M10 Booker

What's the use case? If I understand correctly, it's not a light tank, so it's not a direct replacement for the M551 Sheridan, which was retired almost 30 years ago. It has the same combat range and max speed as the M1 Abrams, so it's not more maneuverable, as most people would have expected. And it's only slightly more armored than the M2 Bradley, so it's not some next gen tracked APC either. So what the frick is it and who the frick needs it?
Also, it looks ugly, kinda like those weird Soviet/early Russian designs from the 1980s and 1990s, most of which never materialized.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Asks a question then answers it at the end of the post dot png file emojicon

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's a modern day Jagpanzer that jagers panzers, while offering a lower profile than an MBT.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >It's a modern day Jagpanzer that jagers panzers
      So it's a tank destroyer then? That's moronic. It would make some sense as a light tank (though I don't understand why anyone would bother making light tanks in the >current year, it's not the 1918-1939 interbellum anymore), but they specifically state that it's not a tank at all.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        He's incorrect. It's a modern-day Stug, not a Jag. It's intended to perform Stug roles, and any combat against enemy armor will only be in the direst of needs, because it doesn't have the armor to resist tank shells.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No they're closer to a StuH, an assault gun if you want WW2 comparisons.

        Unfortunately the booker weighs 40 tonnes so it fell in the river. Why didn’t they make something like the 2s25? That thing is only 20. A mobile card board box with a 120mm gun

        >Gets torn to shreds by DSHK
        >Gets torn to shreds by fricking 7.62 coax fire because BMDs aren't resistant to MG caliber fire
        >VEE DEE VEE

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/x21Kh7d.jpeg

        What's the use case? If I understand correctly, it's not a light tank, so it's not a direct replacement for the M551 Sheridan, which was retired almost 30 years ago. It has the same combat range and max speed as the M1 Abrams, so it's not more maneuverable, as most people would have expected. And it's only slightly more armored than the M2 Bradley, so it's not some next gen tracked APC either. So what the frick is it and who the frick needs it?
        Also, it looks ugly, kinda like those weird Soviet/early Russian designs from the 1980s and 1990s, most of which never materialized.

        Well, /k/ shits on T-54 and T-62 all the time, but let me quote Ukrainians on this:
        >A tank is still a fricking tank.
        A set of machine guns, high caliber HE, and armor that can withstand small arms fire are no joke. Especially if you are an average rifleman with a handful of greandes.
        MBTs are being used to support assaulting skirmishers by both sides. Tank to tank is quite rare, just like WW2.
        And booker is a cheaper solution to that, because it provides the same firepower at cheaper cost and lower profile.
        We are returning to the AMX-30 and Leopard I line of thinking where people don't give a jackshit as long as the armor stops small arms fire because cost to protection ratio is becoming garbage again.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I have been unable to find any mention of the m35 gun having HE shells available, for antipersonnel i see canister/flechette/HEATand optional willy pete but no HE, if i am wrong you are welcolme to correct me

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >m35
            I know the M256 is having a multi purpose proxy fused HE shell developed for it (M1147)
            does M393 squash head HE round for the M60 still exist? by which I mean, have they made new ones because the old ones are out of date

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's not smaller than an Abrams, it's actually bigger. It's 2 feet/60cm taller than an Abrams, which is the dimension that really counts. It's using a modified IFV hull where the driver is sitting up, whereas in the Abrams the reclined driver position allows the hull to be a lot lower. The turret is identical in height to an Abrams.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Its fire support for IBCTs. They currently only have MRAPs, LSVs and still in some cases Humvees. The heaviest weapons they have are javelins, 40mm grenades and .50s. In principle you could put an autocannon on a JLTV, but I don't think those are in use. The Booker gives the IBCT much needed anti-fortification punch.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not a fatass with a turbine
    It's going to be like how ukr uses the bradley, calling it in to frick shit up

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >It's going to be like how ukr uses the bradley, calling it in to frick shit up
      There will only be ~500 Bookers produced, though, which is 12 times less than the Bradleys the US Army currently has.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The point is basically to have armored firepower on tap for light infantry divisions to blow shit up that isn't MBTs. Light vehicles, bunkers, buildings etc. As for why they picked something this large and heavy compared to its protection and armament, they wanted something in service as soon as humanly possible so there wasn't a lot of extra design time, it was basically an ASCOD they modified good enough to fit the requirements. The turret was basically a shrunken version of the M1A2 turret too, which was also created by GDLS.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I suspect the fragility of the autoloader on the Striker MGS probably also made them paranoid about anything too lightly built.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You need a tank, but the bridge only supports 30 tons of weight.
    What's weird to me is that the Booker is a dead-ringer for an Americanized Leopard 1, but made after the heavier-armored 120mm-totting Abrams.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Unfortunately the booker weighs 40 tonnes so it fell in the river. Why didn’t they make something like the 2s25? That thing is only 20. A mobile card board box with a 120mm gun

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Unfortunately the booker weighs 40 tonnes so it fell in the river. Why didn’t they make something like the 2s25? That thing is only 20. A mobile card board box with a 120mm gun

      The weight limit they were aiming for was "2 per C-17". Anything below that didn't really make it significantly better.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        If it were a sensible weight like 25 tons they could put 3 per C-17

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Space and vehicle capability would be the issue there.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not if it were a casemate design like it ought to be.
            The turret is useless and has always been.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          No, stop posting.

