My 2nd deployment to Iraq as a Bradley mechanic. I was loaned out to the 101st ABN from my unit 4ID. The reason myself and 4 other Bradley mechanics were sent to the 101st ABN was simple. They had Bradley's! Yes Bradley's, but these were theater Pre-po Brads from Kuwait. Half were M2a2 and the other half were M2 ODS (Operation Desert Storm) variants. I had worked on both models in my time in the Army since joining back in 95'. Now the reason the 101st ABN 1-32 Cav to be exact had Bradley's, was because by the 2nd month of their deployment. They already had 8 destroyed M1114's aka up armored hummers. So these guys were seeing ALLOT of IEDs at that time. Their Col requested vehicles with armor. And they got 13 Brad's. Very few of their crews had ever been on Brad's before as most of their scouts had never been around Armor units. And they for sure didn't have Bradley mechanics. So for the next 8 months I was a 101st ABN 1-32 Cav Bradley mechanic. And I was their primary M88a1 recovery vehicle operator as well. Of the 11 Brad's that were destroyed or coded out for IED damage I personally recovered and towed back 10 of them. 3 still burning as I towed them in. They only lost 1 soldier during that 8 months and it was due to the Brad's armor. Were other units this lucky? Nope definitely not. But these guys definitely had allot more come home thanks to the Brad's than if they still had to do missions in the 1114's. So while people ask WHY we need light tanks I think its a pretty obvious answer. Armored vehicles give the crews doing missions allot higher chance at survival than sending them out in soft skinned vehicles. Also these light tanks aren't there to engage main tanks. That's why we have the Abrams and the Air Force and many other anti tank systems. Light tanks give the grunts on the ground armor support to push objectives and help draw fire from the troops making the assault. If the Bradley can do such a good job for the 101st ABN then the Booker will do just fine.
I immediately thought about the Bradley and wondered why it wasn't mentioned in this video. They can also work along side MBT's, not just with mechanized units.(Light tanks I mean)
Much better system to provide fire support with the 105 cannon for fire suppressing Brads. Freeing up M1's to go on the hunt. M88 commander 18th Airborn Corp Desert Storm. Cleaned up friendly fire M1's on Brads. Swiss cheese
@@rigelkent8401M10 should be armored against RPG-7 and SPG-9 frontally, along with 30mm sabot and fragmentation from 155mm artillery shells. Anything heavier than that will be an issue
I generally am critical of the extent to which the US keeps investing in weapons development and weapons production, because there's a fine line between not investing enough in your military, and investing in the military to the point where all it does is encourage potential adversaries to invest more in their military as well (contributing to an endless arms race which just ends up wasting more resources for human civilization as a whole, and potentially increases the risk of armed conflict rather than decreasing it). However, that being said, the M10 Booker appears to be a relatively simple and no-nonsense weapons system which is not likely to make potential adversaries particularly nervous, and it's not outrageously expensive. It doesn't seem like something which would unnecessarily escalate a global arms race, whereas (for example), expensive space-based orbital weapons systems definitely would be more likely to escalate a global arms race. A vehicle like this could allow the US or her allies to intervene in smaller regional conflicts in a more decisive and efficient way, hopefully with a smaller loss of life on all sides.
I think it should have been called the Gavin. Then because the vehicle is not able to be air dropped, there should be a variant made with wings attached. Lets call that the Aero-Gavin.
Former MGS commander here. Glad to see 105mm still in the fight. I definitely believe in the role of armor and don't think people understand our range of capabilities (light to heavy)
That's a simple but sound comment. There's another part of this I'll like to hear your view on and that's the A-10. YES - there's no doubt that the A-10 would be more vulnerable to the current generation of surface to air systems, BUT IF ITS VULNERABLE then so are the AC-130 gunships and the AT-802U Sky Warden turbo-prop will be a sitting duck to those systems. PLUS one of the things that is already established with the F35 is its ability to get in and take out those air defense systems. Then there's the F-18 Growler that can not only suppress those systems but take them out with anti-radiation missiles. So my question is, and I have seen & heard many comments from people who served on the ground and noted their remarks about the A-10, *should there be a dedicated CAS plane that can get in close, take damage and PROTECT troops on the ground who are under threat or fire?* FYI - I'm Australian and I think we have made a massive mistake NOT having such an aircraft that can support ground forces, whether it be close in like an A-10 or at range like an AC-130.
@@tonywilson4713 The AT-802 Sky Warden is far cheaper and replaceable. The AC-130 has been getting countermeasures. Still, it will be getting replaced. They know about the vulnerabilities. The A-10 was supposed to be cheap too. The only way to make the A-10 less vulnerable from surface to air missiles (MANPADS included) is to install new equipment making it more expensive. That beats the purpose of the A-10.
@@zaco-km3su I don't think I'd want anyone I know in an AT-802 in a combat zone. It might be cheap and replaceable BUT PILOTS AREN'T. And in case you didn't know propellers make nice big targets for radar. I'll grant anyone that year the A-10 needs replacing but a golden rule is to NEVER throw away what works. Improve it, integrate the best bits with something new are both valid, but throwing it away isn't.
The Philippines did not purchase the Sabrah intending to use it as an MBT. They are employing it precisely what the US concluded about mobile firepower, to be used similarly to the M10 after their experience in the Siege of Marawi, where they lacked necessary protected firepower to punch through fortified structures.
This. The Siege of Marawi saw my nation's armed forces lacking that mobile protected firepower during those grueling street combat. There might be some M113s with a 90mm gun or even LAV-300s with larger caliber guns, but those are still susceptible to anti-tank rockets.
Agreed, I don't know where Koala got that information it is going to be their MBT. It fits the loose definition of "battle tank," but it definitely will not be an MBT.
This. Though it should be known that the simultaneous adoption of a light tank and a wheeled tank destroyer variants in the short term is actually also a way to determine future armored needs. There is also internal debate within the army as to what the path forward for armor doctrine should be. Strategic mobility over archipelagic terrain is a major consideration for any potential conventional conflict and there's debate as to whether the army should divert resources to invest in 'heavy' main battle tanks or if light armor (whether tracked or wheeled) would better fit doctrinal needs. Experience gleaned from operating the Sabrahs will better inform the military as to the feasibility of heavier AFVs.
I still think it's funny to think of a situation where the Infantry find an MG nest and call the Tank, and the Tank finds a Tank and calls the Infantry...
Regarding the 105mm choice and APM - the Israeli Rakefet (APAM-MP-T M117/1) had been very effectively used by Israel 105mm MBTs since the early 2000s. There's a lot of experience with that round and it is available for export - it can solve the M10 needs for anti-personnel, anti-material, lightly armored threats as well as some anti-helicopter capabilities with one round type.
I think it is more likely that we see the Army requesting a scaled down variant of the new AMP multipurpose HE round they adopted for the Abrams. It shouldn't be too hard to scale down the shell and marry it to a 105mm fire control program. I haven't watched the video so if that is brought up, oh well. That's just the thought that occurred to me.
@@sumott497 shooting is one thing, hitting is a completely different story :-) Seriously, though - responding to a laser warning alert by immediately training the gun on where the alert came from and letting loose whatever you had chambered, is an accepted Israeli armor tactic (though I've never seen it practiced).
I think Task&Purpose summed it up perfectly on why this thing exists. The generals were using Strikers like tanks in the city and it was costing the Striker poor reputation. That's why they started welding cope cages and sand bags all around the Strikers.
We had the Bradley. Better still is not send armor into cities in the first place. We don't need new tanks, we need new leadership. Preferably Mustangs and not college grads with a chip on their sholder.
@@Fabrizio_Ruffo The Bradley had some glaring weaknesses though. Like the missiles having to be loaded by hand. Also the armor and design had problems withstanding IED's and cold war shoulder fire rockets. Having something a little bit heavier isn't going to hurt if the goal is to provide support for infantry.
Argentinian lad here. I think the idea behind the TAM was to have a multirole platform (which indeed it is, its chassis its used from the MBT role to SPG, to MLRS and even Mobile Command Post and IFV), that's light enough to be fast on our roads, and to not wreck our roads and bridge crossings. Also some good off-road capabilities.
actually, everything was wrong with the Argentine tank, initially it was a platform from the German ifv Marder b, so T.A.M is a palliative of compromises
TAM is a Marder with a Leopard 1A3 turret. The other Argentine systems are also variants of Marder / the VCTP base vehicle. They where available, could/can be build in country and are good enough for the needs of Argentine at that time
The US Army just chose General Dynamics and Rheinmetall as finalists for the 4000 Bradley replacement IFVs. Could you do a video about this program, the two finalists and the other three that dropped out? Or more generally the current state of IFVs (CV90, Puma, Lynx) and their most likely future. Maybe even including anti air IFVs like some CV90 variants and SkyRanger.
A an Ex Infantryman that worked in a mechanized unit as a dismount; This piece of kit actually seems very good in my opinion. I think guys would very much like the increased firepower and armor; Not saying that the Bradley is bad however with the nature of current combat and what combat in urban enviroments has displayed in places such as Bakhmut and Mariupol this would be even more lethal- Especially against armor and fortifications
I’m totally convinced the reason the US Army will not call it a “Light Tank” is because of the way Congress funds weapons systems. IE they fear Congress will think - what does the Army need a new Tank - they already have plenty of Abrams.
@@markholmphotography There will always be confusion with having "tank" in the name. When someone says "Main Battle Tank" people just hear "tank." So when they say "light tank" people just hear "tank" and so they completely misuse it and forget that it can't do the things an MBT can do. It's like when Bradleys are erroneously called light tanks or just tanks because they have treads an armor. I think there are a couple news articles focusing on the militarization of police when the government was handing off it's APCs with those news articles giving the perception that they were tanks. I prefer Assault Gun anyway, there is no confusion and it lines up with how we are using it and that it's a direct replacement for the Stryker Mobile Gun System variant.
@@bl8danjilbingo. People keep saying it's a tank but in reality it'a basically a Stug with an actual turret (medium weighted vehicle designed specifically for infantry support). A more doctrinally accurate light tank would be the Type 05 light tank (amphibious assault) or the Wiesel (reconnaissance)
As long as americans are raped agaisnt their wills financing wars they disagree with, unable to also buy what theyre required to pay for, itll make no difference. Russia and china will enslave most of the world. Islam will get the rest. Socialist leftists will screw everyone else, welcome to world war 3
Back in the day, we had Sheridan's who worked with us and were attached to Division. I was in the DISCOM, with the 82 HSB. We were in the same motor pool, on the end of Riva Ridge and Longstreet, and sucked down plenty of diesel fumes together on the back 40 out past Sicily DZ... IIRC, there's probably a few lost Sheridan's, and lost scout vehicles still out there sunk in that Carolina red mud to stub your toes over. They' used to tear ass around the tank trails and go out to gunnery out the back side of the Motor Pool.
I definitely am in agreement that the XM360 should be reintroduced into the M10 Booker MPF. Not just for better firepower, but also for easing of logistics for both cannon parts and 120mm Tank Shells between the M10 and the inevitable mass-produced AbramsX. Additionally, there is also the possibility of the M10 Booker MPF being exported outside the US. And as a citizen from Singapore, I consider the M10 to be the true successor to the AMX-13SM1!
Abrams X is a tech demo, the US Army will have to pick and choose what it needs most and will likely be in an upgrade package like the M1A2 SEP V3. Congess will most likely want that over a full on overhaul.
I think the adoption of the 105mm makes perfect sense, given the stated goals of the design. Many a thing that turret points at is going to go boom, and I'm sure those on the ground would greatly appreciate the perks of having something powerful enough to take out a moderately reinforced position. Many a person in a machine gun or mortar nest are going to think twice about sticking around if the wall next to (or near) them blows out . Yes, technically that nest isn't taken out, but if nobody's sticking around to man the weaponry it's at least temporarily taken out, which means fewer rounds coming towards you. As for the secondary weaponry, I agree that a 12.7mm or even a 20-30mm autocannon would have added more to the flexibility of the platform, doubly so from the focus of being able to go after something that's a touch tougher but a 105mm round would be overkill. Yes, there's "no kill like overkill", but when you're trying to stick to the mentality of "you only have what you pack in with you" it's a lot easier to pack a couple extra boxes of belted ammunition with you than it is 105mm rounds. It's also a lot quicker to send extra rounds downrange if there's still resistance in that area after that first volley. With regards to the light tank designation, I agree. Just because it isn't a main battle tank doesn't mean it shouldn't be called a tank.
My only concern with the 105mm is the lack of AMP. Let's say for the sake of example that there's 35 rounds for this vehicle. Put five aside for sabot rounds in case you meet a Type 96 or something... now you've got 30. Divide that up between a point-detonate, point-detonate-delay, and airburst/cannister round... that's 10 of each... not very many, especially when the airborne are going to find it more difficult to resupply this kind of vehicle than an Abrams armor company would for example. You're not gonna want a situation where you have to fire cannister shells at bunkers because you ran out of HEP 20 minutes ago. With AMP... you effectively get 30 of each. 30 rounds that can do ANY of those roles. Right now, there is no such thing as a 105mm AMP, just the M1147 for the 120mm. AMP also isn't as massively devastating to bunkers and light fortifications as I think Northrop Grumman were hoping for (albeit brilliant as a cannister and anti-vehicle round), so possibly a 105mm version of AMP wouldn't be effective ENOUGH. On the flipside, if you DO have to carry separate rounds of each type because AMP isn't good enough until you hit the 120mm calibre... well... might as well go with an even SMALLER gun, say a 90mm. Plenty big enough to rip straight through a BMP or BTR, a bunker, an MG position etc from 2km away... but you're gonna be packing in more like 50 rounds for it! Thing is, that would require a whole new development, because the last 90mm the US even tested was the Ares Inc. design from the 80s, and that wasn't particularly effective if I recall. The US Army needed this vehicle yesterday, I doubt there was time to even consider looking at developing a new gun and new calibre (plus manufacturing new ammunition from scratch). Hence, they went with the XM35 that'd been around for decades, and could utilise existing ammo stocks
@@ArmorCast : Really enjoyed this video. It did bring up a few questions up in my mind like... Isn't the M10 supposed to be a fire support vehicle for the infantry? I thought that the main purpose was to take out the enemy IFV, the bunker, the machinegun nest, etc, not go toe to toe against a MBT. So, in that regard, having more options for gun rounds is better. There is also HESH, which I am not sure the US Military ever used, but it is a good AT round as well as anti-bunker round. Then there is the logistics. Yes, having more variety of rounds could be a logistics nightmare, but the 105mm round is still a smaller, lighter round than a 120mm round. This means that more 105mm rounds can be shipped for an equivalent weight and displacement of 120mm rounds. Especially useful for an Airborne unit. I do agree that having an active protection system would be useful, but if it is operating next to dismounted infantry, the use of such systems may be detrimental to the infantry as they might be within the lethality radius of such systems. A passive system however, would definitely be useful. As for the Auto-loader, the argument has always been that having a reduced crew means that the 3 man crew will have an increased workload on the routine field maintenance of the vehicle. The 4th man helps to keep the workload down to a manageable level. The alternative is to have additional maintenance crew riding in another APC or truck and then help with the maintenance at the end of the day, or when the vehicle disengages from combat. Plus it has a redundancy factor of having the 4th crewperson. If one of the crew is injured in combat, the 4th crew can help replace or assist in that injured person's position.
