it weighs nearly the same amount as lighter MBTs without benefiting from the armor or firepower.
I dont see how this vehicle will be useful at all.
It's more or less as valid an argument against a humvee or a truck as it is against a light fighting vehicle. It's a little like criticizing a WWII destroyer for not being able to take a battleship round. That's not what it's for.
small tanks, big tanks, they are all jobbers to anti-tank drones, same as how they have been jobbers to ATGMs like Javelin nowadays
what's important (as a threat to the enemy) is the 105mm rifled gun can lob dozens of HEP shells around with impunity if not stopped
Hopefully they considered the drone threat that is now how warfare is fought. Shape charges coning from above is quite the issue.
😂😂😂😂 Drone threat, the army should take innovation from Ukraine, but they want to create expensive death traps like the Russians.
Drone threats in the future must be dealt with by specialized vehicles that only focus on that to protect all vehicles and troops from drones.
@@paulbrown4649
You clearly understand little of the realities.
In a not so distant future will the be specialized vehicles that ONLY deal with drone threats.
This development is going extremely fast.
The top gun mount can support m240s, M2s or anti drone weapons.
what, are you expecting the army to learn obvious lessons BEFORE they end up killing soldiers??????
Seems to be a variation on the old saw, "every ten years or so the Army reinvents the wheel". Congratulations, we've just reinvented the Sturmgeschutz! Seems like something handy to have alongside.
11:05 in my opinion the 2s25 is more of an equivalent to the booker than the bmp3, the bmp3 being an infantry fighting vehicle and the M10 Booker being more of a light tank as is the 2s25
yes, the chinese equivalent is more on par with it (although not 1 to 1 in doctrine)
I'd look at t62m, since both sprut and bmp3 are much lighter than booker, so no armour. And in case of bmp3 - no comparable firepower either. T62 on other hand has similar mission, weight, firepower and such. And both are likely to be used as main tank if need arises.
the sprut-SD is no where near production
if anything, yea, the latest modernized versions T-62 & T-54/55 are probably the closest equivalent Russia has to offer against the American M-10 & the Chinese Type 15
@@DaoklT62m has a 115mm gun, it's far far more powerful than the 105mm on the Booker 😂 You can't compare the m10 booker to any legitimate MBTs, not even a T55. 😂
@@JamesOMalley-hb4tf less gun, more ammo was a conscious design choice. Moreover both guns would struggle with most modern mbt front armour and their main task is troop support, in Ukraine even mbt's mostly do that.
Both t55/t62 were classified as medium tanks before they became mbt's (at least by soviets), one can argue that they are medium again.
The Brits so loved the HESH for its AT qualities, they still used rifled 120mm barrels until the Challenger 3.
They would still be using it with an improved gun. But keeping an ammunition factory for less than 200 tanks is not cost effective. They are adding new IFVs with 40 mm auto cannons though for anything short of main battle tanks.
It stopped using hesh for AT decades ago it is really only useful against bunker and light armor
Over pressure is a thing in real life btw @@kameronjones7139
I'm a Brit and can confirm Hesh rounds were almost as vital as a cup of tea.
i just found out Turkish and Pakistani HE rounds for their 105mm tank guns are just 105mm HE howitzer shells put in a 105x617mm propellant case
and the Swedes used to make 120mm HE shell for smoothbore 120mm gun from modified 120mm mortar bombs
putting high explosive on the 105mm rifled tank gun should be much simpler than a HEP round
It's a funny thing when military procurement doctrines specify this vehicle is designed to be an infantry support tank. It's main job is not to fight other tanks. We have these other main battle tanks/systems over here, that are going to fight enemy tanks. But then comes the day when the vehicles, men, doctrines and theories get put to the test on the crucible of the battlefield. That test tells us things like; The German Sturgeschutz goes from infantry support vehicle to the all time top scoring tank killer; that the M4 Sherman didn't 'just' perform as a break through and infantry support vehicle, but got shot up regularly by enemy tanks, (but wait, wasn't that the job of tank destroyers, like the M-10 Wolverine, to engage enemy tanks ?). Let's hope that the new M-10s have some serious anti-tank rounds on board before they deploy because like it or not, they're going to go up against serious enemy armor. History proves it every time.
