I personnelly knew SSG Booker. Was a student of mine at the USA NCO Academy Fort Knox Kentucky. I was also in Iraq in 2003 during the attack on Bagdad. This story of how he was killed is a little on the chin. However, he was killed while serving as a Tank Commander and during the assault on Bagdad.........rest in piece brother.
I was a gunner on an M551 Sheridan for 2 years. It was fast and agile, but lacked range and armor protection. The missile system could disassemble any MBT of its day but had a 25% failure rate. I'd trust the 105mm gun over the 152mm cannon every day.
They will have to be air landed. Not able to LAPES. I am glad the Army is finally getting a light Tank but would have preferred the M8 Buford AGS- at least for the 11th, 82d and 173d.
The U.S. Army was all set to commit almost the same armored fighting vehicle, the AMC Armored Gun System (AGS), in 1994. Untold millions were spent in the AGS development. The result was a fine AFV like the M10 Booker. But at the last moment, the U.S. Army cancelled the AGS. The Soviet Union was gone. The U.S. Army wishfully thought future wars would no longer involve masses of armored fighting vehicles and tanks on the European plain. Also the so-called 'peace dividend' of a smaller military in the post-Soviet era would reap millions in savings. Well, you've heard the old saying, "Necessity is the Mother of all Invention". The Army top brass doesn't like to use the term, 'light tank', but evidently, the need for an armored fighting vehicle designed like a light tank keeps reappearing in conflict after conflict, despite the contrary. This time around, the U.S. Army isn't getting cold feet as with the aborted AGS. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has seen to that. In addition, Red China openly and loudly threatening military conflict not only against Taiwan, but other Asian nations has been a powerful incentive to keep the U.S. Army stocked with state-of-the-art weaponry. If there's one thing the U.S. Army is good at, it is designing and producing excellent light armored fighting vehicles. Even the WW2 M5 Stuart was pretty good. It was followed by the M10, M18, and M36 tank destroyers. The M18 Hellcat was a particularly great design. Adding an armored roof would have made it an excellent light tank, even with its mere, one-inch thick glacis armor. In early 1945 the excellent purpose-built light tank, the M24 Chaffee appeared in Europe, to take the place of the M5, which it didn't as the M5 served until VE Day. Post WW2 saw another excellent light tank design, the M41 Walker Bulldog, which served in Vietnam. It served alongside the controversial M551 Sheridan light tank, which was originally meant for the airborne. The M551 proved capable yet maintenance-intensive and its dual-purpose 152mm short barrel cannon and Shillelagh anti-tank missile main weapon system was troublesome all the way to the end of the Sheridan. Yet the Sheridan served its purposes well enough. The infantry were always happy to have armored fighting vehicles and tanks with them, including the M551 Sheridan. Given the U.S. Army's proven track record at successful light tanks and armored fighting vehicles, the M10 Booker should also be a worthy successor. I sound like a product advertisement but military history proves the successful history of the U.S. Army's pantheon of light tanks and armored fighting vehicles.
I was in the USAF, Airlift Command, with a year in DaNang, 68-69. The part of the AF I was in was a model of efficiency and well run. I enjoyed my four years of service, even VN wasn't too bad. You couldn't ask to be around a better bunch of men. (no women at the time).
Replace with 120 mm Canon. A country in Europe-Sweden I believe fields 120 mm on their version of a Booker. It is more modular than Booker . Giving it easier upgrades in future. The U.S. no longer creates world class military equipment like other countries have demonstrated.
💀what are you on it doesn’t need 120mm it’s not meant to engage tanks hence why they don’t call it a tank so discourage people using it against tanks it’s meant for infantry level support and to combat Btr and bmps nothing more
We got an expert here folks. Knows more about the booker than the folks who designed and built it. Since you know so much tell us the minimum weight and muzzle velocity of NATO armor piercing dart required to penetrate the frontal armor if any t series mbt at 2000 metres.