Dunno, IMHO, for all intended purposes 120mm gun-mortar, like Finnish NEMO would be much more efficient. Much higher variety of rounds, ability to provide both direct and indirect fire and last but not least, they have homing top attack rounds capable of destroying all modern MBTs. Should had just slapped NEMO turret onto Bradley chassis and called it a day.
@@ArmorCast I think, regarding the effectiveness factor of an AMP round, there's also something to consider it's effect on the people inside. Sure, maybe 1 round is not that great at completely destroying the bunker, but there's also the question of how effective is it at scaring people inside of that bunker. Even if that 1 shot just temporarily disables the weapon system, that still buys time and relieves pressure off of the people that weapon was pointed at. While maybe a 2nd shot is enough to take it out completely, with that kind of effectiveness, that still leaves you with about 15 to potentially 20 rounds for those kinds of targets than say only 10 of each.
From what I have seen about the m10 it seems to follow a design philosophy, that a lot of militaries are adopting now, designing new vehicles to be upgradable. So I think there is every possibility that the m10 lacks now could be added in short order in the future. The army is making a big push right now for open architecture designs that can rapidly have new systems added. The chassis of a vehicle, whether it be a plane, tank, or truck matters a lot less than it did 30 or 20 years ago. without any major advancements in material sciences we've almost reached the apex of that type of engineering, what is making a difference now is the software element and how quickly that can be upgraded. As long as the m10 turn out to be a good vehicle I don't think we have seen its final form
I 1000000% agree with you! That is what I think is holding certain US equipment back. Example is the, F22 Raptor, the systems/hardware cannot be changed/upgraded because the technology back in the 90s, wasn't around to be able to have/use hardware that can just be upgraded with new software without also needing to change the hardware as well.
But the video also pointed out that add on systems are never as well integrated as designed in systems. Take the A-10's gun as a prime example. Also, as the video pointed out, some things cannot be retrofitted - like an auto loader.
That's very probable, just take the M1 Abrams as an example. It's getting nigh impossible to add upgrades without turning it into a unmoving slab of armor. If I recall correctly, some upgrades weigh more than they need to because they need their own wiring, attachments and ways to interface with other systems.
I bet the M10 is going to receive the Abrams upgrade path. There will be a M10A1 before it is even fielded in a brigade. Hardkill APS, LWR, and 30mm chain gun seems more important than passive armor.
This will immediately get APS systems and LWS systems, likely in the same package. M-10 a1. The auto loader will be the M-10 a2 around 5-10 years of service, and the upgrade to a bigger main gun or a bigger chain gun like you said, will likely be the M-10 a3, around 20-25 years of service. However, I don’t see it going much farther from there. It will likely be replaced after 35-40 years at max by something either much better, or completely different in tactical use given how fast war changes nowadays. However, the overall goal will be the same: giving light airborne troops much needed armored support in an affordable, effective, and light package.
I think this vehicle also fits well with the Marine's doctrine and would be a valuable asset when forging a beachhead and providing direct fire support against hardened targets. Also APDS systems can hurt infantry taking cover near or behind the tank.
He laid out pretty well why the Marines likely won't get them( if they have a choice) when he covered the logistical burdens. I could be wrong though, if it is enough of a reduction over the Abrams for them.
Since it has tracks, that would be great in use in a sand/mud/etc environment.. however, I didn't catch in the video how easy and how fast the Booker can move in water and can it also fire its weapons while moving in water at the same time?
I think that there will be obvious growing pains with this vehicle. Since it's been years without this option to the paratrooper tactics its gonna take some time to get the kinks worked out. I think that the capabilities you pointed out that it doesn't have currently will eventually get added in different versions of the tank as the program ages.
@@stephengoldberg334 yes and costly re-works and shit.. its like this was planned to be a money sink. Sad stuff since it needs to be in service soonest and if shit hits the fan it will not only be a money sink but like as not unnecessary blood will be swirling down that drain for a long time until all those re-works and addons are what they ought to be from the start.
This tank should at least attempt to solve the problem that killed its namesake, allowing the use of guns while protected by its own armor. Having a heavy (50 cal.) gun that can be used by the commander would vastly improve its use in urban warfare. Great video
I think it is a good idea. I remember when the unit I was in was first given Humvees. The lightweight utility cargo truck was immediately upfitted with .50 cal machine guns and TOW missiles, and sent into formations with we infantrymen and our M113 A2. It was supposed to fill the role of the M60 tank as fire support and overwatch. Next thing they did was take away our M113 and give us Bradley IFVs. Then they wanted us to be a three platoon Mech infantry with one platoon of M1 Abrams attached. In combat, we infantrymen were to dismount and advance on foot, while the Bradleys performed fire and maneuver operations alongside the M1 Abrams. The Humvees typically hung back another kilometer to provide overwatch with the TOW. We boots were frequently beyond the range of all but the Abrams and the Battalion Artillery. The prediction made when we first received the Humvees was that the command structure would try to use them as light tanks, and for all practical purposes, that's what they did. Ditto for the M113 and the Bradley.
I know the Marines are going back to island hopping in case they every have to go toe-to-toe against the PLA, but I think something like this would integrate well into a MEU. I can only hope that folks in Quantico are at least having a discussion about this.
Agreed on the usefulness to an MEU, if they can bring in two HIMARS via C-17 to shoot and scoot, they can bring in an M-10 section to back up the rifle platoons in ACVs
I was a crew chief on an 88 for MLRS unit. I was later in the 101st 12 years after mlrs unit. I deployed to Iraq 2005, and I was Airborne myself even tho 101 no longer is. Glad to see maintenance get a shout out for once.
@@ArmorCast it makes perfect sense but still upsets me greatly (and also Wolverine II would have been a fantastic name if they had to call it the M10 I mean come on)
Despite all bells and whistles I can't help but feel that they have essentially reinvented a t-55, very high tech one but still a t-55. People keep mocking them, but when someone slaps a new "cool" name and some decent thermal sight and stuff, thus suddenly it becomes new awesome thing. Seriously it appears that soviet tank school despite it's perceived flaws did actually understood something important about weight discipline in construction of their tanks. Look how it suddenly become necessary to create a "light, totally not tank"vehicle that performs most tank functions while not being a tank because the real tanks became too heavy, too expensive and too valuable to lose while being surrounded by innumerable anti-tank weapons. I apologise if my comment offended someone in advance
Using autoloaders to reduce weight and armor bulk isn't going far enough; they should have gone with an unmanned turret. Then they'd have the weight budget for APS, an APU, and laser warning receivers. Also, if its supposed to primarily be an urban combat vehicle, they should have made it have really high max gun elevation like the HSTVL turret had, instead of just shrinking an Abrams turret.
I disagree on the unmanned turret, actually personally I don't think it's a great idea for tanks at all (I spoke about this in the KF51 video earlier this year, and I do want to do one specifically on this topic). An unmanned turret has a lot of drawbacks that get swept under the rug, and it's not as if the hull of this vehicle has a lot of spare room for two additional crewmen either...
@@ArmorCast Can I engage and you not ignoring comment like the ammo video, which you reference again in your kf51 video, and add more wrong physics!!! I watched the kf51 video, I believed 4 major draw backs were raised? Mine protection, redesign vehicle, mission kill - They are either addressed already, in the works, or not an issue. Situational awareness - very real, very valid, certainly a very big issue. The new point about space was addressed by US in the 1980s, and 2020s by the Russian, so...???
History will show the Opposite, look at the lightly armored vehicles we had to up armor. I’d bet if it happens you’ll see more armor, maybe something lighter but stronger!
I do suspect the reason for taking such low technology risks is probably the repeated failures of vehicle procurement of the last several decades, often due to overly ambitious technological elements. Likely for the next decade or two it would be the current vehicle or no vehicle at all, so they wish to play it safe. On another subject, there’s a lot of potential for upgrades for the Abrams platform going forward. I don’t think a new platform is particularly likely considering how the M10 program and previous proposals have gone, but there’s a lot of new elements that are becoming viable to put into a new Abrams variant, like an auto loader and the new 120mm gun, better APS and greater situational awareness aids.
The 20mm is a cyκa to reload within the tank though but it enables engaging less armoured targets without wasting 105mm ammo. A new Mk4 57mm Boffors L/70 would be nice choice, too. A sensor like radar/optical to detect nearby drones/choppers and being able to engage such targets with the 57mm would add some air protection to the formation in general against aerial threats.
Good info on the subject. Thanks It doesn't matter how good it is if you cannot get it where you need it and supply it when you get it there. Thanks for pointing out how important logistics are.
They've confirmed an 105mm AMP round.. Also a lighter APS like Iron Fist, as well as the Lightweight (XM914, which is the lightweight M230)30mm firing ABMs... Your assuming (for unknown reasons) that the M10s we see now are the combat-ready M10s that will be deployed onto the battlefield... In the 1980s/90s/2000s, why didn't we see ALL Abrams with an RWS mounted as it sits in the Army Depot? Maybe because like lightweight APS and M230 RWS, they hadn't yet been fully tested not only on the M10 but they're not fully "Army Ready" for ANY platform, so procurement WITH RWS/APSs would only extend procurement.. Also, Sensors would be sitting exposed Etc, no not happening... Same for the APS, however I think they plan on equipping ALL MPF with an APS when on battlefield which at a minimum is 4-5 years away, which is plenty of time for the ARMY to integrate an APS onto completed M10s as opposed to waiting for Iron fist to be integrated onto M10 Turret via Manufacturer likely would have increased procurement time by years as well as $$...
I agree, however i wouldn't call these not combat ready as when the US military procures them i'm sure they will be combat ready. I think an import part of this tank somewhat overlooked is how its light weight lends it well to upgrades further down the road. I don't doubt we will see dozens of upgrade programs down the road likely providing this tank with specialized capabilities/variants for different environments. New tanks usually have increased modularity vs older designs.
@@JD96893problem is the M10 is already butting RIGHT up against the limit it can grow to. It needs to be transportable two at a time via C-17, and it’s only got about one tonne of headroom before that is no longer possible
If we want to use a WW2 comparison, the M10 Booker would be a Pz.IV (Ausf. A~E), in their original intended role (infantry support and fortification buster).
Stug originally had exactly same doctrinal role as Booker. It changed to TD role only after Germany started having trouble with soviet armor and they used what they had at hand.
@@aymonfoxc1442I am pretty sure if allows, the Marines will adopt it as a medium weight assault vehicle/pseudo Abrams, considering their retirement of the Abrams and they don't have any self propelled direct fire gun larger than a 25mm
how in the world can we look at what's going on in Ukraine and not think that laser warning and active protection systems are a requirement in this day and age?
@@ArmorCastIn that same video with the Cheiftan, I think, he asks why no hard kill active protection? The army guy reminds him that this is going to be in use directly alongside dismounted light infantry and hard kill or even ERA couldn't be considered because yes you'd maybe save the tank but you'd definitely kill the squad using it for cover. As for the warning receiver, yeah you got me there.
About time. For the last 20 years, the US has been simply making light attack platforms “heavier” by bolting on more armor, bigger guns and - ultimately- larger suspension systems to support it: im looking at you Stryker. They needed a light(er) platform built specifically to be armored (enough) and have a big (enough) gun to handle light to medium armored threats I do disagree about the ZSU-23 shilka and sa-9 strella not representing a threat to the A-10; those are the exact platforms that shot down or severely damaged (mission killed) so many A-10s in desert storm
As an ex Gunner who worked on a Cent MK13 my view on what a modern Tank should have as a secondary weapons are coaxial 50 cal remote Xm380 a GPMG for the loader and the return of a bow gun operated buy the TC and the driver useing remote system camras the driver could have a thumb joystick like on the old blowpipe with a trigger to fire the gun this could be attached to the steering yoke and be switched to left or right depending on the driver a foot peddle to the right or a leaver could be used to cock the weapon , useing a chain gun in this position with a hopper feed there was one that I once saw on a test vehical to replace the Pig had a system where you could throw a box of lose ammo into the hopper this would strip off the cardboard and rotate the rounds the right way to feed into the chain
@@thierrykaslan2756shockingly, the Booker is 12 tons heavier than the Urbie. THEN AGAIN, we actually don't know if the Star League Ton is equivalent to ours. There's a lot of inconsistencies and evidence to suggest it's different.
If you aren't giving the commander a remote weapon station, then they could at least give the loader a setup similar to a humvee, a protected mount for weapons like M240s, M2s, or even MK19s, its an easy thing to add that could give the M10 better close range defence or suppressive fire support without completely exposing yourself.