Great timing! I was looking this up last night
You always do a great job with explaining military and government terms for the laymen aka civilians
Keep after it Cappy! Thanks
Very handy for getting around hurricane affected area's, good sound system and lot's of boot space, scratch proof paint finish
You mist out the Swedish option the CV90.120 and the newer CV90.105 there is an option of the CV90.120 to add a cleaver Cammo this give the CV90.120 the nick name ghost tank .it's covered with ceramic tiles each can be cooled or heated so when you look at it with nods you don't see the signature of a Tank it could look like a car or a van
Even BAE didn't submit the CV90, preferring the M8 derivative instead. If they didn't want to submit it (And it's not as if other countries have been falling over themselves to buy it), it may not be as suitable for this role as some believe.
@@TheChieftainsHatch yes this is true but seeing as BAE has many fingers in both US and European military equipment they understand the peculiarities of differant goverments it's understandable that to have what you need built in your owen country . Also some people mite think that BAE has too much of a say in what is being built in the US for there military like the paladin the Bradley and the new turretless Bradley system so BAE backed the M8 system and slice of the pie seems good enough
You brought up a good point on whose really in charge. In Italy the M10 tank destroyers were attached with the infantry. The infantry would come up against tanks and fortifications and be tasked with leading the unit and assaulting. When the LTs or PSG would say "Um sir that's not our jobs we don't have the protection." The BN Commander would be like wtf I'm a LT Col do what I say now! You have more armor than my infantrymen!
It sounds like a leopard 1. Fast light and 105mm L7 gun
A low recoil cannon of the same caliber and upgraded electronics and drive train. I would bet that they did a little classified something something with the armor as well.
Or the TAM
Love the generals quote (5:11) that "the original M10 served....in an infantry support role in Italy and the pacific. The same role invisioned for today's M10."
Sounds like the general declared war against Italy.
From the mouth of a 19A, task Org of the platoon is a 16 man platoon, with the 4 tanks manned by 4 Soldiers. The platoon is divided into 2 sections comprised of 2 tanks. The PL and PSG are the section leaders and their wingman is the E6 tank commanders,
Other positions are the E5 gunner, E4 loader and the youngest least experienced soldiers are the drives. Hope that makes sense.
All true with the exception that often, in my personal experience, it was the lowest rank in the loaders position with the driver typically being the E-3 or E-4. At least that's the way it was done in my time in both 1-64AR and 2-7IN both in 3ID out of ft. Stewart Ga
The issues will always revolve around logistics. How many mechanics will units get to work on them? Are light units financially equipped for the uptick in maintenance costs? Do light units have the fuel capacity to support Bookers? Do units have a CLV storage capabilities to hold the sustainment loads for Bookers? If only self recovery for x2 Bookers then taking out one effectively takes both out of the fight. Those are the real questions. The Army will have to flesh that one out. You can give an infantry company an Abrams. But if the logistics behind it isn’t bolstered then it will be a giant NMC hinderance that units have to drag forward or leave behind.
You have to add more support
Definatly need an armored recovery variant
I love how when talking about a 19k's training, you showed a PPT of a "low crawl." Son, we don't walk. We don't march. We don't ruck. We don't run (except during the PT test). We sure as hell don't crawl. We RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIDE.
Hell yea lol
Thanks, Chris! Another gem!
That looks similarly like the ASCOD II Sabrah Light Tank of the Philippines. Nice. 🇵🇭🇺🇸👍
Both Sabrah and Booker are descended from ASCOD/Ulan, Sabrah more directly
It's based on the ASCOD
Based on ASCOD with upgraded engine and suspension so should have better off road fire on the move.
I call it an Assault Gun because it is only meant to fulfill a fire support role. The light tank term/classification is obsolete with its roles taken by other vehicles, technologies, or munitions.
Pretty sure StuGs had the most tank kills out of any armored vehicle in ww2 so that bodes well for the Booker.
Assault guns are indirect fire. This is a direct fire platform.
@@BalthasarGelt-x2d You are thinking of StuH that had a Howitzer.