Hagglunds designed the CV90-120, but the Swedish army doesn’t use it. Nor does anyone else. Evidently it has some problems we’re not seeing, problems the Booker has solved
Ummm, lol, what? First off, we have to make hundreds and hundreds of these and have to have thousands of MBT. Europe has a few good systems but far too few to truly handle a heavy operation. We also don’t got to put them on rail and move them a few hundred kilometers to done nearby waring nation. Lastly, what do you call the F-22, F-35, F-15EX, Ford class carrier, a slew of new super missiles?
@@spotlight9864yes, drones are the new wave of how combat will be conducted. Tanks need to be able to detect and defend themselves from drones, especially if they're lightly armored on top.
Agreed but we could have had one in the 1990s with the M8 Buford AGS. When Clinton committed us to Bosnia The Army had to divert funds for the mission. The Army requested funds but Clinton and a Republican majority said no. The Army chief of staff was an Artillery officer and the Army was developing an 80 ton monstrosity 155nn SPH Crusader to replace the M109 155mm SPH and a new Attack helicopter. Both cancelled a few years later. The$ wasted on those could have funded several hundred M8 AGS . Criminally neglect Military and Political leadership. Bastards!
The infantry can launch switchblades without a vehicle or from a HMMVW from 5-10km behind the front line. Why add the extra weight to a vehicle whose job is to get right up to the front line and support infantry in close when you really don't have to? There's a lot of things that we could put in tanks that we don't because it dilutes the purpose of a tank and distracts the crew from doing tank things. This is just another example.
They say it’s not a tank but it’s definitely a light tank. It’s pretty much replacing the Sheridan and Patton that we sorely needed. Wish they would replace the Bradley already that 25mm needs to go.
At the start of WW2 the battleship was thought to be the master of war fighting on the high seas. In fact, this had been the case since boats were built 1000's of years ago for battle. The bigger the better. Then, a small weapon system, the plane, made the mightily battle ship obsolete overnight. You can't help but wonder if the drones just did the same thing to tanks.
I noted it could be used in multiple terrains a question what is it's capability when it comes too water obstacles hope you have a gas station close at hand.
Insane power with a 105mm gun?... Everybody knows that if the M10 wasn´t designed to engage MBT´s, it will be used for that task anyway, so I hope they be wise enough to fit a 120mm main gun like the XM360 or at least put a missile launcher on that thing, because it´s going to need it. It´s far better to have 15 ready rounds of 120mm that 25 rounds of 105mm.
So, no remote turret and no auto loading main gun, what a ground breaker. Infantry support requires an immediate, constant and effective response so the firing rate is crucial but is neglected here. Fail.
The us doesn’t us auto loaders since they don’t actually speed up the fire rate by any significant amount there’s literally no point plus a larger crew means more hands for maintenance which you def will need in a combat zone
Y’all watch these clickbait ass videos and swear you understand the army’s needs more then then because “the gun isn’t remote or auto loading so it sucks”🤡
@@ianbahamonde6679 Ukrainians seem to manage their Russian tanks maintenance with 3 men quite well, besides it enables a more compact AFV. Another point, make them less maintenance dependent. Big auto loading cannons (why not have two) will do everything required, after all it's not a tank so no tank type gun needed.
I think it's expensive, more so than a decked out Abrams tank I believe maybe it's worth it. I'm not saying it's not. I'm not qualified to say if it is worth it but I know everything is expensive. Nowadays. I fully suspect drones will be its number one enemy could be wrong.
Seems to be far better than a Stryker but at 10 or 12 times the cost? All these armored vehicles have the need for some anti - air protection / detection against drones. Whether it is jamming EW or radar/laser guided small caliber mini guns. The army will not like to have their 13 million $ cannon taken out by a 1000$ drone.They will look awful silly.