I was thinking about the Mk19 as the no. 3 weapon for the loader to man as well, it gives HE/HEDP counter defilade that's extremely effective against the M10's intended targets of moto/mech, infantry and fortified positions
38:48 it might not be an interim solution but I think the army is rushing this into service because they know it’s gonna be cheaper later on to adopt an A1 variant when they already have a lot of vehicles on hand. It’s a vehicle for foreseeable future threats but it’s cheaper to get it now even if it seems lacking against those threats than getting a vehicle that’s perfect right off the bat when those threats are actually realized. Setting up the production now and just adding on stuff later is cheaper than setting it all up in a rush.
Makes particularly good sense when you realize it's basically been approved for a year, and they wanted to get ahead of inflation when they were setting up the budget. Smart.
It's also easier to justify to politicians and general public: we have this, it's great, but we can make a "small" improvement, like swapping out the entire turret for a new one, and put a slightly better motor in it. Average persone doesn't know that means a new vehicle basically, and so it's easier to get them to sign on and not cut the program.
This is the best explanation of why the Booker exists. Thank you for the accurate and indepth analysis of this "new" vehicle/weapon system. (I personally believe this system would be better off with a 120mm gun)
I know that this video is half a year old, but a point raised here brought my attention, you mentioned the cost in its initial low rate production cost being about 10 million USD which gained my curiosity. For those who dont know the initial low eate production cost not only accounts for the vehicles actual price, but the research and development process it cost to get it there, so I went and looked up what that cost was for the M1 Abrams, in 1990's money the initial low rate production cost was 4.3 million USD, significantly cheaper than the M10, on paper, adjusting for inflation that is almost 10.15 million USD today. Which just kinda shows how much the value of currency has dropped, however keeping this in mind, when this vehicle goes into mass production it will be cheaper then it is now, by how much im not sure. Probably a nitpick in retrospect but I feel that stuff like that should be pointed to give people better awareness on military spending.
US 82nd Airborne == Still Airborne, with 50% part time Helicopter 101st Airborne == is actually called 101st Airborne (Air Assault), and are 100% helicopter based and are not Airborne certified anymore. 10th Mountain (Light Infantry Division) didnt get mentioned, but they want them too
It's an assault gun, let's not beat around the bush. But at least it means that the Airborne will be able to use the fabled BESH round. (For non-WT people, it is HESH, or High Explosive Squash Head.)
@@Techno_Idioto Like I said in the video, I think "assault gun" is even less accurate than "light tank", because assault guns aren't meant to take a hit or support rapidly mobile infantry in mid-intensity threat environments. Assault guns also aren't crewed by 19K MOS, or organised into companies and battalions the same way tanks are. This thing is. The only classical role of the light tank that's missing from this vehicle is armored reconnaissance; basically "hey, go poke 'em and see how they respond". With the ACE powerpack though, it might actually be pretty good for that role too, but it'd have to be organised differently into the battalions as well.
@@ArmorCast "assault guns aren't meant to take a hit or support rapidly mobile infantry in mid-intensity threat environments." Um.... no. Anyone's definition of "assault gun" is a vehicle designed to support an infantry attack. Generally this means direct fires, which means, its going to get hit. Otherwise what we are talking about is a "fire support vehicle". Which is a lot closer to what the M-10 is conceptually. That is if we are pretending that this isn't anything but a manifestation of the US Army/MIC tendency to always prepare to fight its last war, instead of the next one. Which is going to be dominated by drones and autonomous munitions and... God help the poor bastards trying to survive in a "light tank" designed for low intensity expeditionary COIN....
18:28 "M3 Stuarts" pictured, M2A4 Light tank. Gotta admit, I think the Shilka/Strela combo is a lot more threatening to CAS than you state. Not a showstopper, but you are going to take casualties. Personally think the M10 Booker is an obvious "medium" tank. Heavy enough to deal with any light tracked vehicle, particularly of the auto-cannon equipped variety but will struggle to pen a heavy on open ground.
What I mean is that those threats are pretty trivial to deal with in an A-10, since the A-10 carries several weapons that can effectively engage them from outside their own firing range. That is no longer the case - the air defences escorting manoeuvre forces aren’t Strelas and Shilkas with a four kilometre range, they’re things like the Tor-M2 with a FOURTEEN kilometre range! All of a sudden the A-10 can’t engage the threats it’s expected to face, from a position of safety, as it could those older systems
It would probably make more sense to have the .50 as a co-ax, as the gunner has the sights and stabilization to use it to its full potential. Then give the loader a nice Mk.19 as a reward for all their hard work. TC, you get back down - you've got maps to look at!
In the Philippines, there are rumors of buying a full fledged MBT with the armored bridge laying procurement underway. With Israel hinting that they are trying to sell Merkava Mk4 to match the bridge layer chassis, rumors that Leopard 2A7, K2 or if Japan is willing to sell Type 10 is in consideration.
K2 seems to make the most sense - it’s a lot lighter than Leo or Merkava, but just as capable if not more so. Doubtful that Japan would allow Type 10 to be exported, though it’s possible
The Philippine Army priorities their acquisition of bridge layers and other engineering vehicles as they fought tooth and nail in the Battle of Marawi to recover the bridges that was controlled by the terrorists. They don't have bridge layers and crossing the river via water carfts will be more disastrous due to the presence of enemy snipers. Interestingly, the chassis of their new bridge layers is rumored to be using Leopard 2s, but was changed to Merkava Mk.4 maybe due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
The M10 will have both APS and LWR pretty shortly honestly. Fairly obvious candidate systems are already going into service and the weight and power margins for them are built into the design. Active protection systems in particular were talked about allot during it's design. The 42 ton weight being mentioned is in fact for the theoretical production versions that will likely include additional features such as an APS the demonstrators and pre-production models were like 38 tons. The thinking though seems to be "just get the base vehicle into acutal production we've built weight margins and can add shit like RWS and APS once we actually have the hulls." and honestly I can respect approach given how often overly ambitious goals have killed past programs. Way better to actually get the vehicles in a basic configuration then have the program get bogged down integrating every belly and whistle. I also don't feel auto-loaders matter much, they've consistently failed to demonstrate much real advantage in operation because to be brutally honest maximum rate of fire is almost never used in large caliber guns anyway. They might be able to make vehicles somewhat lighter by reducing profile, but I don't think it's by nearly as much as to insinuate. They provide a marginal savings, but it's a chicken and egg situation because most examples that have gone with auto-loaders have been designs that were extremely focused on minimizing weight to begin with. The auto-loader is part of that effort, but a bigger part is usually just using less armor in general. The reality is that the frontal profiles of the vehicles with auto-loaders like the Type 10, K2, and Leclerc aren't much smaller if at all then Abrams or Leopard 2 because roof height is still basically set by the commander and hence isn't changed much, meaning about the only possible savings would be to make the turret narrower (possibly asymmetrical), but effectively no design actually does this and hence there is basically no major reduction in frontal profile on any of the western auto-loading tank designs at all. The 'light' MBT designs aren't light because they use autoloaders, they're light because they're just less armored then the heavier designs. Sorry, autoloaders aren't magic that let you have your cake and eat it too in tank design. Auto-loaders only really start to gain major advantages in the same area they start to be come a major pain in the ass to design and make reliable which is in very large caliber weapons in the 130+ mm range which humans can't effectively manhandle as single piece rounds.
Excellent video and good summary of why this is needed, and the sooner the better. My two questions for you (or the community) are: 1. How survivable is it? We've seen in Ukraine that even in a Bradley you can take out the vehicle, but the crew survives. I presume it will be equal or better than the Bradley? 2. How cheap is it to operate? If you can't airdrop it and are bound to similar logistics to the M1, then you'd expect that it would have a significant cost advantage to operate, both in terms of dollars or reduced maintenance time, else why bother. So, how much of a reduction would that be?
I would not be surprised if the Marines take a serious look at this vehicle, since it’s light weight and purpose as muscle for light infantry would make a lot of sense for them.
Doubtful. Possible, but you’ve got to remember that the Marines didn’t divest from the Abrams due to weight or logistics, it was more about funding, and just generally restructuring the force. Should they want tanks back, they’ll probably just revert back to the Abrams
A modern day Sherman. Comparatively small and light, easy to manufacture, operate and also transport to Europe, or the Pacific. And with that lightness it can also traverse rough terrain and smaller bridges, giving it a better operational reach. And a smaller gun means a smaller round, meaning it can carry more of them. Good both for logistics and staying power. We Swedes are working on something similar with the CV90120. Basically to fill the slot that the old IKV's once held, a Swedish light tank that was retired but never replaced. An occurance often seen in our defence forces.. Also worth noting is that lack of armoured (and artillery) support is a big reason as to why VDV troops got their asses handed to them at Hostomel in the early stages of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. That fight also proved that close air support (especially from helicopters) is basically suicide in a modern fight, given the prevalence of manpads and SAM's. And drones are therefore better suited for the task, scarily enough.
Hostomel is going to be a pretty significant lesson for the Russians I think. Should they have HAD some form of tank support rather than just a few Tigr-Ms, they might have been able to take out Ukraine’s air defences, get more supplies and ammunition flown in… and still have a unit today, rather than just “a few survivors”. As for the M10, I think comparing it to Sherman is wrong. It’s more comparable to the M3/M5 Stuart, where Sherman is more comparable to Abrams
@@ArmorCast My comparison of the M10 to the M4 has more to do with the logistics of the thing. The US discovered with the Ukraine war that rapidly shipping large amounts of Abrams tanks to Europe would take time, a lot of time. The phrase 'logistical nightmare' comes to mind. And Ukraine still hasn't recieved a single Abrams because of this fact. The same was true for US tanks during WWII where the design was limited by the logistical requirements of being able to ship them in large amounts across the Atlantic and Pacific. Most of those logistical limitations would be similar today. Basically, a lighter tank is easier to ship. And the Booker weighs pretty much the same as the Sherman did (about 38 tonnes). And is similar in both length and width, contrary to the Abrams that in it's recent forms is almost 70 tonnes and absolutely huge. As for the roles on the battlefield basically i'd say it's like this: Stuart = Bradley Sherman = Booker Pershing = Abrams Just my 2c, sorry for the somewhat lengthy post. 🙂
19:42 I had a nice chuckle at this, because after 19:50 I said out loud: "but that's what tanks were made to do!" and then your comment followed as practically an echo.
I guess they want the M10 Booker to be used similarly to how the Germans use the Panzer IV in its original mission, which was to support the infantry and smash enemy defenses with HE shells albeit the M10 can be airdropped.
I was a tank gunner in Iraq for 2 tours with 3rd armored cav, I always thought they should make an M1 lightweight with a snub nosed 120mm with more gun depression and elevation, reduce the weight of armor (but keep the engine and increase the speed), a 25mm coax (just HE rounds), a 7.62 coax (one on each side of the breach), and a remote controlled M2 .50 for the commander. The cameras for the driver are a great idea. Having a heavy machine gun controlled from inside the turret to cover a different direction then the gunner is critical in urban environments and cordon and search missions. The 50 can punch through stone and block walls, taking care of pesky threats hiding behind walls. When the main gun is pointed at a door or corner of a building, they don’t dare come around the corner, but when it’s pointed the other way they get more aggressive with tanks. the commanders remote controlled 50 is sneaky in those situations. Also, sometimes it takes too long for the commander to designate a target and hand it off to the gunner, missing the moment of opportunity. That’s where infantry needs armor, to drop buildings in an urban environment, to run cordon, control roads, evacs, convoy escort, and overwatch. With himars and air support, sometimes the tanks eyes are more important then it’s fire power. In certain situations tanks can sit and observe enemy movement and coordinate fire support missions better then infantry. Basically, armor is better then infantry, sorry, not sorry crunchies…
I’m glad we don’t name our tanks after scary aggressive things. Rather we name our tanks after honorable soldiers who gave their lives or did more and above what their service asks for
The 105 mm gun makes perfect sense because it's rifled, which allows it to accurately fire non-KE (HEAT, HE etc) rounds to significantly greater ranges than the smoothbore 120 can. It can also fire HESH rounds, which require a rifled barrel and are very useful for structure/bunker demolition.
@@ArmorCast To be clear when I talk about "much greater range" I'm referring to indirect-fire use cases. The 82nd lacks self-propelled howitzers or protected long-range fires of any sort, so it seems likely to me that the M10 will be called upon to serve as an ad-hoc SPH, much as we see both sides doing with their tanks in Ukraine. A rifled gun is indispensable in that use case. Agree that the 120 dominates for direct-fire use cases, and if that's all you need then it's the better choice (modulo ammunition capacity).
@@patrickchase5614 There's been no call for the M10 to act in an indirect fire role of any kind. If the 82nd decide to use it that way in combat, fair enough, soldiers will always tend to find irregular uses that work, but it's certainly not a use case that's been intentionally considered when designing this vehicle
What waffle, to fire HEAT from a rifled gun requires a slipping driving band. A tank at best can fire semi indirect and I have done so up to 8km with 105mm L7A3. It was taught in gunnery training, did it once there, never happened again. You are not clear and sound very much like a KBW.
@@ArmorCastwhy and how? With a L7A3 105mm, non MRS, 0-2000m is a Commander shoot, (very similar ballistics to sabot) 2000-4000m is a gunners shoot, (very similar to HESH). HESH does not require a rifled barrel, HEAT requires a slipping driving band in a rifled gun so it doesn’t screw the nose off compromising the fuse.
I'm excited for the video about why the new 120 on the Abrams X is the future, and hopefully you go over a more detailed reasons why the 130mm is not that great. I know both exist but know very little about either.
When it comes down to it, there’s a very simple reason… and a very complex explanation FOR that reason. The reason is that the Abrams X’ 120mm can push rounds to much higher velocities, therefore gaining range, accuracy and armor penetration, than the Rheinmetall 130mm… without sacrificing ammunition carrying capacity. The explanation… … will be part of the next video 👍
Infantry Tank might be more applicable. Its job is to support the Infantry, rather than scouting for larger tanks, which was the role of the traditional Light Tank. The M1 Abrams would keep the role of Main Battle Tank. From what I can deduce, the Main Battle Tank has the firepower and armor capabilities of a heavy tank, but is able to be used in multiple ways like medium tanks.