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >What's the use case?
    it's a tank you moron

    everyone is overcomplicating this thing. some times you need a tank, and the M10 Booker is one. end of message

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >some times you need a tank
      Just use Abrams then, why design and build a new thing?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The Abrams is 50 years old bro that’s cringe

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        cause they wanted a lightweight diesel with modern design elements

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Too fat to cross some bridges, shaving all those tons off means you can haul a cannon and something that's immune to HMG fire and resistant to autocannon fire across one.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Abrams is fat and fuel-hungry. Gallons-per-mile isn't very feasible for the units the Booker is being attached to who need something capable of operating on patrol and following them through air transport.
        Booker offers a package that can operate with the infantry organically and give them the firepower to hold the line while the big boi main battle tanks of the line position into the Line of Battle.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I'm just going to say it, the Abrahms is SHIT for modern warfare. It's utterly useless for anything other than territorial defense or massed tank battles in the open desert, neither of which is a likely scenario. For basically anything else, it's too expensive, too big, too heavy, and too vulnerable to drones. It would be next to useless against China and just mediocre against Russia, as we're seeing now. It's simply a waste of resources.

        We had it right the first time with the M4 Sherman. Big but not too big, decently armed and armored but not wasteful of resources to build, mass producible, easy to transport, reliable, versatile, and above all else, attritable. People will say I'm being a Pierre Sprey but look at the tank graveyard known as Ukraine and tell me I'm wrong.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >For basically anything else, it's too expensive, too big, too heavy, and too vulnerable to drones. It would be next to useless against China and just mediocre against Russia, as we're seeing now. It's simply a waste of resources.
          >People will say I'm being a Pierre Sprey but look at the tank graveyard known as Ukraine and tell me I'm wrong.
          Maybe it's just that in the era of mass-produced FPV drones and GPS/GLONASS-guided projectiles all tanks are becoming obsolete, no? No matter how cheap or expensive, no matter how armored and fast tanks are, drones and shells are still cheaper and more effective, you can spend 5 or even 10 tiny drones to kill or at least damage a tank and it will still be cheaper than the tank itself and the potential damage it could do to your troops.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Drones are operated from office buildings. Artillery is very good at blowing up office buildings. Tanks, at one point, were meant to counter artillery through their superior mobility allowing them to close in and snap them apart with a single precision anti-materiel munition.
            The issue is that modern tanks are no longer capable of closing in with and exploiting the limitations of current artillery platforms.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You morons are making a mistake, you look at Ukraine and you see tanks getting owned by drones, but the tanks you see where designed over 50 fricking years ago wheras the drones are brand new. You CANNOT make a value judgement on how good tanks are in the drone era until we actually see drone era tanks fight in a war. Wake me up when tanks in ukraine have:
            >modern APS with anti-drone in mind
            >armour schemes with drone defence in mind
            >big fricking drone jammers
            >operating in tandem with dedicated anti-drone vehicles

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              The problem isnt the age of tanks in Ukraine, its the supply. Both sides are fricking desperate for more armor and will do whatever it takes to get more tanks. If tanks were dead, both combatants wouldn't be so obsessed with getting more.

              People have been shouting about the death of tanks since before the end of WWI. Theres always some new weapon that targets tank. The concept continuing on baffles these idiots because they keep asking "What can I do to the tank?" and not "What can the tabk do to me." A heavily armored, extremely mobile conbat vehicle with a large, high velocity gun still has a massive role on the battlefield.

              Replace the 105 with a Bushmaster. No, two Bushmasters.

              That would get rid of the entire point of the vehicle. The whole concept is to bring a big gun that throws HE and HESH at things.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >you CANNOT make a value judgement on how good tanks are in the drone era until we actually see drone era tanks fight in a war.
              Problem is Boomer tank is 70 years old boomer design not a drone era tank.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >GLONASS
            AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
            That constellation is so shit that Russian pilots bolt hiking grade GPS units to their planes. Picrel is an SU-34 that isnt even able to use the Russian constellation to get to thw general area of the target. Way to out yourself as a frickwit vatnik

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >We had it right the first time with the M4 Sherman.

          UwU i wonder if there will be wackadoodle field modifications for the bookers too

          Imagine welding an another booker on it and making the modern day jumbo, like, you have to spend an entire factories worth of rpgs to get through that sandwich of era, nera, steel and composite

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Replace the 105 with a Bushmaster. No, two Bushmasters.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Because the Abrams weighs 71 tons

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Are people simply unable to understand what an assault gun is?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes. Much like they can't comprehend that WW2 American tank destroyers were just self propelled AT guns to be used like AT guns.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Yes. Much like they can't comprehend that WW2 American tank destroyers were just self propelled AT guns to be used like AT guns.