Yes, at least any MBT armor it is likely to come across. It would struggle with the front of an Abrams, Leopard 2, Challenger 2/3, K1A1, Type 90 or Leclerc but what are the odds that a US Infantry Brigade Combat Team has to actually fight any of these given that they're all allied tanks? Russian armor is dependent on ERA to improve their front armor from the late Cold War era Soviet armor to close to modern Western armor. As is most Chinese armor. If the US creates a new APFSDS round based on the M829A4 it is unlikely that ERA will be enough to protect them. And if that's not enough, there are Javelins, TOW-2Bs, and Switchblade 600s to back the Booker up. One team one fight.
Light tanks dont work...just use IFV as the 25-30mm can go threw most soviet tanks armor minus the front slope...this is a waste and i predict the army will scrap it after a few years.
I personnelly knew SSG Booker. Was a student of mine at the USA NCO Academy Fort Knox Kentucky. I was also in Iraq in 2003 during the attack on Bagdad. This story of how he was killed is a little on the chin. However, he was killed while serving as a Tank Commander and during the assault on Bagdad.........rest in piece brother.
TY
I was a gunner on an M551 Sheridan for 2 years. It was fast and agile, but lacked range and armor protection. The missile system could disassemble any MBT of its day but had a 25% failure rate. I'd trust the 105mm gun over the 152mm cannon every day.
Fascinating and Informative! Cheers
Thank you for your comment and thank you for watching
A $13 million vehicle which is just cannon fodder for $200 FPV drones 😶
yup
The Booker T. has got soul.
Based on the same platform as the Ajax. May offer some interesting upgrades for the British Army
The Swedes calls it: Infanteri Kanon Vagn, IKV.
What was wrong with the CV90-120?
Finally, airborne troops get a tank.
They will have to be air landed. Not able to LAPES. I am glad the Army is finally getting a light Tank but would have preferred the M8 Buford AGS- at least for the 11th, 82d and 173d.
The U.S. Army was all set to commit almost the same armored fighting vehicle, the AMC Armored Gun System (AGS), in 1994. Untold millions were spent in the AGS development. The result was a fine AFV like the M10 Booker. But at the last moment, the U.S. Army cancelled the AGS. The Soviet Union was gone. The U.S. Army wishfully thought future wars would no longer involve masses of armored fighting vehicles and tanks on the European plain. Also the so-called 'peace dividend' of a smaller military in the post-Soviet era would reap millions in savings.
Well, you've heard the old saying, "Necessity is the Mother of all Invention". The Army top brass doesn't like to use the term, 'light tank', but evidently, the need for an armored fighting vehicle designed like a light tank keeps reappearing in conflict after conflict, despite the contrary.
This time around, the U.S. Army isn't getting cold feet as with the aborted AGS. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has seen to that. In addition, Red China openly and loudly threatening military conflict not only against Taiwan, but other Asian nations has been a powerful incentive to keep the U.S. Army stocked with state-of-the-art weaponry.
If there's one thing the U.S. Army is good at, it is designing and producing excellent light armored fighting vehicles. Even the WW2 M5 Stuart was pretty good. It was followed by the M10, M18, and M36 tank destroyers. The M18 Hellcat was a particularly great design. Adding an armored roof would have made it an excellent light tank, even with its mere, one-inch thick glacis armor. In early 1945 the excellent purpose-built light tank, the M24 Chaffee appeared in Europe, to take the place of the M5, which it didn't as the M5 served until VE Day.
Post WW2 saw another excellent light tank design, the M41 Walker Bulldog, which served in Vietnam. It served alongside the controversial M551 Sheridan light tank, which was originally meant for the airborne. The M551 proved capable yet maintenance-intensive and its dual-purpose 152mm short barrel cannon and Shillelagh anti-tank missile main weapon system was troublesome all the way to the end of the Sheridan. Yet the Sheridan served its purposes well enough. The infantry were always happy to have armored fighting vehicles and tanks with them, including the M551 Sheridan.
Given the U.S. Army's proven track record at successful light tanks and armored fighting vehicles, the M10 Booker should also be a worthy successor. I sound like a product advertisement but military history proves the successful history of the U.S. Army's pantheon of light tanks and armored fighting vehicles.