The StuG versions used regular tank guns and were used for regular tank roles although the larger versions had better guns then most tanks so were often used as TD. But the most produced one being Stug III, that had the same gun as the Panzer IV and were essentially used as an low cost replacement for regular tanks in the order of battle.
@@BalthasarGelt-x2d Uh, look up assault gun. They are direct fire platforms. The early ones just happened to use artillery guns. Because the Main Battle Tank made all other tanks obsolete with many of their other roles taken by other vehicles or technology, a more modern definition of assault gun is being defined.
@@SuperCrow02 That because they can be use as tank destroys in a pinch...
Yeah....I'm sure every company 2IC will love having to organise the logistics of a toy tank on top of keeping 3 platoons and an anti-armour section alive and in supply. This sounds like it will be popular right up until contact with the enemy and they'll end up in the division vehicle park as a QRF.
Can we just call it a Bradley with a 105mm
Bradley was an APC
@@samsonsoturian6013 M10 developed from ASCOD....an IFV.
The concept of the M10 Booker is a heavy assault breaching vehicle. But against non-peer adversaries who do not have access to large amounts of Anti-Tank Guided Missiles or Anti-Tank/armored vehicle drones.
Thank you for providing me a quick publically available information run down on weapon systems. This provides me a quick catch up on what is going on! Great work and keep cranking!!!!
What an adorable little light tank.
Loved every second vid! You did great!
I think of it as more of a tank destroyer, and support tank.
That HEP round can also take out quite a few enemy vehicles of the BMP class , self propelled artillery, etc. Basically anything that doesn't have reactive armor. The blast wave will also sweep over the vehicle removing infantry , radio antennas and sensors.
6,500 rounds produced per YEAR? Russia fires 4 times that every day in Ukraine. I know that's artillery, but still.
i am surprised no one in Western militaries has considered of modifying a 105mm HE howitzer shell, fit it to the 105x617mm propellant case of the 105mm rifled tank gun, and use it as a HE shell
Turkey and Pakistan have done that
(well, except Sweden who modified some 120mm mortar rounds into 120mm fin-stabilized HE shells for the 120mm smoothbore gun, but that's another story for another gun)
@@williamyoung9401 yeah thats called casual stock piliing.. there's no need to create 5 million rounds a year..
russia is on full war mode and half of their garbage doesn't even work not having electronics is creating issues, unable to supply proper equipment, and so forth
I'm no expert, but from the descriptions I've read, anything with a good modern sandwich would probably need something more than the HESH round. Anything with conventional rolled armor is probably screwed though, so you're probably right about the BMP line. Unfortunately, we may end up finding out definitively before long.
@@williamyoung9401 Got to get a factory going first for new ammo. Meanwhile any of the old ammo can be shipped to Ukraine. They can test it out with their Leopard I's.
It's been a long time since we made a brand new armored vehicle. Looks great. Will be great for war in the Pacific.
You won't win a war in the Pacific, outside of having to use nukes like the Americans did in WW2.
What war? China could not find its own ass.
I’m not sure if it will be super competitive with other allied equipment in the pacific though. I’m sure it will get the job done, but it’s hard to imagine a situation where I’d choose the M10 instead of something like a Type 10 MBT (44t) or Type 16 MCV (8x8 105mm).
I could see the benefits if the M10 was closer to 30t, but 40t is heavy when you’re only bringing a 105 to the party.
@@Talpiot_Program Bold, NATO couldn't find their own in Afghanistan for 2 decades.
Hold on ill say it again for the people at the back, 20 years... America lost and gave gifts to the Taliban...
@@indi8990 just say the last 70 years man
"Crunchies", Lol I heard that back in West Germany from the tankers. 16R here, retired in 2000.
This would make for an ideal Armored Cav tank if it had better main gun depression. The Armored Cav, with a mission of: sneak, peak, report, engage from the enemy's flanks, attack and destroy their trains areas while just worrying the living piss out of the enemy command and control folks.
It's not 1980 anymore, sneaking tanks on a battlefield is a joke.
$5000 electric drone with thermals flying at 15000 feet is impossible to lock with IR missiles and can spot any tank on the ground.
US has no beam riding missiles to take such out. And I doubt an amraam would work very well against something with 200g of metal parts at most.
