It basically bridges the gap between a Bradley and an Abrams. It supports troops like a Bradley, but has a bigger cannon and doesn't haul troops, like a tank.
@@ROTHSTEIN01 You mean like the 2,000 junk Russian tanks Ukraine destroyed with turrets that have been to space more times than an orc cosmonaut? How's that 3 day operation going? Still only occupy 18% after 500 days huh? 🤣🤣🤣🤣
When NATO tanks are hit, the crew survives and rejoins the fight with a new tank while the damaged one gets repaired. When junk Russian tanks are hit, the crew is vaporized and the tank is blown into space. Tanks aren't indestructible. It's about the crew surviving and staying in the fight. In Russia, soldiers are just bodies to throw into the meat grinder.
@@cgmason7568 I just asked as the guy said a light tanks role is to work closely with infantry and for armed reconnaissance which is exactly what the M3 Bradley does. I know it isn't a tank but due to poor definitions it could be considered one. The one thing I hate about the military is their numerous vague definitions. There are no direct definitions of a tank or an aircraft carrier, etc, which just creates a lot of confusion.
Just to clarify, when she zoomed in on the turret, she was highlighting ERA tiles NOT ammo boxes. The ammo that sometimes detonates is in a carousel underneath the turret (at least the external visible part of it), inside the hull. ERA is remarkably stable, which is why you can see unexploded tiles covering the tank even after an ammo detonation and being engulfed in flames. I don't know if anyone was confused by that, but it bothered me enough to comment lol
She wasn't highlighting the ERA, she was just showing "hey see that turret on the ground, yeah they don't belong on the ground" then she explained why that happened. Seems like you just bothered yourself with this one chief
My favorite part of this video? The Army explicitly saying "this is our new light tank", and then we get 7 minutes of someone trying to convince us the Army didn;t just tell us exactly what the Booker is: a light tank. LOL.
The guy who made this video just wanted to draw viewers with unusual title, I won't bother to click if I checked clearly that this is just about the new light tank that will replace the M-551 Sheridan. Only question on this tank is why not they create automated turret with just 2 crew in the chassis like the earlier planned new light MBT that is meant to fill roles of M-1A2.
@@charlie523An IFV carries troops. This doesn’t. Working with infantry isn’t a disqualifier from tankdom, that’s just combined arms doctrine. This is just a tank that can go places heavier tanks can’t go, which is the role of light tanks.
The M10 Booker looks small enough to be conveniently deployed in urban environments where threat exposures are difficult to see and predict. Adding additional armor such as slat armor or even try out this unproven method called "winged armor" for infantry elements to fold out on both sides of the tank to conduct street to street combat. Otherwise, this particular tank could use an armored dozer blade as an operational accessory to plow through abandoned vehicles or breach obstacles and provide adequate ballistic protection and provide decent cover for infantry elements.
It'll be interesting to see how the army deploys these because this type of vehicle isn't a new concept and has been a part of the Russian army for decades and it hasn't exactly been amazing for them. That being said, American vs. Russian squad and platoon composition is much different from one another so it's possible this could actually work really well at the battalion level. Still don't know if I like it the idea or not.
I dunno. Seems like RPG chow. Lacks the pure numbers of humvees, and lacks the heavy armor of an Abrams. It would be a high priority lightly armored target.
I was a 12F, Booker isn't heavy enough to act as a CEV, and, the extra weight of a blade and pneumatic system, to actuate the blade is just too much extra for the vehicle. The Army tried a small CEV which had no combat capabilities and dropped it, it was called the ACE, it just didn't really work and was too vulnerable. I am very dubious about Booker. The Army has used light tanks in the past, and sooner or later, situations arise where the vehicle is asked to perform tasks it is unsuited for, and they suffer terribly. In an environment where tanks are more vulnerable to inexpensive weapons systems, the answer is not a lighter more vulnerable vehicle. The answer is new defensive capabilities for our vehicles.
It could be a good idea for the U.S. Marine Corps to adopt the M10 Booker. Alternatively, the USMC could combine the Booker's turret with the 8x8 wheeled chassis of its new SuperAV Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV). The ACV is larger than the LAV-25 or Stryker, so it would not be restricted by their size constraints.
@christopherwang4392 the Army tried using the 105mm on the Stryker and retired it, finding it not useful. I never looked into the reason, but it was short lived.
@@ElectroAtleticowell somewhat, those vehicles are very much like the Stryker though much more effective. The US likes more armored vehicles and likes tracks instead of wheels which is why they made the booker.
It's a building buster, and it's easier to transport. An M1 is built for destruction of other tanks and heavy/armored equipment. We've seen in Ukraine, and what will likely hold true in an environment like Taiwan, is the need to fight in small to mid sized towns and villages, take out buildings/small defensive fortifications and be highly mobile
@@Rjvda compared to russias. I'm now concerned how far we are behind china's technology. Natos military equipment has proven to be equipment built to sell instead of equipment built for war.
It's a light tank in simple terms. If I am correct, it would be used in the same role as the Stryker 105. Being used in a scouting role and being deployed when, other more heavier tanks such as the Abrams couldn't make the trip because of their slower speeds and gas guzzling engines compared to the lighter M10 Booker.
It's such a shame that people actually think the Booker will be anything helpful, its another one of those unusually expensive metal shitboxes that will be wrecked by a cheap Russian drone. The US Army should be looking for cheaper vehicles that can deliver incredible firepower like the BMPT terminator and fit in a main 105 mm cannon. It should cost at least 2 million dollars and easy to use.
@@eliasziad7864 Looks like we've found the Russian Z bot! The terminators were all destroyed in Ukraine lol. Oh and those aren't Russian drones they are Iranian.
@@eliasziad7864 So you want a vehicle that is cheap, but also questionable in its reliability and effectiveness. While having a cost of being in the realms of fantasy. The M10 Booker along with its Heavier brother the M1 Abrams are meant to be of high quality and reliability. Also, the BMPT isn't very good given its glaring lack of accuracy because of its shaking barrels. Which isn't good mind you. Just to point out. War is expensive. You lose both men and equipment alike, so our approach is to make high quality equipment and vehicles that will have high reliability and ease of maintenance. The cheap option doesn't really work out as some people think because in the end having cheap stuff will be more expensive in the long run.
This type of vehicle gives infantry assaulting an objective the ability to bring direct fire on prepared positions. It's not meant to fight and knock out enemy armor, it's meant to give infantry heavier hitting power to support the infantry
I'm pretty sure the 105mm depleted uranium sabot round is intended to defeat enemy tanks and tank-like targets. Otherwise, battle carry MPAT or HEAT...ON THE WAY!
@@kerrywatkins1400 I think they'll carry a mix of rounds, carrying Sabot not because the vehicles are designed to specifically engage heavy armor, but will have the defensive ability should the battlefield quickly change. Bradley's will have rounds for softer targets and probably some ATGM for the same changing scenario.
Literally, Russia's terminator tank is much better in this role, why doesnt the US Army copy that design and probably fit in a 105 mm cannon in the process?
Of course, they are, since there are the first responders when it comes beginning stages of the battle. They need to travel light so they can destroy the enemy's backline and not be hunker down and don't lose valuable time.
@@navyseal1689 The infantry needs both direct and indirect fire support. The odds of one of these ever getting shot at by an enemy MBT are nil, zero. It couldn’t survive anyway, so let’s not EVER pretend these will in turn be shooting at enemy tanks. This is why I argue that there are realistically far more engagements an auto loading direct and indirect fire capable mortar-gun can do that a high velocity direct fire 105 can’t do that the other way around. Ultimately what the grunts really need is a front-engined RPG-proof assault gun with a CROWS station that can medevac with a rear-loading hatch like the Merkava. It could blast away hard points and be the ultimate battlefield ambulance. It could also insert/pick-up 4 man teams. Think SEALS.
After the Army works out the bugs in the system I honestly wouldn't be surprised that the USMC picks this vehicle up and test it to see if it'll work for them
It's not a Main Battle Tank (MBT). It is, however, a tank - being a tracked vehicle designed for a combat role. Maybe closer to a CFV, if you like ... but those are also tanks (the M2/M3 Bradley CFV was too light for the role, and this Booker looks like it addresses some of that issue).
Exactly!! It's like saying a chaffee wasnt a tank because a sherman was heavier and therefore the only tank. Its a light tank not an mbt. Doesnt mean it isnt a tank
@@citylumberjack9169the booker has parts commonality with the turret. The Abrams isn’t a 50 year old design. The hull is the same shape, the internals are full of new technology.
@@Fireclaws10 It was introduced in 1979. It IS a 50-year old design - maybe with some new gutty works, but still a 50-year old tank design. They stopped making the main components in the '90s; any new variants are assembled from unused spare parts. It's still a good tank, but it IS an old one.
Philippine Army realized during the marawi 50 cal and 25mm is not enough to penetrate concrete building so they decided that they need more fire powered so they order 105 light tanks and IFV (Ascod 2 Sabrah and Pandur 2).... since most bridges here in the Philippines and roads can't cater heavy mtb, light tank is a good choice.