It better have a lot of drone protection
Looks like a slap together version of Bradley T-14 Abrams snorted crack and had a baby 😂😂😂
Stryker is a tin can. We had to install metal grates all over them to "attempt" to defeat RPG's.
I was in the USAF, Airlift Command, with a year in DaNang, 68-69. The part of the AF I was in was a model of efficiency and well run. I enjoyed my four years of service, even VN wasn't too bad. You couldn't ask to be around a better bunch of men. (no women at the time).
Replace with 120 mm Canon. A country in Europe-Sweden I believe fields 120 mm on their version of a Booker. It is more modular than Booker . Giving it easier upgrades in future. The U.S. no longer creates world class military equipment like other countries have demonstrated.
💀what are you on it doesn’t need 120mm it’s not meant to engage tanks hence why they don’t call it a tank so discourage people using it against tanks it’s meant for infantry level support and to combat Btr and bmps nothing more
We got an expert here folks. Knows more about the booker than the folks who designed and built it. Since you know so much tell us the minimum weight and muzzle velocity of NATO armor piercing dart required to penetrate the frontal armor if any t series mbt at 2000 metres.
Hagglunds designed the CV90-120, but the Swedish army doesn’t use it. Nor does anyone else. Evidently it has some problems we’re not seeing, problems the Booker has solved
Ummm, lol, what? First off, we have to make hundreds and hundreds of these and have to have thousands of MBT. Europe has a few good systems but far too few to truly handle a heavy operation. We also don’t got to put them on rail and move them a few hundred kilometers to done nearby waring nation. Lastly, what do you call the F-22, F-35, F-15EX, Ford class carrier, a slew of new super missiles?
First priority should have been 2 in-hull crewman with an XM-360 105mm autoloader.
Naw. Gimme that forth man any day. Nothing can replace a pair of good hands
@@T_81535 human loaders are faster and more reliable than an autoloader any day
I think it was high-time that the US Army got a new light tank; call it whatever they may but I think it'll be more than worth the cost.
Yes, but they should pay attention to war in Ukraine and Israel, and somehow shoot down small drones
@@spotlight9864I'm sure they are
@@spotlight9864yes, drones are the new wave of how combat will be conducted. Tanks need to be able to detect and defend themselves from drones, especially if they're lightly armored on top.
Agreed but we could have had one in the 1990s with the M8 Buford AGS. When Clinton committed us to Bosnia The Army had to divert funds for the mission. The Army requested funds but Clinton and a Republican majority said no. The Army chief of staff was an Artillery officer and the Army was developing an 80 ton monstrosity 155nn SPH Crusader to replace the M109 155mm SPH and a new Attack helicopter. Both cancelled a few years later. The$ wasted on those could have funded several hundred M8 AGS . Criminally neglect Military and Political leadership. Bastards!
Couldn’t they equip the Booker with the Switchblade 600 drones to enhance support for the infantry?
The infantry can launch switchblades without a vehicle or from a HMMVW from 5-10km behind the front line. Why add the extra weight to a vehicle whose job is to get right up to the front line and support infantry in close when you really don't have to? There's a lot of things that we could put in tanks that we don't because it dilutes the purpose of a tank and distracts the crew from doing tank things. This is just another example.
They say it’s not a tank but it’s definitely a light tank. It’s pretty much replacing the Sheridan and Patton that we sorely needed. Wish they would replace the Bradley already that 25mm needs to go.
Seems like a fine system but does a Booker really cost $13 million ? That's more than double the cost of an Abrams.
That's just the initial start up cost for production of the first batch. The price is said to come down a little
Per unit cost is only 9.9 million. That’s actually about the same cost as a modern day Abrams (M1A2 SEP V3).
It will be a great addition to our military.
It's not a light tank. It's a mobile assault gun.
At the start of WW2 the battleship was thought to be the master of war fighting on the high seas. In fact, this had been the case since boats were built 1000's of years ago for battle. The bigger the better. Then, a small weapon system, the plane, made the mightily battle ship obsolete overnight. You can't help but wonder if the drones just did the same thing to tanks.