9:19 I think Booker is a fantastic name. If it's used effectively enough, it'll have its enemies _booking_ it out of there as the US airborne forces blast through them.
I'm guessing the absence of APS or remote turrets on the current M10s (however many they are) is probably one of those "we'll address it later when congress forgot about it and we can sneak it into future budget"
You know that's actually a pretty good point 😂 It looks a lot better to have a four page file that says "APS system integration onto M10 tanks, $2Mil per unit", than just increasing the procurement cost up front by a further two mil
On your opinion piece, its possible the M10 was slated to be under a certain weight for its purpose. Adding that extra .50 or CROWS system would likely put it over that weight requirement. It may be that they wanted heavier secondary weapons, but had to omit them.
I would've thought a design philosophy similar to that of the Merkava would have been bettter. Engine up front, acting as additional protection for the crew, with a rear door like an IFV. Maybe a shorter barrel 120mm main gun than on the Abrams to save weight, and if possible give it a little more elevation than tanks typically have so that it can, if need be, give better indirect fire support, and reach higher floors of buildings in urban environments more easily than typical tank guns can. Or perhaps have a mortar buillt into the turret for indirect fire support. 3 man crew with an autoloader. 12.7 or 15mm co-axial MG and a remote-controlled autocannon for the commander. Or, if 105mm rounds are perfectly capable of delivering the desired firepower, use a 105mm main gun for further weight savings, and consider whether it needs a full-length 105mm barrel, too, given its intended role. Armour and defensive systems optimised to keep the crew alive - a knocked out tank whose crew survives is a far more useful situation than a knocked out tank with a dead crew. One thing you didnt mention is that a lighter tank can use a lighter engine, also saving weight. Beyond a certain point, the benefits extra speed may grant are outweighed by the negatives of needing larger engines, increased vehicle weight, etc. I suspect the Booker will be replaced in service sooner rather than later, though.
The M-10 would be an amazing addition for the Marines as well. With its emphasis on rapid deployment, and firepower. Its everything we would need now that we don't have any Abrams, and its light enough to put on landing ships.
Thing is, the Marine Corps didn’t divest from the Abrams because of weight, it was more about funding and just general restructuring of the force as a whole. If the Marines wanted tanks back, they’d most likely just go with more M1s
@@ArmorCast The big cost issue was getting them up to A3's specs at least that is what I heard. If the Chinese get froggy we will need some thing to augment an amphibious landing beside the ACV's. And LAV's are nothing not good for much other than an armored cas evac vehicle. I heard horror stories from the LAV guys from Iraq, bullets would penetrate the armor then ricochet around inside. We really could have used a vehicle like this to its fullest potential at Fallujah.
The real reason why autoloaders will never be utilized in U.S. Army armor branch is because tankers are not always "tanking". For both the Bosnia and Kosovo invasions (I was on both) they actually didn't deploy us with our full compliment of tanks. Those tank crews deploying sans tanks were given two humvees and used in wheeled convoy missions. Others were cross-trained on the HEMTT and as 77F fuel handlers. The 19K is considered by Uncle Sam (especially 1st Armored Division) to be the ultimate "universal" soldier as they sure do love cross-training them on a lot of non-tank stuff and sending them on non-tank missions and deployments a LOT. No combat commander is ever going to reduce their MTOE for a non-combat-proven autoloader.
There’s no reason why a fourth crew member couldn’t still ride with the unit, in fact I believe France do exactly that with their armor companies - have a fourth man per tank riding in armored cars and acting as recon as a benefit. There’s a great video by Lieutenant Colonel Nicholas Moran (known as ‘The Chieftain’ on RUclips) called “Wither the Autoloader”, I’d recommend giving it a watch
*T-64A* entered service: 1963 main gun: 125mm protection: up to 105mm weight: 38t *M10 Booker* entered service: 2023 main gun: 105mm protection: up to 30mm weight: 38t Wow! 60 years of material science! Wonderful!
@@somezsaltz6835 It is not even comparable. It has vastly superior protection and much more powerful gun despite being slightly lighter and 60 years older. The early 115mm variant only weighed 35 tons.
@@somezsaltz6835 Logic? Oh please! Those are just the facts and figures laid out on the table. A logical conclusion is left up for interpretation. If you feel the need to insult someone delivering these facts and figures with your childish remarks, maybe you're the one who needs to rethink his thought processes.
@@JAnx01 facts? My guy you just laid out Wikipedia figures… you just pointed out the difference in gun caliber and weight like that’s what determines what makes a tank good, it’s a whole lot more nuanced than that and if you can’t see that then thank fuck you aren’t in charge of weapon procurement for the army
Assault guns aren’t armored to withstand RPGs and 30mm sabot, they’re not crewed by 19k MOS or organised into tank companies, and they’re not designed for mid-intensity threat environments or expeditionary missions, this thing is. I respect the army not wanting to label this a “light tank”, but I think calling it an assault gun is far LESS accurate
It's an attempt to match the Russian SPRUT 25 which is built on the smallest Airborne capable chassis the BMD, which is stretched with one extra road wheel and having a a very small turret that holds the same main gun, targeting system and defensive sensors as the T-90M. It comes in at 27 tons fully loaded. Pretty sure this 50 ton light tank started as a good idea but the primary purpose of the American Defense industry is to steal as much money as possible from the Taxpayers, not to provide our Forces with equipment capable of winning in battle.
Oh please, M10 can stand up to 30mm sabot and RPG rounds as a MINIMUM, while Sprut-SD can be effectively taken out by a .50cal! 😂 Not sure where you pulled 50 tons from
Finally, G.E.V. armored lineups are being realized. Now we just need to see the G.E.V. itself. Oh, and an OGRE. Always loved the Lt Tanks at a 2 for 1 AP spend.
Considering theM10 is going to be operationally comparable to the infantry support role played by the M4 Sherman, calling it a medium tank instead of MBT or light tank might make more sense.
Keep in mind the M3/M5 Stuart and M24 Chaffee ALSO played a significant infantry support role. In fact I’d compare this more to Chaffee than Sherman. The important thing to note is that tank classifications depend more on who is using the thing and the role it is being used for, than specific characteristics of the vehicle. Ergo: in German service, the M41 Walker Bulldog (a US built light tank) was actually designated as a tank destroyer, because it went to the TD units. In this case, since the M10 Booker is going to the airborne divisions, it’s more appropriate to call it a light tank than a medium tank.
So airborne troops reasoning for needing a new medium threat attack platform is the presence of high threat enemy air defense negating the use of direct air support. How did airborne troops fly in and drop in the first place if these systems are present?
It's not a light tank. It's not made for reconnaissance or fast attacks or maneuver warfare. It's made for providing fire support to infantry. It's an assault gun.
It’s pretty bloody overweight for an assault gun then! That’s the thing - infantry support of a LIGHT unit such as an airborne/air assault division, and rapid deployability to aid a quick response force… those are ALSO primary roles of the light tank class (think M3 Stuart’s in the Pacific theatre). Meanwhile an assault gun is not meant for mid-intensity warfare where enemy armored vehicles, artillery and anti-tank systems are expected to be present. Hence, they aren’t armored. Armed reconnaissance will likely be one of the M10’s roles, along with more pressingly; COUNTER-reconnaissance. As for manoeuvre warfare… the entire airborne UNIT is meant for that! If this were just meant as an assault gun it could be half the weight, a third the complexity and a quarter the cost… On the other hand let’s look at its primary comparators - the Sabrah, most definitely a light tank, with a 105mm gun turret built on the ASCOD chassis (sound familiar?) and the ZTQ-15, another light tank… It’s also worth noting that while the army don’t officially call this a light tank for various reasons (they’ve not called it an assault gun either keep in mind)… General Dynamics DO call it a light tank. I’ve also heard plenty more army personnel refer to M10 as a light tank than an assault gun.
I spent 20 years in Armor/Armor Cav units to include being an H Series Cav Platoon Sergeant with M60A3's, M113's & M901 ITV's... At 30-42 tons, the M10 is closer to a Leo 1A5 MBT at 42.5! Better to save the money & upgrade the Leo Design with the M10 Turret! FYI: Your "so called" M3 Stuart at 18:34 was an M2 Light Tank! Look at the Boogie Spacing & the "off the Ground" Compensating Idler Wheel!
It would be more expensive to resurrect an obsolete MBT design that we've never used or produced, that isn't even made anymore, just to then redesign the thing to upgrade it, rather than just using and upgrading the thing we've just made and adopted.
The A10 Worthog, Does an excellent job, when used in the right roll. And definitely needs to be kept as part of the US inventory. It definitely has saved Many Many Lives.
The problem is that it is no longer able to do so without putting MORE friendlies at risk, at least not nearly as well as an F-15E or F-35. It's past due time to retire the Warthog. Let's not insist on keeping it around so long that it starts getting shot down left and right and ruins its legacy. Ol' hog deserves better than that.
There's no question it will be designed and built as corrupt as possible. They'll categorize it as a "mobile coffin" and charge soldiers' families for it.
Filipino here. The M10 Booker is related to our new Sabrah light tank, having its roots with the ASCOD tracked armored vehicle (the Spanish Pizarro and the Austrian Ulan).
Auto loader removes 25% of crew maintenance personal while adding one more complex system for the remaining crew to maintain. It also means one less set of eyes and ears for security while halted for sleep. There's always trade offs
That’s a fair point but not entirely true. Keep in mind the smallest tank unit anywhere will always be four tanks. Nobody goes anywhere with less than four tanks. That’s twelve personnel for watch and for maintenance if you go with an autoloader, not four or three. Even then, this has never been an issue for nations operating autoloading tanks
@@ArmorCast crew level maintenance is performed by crew members. Yes, crews do assist each other whenever they can. But 16 men makes a lighter work load than 12 Granted, current AFVs have on board diagnostice and are more modular which does ease the amount of brute force maintenance we were required to perform in the 80s. In practice, each tank crew pops a man up in the TC hatch for security . With a 4 man crew, that means 3 hours of sleep A 3 man crew means 2 hours of sleep. Has the use of thermal sensors superceded the older practice?
![[#2024MAMA] ROSÉ (로제), Bruno Mars - APT. | Mnet 241122 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dgGqD28J6aQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![Twenty One Pilots - The Line (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XCz7WUotXs8/mqdefault.jpg)
My 2nd deployment to Iraq as a Bradley mechanic. I was loaned out to the 101st ABN from my unit 4ID. The reason myself and 4 other Bradley mechanics were sent to the 101st ABN was simple. They had Bradley's! Yes Bradley's, but these were theater Pre-po Brads from Kuwait. Half were M2a2 and the other half were M2 ODS (Operation Desert Storm) variants. I had worked on both models in my time in the Army since joining back in 95'. Now the reason the 101st ABN 1-32 Cav to be exact had Bradley's, was because by the 2nd month of their deployment. They already had 8 destroyed M1114's aka up armored hummers. So these guys were seeing ALLOT of IEDs at that time. Their Col requested vehicles with armor. And they got 13 Brad's. Very few of their crews had ever been on Brad's before as most of their scouts had never been around Armor units. And they for sure didn't have Bradley mechanics. So for the next 8 months I was a 101st ABN 1-32 Cav Bradley mechanic. And I was their primary M88a1 recovery vehicle operator as well. Of the 11 Brad's that were destroyed or coded out for IED damage I personally recovered and towed back 10 of them. 3 still burning as I towed them in. They only lost 1 soldier during that 8 months and it was due to the Brad's armor. Were other units this lucky? Nope definitely not. But these guys definitely had allot more come home thanks to the Brad's than if they still had to do missions in the 1114's. So while people ask WHY we need light tanks I think its a pretty obvious answer. Armored vehicles give the crews doing missions allot higher chance at survival than sending them out in soft skinned vehicles. Also these light tanks aren't there to engage main tanks. That's why we have the Abrams and the Air Force and many other anti tank systems. Light tanks give the grunts on the ground armor support to push objectives and help draw fire from the troops making the assault. If the Bradley can do such a good job for the 101st ABN then the Booker will do just fine.
I immediately thought about the Bradley and wondered why it wasn't mentioned in this video. They can also work along side MBT's, not just with mechanized units.(Light tanks I mean)
Problem is rpgs unless there is new armour and trooper can kill it
Much better system to provide fire support with the 105 cannon for fire suppressing Brads. Freeing up M1's to go on the hunt.
M88 commander 18th Airborn Corp Desert Storm. Cleaned up friendly fire M1's on Brads. Swiss cheese
@@rigelkent8401M10 should be armored against RPG-7 and SPG-9 frontally, along with 30mm sabot and fragmentation from 155mm artillery shells. Anything heavier than that will be an issue
I generally am critical of the extent to which the US keeps investing in weapons development and weapons production, because there's a fine line between not investing enough in your military, and investing in the military to the point where all it does is encourage potential adversaries to invest more in their military as well (contributing to an endless arms race which just ends up wasting more resources for human civilization as a whole, and potentially increases the risk of armed conflict rather than decreasing it).
However, that being said, the M10 Booker appears to be a relatively simple and no-nonsense weapons system which is not likely to make potential adversaries particularly nervous, and it's not outrageously expensive. It doesn't seem like something which would unnecessarily escalate a global arms race, whereas (for example), expensive space-based orbital weapons systems definitely would be more likely to escalate a global arms race. A vehicle like this could allow the US or her allies to intervene in smaller regional conflicts in a more decisive and efficient way, hopefully with a smaller loss of life on all sides.
Holy shit koala remembered the armor cast login
Lmaoooo gj koala
He's still tired from absolutely shitting on that cuck Seekerhead.
Maybe a hacker posted this video as part of an intricate plan which involves impersonating koala
@@jeebuskit’s so intricate I even believe I AM Koala! Look and sound just like him and everything 😂
@@ArmorCast SUS lol
I think it should have been called the Gavin.
Then because the vehicle is not able to be air dropped, there should be a variant made with wings attached. Lets call that the Aero-Gavin.