        WW2 american tank destroyers were used to lead assaults, with predictable results.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Its pronounced assault rifle.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      We understand the difference. However, just because you build a light tank and call it an assault gun doesn't change what it is under the hood. Humvees were intended to be unarmored transports with machine guns for self-defense. They ended up being on the frontlines, and used on the offensive more often than not.

      If it's not a total piece of shit like Styrker MGS was, it will end up being used heavily as a light tank because it is capable of filling that role.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      With how moronicly uninformed current day /k/ can get sometimes I believe it

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Are people simply unable to understand what an assault gun is?

      This thing is too lightly armored to be considered an assault gun. It is a world war 2 american tank destroyer, reborn. These things were lost in huge amounts because they were pressed into tank roles where their armor was not enough.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >This thing is too lightly armored to be considered an assault gun
        it has the armor that was specified
        14.5mm and RPG-7 protection
        it has much heavier armor than anything else in an IBCT

        >It is a world war 2 american tank destroyer, reborn.
        TD battalions were held at the corp level and handed out into entire divisions one company at a time, though on rare occasions they would field the TD battalion as an independent unit
        the M10 is held at the divisional level and handed out to brigades

        TDs were intended to fight tanks specifically, M10s are simply meant to give infantry longer reach

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >simply meant to give infantry longer reach
          if this isn't bullshit you at least have to admit it's bullshit
          At that point they could've given it the AAVs armament, and if they want to compete with the east, keep men alive and "give infantry longer reach" add accurate indirect fire capability for the MK19. That is far more dense explosive assault/support capability. If you are saying it is not carrying much ammo for anti infantry then I guess it is focused on anti tank
          its basically another ontos but this one won't even see the Dominican before they're saying "bro medium to long range infantry support"

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Its armor is on par with lighter last-gen MBTs like the Leopard 1 and AMX-30. That's pretty solid compared to any IFV or SPG.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >If I understand correctly, it's not a light tank
    officially but it doesn't carry passengers and it does tank stuff so it might as well be one. It's supposed to give direct fire support to IBCTs, which is definitely nice to have.

    Also this thing weighs the same as a lightly-loaded Type 10 MBT and has similar dimensions while having inferior protection, firepower, and higher crew requirements. We should have unironically licensed production of the Type 10 instead (yes I know that there's no way this would have happened).
    That, or made an M8 with a new turret that had a bustle autoloader.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Chieftain did a video on M8. The turret might have been decent when it was first built, but once they added all of the modern electronics, displays, controls, etc., it became massively cramped on the inside. As much as I liked the M8 back in the day, that day has probably just passed.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      T-64 is in the same boat, though it was probably too cramped for consideration to begin with.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    no one will think it's a wonder waffle
    which means it underrated and underappreciated and therefore good
    that's just how it works

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's a lighter, stripped down, cheaper Abrahms. Far easier to transport, smaller logistical footprint, ergonomically similar to ease training, able to still perform the direct fire support role, while being cheaper and more disposable.

    In case you haven't noticed, traditional MBTs have been exposed as being overbuilt, inefficient, and wasteful prestige weapons that have a cost which far exceeds their combat value. It really isn't worth it to expend such resources on something that can be easily droned, and if you are going to, you may as well make it air mobile and not a gas guzzler. But since you clearly started this thread in bad faith to bash the concept before it's even been implemented rather than actually seeking an answer to your question, I doubt I'll convince you otherwise.

    The key takeaway is that while MBTs are not totally obsolete like some people say, they are vastly overrated on the modern battlefield. The Booker is an attempt to create an MBT with the form factor, mobility, and economics of an IFV. And since you seemed to be under the rather childish impression that mobility=combat range and top speed, let me just say that generally tanks are not driven directly from their bases straight to the front lines. Having a third less weight means a great deal in terms of shipping the machine to conflict zones, and vastly increases its usefulness vs the Abrahms in the same scenario. It also means that it can use bridges that the Abrahms can't and won't sink into the mud or sand like the Abrahms will.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The Booker is an attempt to create an MBT
      The Booker is explicitly not an MBT, it's much closer in doctrine to the Infantry Tank concept the Brits were fond of using during WWII.
      The Abrams is the "main" battle tank meant to perform breakthroughs from which lighter units can exploit. In theory, it's supposed to be grinding a bloody path on its way to blast the enemy's artillery, though in practice it's been shown wanting in this role.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The Booker is explicitly not an MBT, it's much closer in doctrine to the Infantry Tank concept the Brits were fond of using during WWII.
        Brits infantry tank doctrine called for very heavily armored infantry tank. In practical implementation Matilda tank was all around armored against standard AT guns of her era.
        Against what AT weapons Boomer tank is armored? From all sides?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Its not meant to compared to an armored tank. It's better armored than an ifv and that's about it

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Its not meant to compared to an armored tank.
            than it cant "British armored doctrine infantry tank". This doctrine called fro Infantry Tanks to roll ahead infantry as armored shield/bait and tank hits. On modern battlefield even Abraham tank cant tank hits, boomer tank is just out of the game.