@@0thPAg I'm very much aware that it's not 1980 anymore. But if a guy (long retired from what was once the largest phone company in the world) can down drones from his back yard utilizing bits and pieces from his electronic hobby shop, the biggest pieces being a salvaged "roof top" satellite TV dish and a generator he purchased at a yard sale a few years ago I'm equally sure that, like any "weapons system", even the most advanced drone has a shelf life of sorts. I asked the above-mentioned fellow retiree why he did not offer his invention to the military and make a few bucks in the process. His response was that he had maybe a year to live (cancer), had all the money he needed, and was having too much fun frying drones from over a mile away with his "toy". The way he figured it, if a 79 year old retired phone company employee could cobble together a drone killer from a few spare parts he had in his shop, there was no reason why any major electronics lab, or a 13 year old with a flair for electronics, could not get the job done as well or better than he could.
M10 Booker could be the next Sherman. I hope the Marines could get one someday. As far as I know, that's not a light tank, that's a medium tank.
"Crunchies"! LOL Yes! It's the same in the Artillery! I saw a guy get run over by an ammo carrier on the FP one day. I just knew he was up for reorder... When the track pivoted, YES PIVOTED over him, it covered him in earth & protected him from getting crushed. Never thought I'd hear crunchies again lol.
I remember when PreS Clintin killed this in (95) and we lost the Sheridon.
I was going to say the same thing. I got to Bragg in 94 and the Sheridan vanished the following year. The mindset was all wars were going to be low intensity conflict with multi-national coalitions. Clinton’s RIF decimated the Army.
The Sheridon sucked....glad they dumped it.
*Sheridan... named after General Philip Sheridan... jeez... are you'll even Americans?
Sheridon sounds like a dinosaur or something
I went to the career course with one of the last Sheridan platoon leaders. He's probably a brigade commander by now.
My son decided to join the Army. I was showing him my old job (19k) when I stumbled on this video. I was selected, in basic, for a new MOS. "Airborne Tanks" we were going to be Airborne and jump out after the tank. It was later declassified as the XM8 AGS. The MOS was canceled when I was in Airborne training. I was gutted. I'm amazed they brought it back (sort of) . Please could you do a video of the history of the XM8?
In 30 years the Marines will operate these.
😂
Given that the Marines just shelved their whole armor branch, I find that unlikely.
@@MM22966 Who knows, that branch might get reinstated in light of the M10.
No the marines won't go back to these vehicles.
To quote the marines
"We are no longer doing amphibious landings with armored vehicles because the enemy is dug in and we would take massive causalities while attempt to land. So we are attempting to switch to be a helicopter force because the enemy won't be dug in or have air defense, so we won't take massive casualties!"
idk, is the M10 amphibious enough for a beach landing ?
Much awaited, much appreciated looking forward to excellent insights as always from you.
Reminds me alot of the IKV91 which entered service in Swedens army in the late 70's.
IKV91 stands for Infantry Canon Tank 91 millimeter.
it was fully amphibic, was meant to fight with the infantry and work also as a highly mobile tank destroyer.
it was extreamly light and had very low levels of armour as it only weighted around 17 metric tonnes.
It was also extreamly technological advanced with digital computers and laser finders from the start in the 70's, much pulled over from STRV103 which entered service in 1967 as the first MBT A multitude of systems including Autoloader and Computer and digital rangefinder.
Its chassie was also the inspiration for the CV90 which took over for both IKV91 and the PBV302 IFV.
It is indeed intresting that we go back towards designs that was often used during the cold war.
best regards.
The M10 Booker, is filling the hole the canceled M8 Buford was supposed to fill, and that is the role the M551 Sheridan filled. A key role for tanks, support infantry with direct fire support to reduce fortifications and obsistcals, some that as old as the tanks themselves. AS for light, medium, or heavy tanks, the US Army abandoned those as classifications and uses the gun size...the Abrams was both classed as 105mm gun and 120mm gun for example. My belief is they aren't calling it a tank, so some bright spark doesn't think one of these could draw down on a T-90.