Now THAT’s a meta reference! 😂
@@ArmorCast
And give it a propeller and Sparrows
Wasn't the cancelled M-8 named after GEN Gavin?
@@ArmorCast when is the KF 51 Panther Part 1 and the Abrams X video
And the Leoaprd 2 A8 video
Former MGS commander here. Glad to see 105mm still in the fight. I definitely believe in the role of armor and don't think people understand our range of capabilities (light to heavy)
You're right the 105 is underrated. It was good enough for the M60 Patton tank that served the US Army until the M1 Abrahms came on the scene.
And people can't understand why the Ukrainians are happy with receiving Leopard 1A5s. Perfectly fine for Infantry fire support 🤷
That's a simple but sound comment.
There's another part of this I'll like to hear your view on and that's the A-10.
YES - there's no doubt that the A-10 would be more vulnerable to the current generation of surface to air systems, BUT IF ITS VULNERABLE then so are the AC-130 gunships and the AT-802U Sky Warden turbo-prop will be a sitting duck to those systems.
PLUS one of the things that is already established with the F35 is its ability to get in and take out those air defense systems. Then there's the F-18 Growler that can not only suppress those systems but take them out with anti-radiation missiles.
So my question is, and I have seen & heard many comments from people who served on the ground and noted their remarks about the A-10, *should there be a dedicated CAS plane that can get in close, take damage and PROTECT troops on the ground who are under threat or fire?*
FYI - I'm Australian and I think we have made a massive mistake NOT having such an aircraft that can support ground forces, whether it be close in like an A-10 or at range like an AC-130.
@@tonywilson4713
The AT-802 Sky Warden is far cheaper and replaceable. The AC-130 has been getting countermeasures. Still, it will be getting replaced. They know about the vulnerabilities. The A-10 was supposed to be cheap too. The only way to make the A-10 less vulnerable from surface to air missiles (MANPADS included) is to install new equipment making it more expensive. That beats the purpose of the A-10.
@@zaco-km3su I don't think I'd want anyone I know in an AT-802 in a combat zone. It might be cheap and replaceable BUT PILOTS AREN'T.
And in case you didn't know propellers make nice big targets for radar.
I'll grant anyone that year the A-10 needs replacing but a golden rule is to NEVER throw away what works. Improve it, integrate the best bits with something new are both valid, but throwing it away isn't.
The Philippines did not purchase the Sabrah intending to use it as an MBT. They are employing it precisely what the US concluded about mobile firepower, to be used similarly to the M10 after their experience in the Siege of Marawi, where they lacked necessary protected firepower to punch through fortified structures.
This.
The Siege of Marawi saw my nation's armed forces lacking that mobile protected firepower during those grueling street combat.
There might be some M113s with a 90mm gun or even LAV-300s with larger caliber guns, but those are still susceptible to anti-tank rockets.
Agreed, I don't know where Koala got that information it is going to be their MBT. It fits the loose definition of "battle tank," but it definitely will not be an MBT.
This. Though it should be known that the simultaneous adoption of a light tank and a wheeled tank destroyer variants in the short term is actually also a way to determine future armored needs. There is also internal debate within the army as to what the path forward for armor doctrine should be. Strategic mobility over archipelagic terrain is a major consideration for any potential conventional conflict and there's debate as to whether the army should divert resources to invest in 'heavy' main battle tanks or if light armor (whether tracked or wheeled) would better fit doctrinal needs. Experience gleaned from operating the Sabrahs will better inform the military as to the feasibility of heavier AFVs.
I still think it's funny to think of a situation where the Infantry find an MG nest and call the Tank, and the Tank finds a Tank and calls the Infantry...
Yep, combined arms warfare at its finest lol
It’s like that classic game of Rock Paper. Rock beats paper, paper beats rock, you know how it goes.
Regarding the 105mm choice and APM - the Israeli Rakefet (APAM-MP-T M117/1) had been very effectively used by Israel 105mm MBTs since the early 2000s. There's a lot of experience with that round and it is available for export - it can solve the M10 needs for anti-personnel, anti-material, lightly armored threats as well as some anti-helicopter capabilities with one round type.
Interesting, thanks for the info!
I think it is more likely that we see the Army requesting a scaled down variant of the new AMP multipurpose HE round they adopted for the Abrams. It shouldn't be too hard to scale down the shell and marry it to a 105mm fire control program. I haven't watched the video so if that is brought up, oh well. That's just the thought that occurred to me.
So me shooting at helicopters with my Abrams in WarThunder is a totally legit tactic?
@@sumott497 shooting is one thing, hitting is a completely different story :-)
Seriously, though - responding to a laser warning alert by immediately training the gun on where the alert came from and letting loose whatever you had chambered, is an accepted Israeli armor tactic (though I've never seen it practiced).
@@guss77 That's what the T-90 does with it's dazzlers too.
I think Task&Purpose summed it up perfectly on why this thing exists. The generals were using Strikers like tanks in the city and it was costing the Striker poor reputation. That's why they started welding cope cages and sand bags all around the Strikers.
Sort of like M4 Shermans
@@vanguard9067but the Sherman has amazing reputation?
We had the Bradley. Better still is not send armor into cities in the first place. We don't need new tanks, we need new leadership. Preferably Mustangs and not college grads with a chip on their sholder.
@@Fabrizio_Ruffo The Bradley had some glaring weaknesses though. Like the missiles having to be loaded by hand. Also the armor and design had problems withstanding IED's and cold war shoulder fire rockets.
Having something a little bit heavier isn't going to hurt if the goal is to provide support for infantry.
@@SGTvolcanyou might as well use a tank instead of a slightly lighter tank
Argentinian lad here. I think the idea behind the TAM was to have a multirole platform (which indeed it is, its chassis its used from the MBT role to SPG, to MLRS and even Mobile Command Post and IFV), that's light enough to be fast on our roads, and to not wreck our roads and bridge crossings. Also some good off-road capabilities.
actually, everything was wrong with the Argentine tank, initially it was a platform from the German ifv Marder b, so T.A.M is a palliative of compromises
@@макслюлюкин Compromises that work.
TAM is a Marder with a Leopard 1A3 turret. The other Argentine systems are also variants of Marder / the VCTP base vehicle. They where available, could/can be build in country and are good enough for the needs of Argentine at that time
A tank in position no matter how bad, is a welcomed addition to any conflict from a soldier's limited point of view.
Your opinion is irrelevant and invalid
The US Army just chose General Dynamics and Rheinmetall as finalists for the 4000 Bradley replacement IFVs.
Could you do a video about this program, the two finalists and the other three that dropped out? Or more generally the current state of IFVs (CV90, Puma, Lynx) and their most likely future. Maybe even including anti air IFVs like some CV90 variants and SkyRanger.
A an Ex Infantryman that worked in a mechanized unit as a dismount; This piece of kit actually seems very good in my opinion. I think guys would very much like the increased firepower and armor; Not saying that the Bradley is bad however with the nature of current combat and what combat in urban enviroments has displayed in places such as Bakhmut and Mariupol this would be even more lethal- Especially against armor and fortifications
Always a pleasure to have vets in the comments, o7 soldier!
I’m x armoured infantry (U.K.) and we went everywhere with tanks anyway for fire support that warrior couldn’t deal with
Which branch has/had infantry personal for mechanized units?
@@nexpro6118 Army
You are not an ex-infantryman, you are always an Infantryman, you earned that title, from a Infantryman!!
The most light tank to ever not be a light tank.
I’m totally convinced the reason the US Army will not call it a “Light Tank” is because of the way Congress funds weapons systems. IE they fear Congress will think - what does the Army need a new Tank - they already have plenty of Abrams.
@@markholmphotography There will always be confusion with having "tank" in the name. When someone says "Main Battle Tank" people just hear "tank." So when they say "light tank" people just hear "tank" and so they completely misuse it and forget that it can't do the things an MBT can do. It's like when Bradleys are erroneously called light tanks or just tanks because they have treads an armor. I think there are a couple news articles focusing on the militarization of police when the government was handing off it's APCs with those news articles giving the perception that they were tanks.
I prefer Assault Gun anyway, there is no confusion and it lines up with how we are using it and that it's a direct replacement for the Stryker Mobile Gun System variant.
Basically a beefed Up Bradley/BMP3/M60 hybrid , future Stryker replacement
@@bl8danjilbingo. People keep saying it's a tank but in reality it'a basically a Stug with an actual turret (medium weighted vehicle designed specifically for infantry support). A more doctrinally accurate light tank would be the Type 05 light tank (amphibious assault) or the Wiesel (reconnaissance)
I object strenuously to the miscaracterization of this light tank as a light tank.
Thorough and cogent analysis. Your criticisms, especially regarding the lack of an autoloader are valid. It does seem more like an interim vehicle.
As long as americans are raped agaisnt their wills financing wars they disagree with, unable to also buy what theyre required to pay for, itll make no difference. Russia and china will enslave most of the world. Islam will get the rest. Socialist leftists will screw everyone else, welcome to world war 3
Back in the day, we had Sheridan's who worked with us and were attached to Division. I was in the DISCOM, with the 82 HSB. We were in the same motor pool, on the end of Riva Ridge and Longstreet, and sucked down plenty of diesel fumes together on the back 40 out past Sicily DZ... IIRC, there's probably a few lost Sheridan's, and lost scout vehicles still out there sunk in that Carolina red mud to stub your toes over. They' used to tear ass around the tank trails and go out to gunnery out the back side of the Motor Pool.
I definitely am in agreement that the XM360 should be reintroduced into the M10 Booker MPF. Not just for better firepower, but also for easing of logistics for both cannon parts and 120mm Tank Shells between the M10 and the inevitable mass-produced AbramsX.
Additionally, there is also the possibility of the M10 Booker MPF being exported outside the US.
And as a citizen from Singapore, I consider the M10 to be the true successor to the AMX-13SM1!
Abrams X is a tech demo, the US Army will have to pick and choose what it needs most and will likely be in an upgrade package like the M1A2 SEP V3. Congess will most likely want that over a full on overhaul.
I think the adoption of the 105mm makes perfect sense, given the stated goals of the design. Many a thing that turret points at is going to go boom, and I'm sure those on the ground would greatly appreciate the perks of having something powerful enough to take out a moderately reinforced position. Many a person in a machine gun or mortar nest are going to think twice about sticking around if the wall next to (or near) them blows out . Yes, technically that nest isn't taken out, but if nobody's sticking around to man the weaponry it's at least temporarily taken out, which means fewer rounds coming towards you.
As for the secondary weaponry, I agree that a 12.7mm or even a 20-30mm autocannon would have added more to the flexibility of the platform, doubly so from the focus of being able to go after something that's a touch tougher but a 105mm round would be overkill. Yes, there's "no kill like overkill", but when you're trying to stick to the mentality of "you only have what you pack in with you" it's a lot easier to pack a couple extra boxes of belted ammunition with you than it is 105mm rounds. It's also a lot quicker to send extra rounds downrange if there's still resistance in that area after that first volley.
With regards to the light tank designation, I agree. Just because it isn't a main battle tank doesn't mean it shouldn't be called a tank.
My only concern with the 105mm is the lack of AMP. Let's say for the sake of example that there's 35 rounds for this vehicle. Put five aside for sabot rounds in case you meet a Type 96 or something... now you've got 30. Divide that up between a point-detonate, point-detonate-delay, and airburst/cannister round... that's 10 of each... not very many, especially when the airborne are going to find it more difficult to resupply this kind of vehicle than an Abrams armor company would for example. You're not gonna want a situation where you have to fire cannister shells at bunkers because you ran out of HEP 20 minutes ago.
With AMP... you effectively get 30 of each. 30 rounds that can do ANY of those roles. Right now, there is no such thing as a 105mm AMP, just the M1147 for the 120mm. AMP also isn't as massively devastating to bunkers and light fortifications as I think Northrop Grumman were hoping for (albeit brilliant as a cannister and anti-vehicle round), so possibly a 105mm version of AMP wouldn't be effective ENOUGH. On the flipside, if you DO have to carry separate rounds of each type because AMP isn't good enough until you hit the 120mm calibre... well... might as well go with an even SMALLER gun, say a 90mm. Plenty big enough to rip straight through a BMP or BTR, a bunker, an MG position etc from 2km away... but you're gonna be packing in more like 50 rounds for it!
Thing is, that would require a whole new development, because the last 90mm the US even tested was the Ares Inc. design from the 80s, and that wasn't particularly effective if I recall. The US Army needed this vehicle yesterday, I doubt there was time to even consider looking at developing a new gun and new calibre (plus manufacturing new ammunition from scratch). Hence, they went with the XM35 that'd been around for decades, and could utilise existing ammo stocks
@@ArmorCast : Really enjoyed this video. It did bring up a few questions up in my mind like...
Isn't the M10 supposed to be a fire support vehicle for the infantry? I thought that the main purpose was to take out the enemy IFV, the bunker, the machinegun nest, etc, not go toe to toe against a MBT. So, in that regard, having more options for gun rounds is better. There is also HESH, which I am not sure the US Military ever used, but it is a good AT round as well as anti-bunker round.
Then there is the logistics. Yes, having more variety of rounds could be a logistics nightmare, but the 105mm round is still a smaller, lighter round than a 120mm round. This means that more 105mm rounds can be shipped for an equivalent weight and displacement of 120mm rounds. Especially useful for an Airborne unit.
I do agree that having an active protection system would be useful, but if it is operating next to dismounted infantry, the use of such systems may be detrimental to the infantry as they might be within the lethality radius of such systems. A passive system however, would definitely be useful.
As for the Auto-loader, the argument has always been that having a reduced crew means that the 3 man crew will have an increased workload on the routine field maintenance of the vehicle. The 4th man helps to keep the workload down to a manageable level. The alternative is to have additional maintenance crew riding in another APC or truck and then help with the maintenance at the end of the day, or when the vehicle disengages from combat. Plus it has a redundancy factor of having the 4th crewperson. If one of the crew is injured in combat, the 4th crew can help replace or assist in that injured person's position.