            >It's better armored than an ifv and that's about it
            lol no.

            40mm autocannon from the front, RPG-7 from all sides and rear. A step up from the Bradley.

            *citation needed*

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          40mm autocannon from the front, RPG-7 from all sides and rear. A step up from the Bradley.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >muh drones
      >implying virtually every vehicle wont be equipped with a laser APS and EW capabilities
      I honestly wouldn't be surprised if missiles in the future become useless due to too powerful protection systems like lasers, forcing militaries to rely more on cannons and direct fire weapons.

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    > it looks ugly
    not true, it looks good

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >be infantry
    >see bad guys
    >call up M10
    >M10 fires cannon at bad guys
    >bad guys experience rapid entropy
    >move on to next objective

    It's a light tank despite the severe mental moronation of the US military. It is performing the exact job of a light tank.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >It is performing the exact job of a light tank.
      light tanks are for cavalry and recon, which is the M3 bradleys job
      M10 is an attached direct fire support vehicle for infantry, which is closer to the M8 scott

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I'm not going off moronic US army terminology but off of what every single country has referred to this type of vehicle as. It's a tank with less armor, therefore it is a light tank.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Tanks are breakthrough vehicles, this is not a breakthrough vehicle. Its an MGS for units that never had an MGS before.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Tanks are cannons on tracks.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >I'm not going off moronic US army terminology
          >in a discussion about a US vehicle

          > but off of what every single country has referred to this type of vehicle as
          british called these infantry tanks in WW2

          >It's a tank with less armor, therefore it is a light tank.
          this is a purely semantic argument, because tank weight trends upwards over time, which is largely why the US has not called anything a light tank since the M41 walker bulldog
          the british have also acknowledged the uselessness of light as a designation, and the scorpion tank is officially labelled a combat reconaissance vehicle
          however, historically, vehicles called light tanks were used for reconaissance and cavalry action when they did exist

          so we cannot even cannot even call the M10 a light tank because nothing in the US, or even and even british, arsenal is a light tank
          even if the M10 existed in the time period when light tanks existed, it would have been classed a gun motor carriage rather than a light tank and used in assault gun platoons rather than light tank platoons

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's an SPG

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    For island hoping in the Pacific and fighting against chink ZTQ-15 light tanks

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >pacific war meme
      It will never happen and is just pure MIC propaganda to sell more missiles.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      these look a lot cooler tho and we all know that cool shit is better

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >What's the use case?
    war with China

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >What's the use case
    increased firepower for IBCTs

    > So what the frick is it and who the frick needs it?
    a big gun for IBCTs

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    As cool as Bradley is, it's a bit of a weird design. IFVs are basically always a balance between being a mobile gun and a troop carrier.
    Bradley is a very good mobile gun, but whilst it's operating in that capacity, the space within the vehicle is essentially "wasted" as it's not carrying troops.
    So, why not remove the ability to carry troops and give it a bigger gun?
    And if you do that, you the up with a vehicle like Booker.

  20. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >use case?
    >terms terms terminology terms
    should ask the designers why they made it the shape it is

  21. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  22. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The M10 Booker was funded and designed before everyone realized how easily large armored vehicles are destroyed by a $500 drone.
    It is a good example of a weapon system that is designed by people that are thinking about the last war. If you are fighting tribesmen armed with AK-47's and RPG's it may seem like a good idea. If you are fighting an enemy that has a lot of artillery and forward observers with drones loitering 25 kilometers behind the FEBA a large tracked vehicle with unimpressive armor is not a great idea.
    The M10 Bookers machine guns can only be used when the vehicle commander is on it with the hatch open. Drone threats, snipers , artillery , even enemy infantry in the area will force the crew to button up. When buttoned up the crew has no ability to fire the machine gun and the Booker only carries 32 main gun rounds. Once it fires 32 rounds it has to go back to resupply.
    It would be completely useless in Ukraine today.
    Add in the fact that the US Army's recruiting shortfall is so bad they do not know where they will get the bodies to put in the M10 Booker.
    US Army recruiting has gotten a lot of press but no one is talking about the fact that retention of current soldiers is missing targets worse than the recruiting crisis that is failing to bring in new soldiers.
    The US Army is 25% short of recruiting goals and retention of current soldiers is even worse. The US Army literally does not have the bodies to add this weapon system to the units it is being pushed to. The M10 Booker is supposed to be added to the TE and the personnel added to the respective units Table of Organization.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      To be fair, the next war the US gets involved in will almost certainly be against tribesmen armed with AKs.
      It's a bit like how The British built a bunch of cheap low-tech ships for the purpose of bullying the natives in the colonies, they weren't intended to be deployed against another European nation, but they were sufficient to remind shit-tier countries who runs the world without costing more than is really needed.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      All those criticisms hold true of the Leopard 1 and T-64 however, which are used in Ukraine to support infantry the way the Booker is projected to, to enough success they hadn't been pulled out like the Abrams has.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That's because they were employed in enough numbers to support the logistical footprint they poses. There were 30 abrams given to Ukraine lol, when the US could literally spare 1000 of them.