Will your anti-drug president use the tanks to blow up the drug dens? I know he liquidates drug users so perhaps its another tool in his arsenal for that mission
@@PeterMuskrat6968actually the Philippines got the m10 booker's cousin it's called the sabrah light tank which also uses the ASCOD 2 platform same as the Booker's. If you look it up they are pretty much alike.
No tank will survive direct hits from artillery or even bigger mortars. I like the forward placement of the engine in this design. I absolutely believe that the forward placement of a massive diesel engine will, by itself, increase the survivability for the crew for frontal hits from tanks or ATGMs, and it might even help improve survivability for some landmine impacts. I would be curious to know how well either a Booker or Abrams can survive if it gets hit on the top or rear by a Russian Lancet or other military-grade drone. For the next decade, tanks should be designed to survive many kinds of (but not all) ATGM hits and hits from military-grade loitering drones. Again, none of these will survive a direct hit from a 152mm artillery round, and it's not sensible to try to design a vehicle that could survive that. If there isn't a significant difference in survivability from laser-guided ATGMs like Russia's Kornet or military-grade loitering munitions like Russia's Lancet, it's probably better to have more lightweight tanks with advanced optics and aiming systems rather than fewer and heavier tanks that burn significantly more fuel. I would imagine that the 105mm gun on this could absolutely shred any Russian BMP and any Russian tank except possibly the T90. It would probably disable a T90 after a hit from many angles, and it would probably destroy it after a couple hits with the right kind of 105mm round. At that point, the increased mobility and range are more important for most battlefields than having a tank with a bigger gun. I'm guessing that the Abrams' 120mm gun has a greater range, but I don't think that range is as important as having better optics and aiming for many types of battlefields. That's my guess, but I'm no expert.
There has been studies on placing the engine in the front against common modern munitions and it's been found to be extremely detrimental for crew survivability. With SABOT's, it acts like a giant bag of shrapnel.
@@MrZlocktarit's a mutual relationship, the infantry helps against close targets that the vehicle can't see while the vehicle takes care of heavy duty work, which could include clearing mines if it has a mine plow.
It's a light tank. The Bradley is not a tank, but the main difference between tank vs not tank is armor and gun. The Bradley main gun is technically still in the small arms category (somehow) while a tank main gun is technically in the artillery category. The description of its role is also that of a tank. It might not be a "main battle tank" like the Abrams, but it is a tank. It's like saying the Sherman wasn't actually a tank because it's lighter and smaller. The Paladin also is not a tank, but a self propelled howitzer. The difference there being its role as artillery support via indirect fire, whereas a tank is artillery support via direct fire and armor.
Its always weird explaining a self propelled artillery system to civilians. It looks like a tank, could be used like a tank in desperate situations, but it is not a tank.
The compartment that holds the ammo in a separate compartment is probably the best capability that the US has ever done when it comes to the Abrams and now the Booker
I still don't understand why people say it's not a light tank. Isn't the point of a light tank to support infantry while being more flexible than a MBT at the expense of having little to no armor?
@@TheCoolCucumber which begs the question why the German Wiesel wasn't really considered. It is light enough to be airdroppable by plane or medium sized heli, has an autocannon and missiles to deal with infantry and armor, and can easily zoom out of the battlefield if overwhelmed
@@TheCoolCucumberYou're only partly correct. A C-17 can only carry 1 Abrams, but 2 Bookers. While neither can be airdropped, twice as many Bookers can be delivered per plane
This cannot be air dropped by a C-5 or C17, the nose of the aircraft would radically pitch up before the tank cleared the rear ramp. It will never have the air mobility capabilities of airborne and light infantry troops.
For quake, the US basically has a series of laws that massively discourage buying major vehicles and equipment from a foreign supplier, no matter how friendly or capable.
Appreciate all the work that went into this video (reporting, graphics, editing, etc)! The breadth of content covered by the WSJ team is pretty huge and yet most videos are pretty high quality.
Yeah, Boston appears to me as a extremely clear communicator to us as the audience, and the voiceover content is also written with a very high level of care.
During World War II the military had a term for vehicles like the Booker: "Gun Motor Carriage," or GMC. The term helped signal that even though it looked like a tank, it wasn't, and had a different role. Many GMCs were tank destroyers.
It falls more in line with Assault Guns, which is a term from from WW2 and has since been modified in definition for the modern era to signify a role because of the advent of the Main Battle Tank absorbing nearly all tank classes and making class terms before it obsolete.
Seems like ground warfare is headed toward a more lethal hide-and-seek dynamic. If you're seen, and the other side's assets aren't, then you're toast. It's unclear to me how much value bulky, expensive, and highly visible armor plates will have in such an environment.
If I recall its 105 M35 is a lightened version of the M68 Tank gun. (Kinda how the US military mounted a lightened Version of the M4 Sherman's 75mm on the M24 Chaffe LT)
Loitering munitions have change the battle space so much so that these companies will need to go back to the drawing board unless they come up with a solution. Losing a multi million dollar war machine to $1000 drone is just not economically tenable.
Two things that show a little bit of concern (for me): the 105mm cannon which is a little weaker compared to some modern standards. Also the engine being in the front means that its gonna have a larger thermal signature. That's all for now!
@@SqunchmoThis is why the military doesn't want to call it a tank, they know people will think this can go up against an MBT just like the parent commentor. 😂
It seems aerial attacks are by far the most lethal threats faced by armor today, even when taking mines into account. I would could curious if any new tech is in the pipeline to mitigate this threat.
Yeah but an HSTVL wont have the big gun though. If the other side is hiding in a concrete civillian structure, you gotta blow it up. Thats sumn video games just dont show.
With the way we keep developing armor in new ways that are lighter and just as if not more durable, I feel like tanks will be, in the coming decades, fill a similar role as battleships did in WW2.
The Booker was named after SGT Stevon A. Booker. I served with him in Korea in 1999-2000. We inprocessed at Camp Casey together and served at Camp Gerry Owen with the 4/7 Cav. He was a good soldier, I remember seeing his picture in the Stars and Stripes while I was in Baghdad, it was last letters home. They printed his last letter he wrote to his family. It was a gut punch. RIP SGT Booker.
The M-10 is a fire support vehicle and not meant for a tank vs tank engagement. Its gun is only marginally effective against modern armor, and its armor is extremely vulnerable to just about everything.
Why does it primarily carry anti-tank munitions like the Sabot, HEAT and MPAT rounds? If not tank-on-tank, they would have put a 25mm Bushmaster main gun (like the M2 Bradley).
@@JudgeDillon It would primarily deal with fortifications and strong points. It carries 35 rounds for its 105 mm gun, while the IFV version of the Bradley carries six TOW missiles, 12 for the Cav version. Shells are cheaper than missiles.
@@kerrywatkins1400 reduces enemy strong points with direct fire. It carries 35 rounds while the IFV Bradley carries six missiles. 105 mm rounds are more numerous and cheaper than missiles.
@@muzikizfun ATGMx12 > 35 105mm shells. ATGMs are cheaper than a $17B+ program to develop and field a 105mm medium tank. Also, an M10 Booker costs 3x more than a Bradley! For assaulting fortifications you surely wouldn't use M10 Bookers to assault head on with 105mm guns. I would hope not at least.
It's greatest strength is it's weight. At half the weight you can transport far more to the battlefront. Overwhelming enemies with superior numbers is a legitimate strategy.
Past experience reveals that if it looks like a tank, it will be used as a tank. Then the military will wonder why the "tank" is being slaughtered when it faces a real tank.
I’ve seen a lot of different descriptions of the M10 and thought I may as well try to clear some stuff up. The most common description is light tank. While the booker may assume some traditionally light tank duties, it is not doctrinally a light tank. It is an assault gun. It provides heavy firepower needed to crack fortifications, a role the YS army has filled with tanks in recent years. The booker allows this firepower to be organic in infantry formations, and releases tanks that may be used in this role to perform thicker intended role rather than being relegated to infantry support.
It's such a shame that people actually think the Booker will be anything helpful, its another one of those unusually expensive metal shitboxes that will be wrecked by a cheap Russian drone. The US Army should be looking for cheaper vehicles that can deliver incredible firepower like the BMPT terminator and fit in a main 105 mm cannon. It should cost at least 2 million dollars and easy to use.
That's why I specifically said better APS. Because anti-tank missiles are no longer the major threat, it's also now drones. No APS from my knowledge has been modified to detect and react to a drone threat.
@@ms3862 The Ukrainians haven't used them much (the AMX-10), I saw footage of at least 3 being used (and lost/abandoned) in the first week of the counteroffensive, but then not much more; they probably haven't used them in their intended role, but still, as you said, 152mm (and thus 155mm also) shrapnel goes right through (while the Bradley for example has withstood a direct hit from a Grad rocket)
@@ms3862 they're older, so no surprise there I guess. My point was, it's the same category of agile light tanks, easier to deploy too, not aimed at fighting tanks but rather providing support for infantry
@@ms3862 the problem with the AMX 10 is that it is extremely niche tactic wise. It is supposed to be the 20th century version of shock cavalry, using its speed to outmaneuver and outflank the enemy, shoots bunkers or light vehicles with its 105mm to create a breakthrough then quickly get out to allow either infantry or heavier armor to go through. It works as intended for wider, drier places the Sahel (long, empty desert) since the vehicles can just move out of the way if mines are detected and enemies don't possess much heavy artillery. whereas Ukraine is a much more static war at the moment because of the artillery and mines so the AMX loses out. Doesn't help that the rain/mud makes the wheeled vehicle easier to stuck
The Booker has a significant advantage in terms of logistics. Lower weight means you can transport 2 instead of 1. The much fuel consumption means more use for a given amount of fuel. Lower unit cost (?) means higher production rates.