A recent video by Perun pointed out a mistake that the Russians have made. The Russians spent a lot of time and money making the BMD air droppable. But, based on confirmed losses, when they get destroyed, they shatter. No survivors. Focusing on making a tank air droppable would be a mistake. Why spend money and training for a mission that will never be used again. The US will never dedicate the transport aircraft for a brigade parachute delivery of troops to the battlefield against a near peer opponent. Against modern air defense systems we would lose too many troops and planes to justify the mission. Those cargo planes are too valuable to waste on paratroopers. Air deliverable by cargo plane is the right focus for the M10. Don’t throw out the design because it can’t be delivered by parachute.
I think it's that coupled with its mediocre performance that kindve gives a "worst of both worlds" kindve feeling. I dont really understand how this vehicle will be useful on a modern battlefield.
An issue with the BMD is that it basically forces the VDV to write a doctrine that circles around the vehicle as well, as in instead of a bunch of lightly armed dudes in buggy that prioritizes quick and surprised attack (motorized), you have a much more offensive force that prioritizes taking and keeping the objective more aggressively (mechanized). The problem is that the BMD isn't as fast or maneverable as wheeled vehicles while basically have no armor, so
@@quakethedoombringer yeah the same can be said about the M10, im not sure what your point is.
Since Argentina recently reasserted their claim over the Falkland Islands for the 1st time since 1982, it would be cool to see a T&P do a video on if Argentina could repeat their invasion or if the UK could repeat their recapture
Well seeing as the Argentine armed forces are actually worse off than they were in 1982, it's pretty much a non starter. Plus the Royal Navy has better ships (fewer, but better) and hasn't this time made the idiotic mistake of selling our top destroyer to the Argentines which was the only reason they managed to sink a couple, because they knew the weak points. It was a labour government that made that idiotic f up, so let's hope this even worse Labour government we have now don't repeat it!
Only a matter of time before they add a cope cage solution
That will add another 10 tons and drop 5 mph...
@sabian8700 going to have no choice it's all about drones now and we are surely working on a superior drone defense including big time jamming tech
@@sirsmeal3192 cope cage is not that heavy, its all just overhead slat armour
@@tranquoccuong890-its-orge 485 kilos for the Abrams.
@@sirsmeal3192 then it would be roughly that number for an M10's cope cage, maybe 400-450kg
It most definitely isn't a light tabk. At 42 tonnes, it's just as heavy as a leopard 1 and only a few tonnes lighter than an M60. Uppon doing some research I found that it's only 4 tonnes lighter than a t72
As a former 82nd Airborne M551 Sheridan tanker, this is a welcome addition to the 82nd's arsenal. They have had nothing for almost 30 years now. As to the ability to withstand enemy tank fire, the Sheridan had aluminum skin with foam filler that would stop up to a 50 caliber bullet. (NOTE: the soviets used a 51 caliber). So, face to face armor combat was never an option in the past. We operated with a company of 17 Sheridan's to a company in support of each infantry brigade, each with platoons of five, later four vehicles in support of an infantry company.
The Sheridan was called the "Armored Reconnaissance Assault Vehicle". The title "TANK" is no where to be found when describing it. The Sheridan system a 152mm main gun that took a minimum of seven seconds to reload and refire, with four types of rounds: Heat - Anti Tank, Canister - Anti Personnel (Flachets) , High Explosive - Anti Bunker, and the Shillelagh Missile - LONG range Anti Tank Round. Also included were a 7.62 coaxial machine gun and the M2 50 caliber on top. We had no cameras for driving, and did crunch a couple of infantry guys, sorry, so there are a lot of features this vehicle has that are a great improvement.
BUT, deploying a single vehicle to an infantry platoon does seem a bit skimpy, however this means there would be multiple vehicles available at the company level which could be deployed as a fully maneuverable unit. The initial deployed vehicle was designed to shake out any issues as stated, prior to full production. I am of coursed biased by my experiences with the 82nd, however I too will reserve any judgement on the long term use and training while using the M10. Best of luck to our 19K crews with their new mission. Make us division vets proud.