        Direct fire big guns are as dead as a doornail, and have been since SACLOS and its descendants got good in the early 70s. Dunked on during the Easter Offensive, dunked on in Bekka, Dunked on in Lebanon. It just took 50 years and peer war in Europe for people to finally stop clinging to the knight mythos.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The M10 Booker was funded and designed before everyone realized how easily large armored vehicles are destroyed by a $500 drone.

      How this isn't an apocaliptic cause for concern is beyond me. You'd think after 2 (TWO) fricking years of footage of tanks (TANKS) getting humiliated by fricking alibaba civ drones with 'nades attached, the West would fricking be frantically running around like coced up chickens desperately trying to work on a scalable anti-drone solution. Lancets are the bane of Ukies and FPV drones are a nightmare for Vatniks. The West is still laughing and gloating, stuck in the fricking 90s.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The West is still laughing and gloating, stuck in the fricking 90s.
        America has been testing bolt-on anti drone lasers since 2016 and has two units actively swatting Houthi drones with a derivative right now.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The M10 Booker was funded and designed before everyone realized how easily large armored vehicles are destroyed by a $500 drone.
        It is a good example of a weapon system that is designed by people that are thinking about the last war. If you are fighting tribesmen armed with AK-47's and RPG's it may seem like a good idea. If you are fighting an enemy that has a lot of artillery and forward observers with drones loitering 25 kilometers behind the FEBA a large tracked vehicle with unimpressive armor is not a great idea.
        The M10 Bookers machine guns can only be used when the vehicle commander is on it with the hatch open. Drone threats, snipers , artillery , even enemy infantry in the area will force the crew to button up. When buttoned up the crew has no ability to fire the machine gun and the Booker only carries 32 main gun rounds. Once it fires 32 rounds it has to go back to resupply.
        It would be completely useless in Ukraine today.
        Add in the fact that the US Army's recruiting shortfall is so bad they do not know where they will get the bodies to put in the M10 Booker.
        US Army recruiting has gotten a lot of press but no one is talking about the fact that retention of current soldiers is missing targets worse than the recruiting crisis that is failing to bring in new soldiers.
        The US Army is 25% short of recruiting goals and retention of current soldiers is even worse. The US Army literally does not have the bodies to add this weapon system to the units it is being pushed to. The M10 Booker is supposed to be added to the TE and the personnel added to the respective units Table of Organization.

        All the last two years has shown is what happens when neither side has air superiorty and a basically static front line. Remove both of those my war tourist friends and your DJI drones stop being a concern.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The M10 Booker was funded and designed before everyone realized how easily large armored vehicles are destroyed by a $500 drone.
      it was designed to give infantry a heavy weapon option that is machine gun proofed

      >It is a good example of a weapon system that is designed by people that are thinking about the last war
      it was designed because infantry would only get carl gustafs otherwise

      >The M10 Bookers machine guns can only be used when the vehicle commander is on it with the hatch open.
      it literally has both a co-ax and a RWS, so the commander can fire all its weapons entirely under armor

      > Once it fires 32 rounds it has to go back to resupply
      they havent yet said how many rounds it carries
      but 32 rounds is pretty par for the course for a vehicle this size, assuming it didnt get 40 rounds like the abrams

      >It would be completely useless in Ukraine today.
      it would be do exactly what it was intended to do in ukraine, give infantry longer reach

      >The M10 Booker is supposed to be added to the TE and the personnel added to the respective units Table of Organization.
      its added at the divisional level, to reinforce their 5 active duty divisions
      they can definitely raise an additional 5 battalions of M10s on top of 5 divisions

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >it was designed to give infantry a heavy weapon option that is machine gun proofed
        And it costs over $10 million a piece with 500 produced and weighs as much as a chink MBT.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >with 500 produced
          this is the exact amount ordered because they plan to equip 5 battalions

          >and weighs as much as a chink MBT.
          when you consider the design requirements of having actual elbow room and enough rounds for prolonged combat, then you really could not get the weight down much more

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >chink MBT
          The last chink MBT that is under 40 tonne was the old type 80/85

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >It is a good example of a weapon system that is designed by people that are thinking about the last war.

      More specifically, the last war being the colonial policing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Booker would be ideal for that role.

  23. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Has a recovery vehicle been named yet?