Dunno, IMHO, for all intended purposes 120mm gun-mortar, like Finnish NEMO would be much more efficient. Much higher variety of rounds, ability to provide both direct and indirect fire and last but not least, they have homing top attack rounds capable of destroying all modern MBTs. Should had just slapped NEMO turret onto Bradley chassis and called it a day.
@@ArmorCastI have funny idea that M10 should armed with old M109 155L23 gun. Smack everything with HE.
@@ArmorCast I think, regarding the effectiveness factor of an AMP round, there's also something to consider it's effect on the people inside. Sure, maybe 1 round is not that great at completely destroying the bunker, but there's also the question of how effective is it at scaring people inside of that bunker. Even if that 1 shot just temporarily disables the weapon system, that still buys time and relieves pressure off of the people that weapon was pointed at. While maybe a 2nd shot is enough to take it out completely, with that kind of effectiveness, that still leaves you with about 15 to potentially 20 rounds for those kinds of targets than say only 10 of each.
From what I have seen about the m10 it seems to follow a design philosophy, that a lot of militaries are adopting now, designing new vehicles to be upgradable. So I think there is every possibility that the m10 lacks now could be added in short order in the future. The army is making a big push right now for open architecture designs that can rapidly have new systems added. The chassis of a vehicle, whether it be a plane, tank, or truck matters a lot less than it did 30 or 20 years ago. without any major advancements in material sciences we've almost reached the apex of that type of engineering, what is making a difference now is the software element and how quickly that can be upgraded. As long as the m10 turn out to be a good vehicle I don't think we have seen its final form
I 1000000% agree with you! That is what I think is holding certain US equipment back. Example is the, F22 Raptor, the systems/hardware cannot be changed/upgraded because the technology back in the 90s, wasn't around to be able to have/use hardware that can just be upgraded with new software without also needing to change the hardware as well.
But the video also pointed out that add on systems are never as well integrated as designed in systems. Take the A-10's gun as a prime example. Also, as the video pointed out, some things cannot be retrofitted - like an auto loader.
That's very probable, just take the M1 Abrams as an example. It's getting nigh impossible to add upgrades without turning it into a unmoving slab of armor. If I recall correctly, some upgrades weigh more than they need to because they need their own wiring, attachments and ways to interface with other systems.
I bet the M10 is going to receive the Abrams upgrade path. There will be a M10A1 before it is even fielded in a brigade. Hardkill APS, LWR, and 30mm chain gun seems more important than passive armor.
This will immediately get APS systems and LWS systems, likely in the same package. M-10 a1. The auto loader will be the M-10 a2 around 5-10 years of service, and the upgrade to a bigger main gun or a bigger chain gun like you said, will likely be the M-10 a3, around 20-25 years of service. However, I don’t see it going much farther from there. It will likely be replaced after 35-40 years at max by something either much better, or completely different in tactical use given how fast war changes nowadays. However, the overall goal will be the same: giving light airborne troops much needed armored support in an affordable, effective, and light package.
I think this vehicle also fits well with the Marine's doctrine and would be a valuable asset when forging a beachhead and providing direct fire support against hardened targets. Also APDS systems can hurt infantry taking cover near or behind the tank.
He laid out pretty well why the Marines likely won't get them( if they have a choice) when he covered the logistical burdens. I could be wrong though, if it is enough of a reduction over the Abrams for them.
Since it has tracks, that would be great in use in a sand/mud/etc environment.. however, I didn't catch in the video how easy and how fast the Booker can move in water and can it also fire its weapons while moving in water at the same time?
The Marines really aren’t in that business anymore.
I think that there will be obvious growing pains with this vehicle. Since it's been years without this option to the paratrooper tactics its gonna take some time to get the kinks worked out. I think that the capabilities you pointed out that it doesn't have currently will eventually get added in different versions of the tank as the program ages.
20 years is the average time to work out the bugs and mechanical failures.
@@stephengoldberg334 yes and costly re-works and shit.. its like this was planned to be a money sink. Sad stuff since it needs to be in service soonest and if shit hits the fan it will not only be a money sink but like as not unnecessary blood will be swirling down that drain for a long time until all those re-works and addons are what they ought to be from the start.
This tank should at least attempt to solve the problem that killed its namesake, allowing the use of guns while protected by its own armor. Having a heavy (50 cal.) gun that can be used by the commander would vastly improve its use in urban warfare. Great video
I think it is a good idea. I remember when the unit I was in was first given Humvees. The lightweight utility cargo truck was immediately upfitted with .50 cal machine guns and TOW missiles, and sent into formations with we infantrymen and our M113 A2. It was supposed to fill the role of the M60 tank as fire support and overwatch. Next thing they did was take away our M113 and give us Bradley IFVs. Then they wanted us to be a three platoon Mech infantry with one platoon of M1 Abrams attached. In combat, we infantrymen were to dismount and advance on foot, while the Bradleys performed fire and maneuver operations alongside the M1 Abrams. The Humvees typically hung back another kilometer to provide overwatch with the TOW. We boots were frequently beyond the range of all but the Abrams and the Battalion Artillery. The prediction made when we first received the Humvees was that the command structure would try to use them as light tanks, and for all practical purposes, that's what they did. Ditto for the M113 and the Bradley.
I know the Marines are going back to island hopping in case they every have to go toe-to-toe against the PLA, but I think something like this would integrate well into a MEU. I can only hope that folks in Quantico are at least having a discussion about this.
in about 2021, marines ditched tanks completely. So they'll have to call in the army, so stubbornness might cause issues.
Agreed on the usefulness to an MEU, if they can bring in two HIMARS via C-17 to shoot and scoot, they can bring in an M-10 section to back up the rifle platoons in ACVs
I could see MEUs picking up the M10 or something similar so they have some organic armor and gun capability.
I was a crew chief on an 88 for MLRS unit. I was later in the 101st 12 years after mlrs unit. I deployed to Iraq 2005, and I was Airborne myself even tho 101 no longer is. Glad to see maintenance get a shout out for once.
Interesting to see how the Booker will work out. Pleasure to see you back!
they just couldn’t resist reusing a designation AGAIN lmao
I mean, it started again with the M1 Abrams, they've just been following the numbers, '10' was next down the line
@@ArmorCast it makes perfect sense but still upsets me greatly (and also Wolverine II would have been a fantastic name if they had to call it the M10 I mean come on)
@@Android_ELITEto be fair to the army, wolverine was never an official designation. It was a nickname like viper is for the f-16 fighting falcon.
@@psychoshy211 let me dream dammit
@@Android_ELITE I prefer them to honor fallen soldiers like this. They don't need to have a cool name.
As someone who's played warthunder, everytime I hear M10 I think of the WW2 era tank destroyer.
TAM mentioned, instant like. Great video as always!!
Despite all bells and whistles I can't help but feel that they have essentially reinvented a t-55, very high tech one but still a t-55. People keep mocking them, but when someone slaps a new "cool" name and some decent thermal sight and stuff, thus suddenly it becomes new awesome thing. Seriously it appears that soviet tank school despite it's perceived flaws did actually understood something important about weight discipline in construction of their tanks. Look how it suddenly become necessary to create a "light, totally not tank"vehicle that performs most tank functions while not being a tank because the real tanks became too heavy, too expensive and too valuable to lose while being surrounded by innumerable anti-tank weapons. I apologise if my comment offended someone in advance
Using autoloaders to reduce weight and armor bulk isn't going far enough; they should have gone with an unmanned turret. Then they'd have the weight budget for APS, an APU, and laser warning receivers. Also, if its supposed to primarily be an urban combat vehicle, they should have made it have really high max gun elevation like the HSTVL turret had, instead of just shrinking an Abrams turret.
I disagree on the unmanned turret, actually personally I don't think it's a great idea for tanks at all (I spoke about this in the KF51 video earlier this year, and I do want to do one specifically on this topic). An unmanned turret has a lot of drawbacks that get swept under the rug, and it's not as if the hull of this vehicle has a lot of spare room for two additional crewmen either...
@@ArmorCast
Can I engage and you not ignoring comment like the ammo video, which you reference again in your kf51 video, and add more wrong physics!!!
I watched the kf51 video, I believed 4 major draw backs were raised? Mine protection, redesign vehicle, mission kill - They are either addressed already, in the works, or not an issue. Situational awareness - very real, very valid, certainly a very big issue. The new point about space was addressed by US in the 1980s, and 2020s by the Russian, so...???
What urban combat would Booker even survive??
@@ArmorCast you know the Stryker AGS was a thing right? it has a crewless turret and has been driving around since the 80's
History will show the Opposite, look at the lightly armored vehicles we had to up armor. I’d bet if it happens you’ll see more armor, maybe something lighter but stronger!
I do suspect the reason for taking such low technology risks is probably the repeated failures of vehicle procurement of the last several decades, often due to overly ambitious technological elements. Likely for the next decade or two it would be the current vehicle or no vehicle at all, so they wish to play it safe.
On another subject, there’s a lot of potential for upgrades for the Abrams platform going forward. I don’t think a new platform is particularly likely considering how the M10 program and previous proposals have gone, but there’s a lot of new elements that are becoming viable to put into a new Abrams variant, like an auto loader and the new 120mm gun, better APS and greater situational awareness aids.
The 20mm is a cyκa to reload within the tank though but it enables engaging less armoured targets without wasting 105mm ammo. A new Mk4 57mm Boffors L/70 would be nice choice, too. A sensor like radar/optical to detect nearby drones/choppers and being able to engage such targets with the 57mm would add some air protection to the formation in general against aerial threats.
Good info on the subject. Thanks
It doesn't matter how good it is if you cannot get it where you need it and supply it when you get it there. Thanks for pointing out how important logistics are.
They've confirmed an 105mm AMP round..
Also a lighter APS like Iron Fist, as well as the Lightweight (XM914, which is the lightweight M230)30mm firing ABMs...
Your assuming (for unknown reasons) that the M10s we see now are the combat-ready M10s that will be deployed onto the battlefield...
In the 1980s/90s/2000s, why didn't we see ALL Abrams with an RWS mounted as it sits in the Army Depot? Maybe because like lightweight APS and M230 RWS, they hadn't yet been fully tested not only on the M10 but they're not fully "Army Ready" for ANY platform, so procurement WITH RWS/APSs would only extend procurement.. Also, Sensors would be sitting exposed Etc, no not happening...
Same for the APS, however I think they plan on equipping ALL MPF with an APS when on battlefield which at a minimum is 4-5 years away, which is plenty of time for the ARMY to integrate an APS onto completed M10s as opposed to waiting for Iron fist to be integrated onto M10 Turret via Manufacturer likely would have increased procurement time by years as well as $$...
Thank you foe saying this so I didn't have to 😊
I agree, however i wouldn't call these not combat ready as when the US military procures them i'm sure they will be combat ready. I think an import part of this tank somewhat overlooked is how its light weight lends it well to upgrades further down the road. I don't doubt we will see dozens of upgrade programs down the road likely providing this tank with specialized capabilities/variants for different environments. New tanks usually have increased modularity vs older designs.
You're
@@JD96893problem is the M10 is already butting RIGHT up against the limit it can grow to. It needs to be transportable two at a time via C-17, and it’s only got about one tonne of headroom before that is no longer possible
If we want to use a WW2 comparison, the M10 Booker would be a Pz.IV (Ausf. A~E), in their original intended role (infantry support and fortification buster).
Interestingly, it would be almost the same size and weight as the WW2 M10 Wolverine Tank Destroyer.
Stug originally had exactly same doctrinal role as Booker. It changed to TD role only after Germany started having trouble with soviet armor and they used what they had at hand.
What's the bet that the M10 Booker will find itself being used in different roles once it hits the real world battlefield, just like the Pz.IV did?
@@aymonfoxc1442I am pretty sure if allows, the Marines will adopt it as a medium weight assault vehicle/pseudo Abrams, considering their retirement of the Abrams and they don't have any self propelled direct fire gun larger than a 25mm
This weighs as much as a KV-1 heavy. More than double the weight of a Pz4 Ausf A.
So much for a "light tank".
how in the world can we look at what's going on in Ukraine and not think that laser warning and active protection systems are a requirement in this day and age?
As Well as Fire and Forget Javelin like ATGMs that can hit 3-5 miles away , 105 mm main gun is nothing to write home about…
@@Nikowalker007 It is for the 82nd!
@@ArmorCast Got it , that makes sense then but still ... you never know what you might meet on your way to your destination
@@ArmorCastIn that same video with the Cheiftan, I think, he asks why no hard kill active protection? The army guy reminds him that this is going to be in use directly alongside dismounted light infantry and hard kill or even ERA couldn't be considered because yes you'd maybe save the tank but you'd definitely kill the squad using it for cover.
As for the warning receiver, yeah you got me there.
@@Nikowalker007you do though… that’s what drones, ELINT and the light DRBs are for
About time. For the last 20 years, the US has been simply making light attack platforms “heavier” by bolting on more armor, bigger guns and - ultimately- larger suspension systems to support it: im looking at you Stryker. They needed a light(er) platform built specifically to be armored (enough) and have a big (enough) gun to handle light to medium armored threats
I do disagree about the ZSU-23 shilka and sa-9 strella not representing a threat to the A-10; those are the exact platforms that shot down or severely damaged (mission killed) so many A-10s in desert storm
As an ex Gunner who worked on a Cent MK13 my view on what a modern Tank should have as a secondary weapons are coaxial 50 cal remote Xm380 a GPMG for the loader and the return of a bow gun operated buy the TC and the driver useing remote system camras the driver could have a thumb joystick like on the old blowpipe with a trigger to fire the gun this could be attached to the steering yoke and be switched to left or right depending on the driver a foot peddle to the right or a leaver could be used to cock the weapon , useing a chain gun in this position with a hopper feed there was one that I once saw on a test vehical to replace the Pig had a system where you could throw a box of lose ammo into the hopper this would strip off the cardboard and rotate the rounds the right way to feed into the chain
-Lightweight
-designed for urban combat
-not very fast
-big gun
BEHOLD AN URBANMECH
Lightweight....
@@thierrykaslan2756shockingly, the Booker is 12 tons heavier than the Urbie.
THEN AGAIN, we actually don't know if the Star League Ton is equivalent to ours. There's a lot of inconsistencies and evidence to suggest it's different.
BattleTech Fans UNITE.
A man of culture i see.
They filled me full of trash, I filled them full of lead
Urbanmech
If you aren't giving the commander a remote weapon station, then they could at least give the loader a setup similar to a humvee, a protected mount for weapons like M240s, M2s, or even MK19s, its an easy thing to add that could give the M10 better close range defence or suppressive fire support without completely exposing yourself.
I was thinking about the Mk19 as the no. 3 weapon for the loader to man as well, it gives HE/HEDP counter defilade that's extremely effective against the M10's intended targets of moto/mech, infantry and fortified positions
I’d assume it would be added pretty quickly once a proper conflict starts
38:48 it might not be an interim solution but I think the army is rushing this into service because they know it’s gonna be cheaper later on to adopt an A1 variant when they already have a lot of vehicles on hand. It’s a vehicle for foreseeable future threats but it’s cheaper to get it now even if it seems lacking against those threats than getting a vehicle that’s perfect right off the bat when those threats are actually realized. Setting up the production now and just adding on stuff later is cheaper than setting it all up in a rush.
Makes particularly good sense when you realize it's basically been approved for a year, and they wanted to get ahead of inflation when they were setting up the budget. Smart.
It's also easier to justify to politicians and general public: we have this, it's great, but we can make a "small" improvement, like swapping out the entire turret for a new one, and put a slightly better motor in it.
Average persone doesn't know that means a new vehicle basically, and so it's easier to get them to sign on and not cut the program.
This is the best explanation of why the Booker exists. Thank you for the accurate and indepth analysis of this "new" vehicle/weapon system.
(I personally believe this system would be better off with a 120mm gun)
The smoothbore could adapt a missile of 5" diameter better. Smart round top attack.
I know that this video is half a year old, but a point raised here brought my attention, you mentioned the cost in its initial low rate production cost being about 10 million USD which gained my curiosity. For those who dont know the initial low eate production cost not only accounts for the vehicles actual price, but the research and development process it cost to get it there, so I went and looked up what that cost was for the M1 Abrams, in 1990's money the initial low rate production cost was 4.3 million USD, significantly cheaper than the M10, on paper, adjusting for inflation that is almost 10.15 million USD today. Which just kinda shows how much the value of currency has dropped, however keeping this in mind, when this vehicle goes into mass production it will be cheaper then it is now, by how much im not sure. Probably a nitpick in retrospect but I feel that stuff like that should be pointed to give people better awareness on military spending.
US 82nd Airborne == Still Airborne, with 50% part time Helicopter
101st Airborne == is actually called 101st Airborne (Air Assault), and are 100% helicopter based and are not Airborne certified anymore.
10th Mountain (Light Infantry Division) didnt get mentioned, but they want them too
Great video been wanting an in depth breakdown of this vehicle.
Cheers mate glad you enjoyed
Ahh yes; the vehicle that looks like a Light Tank but is meant to be more of a Turreted StuG.
It's an assault gun, let's not beat around the bush. But at least it means that the Airborne will be able to use the fabled BESH round. (For non-WT people, it is HESH, or High Explosive Squash Head.)
@@Techno_Idioto Like I said in the video, I think "assault gun" is even less accurate than "light tank", because assault guns aren't meant to take a hit or support rapidly mobile infantry in mid-intensity threat environments. Assault guns also aren't crewed by 19K MOS, or organised into companies and battalions the same way tanks are. This thing is.
The only classical role of the light tank that's missing from this vehicle is armored reconnaissance; basically "hey, go poke 'em and see how they respond". With the ACE powerpack though, it might actually be pretty good for that role too, but it'd have to be organised differently into the battalions as well.
@@ArmorCast "assault guns aren't meant to take a hit or support rapidly mobile infantry in mid-intensity threat environments."
Um.... no. Anyone's definition of "assault gun" is a vehicle designed to support an infantry attack. Generally this means direct fires, which means, its going to get hit. Otherwise what we are talking about is a "fire support vehicle". Which is a lot closer to what the M-10 is conceptually.
That is if we are pretending that this isn't anything but a manifestation of the US Army/MIC tendency to always prepare to fight its last war, instead of the next one. Which is going to be dominated by drones and autonomous munitions and... God help the poor bastards trying to survive in a "light tank" designed for low intensity expeditionary COIN....
It's like the 3-inch Gun Motor Carriage M10 from WWII
18:28 "M3 Stuarts" pictured, M2A4 Light tank.
Gotta admit, I think the Shilka/Strela combo is a lot more threatening to CAS than you state. Not a showstopper, but you are going to take casualties.
Personally think the M10 Booker is an obvious "medium" tank. Heavy enough to deal with any light tracked vehicle, particularly of the auto-cannon equipped variety but will struggle to pen a heavy on open ground.
What I mean is that those threats are pretty trivial to deal with in an A-10, since the A-10 carries several weapons that can effectively engage them from outside their own firing range. That is no longer the case - the air defences escorting manoeuvre forces aren’t Strelas and Shilkas with a four kilometre range, they’re things like the Tor-M2 with a FOURTEEN kilometre range! All of a sudden the A-10 can’t engage the threats it’s expected to face, from a position of safety, as it could those older systems
It would probably make more sense to have the .50 as a co-ax, as the gunner has the sights and stabilization to use it to its full potential. Then give the loader a nice Mk.19 as a reward for all their hard work.
TC, you get back down - you've got maps to look at!
I love to see this kinds of video, keep it up!!
honestly i think they should have incorporated a cltv 40mm agl commander turret on top for that extra anti personnel ability in urban environments
In the Philippines, there are rumors of buying a full fledged MBT with the armored bridge laying procurement underway. With Israel hinting that they are trying to sell Merkava Mk4 to match the bridge layer chassis, rumors that Leopard 2A7, K2 or if Japan is willing to sell Type 10 is in consideration.
Good point
K2 seems to make the most sense - it’s a lot lighter than Leo or Merkava, but just as capable if not more so.
Doubtful that Japan would allow Type 10 to be exported, though it’s possible
The Philippine Army priorities their acquisition of bridge layers and other engineering vehicles as they fought tooth and nail in the Battle of Marawi to recover the bridges that was controlled by the terrorists.
They don't have bridge layers and crossing the river via water carfts will be more disastrous due to the presence of enemy snipers.
Interestingly, the chassis of their new bridge layers is rumored to be using Leopard 2s, but was changed to Merkava Mk.4 maybe due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
The M10 will have both APS and LWR pretty shortly honestly. Fairly obvious candidate systems are already going into service and the weight and power margins for them are built into the design. Active protection systems in particular were talked about allot during it's design. The 42 ton weight being mentioned is in fact for the theoretical production versions that will likely include additional features such as an APS the demonstrators and pre-production models were like 38 tons.
The thinking though seems to be "just get the base vehicle into acutal production we've built weight margins and can add shit like RWS and APS once we actually have the hulls." and honestly I can respect approach given how often overly ambitious goals have killed past programs. Way better to actually get the vehicles in a basic configuration then have the program get bogged down integrating every belly and whistle.
I also don't feel auto-loaders matter much, they've consistently failed to demonstrate much real advantage in operation because to be brutally honest maximum rate of fire is almost never used in large caliber guns anyway. They might be able to make vehicles somewhat lighter by reducing profile, but I don't think it's by nearly as much as to insinuate. They provide a marginal savings, but it's a chicken and egg situation because most examples that have gone with auto-loaders have been designs that were extremely focused on minimizing weight to begin with. The auto-loader is part of that effort, but a bigger part is usually just using less armor in general.
The reality is that the frontal profiles of the vehicles with auto-loaders like the Type 10, K2, and Leclerc aren't much smaller if at all then Abrams or Leopard 2 because roof height is still basically set by the commander and hence isn't changed much, meaning about the only possible savings would be to make the turret narrower (possibly asymmetrical), but effectively no design actually does this and hence there is basically no major reduction in frontal profile on any of the western auto-loading tank designs at all. The 'light' MBT designs aren't light because they use autoloaders, they're light because they're just less armored then the heavier designs.
Sorry, autoloaders aren't magic that let you have your cake and eat it too in tank design.
Auto-loaders only really start to gain major advantages in the same area they start to be come a major pain in the ass to design and make reliable which is in very large caliber weapons in the 130+ mm range which humans can't effectively manhandle as single piece rounds.
also dont forget with a 4 man crew you have 1 additional person for perimeter guard for repairs, and to help with repairs and maintenance in general.
35:00 the North Carolina National Guard 30th Armored Brigade operated out of Fort Formerly Known as Bragg. It'll be fine.
Excellent video and good summary of why this is needed, and the sooner the better. My two questions for you (or the community) are:
1. How survivable is it? We've seen in Ukraine that even in a Bradley you can take out the vehicle, but the crew survives. I presume it will be equal or better than the Bradley?
2. How cheap is it to operate? If you can't airdrop it and are bound to similar logistics to the M1, then you'd expect that it would have a significant cost advantage to operate, both in terms of dollars or reduced maintenance time, else why bother. So, how much of a reduction would that be?
I would not be surprised if the Marines take a serious look at this vehicle, since it’s light weight and purpose as muscle for light infantry would make a lot of sense for them.
Doubtful. Possible, but you’ve got to remember that the Marines didn’t divest from the Abrams due to weight or logistics, it was more about funding, and just generally restructuring the force. Should they want tanks back, they’ll probably just revert back to the Abrams
A modern day Sherman. Comparatively small and light, easy to manufacture, operate and also transport to Europe, or the Pacific. And with that lightness it can also traverse rough terrain and smaller bridges, giving it a better operational reach. And a smaller gun means a smaller round, meaning it can carry more of them. Good both for logistics and staying power.
We Swedes are working on something similar with the CV90120. Basically to fill the slot that the old IKV's once held, a Swedish light tank that was retired but never replaced. An occurance often seen in our defence forces..
Also worth noting is that lack of armoured (and artillery) support is a big reason as to why VDV troops got their asses handed to them at Hostomel in the early stages of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. That fight also proved that close air support (especially from helicopters) is basically suicide in a modern fight, given the prevalence of manpads and SAM's. And drones are therefore better suited for the task, scarily enough.
Hostomel is going to be a pretty significant lesson for the Russians I think. Should they have HAD some form of tank support rather than just a few Tigr-Ms, they might have been able to take out Ukraine’s air defences, get more supplies and ammunition flown in… and still have a unit today, rather than just “a few survivors”.
As for the M10, I think comparing it to Sherman is wrong. It’s more comparable to the M3/M5 Stuart, where Sherman is more comparable to Abrams
@@ArmorCast My comparison of the M10 to the M4 has more to do with the logistics of the thing. The US discovered with the Ukraine war that rapidly shipping large amounts of Abrams tanks to Europe would take time, a lot of time. The phrase 'logistical nightmare' comes to mind. And Ukraine still hasn't recieved a single Abrams because of this fact.
The same was true for US tanks during WWII where the design was limited by the logistical requirements of being able to ship them in large amounts across the Atlantic and Pacific.
Most of those logistical limitations would be similar today. Basically, a lighter tank is easier to ship. And the Booker weighs pretty much the same as the Sherman did (about 38 tonnes). And is similar in both length and width, contrary to the Abrams that in it's recent forms is almost 70 tonnes and absolutely huge.
As for the roles on the battlefield basically i'd say it's like this:
Stuart = Bradley
Sherman = Booker
Pershing = Abrams
Just my 2c, sorry for the somewhat lengthy post. 🙂
So more if a 'Bic' than a 'Ronson'
19:42 I had a nice chuckle at this, because after 19:50 I said out loud: "but that's what tanks were made to do!" and then your comment followed as practically an echo.
Former 19kr4. Dig the channel and video. Subbed.
I guess they want the M10 Booker to be used similarly to how the Germans use the Panzer IV in its original mission, which was to support the infantry and smash enemy defenses with HE shells albeit the M10 can be airdropped.
I was in the 82nd with no armor and it’s good to see it now.
Always a pleasure to have veterans in the comments, o7 soldier!
3:25, you always ask “why is this tank a thing?” But never “how is tank?” Tanks have feelings too
Tanks have 3 feelings.
- Angry
- Sleepy
- Hungry
I was a tank gunner in Iraq for 2 tours with 3rd armored cav, I always thought they should make an M1 lightweight with a snub nosed 120mm with more gun depression and elevation, reduce the weight of armor (but keep the engine and increase the speed), a 25mm coax (just HE rounds), a 7.62 coax (one on each side of the breach), and a remote controlled M2 .50 for the commander. The cameras for the driver are a great idea. Having a heavy machine gun controlled from inside the turret to cover a different direction then the gunner is critical in urban environments and cordon and search missions. The 50 can punch through stone and block walls, taking care of pesky threats hiding behind walls. When the main gun is pointed at a door or corner of a building, they don’t dare come around the corner, but when it’s pointed the other way they get more aggressive with tanks. the commanders remote controlled 50 is sneaky in those situations. Also, sometimes it takes too long for the commander to designate a target and hand it off to the gunner, missing the moment of opportunity. That’s where infantry needs armor, to drop buildings in an urban environment, to run cordon, control roads, evacs, convoy escort, and overwatch. With himars and air support, sometimes the tanks eyes are more important then it’s fire power. In certain situations tanks can sit and observe enemy movement and coordinate fire support missions better then infantry. Basically, armor is better then infantry, sorry, not sorry crunchies…
I’m glad we don’t name our tanks after scary aggressive things. Rather we name our tanks after honorable soldiers who gave their lives or did more and above what their service asks for
Nice to see you posting again. I don't think that Discord notified me though. At least on Koala Channel.
The 105 mm gun makes perfect sense because it's rifled, which allows it to accurately fire non-KE (HEAT, HE etc) rounds to significantly greater ranges than the smoothbore 120 can. It can also fire HESH rounds, which require a rifled barrel and are very useful for structure/bunker demolition.