Much of the criticism levelled against Booker could have also easily been applied to the WW2 Sturmgeschutz III - which had thinner armour, a less powerful gun, and lacked a rotating turret - so it was vastly inferior to Panther and Tiger tanks. Yet the StuG III was the most successful axis tank of WW2, destroying more allied armoured vehicles than any other type. It's also worth noting that, like Booker, the StuG III was initially designed as an assault gun to provide fire support for infantry. As Germany retreated in Europe towards the end of the war, it became a defensive weapon. So no reason why Booker, especially with newer APFSDS natures cannot also be an equally effective tank destroyer.
The STGIII was used as a tank destroyer as it was intended to be used. The Germans were retreating after Stalingrad, so it was a natural.
Yeah there are reasons why the stug was successful, none of them you seem to fully understand.
The stug simply existing didn't make it "successful".
The americans aint fighting no defensive war against russia
Looking forward for your next upload!
I think you made a strong case for the Marine Corps getting in on this procurement. I may not agree with them abandoning their armor capability wholesale, but I can see the point that the Abrams was too heavy, not easily or rapidly deployable for an expeditionary service, especially in amphibious assaults, and didn’t support the light infantry focus of the Marines very well. But this looks like the kind of armor tailor-made for their mission and use case.
I think the importance of armor, particularly the M4 Sherman, in the Pacific Theater of WWII is often overlooked, because instead of major tank-on-tank battles, they provided much-needed support for light infantry. But look at battlefield footage, and you will often see a tank in the mix, neutralizing fortifications, breaking stalemates, or bridging the gap between mortars and artillery. The Booker is only slightly heavier than the Sherman, so in theory that mass of vehicle should be suitable for Pacific island operations.
There was a light tank ready to go in the 1990s. M8. now, after spending even more money, there's the M10.
Make the turret modular. Allow it to substitute a bushmaster (Bradley) for the 105 in some roles.
I would suggest a larger autocannon then what the Bradley uses like 40-76mm, making it able to take those MBT flank shots or well armored IFVs that the Bradley can't. That might even solve the air drop problem.
“Modular” is a dirty word in defense acquisition
I am a old 19K(Tanker) and 19D(Scout). I served between 1999 to 2008. As a Scout I went immediately to a Bradley company. I can see this deploying to a combat zone of no known enemy tanks. Having two shipped on a plane instead of one Abrams can be beneficial. But if you can't air drop them, then you still have to secure an airfield somewhere. Just like when you bring in tanks. So same doctrine. Why hamper yourself with a less powerful, less armored war machine? If the Air Force can land a jet once, they can do it over and over again. One thing the Air Force has plenty of is heavy cargo planes so that's not an issue. Bradley's weigh less than the Bookers so if they can fit on C5's, C17's, or whatever, why not use those instead? Plus Brad's have Anti-Tank capabilities (Tow Missiles) already built in. Sounds like despite the 105 cannon the Booker has, it's a downgrade of the Bradley. So if you need an airfield, Bring Brad's or Abram's depending on the threat level or terrain assessment. No need for the Booker. I admit, I have no idea how to combat drone strikes. Wasn't an issue when I served
So the Booker is actually a StuG😂😂😂
They call it an asult gun that has nonthing to do with then... it isn'y we;ll armored, it has a baby gun, it has a rotatinh turrent...
@@GreenBlueWalkthrough I would note that the M8 HMC was used in US Army's assault gun platoons in WW2 for a while, and that fits exactly the same definition you just listed.
@@TheChieftainsHatch all my autistic rants feel better now
@@GreenBlueWalkthrough musicians are stupid 🤣🤣🤣
Don't call it a. LIGHT tank call it medium m4 sherman
this is my first time seeing a video from your channel and i like that you give us so much insight into the perspective of not only the people who will be operating the the system, but also the perspective of every surrounding role when it comes to many of the people who are to be expected to be working either with or around it based on whatever the surrounding contexts of it mission are depending on everything from where to why to how it will be deployed! it was very interesting to see information that relates to its production contracts as far as what we should expect its production volume and frequency to initally be as well. i also like how you included the perspectives of 3rd party critics and analists in a way that helped to increase the visibility of its possible strengths or percieved weaknesses it may have based on both history and also current events in relation to the reality of what most somewhat similar historical and currently operated allied and enemy systems that it compares most closely to while at the same time emphasizing how the different types of warfare it will apparently be involved in will often distinctly differ in terms of the fundemintal narutes and goals of its deployment and roles of it intended position. it was also interesting to learn about how well its defencive capabilities (based on testing and prior research discoveries) can be expected to compare and/or endure against the various types of enemy systems that it will most likely be encountering most frequently based on the on the due to the specific nature of zones it was enginrered occupy in the battlefeild in terms of its proximity to every other system and force it has been stratagized to either be accompanied by or deployed in support of. i like that you highlighted the various types of enviroments in which the element its speedy deployment capabilities enable it to be more uniquely utilized than any its predassors and rival systems as far as its ability to be more easily be deployed in some of even the most exotic and remote theaters of combat in the world are concerned. thank you for sharing such an angle of perspective with us. it was highly facinating, educational, and overall very entertaining to view! i'll definately be watching a lot more of your channel from now on too! thank you!