  24. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's another obsolete drone target but at least it costs you less when it inevitable gets blown up by a $100 chink drone compared to an Abrams.

  25. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    M3 is a light tank, a cavalry fighting vehicle speficially, but the M2 is an IFV

  26. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    but it makes the difference since the M3 is solely used for scouting as it has scouts instead of riflemen and the extra missiles for defeating enemy scouts
    whereas the M2 is strictly used in mech infantry platoons

  27. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Look people can say its XYZ but its going to be used as an infantry tank. A unit engaging a theoretical Baghdad neighborhood that has a few BMP1s and t55s? Well, thats going to be the playground for the Booker. Popping old legacy armor and IFVs on top of pillboxes. They can insist its not a tank up and down to deter people from using the m10 to square off against a T90M, but I have no doubt it can dunk on a t55 or t62 or old plain t72s.

    Its tracked, it has a cannon, its air transportable, its a modern light infantry tank as far as the unit attached is concerned. No matter what assault gun designation you give it people are going to go "right, its the light tank"

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >its a modern light infantry tank as far as the unit attached is concerned.
      no IBCT is going to see the M10 and think it should ever be used for scouting

      >No matter what assault gun designation you give it people are going to go "right, its the light tank"
      people will see the M10 and it doesnt matter what they say, the M10 company commander will say "we are going to be used solely for infantry support and thats that", and only the divisional commander will overrule them
      and div HQ will be using them solely as assault guns because they would be informed of their specific mission set ahead of time

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Americans have never felt strongly attached to strict designations. If the unit may encounter light armor, or anything else that looks like it would benefit from 105mm to the face, theyll whip out the light tank. Its not a light tank because of ww2 definition, its because its got a smaller gun and less armor than the big tank.

  28. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >What's the use case
    Riot control in modern US urban environment.

  29. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The ABCT is the heaviest BCT and has the most combined arms capability that achieves overmatch against enemy conventional threats. The ABCT is the formation which contains the most firepower and protection and is the most appropriate formation to fight and/or deter the aggression of states possessing heavy vehicles and tanks. By 2020, the Army intends to retain ten Regular Army ABCTs. Each ABCT has three Combined Arms Battalions with a mixture of tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles. Each ABCT will also contain an Armored Cavalry Squadron which will include one tank company, additional engineers, and a fires capability. The lethal capabilities of the ABCT includes eighty-seven M1A2 tanks, over 130 Bradley fighting vehicles, as well as eighteen M109A6 155mm self-propelled Howitzers.63 If a major combat operation occurs against conventional forces, such as Russia, then the Army should deploy ABCTs. Currently, the US European Command is relying on 2d Cavalry Regiment, an SBCT and rotational ABCTs to deter Russian aggression in Europe. A press release from US European Command has stated that it will begin a continuous rotational presence of an ABCT in the European theater to reassure US NATO allies in response to Russia’s actions in the Ukraine. The European Reassurance Initiative helps provide flexibility and responsiveness to commanders in the European theater by adding additional combat power to the region.65 The additional combat power of an ABCT in Europe on a rotational basis is an indication that the United States feels the 2d Cavalry Regiment is not enough to deter and/or defeat Russian aggression alone. The SBCT has demonstrated that it is useful and necessary for its ability to move long distances quickly throughout the region by conducting multi-national exercises.

  30. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The most moronic thing about it has a 4 man crew instead of 3.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What's moronic about that?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Because it's supposed to be less of a burden on logistics than Abrams. Having the same crew size defeats a major one one of those points. I'm sure a properly designed light tank could even get away with a 2 man crew. A smaller crew size would also allow it to be smaller with a lower profile. The Booker is already tipping the scales more than originally planned and there's already thousands of Abrams in storage

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Because it's supposed to be less of a burden on logistics than Abrams
          it has smaller dimensions and weights 40 less tons

          > I'm sure a properly designed light tank could even get away with a 2 man crew.
          they wanted a 4-man crew

          >The Booker is already tipping the scales more than originally planned and there's already thousands of Abrams in storage
          the booker increased in weight because airdroppability was dropped as a requirement

          >So this time around there is a lot of time and effort being spent drilling down on the fact that its NOT A MAIN BATTLE TANK.
          And it won't work.

          [...]
          >it will be used as intended
          Lmao

          >intended to act as infantry support vehicles
          >deployed as infantry support vehicles

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the booker increased in weight because airdroppability was dropped as a requirement
            Seems to be a great ability given it was made to backup paratroopers as well, strange to drop the requirement. Any word on composite or reactive armor for the booker?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >intended to act as infantry support vehicles
            >deployed as infantry support vehicles

            We'll see what happens when it actually sees combat. It's a light tank, and it will be used as such.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >We'll see what happens when it actually sees combat.
              deployed in individual companies to support brigades

              >It's a light tank, and it will be used as such.It's a light tank, and it will be used as such
              light tanks went into dedicated light tank platoons separate from assault gun platoons and were used for recon and cavalry
              the M10 is not in any recon unit, light tank platoon, or cav troop and has a mission set unlike any previous light tank

              it isnt called a light tank, it isnt in a light tank unit, it is not a light tank formation, and will almost certainly not be used as a light tank

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >I'm sure a properly designed light tank could even get away with a 2 man crew
          lmao

  31. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's a light tank. It's supposed to be given to light infantry units that don't have organic armor like Airborne Divisions and 10th Mountain.