Smoothbore is still more accurate with HEAT, and going with the 120mm you’d be firing AMP rather than HESH or HEAT anyway
@@ArmorCast To be clear when I talk about "much greater range" I'm referring to indirect-fire use cases. The 82nd lacks self-propelled howitzers or protected long-range fires of any sort, so it seems likely to me that the M10 will be called upon to serve as an ad-hoc SPH, much as we see both sides doing with their tanks in Ukraine. A rifled gun is indispensable in that use case.
Agree that the 120 dominates for direct-fire use cases, and if that's all you need then it's the better choice (modulo ammunition capacity).
@@patrickchase5614 There's been no call for the M10 to act in an indirect fire role of any kind. If the 82nd decide to use it that way in combat, fair enough, soldiers will always tend to find irregular uses that work, but it's certainly not a use case that's been intentionally considered when designing this vehicle
What waffle, to fire HEAT from a rifled gun requires a slipping driving band. A tank at best can fire semi indirect and I have done so up to 8km with 105mm L7A3. It was taught in gunnery training, did it once there, never happened again. You are not clear and sound very much like a KBW.
@@ArmorCastwhy and how? With a L7A3 105mm, non MRS, 0-2000m is a Commander shoot, (very similar ballistics to sabot) 2000-4000m is a gunners shoot, (very similar to HESH). HESH does not require a rifled barrel, HEAT requires a slipping driving band in a rifled gun so it doesn’t screw the nose off compromising the fuse.
NEW VIDEO!!! Missed you dude
It seems in every war, as in Ukraine now. You use what you have, for what comes for you, until what you really need shows up.
I'm excited for the video about why the new 120 on the Abrams X is the future, and hopefully you go over a more detailed reasons why the 130mm is not that great. I know both exist but know very little about either.
When it comes down to it, there’s a very simple reason… and a very complex explanation FOR that reason.
The reason is that the Abrams X’ 120mm can push rounds to much higher velocities, therefore gaining range, accuracy and armor penetration, than the Rheinmetall 130mm… without sacrificing ammunition carrying capacity.
The explanation… … will be part of the next video 👍
Infantry Tank might be more applicable. Its job is to support the Infantry, rather than scouting for larger tanks, which was the role of the traditional Light Tank.
The M1 Abrams would keep the role of Main Battle Tank. From what I can deduce, the Main Battle Tank has the firepower and armor capabilities of a heavy tank, but is able to be used in multiple ways like medium tanks.
9:19 I think Booker is a fantastic name. If it's used effectively enough, it'll have its enemies _booking_ it out of there as the US airborne forces blast through them.
Absolutely. if someone is misbehaving you book them. If they are really out of order, you throw the book at them.
You killed the man, not the idea #stuglife #operationpaperclip
"The M10 Booker is cool and all. But it's engine is a modified WW2 engine."
~ LaserPig, probably.
Lmao
LaserPig?
The Russian T14 Armada, DOES use a copied German WW2 Engine… same as in a 1944 Tiger II. Thats a sad state of affairs…. It wasn’t that good in 1944.
I'm guessing the absence of APS or remote turrets on the current M10s (however many they are) is probably one of those "we'll address it later when congress forgot about it and we can sneak it into future budget"
You know that's actually a pretty good point 😂
It looks a lot better to have a four page file that says "APS system integration onto M10 tanks, $2Mil per unit", than just increasing the procurement cost up front by a further two mil
On your opinion piece, its possible the M10 was slated to be under a certain weight for its purpose. Adding that extra .50 or CROWS system would likely put it over that weight requirement. It may be that they wanted heavier secondary weapons, but had to omit them.
What a fitting name for a light tank, "Booker" It's gotta be fast and agile. Driver, booker it over to the next gully so we can go hull down
I'd mount two General Electric M134 Miniguns on the platform.
A man of culture I see
I would've thought a design philosophy similar to that of the Merkava would have been bettter. Engine up front, acting as additional protection for the crew, with a rear door like an IFV. Maybe a shorter barrel 120mm main gun than on the Abrams to save weight, and if possible give it a little more elevation than tanks typically have so that it can, if need be, give better indirect fire support, and reach higher floors of buildings in urban environments more easily than typical tank guns can. Or perhaps have a mortar buillt into the turret for indirect fire support. 3 man crew with an autoloader. 12.7 or 15mm co-axial MG and a remote-controlled autocannon for the commander. Or, if 105mm rounds are perfectly capable of delivering the desired firepower, use a 105mm main gun for further weight savings, and consider whether it needs a full-length 105mm barrel, too, given its intended role. Armour and defensive systems optimised to keep the crew alive - a knocked out tank whose crew survives is a far more useful situation than a knocked out tank with a dead crew. One thing you didnt mention is that a lighter tank can use a lighter engine, also saving weight. Beyond a certain point, the benefits extra speed may grant are outweighed by the negatives of needing larger engines, increased vehicle weight, etc. I suspect the Booker will be replaced in service sooner rather than later, though.
The M-10 would be an amazing addition for the Marines as well. With its emphasis on rapid deployment, and firepower. Its everything we would need now that we don't have any Abrams, and its light enough to put on landing ships.
Thing is, the Marine Corps didn’t divest from the Abrams because of weight, it was more about funding and just general restructuring of the force as a whole. If the Marines wanted tanks back, they’d most likely just go with more M1s
@@ArmorCast The big cost issue was getting them up to A3's specs at least that is what I heard. If the Chinese get froggy we will need some thing to augment an amphibious landing beside the ACV's. And LAV's are nothing not good for much other than an armored cas evac vehicle. I heard horror stories from the LAV guys from Iraq, bullets would penetrate the armor then ricochet around inside. We really could have used a vehicle like this to its fullest potential at Fallujah.
The real reason why autoloaders will never be utilized in U.S. Army armor branch is because tankers are not always "tanking".
For both the Bosnia and Kosovo invasions (I was on both) they actually didn't deploy us with our full compliment of tanks.
Those tank crews deploying sans tanks were given two humvees and used in wheeled convoy missions. Others were cross-trained on the HEMTT and as 77F fuel handlers.
The 19K is considered by Uncle Sam (especially 1st Armored Division) to be the ultimate "universal" soldier as they sure do love cross-training them on a lot of non-tank stuff and sending them on non-tank missions and deployments a LOT.
No combat commander is ever going to reduce their MTOE for a non-combat-proven autoloader.
There’s no reason why a fourth crew member couldn’t still ride with the unit, in fact I believe France do exactly that with their armor companies - have a fourth man per tank riding in armored cars and acting as recon as a benefit.
There’s a great video by Lieutenant Colonel Nicholas Moran (known as ‘The Chieftain’ on RUclips) called “Wither the Autoloader”, I’d recommend giving it a watch
*T-64A*
entered service: 1963
main gun: 125mm
protection: up to 105mm
weight: 38t
*M10 Booker*
entered service: 2023
main gun: 105mm
protection: up to 30mm
weight: 38t
Wow! 60 years of material science! Wonderful!
If you really think the t 64a is comparable because it weights the same as the m10 ur crazy
@@somezsaltz6835 It is not even comparable. It has vastly superior protection and much more powerful gun despite being slightly lighter and 60 years older. The early 115mm variant only weighed 35 tons.
@@JAnx01 that’s some 12 year old logic
@@somezsaltz6835 Logic? Oh please! Those are just the facts and figures laid out on the table. A logical conclusion is left up for interpretation. If you feel the need to insult someone delivering these facts and figures with your childish remarks, maybe you're the one who needs to rethink his thought processes.
@@JAnx01 facts? My guy you just laid out Wikipedia figures… you just pointed out the difference in gun caliber and weight like that’s what determines what makes a tank good, it’s a whole lot more nuanced than that and if you can’t see that then thank fuck you aren’t in charge of weapon procurement for the army
Battle tested? No. Just ask Russia to put it through the leopard test.
У нас большой список,, проверенной "западной техники) все очень хотят проверить f 35 на сколько он,, невидимый'))))
ITS NOT A LIGHT TANK ITS AN ASSAULT GUN UHHHH its like Stug or ISU-122
Assault guns aren’t armored to withstand RPGs and 30mm sabot, they’re not crewed by 19k MOS or organised into tank companies, and they’re not designed for mid-intensity threat environments or expeditionary missions, this thing is.
I respect the army not wanting to label this a “light tank”, but I think calling it an assault gun is far LESS accurate
It's an attempt to match the Russian SPRUT 25 which is built on the smallest Airborne capable chassis the BMD, which is stretched with one extra road wheel and having a a very small turret that holds the same main gun, targeting system and defensive sensors as the T-90M. It comes in at 27 tons fully loaded.
Pretty sure this 50 ton light tank started as a good idea but the primary purpose of the American Defense industry is to steal as much money as possible from the Taxpayers, not to provide our Forces with equipment capable of winning in battle.
Oh please, M10 can stand up to 30mm sabot and RPG rounds as a MINIMUM, while Sprut-SD can be effectively taken out by a .50cal! 😂
Not sure where you pulled 50 tons from
The M10 sounds promising. Excellent video as always!
Here's an idea. Send it to Ukraine for some real world testing.😂😂😂
They will be swiching armament to the Xm-360 at some point during the Bookers production...
Finally, G.E.V. armored lineups are being realized. Now we just need to see the G.E.V. itself. Oh, and an OGRE. Always loved the Lt Tanks at a 2 for 1 AP spend.
Considering theM10 is going to be operationally comparable to the infantry support role played by the M4 Sherman, calling it a medium tank instead of MBT or light tank might make more sense.
Keep in mind the M3/M5 Stuart and M24 Chaffee ALSO played a significant infantry support role. In fact I’d compare this more to Chaffee than Sherman.
The important thing to note is that tank classifications depend more on who is using the thing and the role it is being used for, than specific characteristics of the vehicle. Ergo: in German service, the M41 Walker Bulldog (a US built light tank) was actually designated as a tank destroyer, because it went to the TD units. In this case, since the M10 Booker is going to the airborne divisions, it’s more appropriate to call it a light tank than a medium tank.
So airborne troops reasoning for needing a new medium threat attack platform is the presence of high threat enemy air defense negating the use of direct air support. How did airborne troops fly in and drop in the first place if these systems are present?
I served..a tank supporting you in a Infantry mission is a beautiful thing❤
Good video, good assessment all around.
It's not a light tank. It's not made for reconnaissance or fast attacks or maneuver warfare. It's made for providing fire support to infantry. It's an assault gun.
It’s pretty bloody overweight for an assault gun then!
That’s the thing - infantry support of a LIGHT unit such as an airborne/air assault division, and rapid deployability to aid a quick response force… those are ALSO primary roles of the light tank class (think M3 Stuart’s in the Pacific theatre). Meanwhile an assault gun is not meant for mid-intensity warfare where enemy armored vehicles, artillery and anti-tank systems are expected to be present. Hence, they aren’t armored. Armed reconnaissance will likely be one of the M10’s roles, along with more pressingly; COUNTER-reconnaissance. As for manoeuvre warfare… the entire airborne UNIT is meant for that!
If this were just meant as an assault gun it could be half the weight, a third the complexity and a quarter the cost…
On the other hand let’s look at its primary comparators - the Sabrah, most definitely a light tank, with a 105mm gun turret built on the ASCOD chassis (sound familiar?) and the ZTQ-15, another light tank…
It’s also worth noting that while the army don’t officially call this a light tank for various reasons (they’ve not called it an assault gun either keep in mind)… General Dynamics DO call it a light tank. I’ve also heard plenty more army personnel refer to M10 as a light tank than an assault gun.
I've missed hearing your wonderful voice
I spent 20 years in Armor/Armor Cav units to include being an H Series Cav Platoon Sergeant with M60A3's, M113's & M901 ITV's...
At 30-42 tons, the M10 is closer to a Leo 1A5 MBT at 42.5! Better to save the money & upgrade the Leo Design with the M10 Turret!
FYI: Your "so called" M3 Stuart at 18:34 was an M2 Light Tank! Look at the Boogie Spacing & the "off the Ground" Compensating Idler Wheel!
It would be more expensive to resurrect an obsolete MBT design that we've never used or produced, that isn't even made anymore, just to then redesign the thing to upgrade it, rather than just using and upgrading the thing we've just made and adopted.
The A10 Worthog, Does an excellent job, when used in the right roll. And definitely needs to be kept as part of the US inventory. It definitely has saved Many Many Lives.
The problem is that it is no longer able to do so without putting MORE friendlies at risk, at least not nearly as well as an F-15E or F-35.
It's past due time to retire the Warthog. Let's not insist on keeping it around so long that it starts getting shot down left and right and ruins its legacy. Ol' hog deserves better than that.
There's no question it will be designed and built as corrupt as possible. They'll categorize it as a "mobile coffin" and charge soldiers' families for it.
Filipino here. The M10 Booker is related to our new Sabrah light tank, having its roots with the ASCOD tracked armored vehicle (the Spanish Pizarro and the Austrian Ulan).
Auto loader removes 25% of crew maintenance personal while adding one more complex system for the remaining crew to maintain. It also means one less set of eyes and ears for security while halted for sleep.
There's always trade offs
That’s a fair point but not entirely true. Keep in mind the smallest tank unit anywhere will always be four tanks. Nobody goes anywhere with less than four tanks. That’s twelve personnel for watch and for maintenance if you go with an autoloader, not four or three.
Even then, this has never been an issue for nations operating autoloading tanks
@@ArmorCast crew level maintenance is performed by crew members. Yes, crews do assist each other whenever they can.
But 16 men makes a lighter work load than 12
Granted, current AFVs have on board diagnostice and are more modular which does ease the amount of brute force maintenance we were required to perform in the 80s.
In practice, each tank crew pops a man up in the TC hatch for security .
With a 4 man crew, that means 3 hours of sleep
A 3 man crew means 2 hours of sleep.
Has the use of thermal sensors superceded the older practice?
It's official name will be "Not-a-light tank, Booker" or M10 NALT Booker.