-subscribed
I joined the Army when Reagan was president and plan to retire next year.
I'm old enough to remember when the news was going on about how "useless" the Bradley was and how it should have (basically) been a heavy tank instead. Over three decades later, it has served with distinction and is an absolute unit in its Ukrainian service today.
So now idiots want to get rid of the Booker because it isn't "what already was" and does not fight "as we previously have". Great! Order me a few thousand, immediately! Those morons can keep fighting the last war; I'd like to be prepared for the next one.
I say that it's the MGS version of the Stryker with tracks and a bigger turret. You can't change my mind.
That's because it is correct. It is an Assault Gun, which the MGS Stryker was.
It’s the Stryker MGS as it should have been.
Exactly
@@BalthasarGelt-x2d I kind of disagree and consider both failed in the same way. 105mm doesn't quite cut it to deal with MBT making the benefits of mounting something larger then an autocannon rather minor. Anything between 40-75mm would essentially be able to deal with the same amount of armored targets, be able to carry much more ammo for fire support and/or be made to be quite a lot lighter making it even better at being transported or handling terrain.
It's quite possible to mount a 120mm gun on that size of chassis as well making that option also better.
Either direction would be better then 105mm.
Also, if artillery support is wanted then self propelled mortars are much better.
@@znail4675 The 105mm is for fortified positions while also being a smaller round for more ammo capacity. An AMP round is also in the works so the M10 doesn't have to use different rounds to get a different effect. 120mm is just overkill for most structures and fortified positions. An Assault Gun is not meant to take on a MBT or anything with that level of armor. That's the anti-tank infantry's job or the M1 Abrams job.
The "why not just put a 120mm on it" train of thought is why all other tanks dissappeared, because the main battle tank took over their roles. The difference today is the Army needs the direct fire support of a main battle tank, but in a more logistical friendly armored fighting vehicle. Hence, the assault gun role.
It's important to ask benefit VS. cost. The 105 round has specific range of capacity . Newer versions will incorporate mission needs.
Actually, the Booker appears to be a great idea, and piece of equipment, for both the airborne and...light CAV. Small, hits hard, and easy to maintain. Just wish that the Army had seen fit to field that light recon track with the semi auto 76mm gun back in the 70s. Not all of the targets will be MBTs. And even on that subject, didn't a Brad mess up a T-90 this year?
Two Bradley's managed to damage a T-90M's turret causing it to spin around uncontrollably, the Russian tankers panicked and tried to ditch their tank which lead to them getting picked off by a drone. A Bradley with a 25mm Bushmaster can't directly take out a T-90 without a TOW missile while a M10 Booker can punch through a T-90s armour with its 105mm tank gun.
@@JollyOldCanucknot through the frontal armor though
@JollyOldCanuck a Brad was able to take out a T-90 in a fight... 'nuff said...
There have been two known cases of Bradleys winning from the T-90M, it highly depends on the situation ofcourse.
Yes.