    The Army is just moronic and doesn't wanna call a duck a duck because they think it will stop commanders from using at a breakthrough vehicle. If we used Humvees as breakthrough vehicles, I can guarantee that this thing will be as well not matter what DARPA envisioned.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Not quite. Its a replacement for the Stryker MGS. And actually, US experience with light tanks is quite bad. In the past they have found that moron boots and commanders try to use light tanks as mbt's and that results in negative outcomes. So this time around there is a lot of time and effort being spent drilling down on the fact that its NOT A MAIN BATTLE TANK.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Its a replacement for the Stryker MGS
        stryker MGS has no direct replacement
        SBCTs simply re-organized their brigades to have 2 dragoons per company and deleted the MGS platoon entirely
        infantry divisions are getting a replacement for the WW2 assault gun platoon, the M10 hasnt had any direct predecessor

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >So this time around there is a lot of time and effort being spent drilling down on the fact that its NOT A MAIN BATTLE TANK.
        And it won't work.

        >It's a light tank.
        no it isnt

        >The Army is just moronic and doesn't wanna call a duck a duck because they think it will stop commanders from using at a breakthrough vehicle.
        its literally too dispersed to be a breakthrough vehicle
        an entire battalion per division
        this prevents it from being used in any context other than infantry support

        >, I can guarantee that this thing will be as well not matter what DARPA envisioned.
        it will be used as intended
        a company or two at most per brigade when they need extra firepower

        >it will be used as intended
        Lmao

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Its a replacement for the Stryker MGS.
        Infantry brigades never had Strykers. Stryker brigades aren't getting the MPF.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >So this time around there is a lot of time and effort being spent drilling down on the fact that its NOT A MAIN BATTLE TANK.

        It would have been better to equip it with a 57 mm or 76 mm gun and AT missiles instead of giving it a tank gun.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >It's a light tank.
      no it isnt

      >The Army is just moronic and doesn't wanna call a duck a duck because they think it will stop commanders from using at a breakthrough vehicle.
      its literally too dispersed to be a breakthrough vehicle
      an entire battalion per division
      this prevents it from being used in any context other than infantry support

      >, I can guarantee that this thing will be as well not matter what DARPA envisioned.
      it will be used as intended
      a company or two at most per brigade when they need extra firepower

  32. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It’s a light tank.
    The perfume scented officers at the Pentagon will call it something else; probably something stupid, but it’s a 40 ton light tank.
    I’m okay with that, there are uses for it, even if those uses differ from the OG light tanks.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Also adding to the fact that it's a light tank is that it will be crewed by 19K soldiers and not 11M or some other shit.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Also adding to the fact that it's a light tank is that it will be crewed by 19K soldiers and not 11M or some other shit.

        moron

  33. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    literally a T-55

    BTW, you could tape a smart phone to the gun and be all "computer aimed" with some app, including BVR etc shelling based on Drone data.

  34. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hell yeah

  35. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Its mobile fire support for infantry divisions. Its purpose is to destroy fortifications and light armor. They created this because it's become more apparent that air supremacy is no longer guaranteed, and ground-attack aircraft can't be the only thing capable of destroying defenses that infantry rely on. Thus the M10. It's a 105mm gun on tracks for blowing up enemy hard points while being relatively inexpensive and light compared to an MBT.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >light compared to an MBT
      so it's a light tank, with the modern light tank job being to tackle fortified defenses and take light/medium armor or legacy soviet armor when the need arises for infantry, while leaving MBTs in their own category of breakthrough and MBT killing units

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It's not a light tank. In modern armies that's a doctrinal designation, not a category based on vehicle weight or capabilities. It's an assault gun, much like the StuH 42 or more accurately the M4A3 (105). The M4A3 (105) was not a "medium tank" despite being a Sherman. It was an assault gun, and it was used almost exclusively for attacking fortifications. Like the M10 Booker.

        It could theoretically perform light tank duties but the army already has ground and air vehicles for recon and skirmishing roles.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >They created this because it's become more apparent that air supremacy is no longer guaranteed, and ground-attack aircraft can't be the only thing capable of destroying defenses that infantry rely on
      In Ukraine we can see how western wundervaffen Leoperds and Abraham tanks are doing without air supremacy. Not great. Tin can tanks? Lol.