I think it looks pretty ingenious so far. I realized the designers copied the layout of the Israeli Merkeva when I saw the doors on the front of the hull - they did this on purpose to prove more crew protection from frontal hits, since it is the spot on the tank that gets hit with the most enemy fire. A relatively "cheap" way to get more crew protection with no weight penalty that heavy armor brings. If I were to compare M1 to "BOOKER" (gonna take some getting used to that name!) I'd say the M1 is the Tiger tank and the Booker is more like the Panther of the American tank fleet.
Yeah. The main issue that I seriously hope they worked out is that putting the engine in the front requires a lot of design changes to prevent the heat from cooking a lot of the sensitive systems (eg. frontal sensors and optics). The IDF spent years of R&D eliminating this problem, so I would bet that they were called in to consult on this project. I also hope that the US puts a couple Iron Fist modules on this, as they are lightweight and protect against side and back strikes with ATGMs. It isn't as powerful as the Trophy for MBTs, but it's very good for light systems that can't handle the Trophy.
Maybe an 8x8 can't support enough weight (and therefore armor) to be sufficiently survivable on the modern battlefield? Just guessing, but the Stryker MGS is still relatively modern in the scheme of AFV's, the Abrams hull was designed in the 70's and there is no plan to replace it in sight. My guess is that there is some fundamental issue with the 8x8 platform that caused its cancellation.
SBCTs are not going to be in their own divisions anymore. The Army is moving away from the brigade-centric model and going to a division-centric one, with Light Divisions, Heavy Divisions, and Penetration (lol) Divisions. Light Divisions will be all IBCTs, Penetration will be all ABCTs, and Heavy will be one SBCT and the rest ABCTs.
@@roadhouse6999They are still keeping BCT’s for bushfire conflicts… where the M10 will excel. Being able to take out infantry, BMP’s and T-55’s (the most common Tank in Africa) with ease.
You can expect the weight of the Booker to increase because, in light of the real world experience in Ukraine, the top of the turret and the engine compartment must receive more armor. Tanks don't really fight tanks any more. They fight drones and missiles.
It's such a shame that people actually think the Booker will be anything helpful, its another one of those unusually expensive metal shitboxes that will be wrecked by a cheap Russian drone. The US Army should be looking for cheaper vehicles that can deliver incredible firepower like the BMPT terminator and fit in a main 105 mm cannon. It should cost at least 2 million dollars and easy to use.
@@eliasziad7864 frankly that Chinese light tank that came out a few years ago looks much more capable and more importantly, likely doesn't somehow cost more than a full sized MBT.
No tank can deal with almost antique 1960s Russian landmines. Once one of the tracks has been blown off, it is a sitting duck for artillery, ATGMs and drones.
This implies that Russian combat engineers will have suitable time to lay minefields and prepare defenses, not so much a given when between the air force and navy the US has the two largest air forces respectively to shred any sufficient massing of troops or equipment. Ukraine lacked the long range precision fires capability to disrupt Russia's defensive engineering in the East while they were generating their battalions for the offensive, the U.S and by extension NATO doesn't suffer from that particular deficiency.
Right, but the tank is far from dead. There still needs to be an heavily armored, but gun "tip of the spear" role for assaults. Just because tanks have vulnerabilities doesn't mean assaults should be exclusively light infantry.
They meant standard infantry (unmotorized). The abrams works together with mechanized infantry. Also the logistical burden of the abrams is probably much higher then the new vehicle. Esp. fuel consumption.
Well, as a former US Army veteran that receives shockingly substandard care from the VA (primarily because they don't have a budget to hire more staff), I often contemplate how our government is motivated to allocate budgets for more killing equipment. Our VA health care system is a F'ng train wreck and our ability to efficiently destroy enemies is very effective. So how is spending more money on weapons systems a better idea than fixing VA health care? Somebody has to figure this out, sooner rather than later. Mark Nicholson (Retired) (80% Service Connected Disabled) Former, US Army - EFMB, Combat Medical Specialist (1980's) 1/94 FA MLRS - Erlangen, West Germany 690th, Medical Company - Ft. Benning, Georgia supporting Misc. Weapons & Training Ranges, Airborne Jump School and Ranger Training Brigade (ARTB)
@@aenorist2431he’s talking about the Stryker MGS which was a Stryker with a unmanned turret and a 105mm gun. It had severe development problems with things like it’s auto loader so yes he is most likely right.
The Stryker mobile gun system was used in Stryker brigade, whereas the Booker is for infantry brigades who have so far almost no vehicles (no Abrams, no Bradleys, no Strykers). So not a replacement.
I'm not convinced this CV was needed. Given the effectiveness Ukraine has had easily defeating Russian tanks with drones, I think we needed a CV that would offer more crew protection. Light infantry (airborne and mechanized) can be moved by airmobile operations, nothing in the army inventory can lift this beast.
lol dude this was made to have transportability in mind. A C-17 can carry 2 of these. This isn't even for going against tanks. Did you even watch the video?
@@Fireclaws10 It has the armor of a light tank. Sufficient to defend against anything but anti-tank weaponry or artillery. It is not a Main Battle Tank, it's mission is not to "take all comers". It's supposed to hang behind infantry screens and blow up buildings, barricades, MG nests, vehicles, et cetera.
@@yeaaight1689 once this deploys in theater, please tell me what can ''transport' it around the modern battlefield. Mobility is key. I'm a former M1 Abrahams platoon leader, and it's been my experience that enemy tanks can show up anywhere. Is this new vehicle supposed to run and hide when they do?
Total waste of money. The money should be spent buying $1000 drones. $13 million could buy 13,000 drones. If I was an infantryman, I would feel more protected with a large swarm of 1000 drones than one Booker.
@@lazynow1 if the brain is able guees ranges quite well it must be possible to write a program that can do it better. It would be worth not giving the enemy a heads up Why do you thing this is stupid??
@@dzcav3 yes I know that, I have been a tank comander my self. I also know that there has been a previous generation of optical/mecanical range finders. But there are laserwarning system. It would be nice to avoid being detacted.. Already back in the 90's we tried to avoid "lasing" straight at a target.
@@jenskruse1475 I figure by the time you actually visually acquire and laze the tank, you'll have a sabot round flying downrange in a matter of seconds. Even with alarms blaring, there's not really enough time for the target tank to meaningfully react. Now for something like a slower laser guided munition fired from say a drone/chopper/plane the heads up may actually make a difference since it can take a hot second before the munition gets on target.
Besides equipping the U.S. Army's Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (IBCT), would the M10 Booker also be a viable option for the Stryker BCTs and the U.S. Marine Corps?
The Army is shipping all of the Strykers to Ukraine because of the M-10 Booker. The greatest irony of the anti-Ukraine funding crowd in Congress is that we are actually delivering obsolesent equipment, not money. The war is actually saving the US government money in that they are not having to pay the cost of decommissioning and storage on the Stryker, the M113 and a number of other older systems.
The marines and task force 141 have been requesting the abrams be replaced and scrapped and instead they prefer the Challenger 3 but the UK are refusing to sell any
So. Former tank crewman here. I rode with the 11th ACR crewing the first generation of Abrams [an 'Em-Wun-Ay-Nuthin']. There is a GREAT danger in Mobile Gun Vehicles that needs to be mentioned and I think it should be put out in the middle of the table where everybody can see it. Recon tanks don't work. They just don't. They didn't in War Two, the haven't in every iteration since, and I don't personally believe they will now. They're too light to withstand the anticipated battlefield of an industrial enemy [say, Russia or China], with ATGMs filling the air and drones in the sky overhead. While their guns might put-paid to IFVs, they're equally vulnerable to IFV fire... including 25mm Bushmaster and 30mm Rarden autocannons, not to mention ATGMs like Russia's HOT and MILAN knockoffs. And here's the thing: Congressmen and accountants JUST LOVE MGVs! They're SO much cheaper to field than a real, actual armored battalion! And they look like a tank, right? Nobody'll know the difference! Heavy tank forces are expensive. Hideously expensive. They're expensive build, expensive to maintain, expensive support, and expensive to transport. The crews are expensive to train and keep proficient because there is only so much you can do in a simulator. And simulators do not convey the sheer level of work necessary to be a proficient tank crewman in the field. Tankers are like infantry: they have to train in the mud and weeds. But the only thing proven to defeat a highly trained armor-heavy division is an equally well trained and equally well equipped division. Now, it's been a LONG time since I've been soldier. Things have changed a great deal since then. But I'm a lifelong military historian and observer of the procurement and training process. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am. And I'm am VERY worried that these Bookers are gonna get a lot of honest tankers killed because somebody was pinching pennies and diverting monies that armored battalions need.