The bmp3 is a direct result of the Bradley in the 1st gulf war. That is its equivalent not a light tank. Russia has all kinds of weird tracked and wheeled vehicles in its Arsenal. Their first chat use was in Grozny in 1995. And they lost a bunch of them. The reason Russia lost so many BMP3' is it has way too many weapon systems and ammunition. The gunner sits on a flat pad on top of ammo boxes. The rear that is supposed to carry infantry? The Russians decided that that was the best place for the engine and fuel. So it's amazingly awkward to get in and out of. There is almost no room for them. The 100mm and it's coax a 30mm have the carousel of ammunition seen in Russian tanks. So when they get hit? They tend to disintegrate. The French panhard? It's a reconnaissance vehicle that Ukraine isn't using it for. Plus it does not have a stabilized main gun. I think the best equivalent to the booker would be the terminator. That is Russia's infantry support vehicle. Russia has lost half of them so far. For some reason, Russia doesn't use them in a support told but to head out and shoot up Ukrainian positions. And just like every other tank or bmp they tend to be by themselves which causes their destruction pretty quick. If you want to see how bad cabinet arms is with the Russian army? Go watch their BMPs, all 3 vehicle's, infantry dismount and promptly get ran over. Either the driver backs up or it pivots to leave. No commander standing up. It's pretty appalling videos but it tells you everything about Russia's combined arms.
And here I thought the ongoing war told me everything I needed to know about Russia
Keep in mind about PDS debt is that it is not a loan. They set up a brokerage account where you will have to pay into. Your debt that you’re trying to have PDS debt take care of will STILL BE ACTIVE and you are told NOT to make ANY payments into the debt you’re trying to recover from. It could be years before PDS debt reaches a solution to your bank(s)/loaner(s) and you could be subjected to lawsuits and/or collections. Items that were purchased by those loans maybe subjected to repossession. In my opinion, PDS debt should only be utilized if you are in such a significant financial situation and you have no other means of absolving your debt besides bankruptcy
In this day and age of drones, it's just a bomb on tracks, a battlefield suicide machine for anyone dumb enough to want to crew it.
As an 82nd Speed bump from the Gulf War, I see pros and cons on this vehicle. Pro light weight and fast like we want to be, big gun go boom, again plus, can carry wounded out of a hostile area, great. Cons no TOWs, No heavy Machine gun, Fuel and Ammo resupply. Idk if it is or not but it better be amphib cause we cross a lot of water.
The Sheridan served a purpose, even though it was outdated since Vietnam, but before we all had FLIR or Thermals they did and could spot things we couldn't plus on a Road Block, big gun goes boom. When I was in the NG as Light Inf. I got attached to Scouts and they had Bradley's and since we were the Crunchies and it was Scouts there were only 3 of us in the back and was great. I was almost always assigned to be the RTO, so I could talk to the tanks around us and call for fire if and when we needed it.
I do like that Lt. Inf. will have a vehicle for direct support instead of waiting an hour for a Plt. of tanks to show up and tell us they can't do the what we need them to do cause the road is to narrow or the ground is to soft. If they add TOW system and some kind of anti-drone along with Mk-19 and M2, that would make it far better in the Role of Infantry. The other down side is if the crew are taken out the vehicle is dead as the Inf. don't know how to operate it, unless they do some cross training. I am talking about if the Crew gets hit while out of the vehicle and not if the vehicle takes a direct hit and is dead anyways.
The lack of drone protection and no remote controlled mg are, I think, the most important criticisms of this tank.
The second two are the weight and the (relatively) high velocity gun
For an infantry support vehicle, the MG is a crucual tool. And drones are very common now-a-days, so not having the protection on it is questionable, judging by how fast the LEO 2s were taken apart in the counteroffensive.
The 42 tons do seem like a lot, but if its mostly spent on armor then maybe its worth it. But you could get a T-72 for that much weight. Booker probably has better all-around protection, rather than frontal.
The fact that the gun is so high velocity does mean than it will have to be used for direct fire, unlike BMP-3s which you mentioned, which can work like automatic mortars. This capability is useful with a drone spotter. But then again, nothing is stopping the U.S. military from just creating a low velocity round which flies slower and has more HE filler.
As for me, another thing that US army needs is something called "trench destroyer"
it would be a tool to fast crossing trenches
as well as tools to protect army from being uncovered while traveling open fields
This is interesting. I served in 98’- 01’ in the 82nd as D. CO. 3/325th as an 11H, which was the Anti-Armor Company for the Battalion. It’ll be interesting to see how the M10 will change or integrate the Airborne Battalion’s organization.