How much is m10 cost??
I prefer to choose tank harimau pindad
⭐️ US ARMY COMMANDER MILITARY ⭐️⭐️⭐️🦅🦅🦅⚔️⚔️⚔️🪖🪖🪖😃😃😃👍👍👍UAU UAU UAU 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
APC with extra large turret
I noted it could be used in multiple terrains a question what is it's capability when it comes too water obstacles hope you have a gas station close at hand.
Insane power with a 105mm gun?... Everybody knows that if the M10 wasn´t designed to engage MBT´s, it will be used for that task anyway, so I hope they be wise enough to fit a 120mm main gun like the XM360 or at least put a missile launcher on that thing, because it´s going to need it. It´s far better to have 15 ready rounds of 120mm that 25 rounds of 105mm.
It’s not gonna meet tanks. It will be with light infantry.
Will all current and former 19 Series raise their hands? Toujors Pret
So, no remote turret and no auto loading main gun, what a ground breaker. Infantry support requires an immediate, constant and effective response so the firing rate is crucial but is neglected here. Fail.
The us doesn’t us auto loaders since they don’t actually speed up the fire rate by any significant amount there’s literally no point plus a larger crew means more hands for maintenance which you def will need in a combat zone
Y’all watch these clickbait ass videos and swear you understand the army’s needs more then then because “the gun isn’t remote or auto loading so it sucks”🤡
@@ianbahamonde6679 The US army is not the font of all combat requirements and never was.
@@ianbahamonde6679 Ukrainians seem to manage their Russian tanks maintenance with 3 men quite well, besides it enables a more compact AFV. Another point, make them less maintenance dependent. Big auto loading cannons (why not have two) will do everything required, after all it's not a tank so no tank type gun needed.
@@ianbahamonde6679very good points sir!
Т-80 и Т-90 с ним быстро разберутся.
All 32 you have left.
I think it's expensive, more so than a decked out Abrams tank I believe maybe it's worth it. I'm not saying it's not. I'm not qualified to say if it is worth it but I know everything is expensive. Nowadays. I fully suspect drones will be its number one enemy could be wrong.
Same price as an Abrams
looks like a winner!
Your design for the M10 booker looks unrealistic to the real one
Seems to be far better than a Stryker but at 10 or 12 times the cost? All these armored vehicles have the need for some anti - air protection / detection against drones. Whether it is jamming EW or radar/laser guided small caliber mini guns. The army will not like to have their 13 million $ cannon taken out by a 1000$ drone.They will look awful silly.
Believe the canon can penetrate MBT armour?
Yes, at least any MBT armor it is likely to come across. It would struggle with the front of an Abrams, Leopard 2, Challenger 2/3, K1A1, Type 90 or Leclerc but what are the odds that a US Infantry Brigade Combat Team has to actually fight any of these given that they're all allied tanks? Russian armor is dependent on ERA to improve their front armor from the late Cold War era Soviet armor to close to modern Western armor. As is most Chinese armor. If the US creates a new APFSDS round based on the M829A4 it is unlikely that ERA will be enough to protect them. And if that's not enough, there are Javelins, TOW-2Bs, and Switchblade 600s to back the Booker up. One team one fight.
Still would have preferred the M8 Buford but glad the Army is getting an MPF.
190 mile range?
Cv90 120mm is better
13 million? Evidently the contractors were very generous with the Generals.
Whatever happened to the Stryker series where we spent billions of dollars? I guess they were too light skinned but they WERE fast!
This would suit in our soil.
Still just a prototype.
No, in production.
Light tanks dont work...just use IFV as the 25-30mm can go threw most soviet tanks armor minus the front slope...this is a waste and i predict the army will scrap it after a few years.
Looks already obsolete...
Didn’t mentioned a thing about #DRONE the new tanks killer
the M10 is not a tank
$13 million a piece😂 no wonder USA is drowning with national debt of $34 trillion 😂
💩🤮🤮