It's an Assault Gun. We moved on to Armored Fighting Vehicle *roles* rather than *classes of tanks*. Remember, all Main Battle Tanks (MBT) are Armored Fighting Vehicles (AFV), but not all AFV are MBT's. Light tanks and other classifications became obsolete with the advent of the Main Battle Tank. There is just no point in putting money or time into anything else when the objective for the AFV is to defeat another MBT including multiple MBT's by itself. To us, this is an Assault Gun because of the way it is equipped and the way it will be used. Plus, calling it a Assault Gun cuts out a lot of confusion for everyone, including Congress and the military. As someone else put it: The problem with calling it a tank is that when someone says "Main Battle Tank" people just hear "tank" and when someone says "light tank" people just hear "tank" and so people either forget or do not know that the "light tank" cannot do things an MBT can do. With that said, it falls within the definition of "Battle Tank" from NATO or UN, but according to that definition so will an AFV on wheels. But seriously, if some country bought this variant, the M10 Booker, as is to be their main battle tank it won't be able to stand up to our MBT. It would need some futuristic upgrades in firepower, armor, and defensive systems that looks like they came from a science fiction novel before it could be considered an MBT for us.
I would be interested in how many 105 mm rounds it can carry. IF it can offer a larger variety of ammunition, that means it can only carry so many of each type. Also, 105 tank ammunition , of all types, might be scarce and an expensive procurement also. I would expect that it can fire sabot (AP) rounds, HE, WP, and possibly flechette rounds. The useless Stryker gun system had very limited ammo and loading issues. Millions wasted IMO. Bradleys will be getting 50 mm guns soon. Not sure this weapon $ystem is needed given the current fighting.
@@JudgeDillon to be fair it’s only useless against frontal armor of modern tanks but side shots and shots on the turret which could damage optics and all types of other subsystems are still completely viable. I mean look at the amount of tanks which are abandoned after a few hits in Ukraine you don’t need to completely destroy them to make them ineffective.
The US has still tons of 105 mm ammo, and that seems to be the main reason why they wanted a 105 mm gun. Infantry brigades dont benefit from bigger bradley guns as they have no bradleys (and no abrams, no strykers)
Had a light tank in my day, M551 Sheridan, fast, can be air dropped by airborne units, fired missles that could be armor piercing, anti personnel, and was even rumored to be able to fire tactical nukes.
The most important ability would be connectivity between drones, aircraft, artillery and infantry. A 360 automatic FLIR identification system would be good.
It'll probably be the star of the show in any future conflicts. Just as the M2 Bradley is in Ukraine currently, except now you have (nearly) the same firepower as an MBT but with the ease of navigation and maneuverability of the Bradley. Give it an auxiliary Bushmaster cannon and the thing would be an absolute monster.
also RAND guy saying it's a bonus that Abrams crewmen will be familiar because it is similar controls. I'm sure the Abrams crew is happy about getting into a not-tank tank with shittier armor
It basically bridges the gap between a Bradley and an Abrams. It supports troops like a Bradley, but has a bigger cannon and doesn't haul troops, like a tank.
It'll blown up easily like leopards
@@ROTHSTEIN01 You mean like the 2,000 junk Russian tanks Ukraine destroyed with turrets that have been to space more times than an orc cosmonaut? How's that 3 day operation going? Still only occupy 18% after 500 days huh? 🤣🤣🤣🤣
When NATO tanks are hit, the crew survives and rejoins the fight with a new tank while the damaged one gets repaired. When junk Russian tanks are hit, the crew is vaporized and the tank is blown into space. Tanks aren't indestructible. It's about the crew surviving and staying in the fight. In Russia, soldiers are just bodies to throw into the meat grinder.
@@AllDay3090 that's fake news, in most cases crews are badly wounded and unable to do anything afterwards
@@ROTHSTEIN01 do I really need to send you a video of a t72 becoming a space vehicle?
The Booker is the quintessential definition of a light tank. A light tank is meant to work closely with infantry and allows for armed reconnaissance.
Like the M3 Bradley?
@@Saffi____bradley is a scout vehicle. The Booker is intended to work in urban environments that the Bradley is not.
@@Saffi____Bradley isn't a tank it has a medium caliber auto cannon and is meant to carry troops
Nice when you have a technical or up-armored vehicle with a 50 cal roll up on your infantry and you need a little extra can opening capability.
@@cgmason7568 I just asked as the guy said a light tanks role is to work closely with infantry and for armed reconnaissance which is exactly what the M3 Bradley does. I know it isn't a tank but due to poor definitions it could be considered one. The one thing I hate about the military is their numerous vague definitions. There are no direct definitions of a tank or an aircraft carrier, etc, which just creates a lot of confusion.
Just to clarify, when she zoomed in on the turret, she was highlighting ERA tiles NOT ammo boxes. The ammo that sometimes detonates is in a carousel underneath the turret (at least the external visible part of it), inside the hull. ERA is remarkably stable, which is why you can see unexploded tiles covering the tank even after an ammo detonation and being engulfed in flames. I don't know if anyone was confused by that, but it bothered me enough to comment lol
they weren't focused on the individual items but rather the turret as a whole. because it's easy to imagine not surviving whatever caused that
She wasn't highlighting the ERA, she was just showing "hey see that turret on the ground, yeah they don't belong on the ground" then she explained why that happened. Seems like you just bothered yourself with this one chief
Read your comment just before the ERA blurb, thanks for saving me the trouble of having to comment myself!
Good for crowd control.. don’t even think of riding this into battle against a worthy enemy force. A 50 Cal. MG could take it out.
You know that there is a feature to give a time? Like: 5:25 So you dont have to describe the scene you are talking of to the audience.
My favorite part of this video? The Army explicitly saying "this is our new light tank", and then we get 7 minutes of someone trying to convince us the Army didn;t just tell us exactly what the Booker is: a light tank. LOL.
The guy who made this video just wanted to draw viewers with unusual title, I won't bother to click if I checked clearly that this is just about the new light tank that will replace the M-551 Sheridan. Only question on this tank is why not they create automated turret with just 2 crew in the chassis like the earlier planned new light MBT that is meant to fill roles of M-1A2.
It is a light tank but can also be considered an ifv just due to it working in better cohesion with infantry then a regular tank or ifv
@@charlie523An IFV carries troops. This doesn’t. Working with infantry isn’t a disqualifier from tankdom, that’s just combined arms doctrine. This is just a tank that can go places heavier tanks can’t go, which is the role of light tanks.
@@aidanwarren4980 alright, even though it's derived from an ifv and is considered an afv
The US isn’t calling it a light tank for troops, because they don’t want their soldiers to treat it like a tank. It’s too fragile for that.
The M10 Booker looks small enough to be conveniently deployed in urban environments where threat exposures are difficult to see and predict. Adding additional armor such as slat armor or even try out this unproven method called "winged armor" for infantry elements to fold out on both sides of the tank to conduct street to street combat. Otherwise, this particular tank could use an armored dozer blade as an operational accessory to plow through abandoned vehicles or breach obstacles and provide adequate ballistic protection and provide decent cover for infantry elements.
It'll be interesting to see how the army deploys these because this type of vehicle isn't a new concept and has been a part of the Russian army for decades and it hasn't exactly been amazing for them. That being said, American vs. Russian squad and platoon composition is much different from one another so it's possible this could actually work really well at the battalion level. Still don't know if I like it the idea or not.
Until someone buys a drone and ends it.
I dunno. Seems like RPG chow.
Lacks the pure numbers of humvees, and lacks the heavy armor of an Abrams. It would be a high priority lightly armored target.
My concern is a front mounted engine means frontal attack means a disabled tank
I was a 12F, Booker isn't heavy enough to act as a CEV, and, the extra weight of a blade and pneumatic system, to actuate the blade is just too much extra for the vehicle. The Army tried a small CEV which had no combat capabilities and dropped it, it was called the ACE, it just didn't really work and was too vulnerable. I am very dubious about Booker. The Army has used light tanks in the past, and sooner or later, situations arise where the vehicle is asked to perform tasks it is unsuited for, and they suffer terribly. In an environment where tanks are more vulnerable to inexpensive weapons systems, the answer is not a lighter more vulnerable vehicle. The answer is new defensive capabilities for our vehicles.
This is the type of tank that the Marine Corps needs. It'd be perfect for their amphibious strategies.
Agreed
It could be a good idea for the U.S. Marine Corps to adopt the M10 Booker. Alternatively, the USMC could combine the Booker's turret with the 8x8 wheeled chassis of its new SuperAV Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV). The ACV is larger than the LAV-25 or Stryker, so it would not be restricted by their size constraints.
Good idea. The USMC will probably jump on it!
@christopherwang4392 the Army tried using the 105mm on the Stryker and retired it, finding it not useful. I never looked into the reason, but it was short lived.
Yeah this is basically an Abrams but Corps'ed light and expeditionary.
The Booker is what the Stryker Mobile Gun System couldn't be.
Or what the French AMX10RC, or the Italian CENTAURO, have been doing superbly for the past 20+ years.
@@ElectroAtleticowell somewhat, those vehicles are very much like the Stryker though much more effective. The US likes more armored vehicles and likes tracks instead of wheels which is why they made the booker.
Its Pentagon Wars, on repeat.
Strykers now have 105 cannons
The booker is a modern version of what the M8 AGS from the 80s was meant to be before it got defunded.
2:28 "... a nearly 105-millimeter cannon" man that "nearly" gave me a stroke💀
Yeah what did they mean by that?
It's a building buster, and it's easier to transport. An M1 is built for destruction of other tanks and heavy/armored equipment. We've seen in Ukraine, and what will likely hold true in an environment like Taiwan, is the need to fight in small to mid sized towns and villages, take out buildings/small defensive fortifications and be highly mobile
What we have seen is that nato countries military equipment is very lacking.
No we haven't
@reviewerreviewer1489 who tf you talking to?
@@Craig-fl8jj compared to who?
@@Rjvda compared to russias. I'm now concerned how far we are behind china's technology. Natos military equipment has proven to be equipment built to sell instead of equipment built for war.
It's a light tank in simple terms. If I am correct, it would be used in the same role as the Stryker 105. Being used in a scouting role and being deployed when, other more heavier tanks such as the Abrams couldn't make the trip because of their slower speeds and gas guzzling engines compared to the lighter M10 Booker.
It will be what the Abrams is to your typical infantry but for airborne paratroopers it has the same role but is easier to drop into battle.
Its a Light Tank that is returning to the original idea of the Tank.
Aka Direct Fire Support against enemy forces.
It's such a shame that people actually think the Booker will be anything helpful, its another one of those unusually expensive metal shitboxes that will be wrecked by a cheap Russian drone. The US Army should be looking for cheaper vehicles that can deliver incredible firepower like the BMPT terminator and fit in a main 105 mm cannon. It should cost at least 2 million dollars and easy to use.
@@eliasziad7864 Looks like we've found the Russian Z bot! The terminators were all destroyed in Ukraine lol. Oh and those aren't Russian drones they are Iranian.
@@eliasziad7864 So you want a vehicle that is cheap, but also questionable in its reliability and effectiveness. While having a cost of being in the realms of fantasy. The M10 Booker along with its Heavier brother the M1 Abrams are meant to be of high quality and reliability. Also, the BMPT isn't very good given its glaring lack of accuracy because of its shaking barrels. Which isn't good mind you. Just to point out. War is expensive. You lose both men and equipment alike, so our approach is to make high quality equipment and vehicles that will have high reliability and ease of maintenance. The cheap option doesn't really work out as some people think because in the end having cheap stuff will be more expensive in the long run.
This type of vehicle gives infantry assaulting an objective the ability to bring direct fire on prepared positions. It's not meant to fight and knock out enemy armor, it's meant to give infantry heavier hitting power to support the infantry
Lots of footage in Ukraine shows a tank roll up, absolutely wreck a hostile fighting position, and then have the infantry clear it.
I'm pretty sure the 105mm depleted uranium sabot round is intended to defeat enemy tanks and tank-like targets. Otherwise, battle carry MPAT or HEAT...ON THE WAY!
@@kerrywatkins1400 I think they'll carry a mix of rounds, carrying Sabot not because the vehicles are designed to specifically engage heavy armor, but will have the defensive ability should the battlefield quickly change. Bradley's will have rounds for softer targets and probably some ATGM for the same changing scenario.
In summary, it’s a tank fulfilling its Role.
Literally, Russia's terminator tank is much better in this role, why doesnt the US Army copy that design and probably fit in a 105 mm cannon in the process?
The U.S Marines would be so obsessed with this light tank for mobility warfare
Of course, they are, since there are the first responders when it comes beginning stages of the battle. They need to travel light so they can destroy the enemy's backline and not be hunker down and don't lose valuable time.
@@titaniumtreedomthe Army does this job on land. In every war.
Marines prefer using the Abrams.
@@garygallant5390
The Marines gave up their Abrams years ago.
Pretty good acquisition for the US Army! It provided much needed protection and additional engagement for infantry BCT.
I would argue that a 120mm mortar gun with higher elevation and a shorter barrel would be superior for infantry support.
Are you sober ? 😂
better than humvee with 50cal@@CorePathway
@@navyseal1689 The infantry needs both direct and indirect fire support. The odds of one of these ever getting shot at by an enemy MBT are nil, zero. It couldn’t survive anyway, so let’s not EVER pretend these will in turn be shooting at enemy tanks. This is why I argue that there are realistically far more engagements an auto loading direct and indirect fire capable mortar-gun can do that a high velocity direct fire 105 can’t do that the other way around. Ultimately what the grunts really need is a front-engined RPG-proof assault gun with a CROWS station that can medevac with a rear-loading hatch like the Merkava. It could blast away hard points and be the ultimate battlefield ambulance. It could also insert/pick-up 4 man teams. Think SEALS.
And, most importantly, it's more economical.
Very important, notice the fuel consumption vs an Abrams
Stryker: *exists*
Booker: I'm you, but better.
Booker: im not you. im not an IFV. Max passenger: ZERO.
Stryker: is an IFV, has wheels, can go to 60 mph, has 14.5mm of armor and carry 9 passengers
I meant in being a QRF vehicle.
@@zlonewolfthestryker Kills people
@@zlonewolfThe Stryker is an apc, not an ifv.
M1128:😢
Takes me back to the 90's.
The Booker has also lots of cameras around it for better visibility for the crew as seen in a in-depth video from The Chieftain.
Give it to a bunch of soldiers and they will find ways to break it. Truer words have never been spoken.
After the Army works out the bugs in the system I honestly wouldn't be surprised that the USMC picks this vehicle up and test it to see if it'll work for them
It's not a Main Battle Tank (MBT). It is, however, a tank - being a tracked vehicle designed for a combat role. Maybe closer to a CFV, if you like ... but those are also tanks (the M2/M3 Bradley CFV was too light for the role, and this Booker looks like it addresses some of that issue).
I sure hope that the Booker doesn't share too much with the Abrams - which is a 50-year old weapon system.
It's a light tank. Not every tank has to be a Tiger or IS-3, you can have M26 Pershing or M3 Lee
Exactly!!
It's like saying a chaffee wasnt a tank because a sherman was heavier and therefore the only tank. Its a light tank not an mbt. Doesnt mean it isnt a tank
@@citylumberjack9169the booker has parts commonality with the turret. The Abrams isn’t a 50 year old design. The hull is the same shape, the internals are full of new technology.
@@Fireclaws10 It was introduced in 1979. It IS a 50-year old design - maybe with some new gutty works, but still a 50-year old tank design. They stopped making the main components in the '90s; any new variants are assembled from unused spare parts. It's still a good tank, but it IS an old one.
Philippine Army realized during the marawi 50 cal and 25mm is not enough to penetrate concrete building so they decided that they need more fire powered so they order 105 light tanks and IFV (Ascod 2 Sabrah and Pandur 2).... since most bridges here in the Philippines and roads can't cater heavy mtb, light tank is a good choice.
Yup, I wouldn’t be surprised if you see the Philippines interested in these (or maybe just getting a vehicle or two for testing)
Will your anti-drug president use the tanks to blow up the drug dens? I know he liquidates drug users so perhaps its another tool in his arsenal for that mission
@@PeterMuskrat6968actually the Philippines got the m10 booker's cousin it's called the sabrah light tank which also uses the ASCOD 2 platform same as the Booker's. If you look it up they are pretty much alike.
No tank will survive direct hits from artillery or even bigger mortars. I like the forward placement of the engine in this design. I absolutely believe that the forward placement of a massive diesel engine will, by itself, increase the survivability for the crew for frontal hits from tanks or ATGMs, and it might even help improve survivability for some landmine impacts.
I would be curious to know how well either a Booker or Abrams can survive if it gets hit on the top or rear by a Russian Lancet or other military-grade drone. For the next decade, tanks should be designed to survive many kinds of (but not all) ATGM hits and hits from military-grade loitering drones. Again, none of these will survive a direct hit from a 152mm artillery round, and it's not sensible to try to design a vehicle that could survive that. If there isn't a significant difference in survivability from laser-guided ATGMs like Russia's Kornet or military-grade loitering munitions like Russia's Lancet, it's probably better to have more lightweight tanks with advanced optics and aiming systems rather than fewer and heavier tanks that burn significantly more fuel. I would imagine that the 105mm gun on this could absolutely shred any Russian BMP and any Russian tank except possibly the T90. It would probably disable a T90 after a hit from many angles, and it would probably destroy it after a couple hits with the right kind of 105mm round. At that point, the increased mobility and range are more important for most battlefields than having a tank with a bigger gun. I'm guessing that the Abrams' 120mm gun has a greater range, but I don't think that range is as important as having better optics and aiming for many types of battlefields. That's my guess, but I'm no expert.
I believe the Israeli-made Merkava is the first main battle tank to use a forward-placed engine as additional protection for the crew.
Other parts of the enemy have failed if the tank has that king of problem.
Engines do serve great resistance against HEAT but do virtually nothing against KE penetrators like APFSDS
When is the last time you saw a tank get hit or even attacked from the front?
There has been studies on placing the engine in the front against common modern munitions and it's been found to be extremely detrimental for crew survivability. With SABOT's, it acts like a giant bag of shrapnel.
5:31 Aw! He looks so proud.
In WW1 the tank supported the infantry, in modern day the infantry support the tank…
I'd like to see you try supporting tank on a mine field in modern day... Morale support?
@@MrZlocktar if they ended up on a minefield they already F’d up… can’t fix stupid.
@@MrZlocktarit's a mutual relationship, the infantry helps against close targets that the vehicle can't see while the vehicle takes care of heavy duty work, which could include clearing mines if it has a mine plow.
It's a light tank. The Bradley is not a tank, but the main difference between tank vs not tank is armor and gun. The Bradley main gun is technically still in the small arms category (somehow) while a tank main gun is technically in the artillery category. The description of its role is also that of a tank. It might not be a "main battle tank" like the Abrams, but it is a tank. It's like saying the Sherman wasn't actually a tank because it's lighter and smaller. The Paladin also is not a tank, but a self propelled howitzer. The difference there being its role as artillery support via indirect fire, whereas a tank is artillery support via direct fire and armor.
The Bradley is also a troop carrier
The Abrahams is not a tank because it lacks the M10 designation.
@@shanerooney7288 The M1 Abrams is a Main Battle Tank.
Its always weird explaining a self propelled artillery system to civilians. It looks like a tank, could be used like a tank in desperate situations, but it is not a tank.
The compartment that holds the ammo in a separate compartment is probably the best capability that the US has ever done when it comes to the Abrams and now the Booker
Light infantry units needed a firepower upgrade, and one that can be transported via air.
Pretty sure it serves the same role as the Type 15 and FNSS Medium Tank and allows it to be sent into rougher terrain like Himalaya mountain
I think the future war is in asia or south east asia soft ground and this tank preparing for it
@@deidresable also island with amphibious landing.
I still don't understand why people say it's not a light tank. Isn't the point of a light tank to support infantry while being more flexible than a MBT at the expense of having little to no armor?
Whoa. Great video but one of the most positive & professional comments sections I've seen on youtube! Liked & subbed.
This is why nobody watches the news anymore. Its a light tank. It's literally the definition of a light tank.
Well, imma head out…..
Cant wait for you to roast this though
I hope the US army produces more of this, because it gives airborne units quick mobility of a light tank
@@TheCoolCucumber which begs the question why the German Wiesel wasn't really considered. It is light enough to be airdroppable by plane or medium sized heli, has an autocannon and missiles to deal with infantry and armor, and can easily zoom out of the battlefield if overwhelmed
@@TheCoolCucumberYou're only partly correct. A C-17 can only carry 1 Abrams, but 2 Bookers. While neither can be airdropped, twice as many Bookers can be delivered per plane
Like the Sheridan?
This cannot be air dropped by a C-5 or C17, the nose of the aircraft would radically pitch up before the tank cleared the rear ramp. It will never have the air mobility capabilities of airborne and light infantry troops.
For quake, the US basically has a series of laws that massively discourage buying major vehicles and equipment from a foreign supplier, no matter how friendly or capable.
If the M10 Booker is a tank, people would be calling it Booker T 😂
needs to add two machine Guns, then i it could by Booker T and the MG's
Awesome use of resources!
They'd better have some auxiliary units providing cover against drones, because a lack of armor on top is just begging to be hit by drone strikes.
Wow 100 mm is smaller than 120mm but more powerful than a 25 mm gun? Top rate analysis
Yep glad he explained that one.😆
Appreciate all the work that went into this video (reporting, graphics, editing, etc)! The breadth of content covered by the WSJ team is pretty huge and yet most videos are pretty high quality.
Yeah, Boston appears to me as a extremely clear communicator to us as the audience, and the voiceover content is also written with a very high level of care.
Yeah except they tried to spend 7 minutes convincing us it’s not a tank only to describe to us a tank
'Breadth'?
During World War II the military had a term for vehicles like the Booker: "Gun Motor Carriage," or GMC. The term helped signal that even though it looked like a tank, it wasn't, and had a different role. Many GMCs were tank destroyers.
It falls more in line with Assault Guns, which is a term from from WW2 and has since been modified in definition for the modern era to signify a role because of the advent of the Main Battle Tank absorbing nearly all tank classes and making class terms before it obsolete.
@@bl8danjilthis is a modern Stug III
The M10 will be a great addition for our infantry. 🇺🇸💪
Peace through strength!
Seems like ground warfare is headed toward a more lethal hide-and-seek dynamic. If you're seen, and the other side's assets aren't, then you're toast. It's unclear to me how much value bulky, expensive, and highly visible armor plates will have in such an environment.
0:04 they left the oil pan under the front of the vehicle.... amazing.
So it is manufactured by Land Rover?
great, i was looking to buy a kia but you changed my mind
The 105 mm gun will do just fine supporting infantry, taking out light armored vehicles and fortifications. The M60 series tanks had a 105mm in them.
If I recall its 105 M35 is a lightened version of the M68 Tank gun.
(Kinda how the US military mounted a lightened Version of the M4 Sherman's 75mm on the M24 Chaffe LT)
The best part of the video was the honesty of the guy “ soldiers will find ways to brake it” lol
Loitering munitions have change the battle space so much so that these companies will need to go back to the drawing board unless they come up with a solution. Losing a multi million dollar war machine to $1000 drone is just not economically tenable.
I think traditionally the top of a turret is not highly armoured on a tank. I think that will need to change.
I think we need to double down on things like DE SHORAD and Trophy APS, as well as electronic warfare and counterbattery against UAV operators.
Yeah it's called active protection system (APS).
EW and APS solves those problems relatively easily
That what Stryker M-SHORAD, JLTV LIDS, and even older HMMWV Avenger is for.
Two things that show a little bit of concern (for me): the 105mm cannon which is a little weaker compared to some modern standards. Also the engine being in the front means that its gonna have a larger thermal signature. That's all for now!
The 105 isn’t meant to go toe to toe with other MBTs
@@SqunchmoThis is why the military doesn't want to call it a tank, they know people will think this can go up against an MBT just like the parent commentor. 😂
Weird what a few decades will do. 105mm would have been a large gun for a WW2 tank
It seems aerial attacks are by far the most lethal threats faced by armor today, even when taking mines into account. I would could curious if any new tech is in the pipeline to mitigate this threat.
Yes. Active protection systems can kill RPG, ATGM, and Drone threats. They cannot defeat tank cannon hits.
Yes officer, I need this for home defense.
It's a light tank, not an IFV.
our older tanks seem more interesting i wish we could bring the hstvl back
Yeah but an HSTVL wont have the big gun though.
If the other side is hiding in a concrete civillian structure, you gotta blow it up. Thats sumn video games just dont show.
I'm a bit confused about this vehicle. In particular, why we're suddenly getting medium Infantry tanks again.
Because of ukraine
For highly mobile fire support.
With the way we keep developing armor in new ways that are lighter and just as if not more durable, I feel like tanks will be, in the coming decades, fill a similar role as battleships did in WW2.
The Booker was named after SGT Stevon A. Booker. I served with him in Korea in 1999-2000. We inprocessed at Camp Casey together and served at Camp Gerry Owen with the 4/7 Cav. He was a good soldier, I remember seeing his picture in the Stars and Stripes while I was in Baghdad, it was last letters home. They printed his last letter he wrote to his family. It was a gut punch. RIP SGT Booker.
The M-10 is a fire support vehicle and not meant for a tank vs tank engagement. Its gun is only marginally effective against modern armor, and its armor is extremely vulnerable to just about everything.
The Bradley is like better equipped for such engagements with it's ATGMs... Which makes you wonder what the point is to this vehicle.
Why does it primarily carry anti-tank munitions like the Sabot, HEAT and MPAT rounds? If not tank-on-tank, they would have put a 25mm Bushmaster main gun (like the M2 Bradley).
@@JudgeDillon It would primarily deal with fortifications and strong points. It carries 35 rounds for its 105 mm gun, while the IFV version of the Bradley carries six TOW missiles, 12 for the Cav version. Shells are cheaper than missiles.
@@kerrywatkins1400 reduces enemy strong points with direct fire. It carries 35 rounds while the IFV Bradley carries six missiles. 105 mm rounds are more numerous and cheaper than missiles.
@@muzikizfun ATGMx12 > 35 105mm shells.
ATGMs are cheaper than a $17B+ program to develop and field a 105mm medium tank.
Also, an M10 Booker costs 3x more than a Bradley!
For assaulting fortifications you surely wouldn't use M10 Bookers to assault head on with 105mm guns. I would hope not at least.
It's greatest strength is it's weight. At half the weight you can transport far more to the battlefront.
Overwhelming enemies with superior numbers is a legitimate strategy.
@@liamwartzhe’s not saying it is genius. Since these tanks are lighter strategic air lifters can carry more of them compared to the heavier Abrams.
@@alexalbrecht5768 Misread my bad
Past experience reveals that if it looks like a tank, it will be used as a tank. Then the military will wonder why the "tank" is being slaughtered when it faces a real tank.
It's a tank. Tank is a verity of vehicles like the term warship is for fleets
Yes, the Sheridan was employed like a light tank in Vietnam.
“The booker looks very similar to the abrams.. both are tracked vehicles with a turret” 😂😂
I’ve seen a lot of different descriptions of the M10 and thought I may as well try to clear some stuff up. The most common description is light tank. While the booker may assume some traditionally light tank duties, it is not doctrinally a light tank. It is an assault gun. It provides heavy firepower needed to crack fortifications, a role the YS army has filled with tanks in recent years. The booker allows this firepower to be organic in infantry formations, and releases tanks that may be used in this role to perform thicker intended role rather than being relegated to infantry support.
It's such a shame that people actually think the Booker will be anything helpful, its another one of those unusually expensive metal shitboxes that will be wrecked by a cheap Russian drone. The US Army should be looking for cheaper vehicles that can deliver incredible firepower like the BMPT terminator and fit in a main 105 mm cannon. It should cost at least 2 million dollars and easy to use.
They need to make more smaller profile vehicle's like this but with better active protection systems and it will perform much better in modern combat.
It’s almost as if the vehicle was designed to mount an APS if the need arises… oh wait…
That's why I specifically said better APS. Because anti-tank missiles are no longer the major threat, it's also now drones. No APS from my knowledge has been modified to detect and react to a drone threat.
@@nickh509 it really shouldn't be that hard to do that...
AMX10RC's good performances in Afghanistan have not gone unnoticed
They have been cut up in ukraine though. Sharpnel from Russian artillery goes right through the AMX's armour, Bradley's hold up a bit better
@@ms3862 The Ukrainians haven't used them much (the AMX-10), I saw footage of at least 3 being used (and lost/abandoned) in the first week of the counteroffensive, but then not much more; they probably haven't used them in their intended role, but still, as you said, 152mm (and thus 155mm also) shrapnel goes right through (while the Bradley for example has withstood a direct hit from a Grad rocket)
@@ms3862 they're older, so no surprise there I guess. My point was, it's the same category of agile light tanks, easier to deploy too, not aimed at fighting tanks but rather providing support for infantry
@@ms3862"They have been cut up in ukraine though."
How many have seen action in Ukraine, and how many have been lost?
@@ms3862 the problem with the AMX 10 is that it is extremely niche tactic wise. It is supposed to be the 20th century version of shock cavalry, using its speed to outmaneuver and outflank the enemy, shoots bunkers or light vehicles with its 105mm to create a breakthrough then quickly get out to allow either infantry or heavier armor to go through. It works as intended for wider, drier places the Sahel (long, empty desert) since the vehicles can just move out of the way if mines are detected and enemies don't possess much heavy artillery.
whereas Ukraine is a much more static war at the moment because of the artillery and mines so the AMX loses out. Doesn't help that the rain/mud makes the wheeled vehicle easier to stuck
Reminded me of sheridian+merkava combo. I bet could be used as artilleries too. Just add reactive armor, you'll be fine.
it does look heavily inspired by the merkava
I love those old enough to have serve or still serve, providing insight on something they have no understanding. Bravo, bravo.
The Booker has a significant advantage in terms of logistics. Lower weight means you can transport 2 instead of 1. The much fuel consumption means more use for a given amount of fuel. Lower unit cost (?) means higher production rates.
I think it looks pretty ingenious so far. I realized the designers copied the layout of the Israeli Merkeva when I saw the doors on the front of the hull - they did this on purpose to prove more crew protection from frontal hits, since it is the spot on the tank that gets hit with the most enemy fire. A relatively "cheap" way to get more crew protection with no weight penalty that heavy armor brings.
If I were to compare M1 to "BOOKER" (gonna take some getting used to that name!) I'd say the M1 is the Tiger tank and the Booker is more like the Panther of the American tank fleet.
Yeah. The main issue that I seriously hope they worked out is that putting the engine in the front requires a lot of design changes to prevent the heat from cooking a lot of the sensitive systems (eg. frontal sensors and optics). The IDF spent years of R&D eliminating this problem, so I would bet that they were called in to consult on this project. I also hope that the US puts a couple Iron Fist modules on this, as they are lightweight and protect against side and back strikes with ATGMs. It isn't as powerful as the Trophy for MBTs, but it's very good for light systems that can't handle the Trophy.
Has an 8x8 wheeled equivalent to the M10 Booker ever been contemplated as a replacement for the now-retired Stryker MGS in the Stryker BCTs?
@nametag4277 that is the Stryker MGS he was referring to. It is now retired from service.
Maybe an 8x8 can't support enough weight (and therefore armor) to be sufficiently survivable on the modern battlefield? Just guessing, but the Stryker MGS is still relatively modern in the scheme of AFV's, the Abrams hull was designed in the 70's and there is no plan to replace it in sight. My guess is that there is some fundamental issue with the 8x8 platform that caused its cancellation.
SBCTs are not going to be in their own divisions anymore. The Army is moving away from the brigade-centric model and going to a division-centric one, with Light Divisions, Heavy Divisions, and Penetration (lol) Divisions. Light Divisions will be all IBCTs, Penetration will be all ABCTs, and Heavy will be one SBCT and the rest ABCTs.
@@roadhouse6999They are still keeping BCT’s for bushfire conflicts… where the M10 will excel.
Being able to take out infantry, BMP’s and T-55’s (the most common Tank in Africa) with ease.
The army wanted tracks. Wheels don’t work as well in adverse environments, with obstacles like rubble or dense jungle
You can expect the weight of the Booker to increase because, in light of the real world experience in Ukraine, the top of the turret and the engine compartment must receive more armor. Tanks don't really fight tanks any more. They fight drones and missiles.
It's such a shame that people actually think the Booker will be anything helpful, its another one of those unusually expensive metal shitboxes that will be wrecked by a cheap Russian drone. The US Army should be looking for cheaper vehicles that can deliver incredible firepower like the BMPT terminator and fit in a main 105 mm cannon. It should cost at least 2 million dollars and easy to use.
Booker dwells in same weight class as T64, but T64 is MBT.
@@eliasziad7864 frankly that Chinese light tank that came out a few years ago looks much more capable and more importantly, likely doesn't somehow cost more than a full sized MBT.
The army needs to invest in anti-drone tech. Drones are going to be the biggest problem for infantry.
God forbid…it would appear this is the armor fighting vehicle designed specifically for the battle field of Taiwan against the PLA from China
Woah cool.
No tank can deal with almost antique 1960s Russian landmines. Once one of the tracks has been blown off, it is a sitting duck for artillery, ATGMs and drones.
This implies that Russian combat engineers will have suitable time to lay minefields and prepare defenses, not so much a given when between the air force and navy the US has the two largest air forces respectively to shred any sufficient massing of troops or equipment. Ukraine lacked the long range precision fires capability to disrupt Russia's defensive engineering in the East while they were generating their battalions for the offensive, the U.S and by extension NATO doesn't suffer from that particular deficiency.
Right, but the tank is far from dead. There still needs to be an heavily armored, but gun "tip of the spear" role for assaults. Just because tanks have vulnerabilities doesn't mean assaults should be exclusively light infantry.
Huh, Didn’t realize the abrams wasn’t meant to work with infantry. Does it not need logistics either?
They meant standard infantry (unmotorized). The abrams works together with mechanized infantry. Also the logistical burden of the abrams is probably much higher then the new vehicle. Esp. fuel consumption.
Well, as a former US Army veteran that receives shockingly substandard care from the VA (primarily because they don't have a budget to hire more staff), I often contemplate how our government is motivated to allocate budgets for more killing equipment. Our VA health care system is a F'ng train wreck and our ability to efficiently destroy enemies is very effective. So how is spending more money on weapons systems a better idea than fixing VA health care? Somebody has to figure this out, sooner rather than later.
Mark Nicholson (Retired) (80% Service Connected Disabled)
Former, US Army - EFMB, Combat Medical Specialist (1980's)
1/94 FA MLRS - Erlangen, West Germany
690th, Medical Company - Ft. Benning, Georgia
supporting Misc. Weapons & Training Ranges,
Airborne Jump School and Ranger Training Brigade (ARTB)
Why do you need help from the VA?
@@lifes2short4aname Medical care for service-connected injuries.
Old tanker here. At various times I have commanded both a tank company and an armored cavalry troop (company).
The Booker is a light tank.
So more of a replacement to a Stryker (M1128)?
Nah, stryker carry troops.
The booker is an infantry support gun, effectively, something that does not currently has an equivalent.
@@aenorist2431he’s talking about the Stryker MGS which was a Stryker with a unmanned turret and a 105mm gun. It had severe development problems with things like it’s auto loader so yes he is most likely right.
Pretty much , 105 MM cannon is a dead giveaway
The Stryker mobile gun system was used in Stryker brigade, whereas the Booker is for infantry brigades who have so far almost no vehicles (no Abrams, no Bradleys, no Strykers). So not a replacement.
"The Booker looks very similar to the Abrams."
...if you've literally never seen a tank before in your life, then yeah, sure. They look similar.
Looks similar to most tanks from the last 60 years because if it works it works
I'm not convinced this CV was needed. Given the effectiveness Ukraine has had easily defeating Russian tanks with drones, I think we needed a CV that would offer more crew protection. Light infantry (airborne and mechanized) can be moved by airmobile operations, nothing in the army inventory can lift this beast.
lol dude this was made to have transportability in mind. A C-17 can carry 2 of these. This isn't even for going against tanks. Did you even watch the video?
@@yeaaight1689 Light tanks are still relevant. Sometimes you need the protection of a tank, but without the fuel consumption or cost of an MBT.
@@toade1583it’s not to be used like a tank. It does not have the armour of a tank.
@@Fireclaws10 It has the armor of a light tank. Sufficient to defend against anything but anti-tank weaponry or artillery. It is not a Main Battle Tank, it's mission is not to "take all comers". It's supposed to hang behind infantry screens and blow up buildings, barricades, MG nests, vehicles, et cetera.
@@yeaaight1689 once this deploys in theater, please tell me what can ''transport' it around the modern battlefield. Mobility is key. I'm a former M1 Abrahams platoon leader, and it's been my experience that enemy tanks can show up anywhere. Is this new vehicle supposed to run and hide when they do?
❤❤ WATCHING FROM INDIA SIR 🎉🎉
Total waste of money. The money should be spent buying $1000 drones. $13 million could buy 13,000 drones. If I was an infantryman, I would feel more protected with a large swarm of 1000 drones than one Booker.
With modern AI and computing power, it should be very easy to make a modern optical ragefinder.
stop huffing glue....!!!!
@@lazynow1 if the brain is able guees ranges quite well it must be possible to write a program that can do it better.
It would be worth not giving the enemy a heads up
Why do you thing this is stupid??
Modern tanks use laser rangefinders. The laser is invisible to the eye. It gives you instantaneous range information with the push of a button.
@@dzcav3 yes I know that, I have been a tank comander my self. I also know that there has been a previous generation of optical/mecanical range finders.
But there are laserwarning system. It would be nice to avoid being detacted..
Already back in the 90's we tried to avoid "lasing" straight at a target.
@@jenskruse1475 I figure by the time you actually visually acquire and laze the tank, you'll have a sabot round flying downrange in a matter of seconds. Even with alarms blaring, there's not really enough time for the target tank to meaningfully react. Now for something like a slower laser guided munition fired from say a drone/chopper/plane the heads up may actually make a difference since it can take a hot second before the munition gets on target.
Besides equipping the U.S. Army's Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (IBCT), would the M10 Booker also be a viable option for the Stryker BCTs and the U.S. Marine Corps?
The Army is shipping all of the Strykers to Ukraine because of the M-10 Booker. The greatest irony of the anti-Ukraine funding crowd in Congress is that we are actually delivering obsolesent equipment, not money. The war is actually saving the US government money in that they are not having to pay the cost of decommissioning and storage on the Stryker, the M113 and a number of other older systems.
The marines and task force 141 have been requesting the abrams be replaced and scrapped and instead they prefer the Challenger 3 but the UK are refusing to sell any
Light tank with 42 tonns and 105 mm gun that cannot swim? Bmp-3 with reactive armour looks like much better vehicle
It’s not a light tank
Type 10
lol, who cares if it can swim? Do you expect T-72s to swim? They're in the same weight class.
@@crowe6961 T-72 would eat this undertank to breakfast
So. Former tank crewman here. I rode with the 11th ACR crewing the first generation of Abrams [an 'Em-Wun-Ay-Nuthin'].
There is a GREAT danger in Mobile Gun Vehicles that needs to be mentioned and I think it should be put out in the middle of the table where everybody can see it.
Recon tanks don't work. They just don't. They didn't in War Two, the haven't in every iteration since, and I don't personally believe they will now.
They're too light to withstand the anticipated battlefield of an industrial enemy [say, Russia or China], with ATGMs filling the air and drones in the sky overhead. While their guns might put-paid to IFVs, they're equally vulnerable to IFV fire... including 25mm Bushmaster and 30mm Rarden autocannons, not to mention ATGMs like Russia's HOT and MILAN knockoffs.
And here's the thing: Congressmen and accountants JUST LOVE MGVs! They're SO much cheaper to field than a real, actual armored battalion! And they look like a tank, right? Nobody'll know the difference!
Heavy tank forces are expensive. Hideously expensive. They're expensive build, expensive to maintain, expensive support, and expensive to transport. The crews are expensive to train and keep proficient because there is only so much you can do in a simulator. And simulators do not convey the sheer level of work necessary to be a proficient tank crewman in the field. Tankers are like infantry: they have to train in the mud and weeds. But the only thing proven to defeat a highly trained armor-heavy division is an equally well trained and equally well equipped division.
Now, it's been a LONG time since I've been soldier. Things have changed a great deal since then. But I'm a lifelong military historian and observer of the procurement and training process. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am. And I'm am VERY worried that these Bookers are gonna get a lot of honest tankers killed because somebody was pinching pennies and diverting monies that armored battalions need.
It's an Assault Gun. We moved on to Armored Fighting Vehicle *roles* rather than *classes of tanks*. Remember, all Main Battle Tanks (MBT) are Armored Fighting Vehicles (AFV), but not all AFV are MBT's. Light tanks and other classifications became obsolete with the advent of the Main Battle Tank. There is just no point in putting money or time into anything else when the objective for the AFV is to defeat another MBT including multiple MBT's by itself.
To us, this is an Assault Gun because of the way it is equipped and the way it will be used. Plus, calling it a Assault Gun cuts out a lot of confusion for everyone, including Congress and the military. As someone else put it: The problem with calling it a tank is that when someone says "Main Battle Tank" people just hear "tank" and when someone says "light tank" people just hear "tank" and so people either forget or do not know that the "light tank" cannot do things an MBT can do.
With that said, it falls within the definition of "Battle Tank" from NATO or UN, but according to that definition so will an AFV on wheels. But seriously, if some country bought this variant, the M10 Booker, as is to be their main battle tank it won't be able to stand up to our MBT. It would need some futuristic upgrades in firepower, armor, and defensive systems that looks like they came from a science fiction novel before it could be considered an MBT for us.
I would be interested in how many 105 mm rounds it can carry. IF it can offer a larger variety of ammunition, that means it can only carry so many of each type. Also, 105 tank ammunition , of all types, might be scarce and an expensive procurement also. I would expect that it can fire sabot (AP) rounds, HE, WP, and possibly flechette rounds. The useless Stryker gun system had very limited ammo and loading issues. Millions wasted IMO. Bradleys will be getting 50 mm guns soon. Not sure this weapon $ystem is needed given the current fighting.
The 105mm seems so pointless to me. Too little for anti-tank, too much for everything else.
@@JudgeDillon to be fair it’s only useless against frontal armor of modern tanks but side shots and shots on the turret which could damage optics and all types of other subsystems are still completely viable. I mean look at the amount of tanks which are abandoned after a few hits in Ukraine you don’t need to completely destroy them to make them ineffective.
@@JudgeDillonthe 105 can still kill modern tanks just not from the direct front.
The US has still tons of 105 mm ammo, and that seems to be the main reason why they wanted a 105 mm gun. Infantry brigades dont benefit from bigger bradley guns as they have no bradleys (and no abrams, no strykers)
Supposedly it can carry 35 rounds.. Also, it would not survive even a 30 mm AP round. A really expensive target.
It'll be taken out by a 30k lancet drone in ukraine now
Your lancets can be taken-out by almost ANYTHING, Ivan. So, KEEP SENDING them. 😏
🤣🤣🤣🤡@@johnharrison6745
Had a light tank in my day, M551 Sheridan, fast, can be air dropped by airborne units, fired missles that could be armor piercing, anti personnel, and was even rumored to be able to fire tactical nukes.
Looks pretty cool. Has a lot of potential to be used in places where the bigger m1 can’t be used.
The M10-Booker can go toe to toe with the Tam Tank
I see the USMC adopting Booker AA, ATGM, Radar, and ARTY platforms.
“You give a vehicle like this to a bunch of soldiers, they will find ways to break it” as a soldier (specifically a tanker) this is too accurate 😂
The Economist sounds way cooler than the Booker
Thank God for whoever thought of this. Might have to use it, soon
By all definition it is a tank, tracked, cannon, turret, just not an MBT.
Light tank, as mentioned, would be a decent description
Armor, turret, direct fire large caliber cannon
we can only fit one tank in this plane unacceptable
6 minutes and we still havent seen why it isnt a tank
The most important ability would be connectivity between drones, aircraft, artillery and infantry. A 360 automatic FLIR identification system would be good.
It's intermediate between an Abrams and a Bradley. A 105mm cannon is NO joke. It's probably faster, more fuel efficient and more agile than an Abrams.
It'll probably be the star of the show in any future conflicts. Just as the M2 Bradley is in Ukraine currently, except now you have (nearly) the same firepower as an MBT but with the ease of navigation and maneuverability of the Bradley. Give it an auxiliary Bushmaster cannon and the thing would be an absolute monster.
Wall Street Journal: "This new Army vehicle is not a tank."
US Army General in the first 20 seconds of the video: "This vehicle is a light tank."
also RAND guy saying it's a bonus that Abrams crewmen will be familiar because it is similar controls. I'm sure the Abrams crew is happy about getting into a not-tank tank with shittier armor