  36. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    kind of feels like they're looking to have something that hits as hard as a full tank, but lighter, and ideally more maneuverable. I wouldn't be surprised if they want something more like a light tank with the power of a tank destroyer for it, because it seems like drones and top-attack make MBT's a bit outdated unless your SHORAD is impenetrable.

  37. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Army was missing an airborne tank capability for a long time and the Booker was them just saying frick it just give us something that works. On the one hand tanks are completely obsolete now, this thing can’t be used in a peer war because when a infantryman can delete a tank from 4km away with a 50lbs ATGM the tank can’t actually be anywhere near the line of contact. On the other hand the Army isn’t actually going to fight a peer war so having an organic direct-fire armored support for IBCTs is beneficial. The US is probably out of the war business entirely now and for the foreseeable future unless something crazy happens which forces the country to re-configure,

  38. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Tanks make less sense in a theoretical situation where every weapon is a guided weapon
    Right but this goes both ways. If every weapon is a guided weapon then most of your delivery platforms are second only to C2 assets as target priorities.

    In the real world, guided weapons are critical mass weapons where their mass application in a short period makes conventional forces unstoppable. You don't win a war with smart bombs and M16s. You still need a full fledged conventional force. Just because wars are usually fought with only one side able to deploy PGMs yet they almost universally only deploy bits of PGM stockpiles isn't an indicator of peer war.

  39. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >In the semi-fictional near-future scenario where everyone has Western competence and guided weapons, your delivery platforms stop being tanks.
    No, dumbass, your delivery platforms are super expensive airplanes, SAM systems, ships of all shapes and sizes, etc. Those are your actual delivery platforms in a western military. That's the point you're missing. A western military actually doesn't rely on infantry armed with FPG drones for actual reasons. That's not a real military and it's not able to execute on any advantage it actually gains over the enemy. Russo-Ukraine is just an attritional war.

    Tanks are NOT expensive, invaluable assets in a real peer war. The things destroying them are.

  40. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >They were.
    No, they are.
    >That's why drones are revolutionary
    They are not, at least not the ones you're obsessing over. Your best example is Ukraine, which is basically WW1.1

  41. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    good enough is all they probably want for a swampy place. at least having a tank is better than not.

  42. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    This tank is being assigned to airborne units. They aren't going to be dropping into swamps. Furthermore, they can only take in tanks from secured airbases.

    It doesn't do any of those things. It's for terrain where tanks (and armored vehicles in general) excel. Your idea doesn't even make sense. Why send an armored vehicle to support infantry into a jungle? Do you have any idea what jungle warfare is like?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      WW2 Pacific and Vietnam both saw limited tank engagements and deployments, but they absolutely did happen and could provide an advantage to the infantry.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Airborne units are legborne units. They're light infantry. Swamps & mountains are their thing.

      https://i.imgur.com/CFV8Pad.jpeg

      Big Army wanted:
      >A tracked vehicle to keep up with infantry
      >Something to take out bunkers and other light fortifications
      >Can also take out light vehicles
      >Fairly cheap
      >Portable
      The 1950's has the solultion to your 2024 problems.

      >backblast
      Instantly disqualified.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Okay warriortard I’m sorry we doubted your precious booker

  43. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Has any other light tank ever caused this much seethe before?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      My only gripe is with homosexuals like you failing to understanding it is not a light tank.

  44. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Big Army wanted:
    >A tracked vehicle to keep up with infantry
    >Something to take out bunkers and other light fortifications
    >Can also take out light vehicles
    >Fairly cheap
    >Portable
    The 1950's has the solultion to your 2024 problems.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They also wanted it to have modern sensors, communications, fire control system, and a rate of fire above 'garbage'.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Only one of those that is not readily solvable with the Ontos is the rate of fire my autistic little friend.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          That sounds like a Booker, only without a fully traversing turret

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why was this retired and not upgraded when it had such a successful record?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Same reason the Air Force ditched the Super Tweet right after the Vietnam War ended and the same reason the Army today is trying to get rid of all its MRAPs it got during GWOT.

        Actually yeah why not make a modern one with like 8 TOWs

        Could work.

        Airborne units are legborne units. They're light infantry. Swamps & mountains are their thing.

        [...]
        >backblast
        Instantly disqualified.

        >Instantly disqualified.
        If you knew anything about armored vehicles you would know how little of an issue this is.
        Literally how the M10 is going to be used.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        While the Ontos was well liked by the troops, it still had its issues. No armor, limited ammo, and difficult and dangerous to reload.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Actually yeah why not make a modern one with like 8 TOWs

  45. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Figured you’d come back with this weak dismissal. You aren’t welcome here

  46. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >nooo it’s not me
    >you can’t just clean up the quality of the board by pointing out my posts

  47. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Anytime you see a booker thread you should hide and report it. It seems warriortard has adopted the m10 to shout dissenters into submission

  48. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How long until it gets some kind of hard kill APS?

  49. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Is this an actual warriortard thread or is he just mad someone made a thread about one of "his" topics and it isn't directly turning into a shitshow?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *