so....basically a T-55 for $13 million apiece, but with narrow tracks thus limited off-road.

so....basically a T-55 for $13 million apiece, but with narrow tracks thus limited off-road.

I just hope it doesn't have a decade or so of major mechanical issues like with Brad's A/T or something. https://www.gao.gov/products/nsiad-88-149fs 🙂

BTW, all the electronic aiming etc shit can be slapped on anything for the price of an iPhone. Seriously, just glue it to the barrel and you'd be able to Real Time get data from forward spotters or drones or WTF. They got apps to make your phone a "total station" construction gizmo https://allterracentral.com/nikon-n-5-total-station.html?gad_source=1 and my experts tell me they only display limited decimal accuracy because that is all anyone needs, but the phone can do about 4x what it shows. Similar to why M Benz is losing to cheap ass Korean firms. All the fancy electronics in a Benz is same shit as a Kia, for same price, but Benz wants Booker money and peeps are catching on.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it was designed to have M1 abrams ergonomics from the start, including elbow room, sensory equipment, and ammo storage
    between a T-55 and the M10, you would probably want the M10

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Or a Type 10.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I WANT to shit on a toilet made of solid gold.

      But main issue I see is narrow tracks VS T-55. Mostly I want my "mobile firepower" to be....wait for it....here it cums!.....

      mobile. 🙂

      That would include a very tried and tested entire drive train. When I turn the key and step on gas I want it to move, on any surface, no matter what.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >But main issue I see is narrow tracks VS T-55. Mostly I want my "mobile firepower" to be....wait for it....here it cums!.....
        >mobile. 🙂
        Why do you type like a gay homosexual?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I think its being designed with a Southeast Asian theater in mind. More confined urban spaces and narrow mountain roads than Eastern European swamps and wheat fields or deserts in the Mid-East

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Can’t these things just get BTFO like normal tanks but even worse? In Ukraine all those tanks are getting blown away by the shoulder fired shit, artillery and drones. Right?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      they are intended to be highly dispersed, and only committed in small penny packets to strengthen infantry brigades

      its still the most armored vehicle in an infantry brigade, which is unlikely to meet heavy concentrations of enemy armor to begin with
      and any weapons the enemy is bringing along to counter-tanks will be faced primarily by infantry supported by these tanks and not really have anything to use them on

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        So it's basically a T-55?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >an infantry brigade, which is unlikely to meet heavy concentrations of enemy armor

        Really? Why?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          if the enemy is rational, they will prioritize their best units against your best units to maximize their effect

          >only being procured in small numbers

          This is a good thing?

          they ordered 500 of them, enough to equip 5 battalions
          this is a drop in the bucket in terms of stretching logistical capability compared to ordering 2000 M2 bradleys to equip 3 battalions per brigade, which has no commonality whatsoever with the M1 which exists in the same unit

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You shouldn’t think of it like a tank, it’s supposed to be used like an early Stug, able to engage tanks if needed but mostly for supporting infantry attacks. In Ukraine both sides are able to pack sectors of major fighting with so much lethal weaponry that the only way to advance is with small assault teams of infantry, tanks are reduced to platoon sized operations or even just pairs serving almost as assault guns, providing direct fire support for a few minutes before running unless the enemy smacks them with something nasty. The Booker is designed to free the Abrams from having to fulfill that role, and do it in a package that is both smaller and more maneuverable to get into position and escape more quickly.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    PS-no big fuel drums hanging off the ass? NGMI

    Butt seriously, why didn't they slap on some extra missiles or auto-mortar or grenade launchers or SRAD or SOMETHING?

    How about just some hooks for extra rucks, so if a guy loses his ruck he can just pick off a fresh one with most of same shit?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >utt seriously, why didn't they slap on some extra missiles or auto-mortar or grenade launchers or SRAD or SOMETHING?
      the design requirement was either a 105mm or 120mm cannon and machine guns
      no point in a mortar because infantry already have mortars
      no point in a missile because infantry already have missiles and M900 can accurately fire out to more than 3km anyways

      M10 battalions are extremely lean units that consist of only the M10s themselves and their logistical support
      because they are going to be attached to other units as needed

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        but the meat bags aren't PROTECTED and have to crawl into holes at the slightest push back.

        Yeah, they shoulda at least made it same 120mm ammo. I hear there is big "new types" of 120mm to do diff tricks.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why is it so expensive?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The US offshored all of its industry to China.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Small production run relative to development and tooling costs. Certification. Bespoke components.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >electronics will have to be maintained, repaired, and replaced for decades under a contract
    >electronics will have to survive in a very harsh physical environment for much of that time potentially including submersion/mud, high shock, and being left in the desert for years
    >electronics will have to have operations completely predictable and auditable, and have clear and obvious failure modes so you're not shaking the tank to readjust the compass or figuring out if the gyro is off by 1% in the field
    yeah just strap an iphone to it it's fine. while we're talking about it, why don't they use iphones to run satellites? satellites dont do anything that complicated or hard, why dont we make a 10 million dollar device dependent on $1000 consumer electronics?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      did you know a basic $3.00 "calculator watch" from like 1982 has more computing power than entire Apollo Lunar Launch Vehicle?

      AFTER the big post 2000 computer upgrade...like 10(?)years after, CA DMV put a "block" on my DL record because it was "too big and would bug out our system". I had valid DL and zero points, no tickets for 6yrs.

      I've known guys that got 30 tickets in 20 days (stunt riding dirt bike, making demo films for Hollywood stunt man bid) and they could get their records just fine.

      My crusty Note 3 by itself could hold text of equal to 30 pages for every person in CA, NV, AZ, NM combined.

      That is how computers and shit is.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Good job rambling on for five lines without ever evne trying to adress the point, moron.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          for $1000 bucks per iPhone, just slap on 3 and take your best two out of three readings. 🙂

          unlike special tank gun shit, they will retain value and have secondary functions as walkie-talkies.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >for $1000 bucks per iPhone, just slap on 3 and take your best two out of three readings. 🙂
            Congratulations, your sensors are now shittier than those on a fricking M48 and being all unahrdened ´civilian crap will go out of alignment and become completely useless within a day in the field. Stop talking, moron.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That's not true moron. The Casio Calc Watch is in no way more powerful than the Launch Vehicle. More importantly, you have no knowledge and thus cannot tell me how many backup systems NASA requires for safety

      • 4 weeks ago
        grass

        >Unironic Reddit spacing
        >moronic typing style
        >Mentions Sprut and T-55
        So what kind of embarrassing shit happened in Belgorod today?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >BTW, all the electronic aiming etc shit can be slapped on anything for the price of an iPhone. Seriously, just glue it to the barrel and you'd be able to Real Time get data from forward spotters or drones or WTF.
      you are a moron also
      they should have killed all reformes when they had the chance

      >while we're talking about it, why don't they use iphones to run satellites? satellites dont do anything that complicated or hard, why dont we make a 10 million dollar device dependent on $1000 consumer electronics?
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhoneSat

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhoneSat
        yes you can use a phone to run a satellite since most satellites just transmit data and the processing of it is done on the ground.
        you can't do the same to a military vehicle

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          To be clear here
          You just said that you can't use smartphones in satellites because like the military, satellite work is complicated and hard
          And then when someone proved that they do in fact use smartphones in satellites
          You immediately pivoted and said that orbital work is simple and easy and in no way comparable to the rigors of a warzone

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There's nothing more gigachad than making reality adjust itself to fit your opinion

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            To be clear here i'm not

            >electronics will have to be maintained, repaired, and replaced for decades under a contract
            >electronics will have to survive in a very harsh physical environment for much of that time potentially including submersion/mud, high shock, and being left in the desert for years
            >electronics will have to have operations completely predictable and auditable, and have clear and obvious failure modes so you're not shaking the tank to readjust the compass or figuring out if the gyro is off by 1% in the field
            yeah just strap an iphone to it it's fine. while we're talking about it, why don't they use iphones to run satellites? satellites dont do anything that complicated or hard, why dont we make a 10 million dollar device dependent on $1000 consumer electronics?

            .
            yes in some cases you can use modified phones to run satellites but in most cases you don't want to do that.
            you just need an antenna to be rapidly deployed for a relative short time in LEO? then a "phone" might be fine.
            you need a satellite in geostationary orbit to monitor enemy bases? then a "phone" is not good enough
            it depends on your needs and objectives monkey

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not him, but orbital work isn’t hard. It’s the need to not have your processor cooked by background radiation. Note that the phonesat is positioned in a very low orbit, meaning A: it’s far more shielded by the magnetosphere and B: it has a limited lifetime anyway due to atmospheric drag. If the phonesat gets cooked by a mild solar flare that a proper satellite would be able to withstand, it doesn’t matter anyway because it was already disposable.

            If you want to have your satellite survive for a long period of time, or not experience massive software/data instability due to cosmic rays bit-flipping its memory, you have to pay for a rad-hard, space grade processor. On the other hand, if you want to waste taxpayer money to look revenant because the private sector is now doing far more interesting things than you, you use a phone.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              *relevant. I’ve been outed as a phone poster.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Actually the space comparisons are apt - look at NASA's SLS program versus Elon Musk's Starship

        >both rockets have the same basic mission profile; i.e. they can hurl about 150 tons of payload into orbit

        >every SLS is handcrafted by artisans at Lockheed Martin to miniscule tolerances using state of the art ceramics and alloys
        >every Starship is sheet metal thrown together by a grain silo company full of minimum wage Mexicans

        >a fault has been discovered in the first and so far only SLS test, resulting in the already 13 year old project being delayed at least another year or two
        >18 Starships have been flung into the air over the last five years, each one dramatically exploding while completing some minor mission slightly better than the one before it

        >it's estimated that if both programs mature on their intended courses, each SLS launch will cost approximately $2 billion and each Starship launch will cost approximately $10 million

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The SLS was obsolete before it ever touched the pad. 60's tech with a 2024 price tag. NASA is a sad joke

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            NASA can do some amazing things when they're not forced by congress to make each screw and bolt in a different state to maximize reelection chances, not performance.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              NASA hasn't done anything of value since apollo

              the shuttle was completly useless and they killed two crews by ignoring their own engineers. The ISS was supposed to be a jumping-off point for Mars, but NASA changed its orbit to be in range of Russian rockets, making it totally useless for that mission

              Artemis just another example of NASA's complete incompetence and inability to contribute anything meaningful to humanity.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I think every party involved deserve the blame for the SS failure, but on nasa's part they failed on communication with congress on how inefficient the SS program would be.
                Plus there were some questionable engineering decisions made in the SS design. We do have the benefit of hindsight here, but some of the things were called out and reported early on but got ignored that would later come to haunt the program.

                The lesson learned from that shows a lot in the nasa that we have today, being constrained by congress decision making they let things run their course at the expense of us tax dollar and outsource missions to private companies who can make sensible and efficient design decisions without having to consult all fifty states on production competition.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The SLS was obsolete before it ever touched the pad. 60's tech with a 2024 price tag. NASA is a sad joke

          >60's tech
          *70's technology.
          but I would argue that SLS failure is more of a result of congress rather than nasa, if we take aside the fact that the original SS was a nasa failure.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > the original SS was a nasa failure.
            Nah, it’s an USAF failure. The shuttle was waaaayyyy bigger and more complex than NASA wanted, but the Air Force promised to pay for part of the program if they could redesign it for spooky spy capabilities.
            That they ended up never using.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >what is a radiation hardened processor

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >PhoneSat is an ongoing NASA project of building nanosatellites using unmodified consumer-grade off-the-shelf smartphones and Arduino platforms

          >The construction cost of the first version of PhoneSat satellite was reported to be US$3,500 and that of the second version was reported to be below US$7,000.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      imagine being this confident about shit you know nothing about lmao

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Honestly the Sprut mogs this so hard, as it weighs only half as much yet carries a bigger gun. Sure it probably has only cardboard armor, but you want your LIGHT tanks to be light no?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >shilling a soviet light vehicle
      not even trying today, are you?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        What's the point of a light tank that weighs almost as much as an mbt? That thing is basically just a Leo1 or AMX-30.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >What's the point of a light tank
          its not a light tank, its not going to be doing recon of any kind
          in any case, its weight is within the limits prescribed by the program
          being airdroppable was dropped as a requirement because the unit it will operate alongside arent going to be air dropped either

          its point is to be able to provide additional firepower to an infantry brigade, which it definitely does

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Bro just use an Abrams at that point.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              the M1 abrams is much heavier and more geared towards fighting enemy tanks
              and the M1 is better off concentrated in an armored brigade rather than dispersed in infantry brigades

              the M10 is exactly what they asked for, a smaller, lighter M1 abrams to be distributed among infantry units who otherwise have no organic armored vehicles

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                they coulda done a lot more to make it "this is gonna be only big buggy among a lot of infantry", instead of just scaling down an Abrams.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >instead of just scaling down an Abrams.
                commonality with the M1 abrams was a requirement for the MPF program from the start, so that its crew would not need significantly altered training and the vehicle would no need specialized maintenance

                >they coulda done a lot more to make it "this is gonna be only big buggy among a lot of infantry"
                its armored, its mobile, and it provides a big gun
                it does everything that that the army expected it to, which is why it was approved

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What benefit does having an inferior gun and armor provide if the end result is still too heavy for amphibious operations and air transport? In what situation would I want a booker instead of an abrams?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >What benefit does having an inferior gun and armor provide if the end result is still too heavy for amphibious operations and air transpor
                it isnt going in the marines, so it doesnt need to be amphibious
                the amphibious requirement has also been largely dropped since the cold war in favor of protection anyways, the M113 and M2 bradley arent amphibious with their armor kits

                > In what situation would I want a booker instead of an abrams?
                the fact you are getting one at all
                M1s are in armored brigades, a totally separate unit in a different division
                M1s also require a larger logistical unit and engineering battalion to ensure they can cross rivers and get all 70 tons of it out a ditch
                an MPF battalion will only have the bare essentials of a forward support battalion and no organic engineering, so being lighter is an advantage

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                sounds like they should send Bookers to Ukraine. LOL.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Reduce logistics stress by stripping down the tank
                >Increase logistics stress by having an additional type of tank
                I don't know sounds kinda dumb.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                the additional tank is only being procured in small numbers, is designed to have as much commonality as possible with the M1 abrams in the first place to make cross training easier, and isnt going into units that even have an M1 to begin with

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >only being procured in small numbers

                This is a good thing?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Increase logistics stress by having an additional type of tank
                Incorrect.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                at ~40 tons the booker doesnt really seem particularly light

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                its 20 tons lighter than the M1 abrams, you can fit 2 of them into the space only 1 M1 could fit in

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Or dig an old M60 from the storage.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              there are no M60s left, the ones in storage are probably only half-built and stripped for parts to sell to the foreign market

              and the M10 would not meet the qualifications of the MPF program anyways due to its large dimensions and its hull ammo storage

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Infantry support bunker buster and house leveller, worth its weight in gold.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Sprut
      and rounds with guided missiles.

      and it swims! 🙂

      Butt seriously, this Booker might make some sense if it could do a few tricks like high angle fire on other wise dug in enemy from a PROTECTED vehicle. Tack a few pre-loaded mortar tubes on the back of the turret that could be simple angle adjusted from inside turret and linked to targeting computer.

      As is it can only hit what it can direct fire, but enemy can hit it with indirect.

      No fancy new 120mm rounds for direct fire air burst top attack. 🙁

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        the M10 makes sense as a direct fire vehicle to be used to support infantry, which is exactly what it does

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Ah yes, the successful and widely adopted sprut. The one the certainly wasn’t another massively underdelivered corruption scheme

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          How is that any different from booker aka AMX-30 at ten times the price?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            they already 100 M10s and have 400 more ordered
            there are only about 2 dozen spruts in existence

            and the sprut serves a totally different role, its the equivalent of the M22 locust, a tank for airborne units
            which means even tighter weight restrictions and compromises to protection that are unacceptable for ground use
            the M10 will serve in infantry divisions and will not require the ability to be airdropped, just to fit inside a transport plane, hence the thicker armor

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          this looks about perfect for MPF attached to infantry, except that base model that can swim can't be too protected, but that could be adjusted.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMD-4

          I'd put an auto-mortar, drones, SRAD or just supplies in the back if you don't want to carry a squad.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            BMD has cardboard armor so if you don't need the air droppability just a regular tank is better.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            it literally would not meet the MPF requirements of having turret ammo storage with blowout panels and reverse compatibility with all M1A2 upgrades (RWS, CITV, APS)
            and not having all-around 14.5mm protection

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The thirdie mentality of a tuk tuk with a 20 dollar android phone and google maps being actually better than a purpose built machine

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >BTW, all the electronic aiming etc shit can be slapped on anything for the price of an iPhone.
    Ignorant armchaiur moron detected, opinion discarded.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    BOOKER CATCH!

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Still pretty annoyed with the ending.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Countries don't fight wars to win, they fight wars as an excuse to artificially prop up their economy. Making a tank that wins a war is cutting profits from making shit tanks.

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >105mm
    JUST

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Can store more ammo
      >Smaller gun=lighter vehicle+more room for crew
      >Light on logistics
      >Will destroy 99% of enemy armor in the rare chance it gets into an armored duel

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Why don't we just spam Jihad Jeeps?

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah man you surely know more about cannon gunnery and electro optical integration than whoever the frick is making those tanks you should call up their board of directors and let them know how they can save millions with this one simple trick and basically they’re frickin dumb

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Its like a USS Zumwalt, but on tracks.

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Ukraine war has shown a Bradley can beat their tanks, including the T-90.
    A light tank fills a niche, it's that simple.

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >$13 million
    gawd damn should have just bought Type 10s

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >BTW, all the electronic aiming etc shit can be slapped on anything for the price of an iPhone. Seriously, just glue it to the barrel and you'd be able to Real Time get data from forward spotters or drones or WTF.
    you are a moron also
    they should have killed all reformes when they had the chance

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The US is no longer capable of scalable enough heavy industry to produce Abrams at the rates they used to, so they figured just shrink the tank and there’s less to do so we can keep the numbers same and still look threatening or something. The industrial know how is just gone anyways, in less than a generation jet engines will be archotech to them, I suppose looking at Boeing they’ve already forgotten how to pressurize an air cabin.
    TLDR it’s all the mericans got and yes, it’s a T-55, it should fit its role as well as it can if anyone is willing to sign up for the armed forces to man it

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      And ameriKKKa will collapse in two weeks amirite?

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >no, it's not very fast
    >no, it's not very well armored
    >no, it's not very heavily armed
    >yes, it does cost more than an MBT

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's strategically mobile, and costs half what an Abrams does. 105m doesn't make much sense but I'm sure they have their reasons.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >and costs half what an Abrams does
        So does a Leopard 2

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          And?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >US
          >Giving two shits about the pricetag

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        105 darts can still kill almost every armored vehicle on the planet and the gun is lighter than the 120.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      See

      >What's the point of a light tank
      its not a light tank, its not going to be doing recon of any kind
      in any case, its weight is within the limits prescribed by the program
      being airdroppable was dropped as a requirement because the unit it will operate alongside arent going to be air dropped either

      its point is to be able to provide additional firepower to an infantry brigade, which it definitely does

      >utt seriously, why didn't they slap on some extra missiles or auto-mortar or grenade launchers or SRAD or SOMETHING?
      the design requirement was either a 105mm or 120mm cannon and machine guns
      no point in a mortar because infantry already have mortars
      no point in a missile because infantry already have missiles and M900 can accurately fire out to more than 3km anyways

      M10 battalions are extremely lean units that consist of only the M10s themselves and their logistical support
      because they are going to be attached to other units as needed

      they are intended to be highly dispersed, and only committed in small penny packets to strengthen infantry brigades

      its still the most armored vehicle in an infantry brigade, which is unlikely to meet heavy concentrations of enemy armor to begin with
      and any weapons the enemy is bringing along to counter-tanks will be faced primarily by infantry supported by these tanks and not really have anything to use them on

      >What benefit does having an inferior gun and armor provide if the end result is still too heavy for amphibious operations and air transpor
      it isnt going in the marines, so it doesnt need to be amphibious
      the amphibious requirement has also been largely dropped since the cold war in favor of protection anyways, the M113 and M2 bradley arent amphibious with their armor kits

      > In what situation would I want a booker instead of an abrams?
      the fact you are getting one at all
      M1s are in armored brigades, a totally separate unit in a different division
      M1s also require a larger logistical unit and engineering battalion to ensure they can cross rivers and get all 70 tons of it out a ditch
      an MPF battalion will only have the bare essentials of a forward support battalion and no organic engineering, so being lighter is an advantage

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Newst Abrams comes in at $24 mil.
    >It's a T55
    Lmao, my laptop is just a Kenbak-1

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    missiles and drones are more strategically mobile than this shitty ass light tank.

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    can the Booker be upgraded with an APS, or NERA armor package?

    Because even if the Booker will be used against enemy infantry, the enemy infantry are still capable of launching basic-b***h lightweight RPG kamikaze quadcopters.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      l'd be shocked if they didn't have an ERA package in development for it.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      NERA is already there

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >can the Booker be upgraded with an APS, or NERA armor package?
      it has 14.5mm protection all-around with the ability to take add-on armor in modular packages
      the add-on armor is unspecified, but can assumed to be at least 30mm APDS protection
      the intended add-on armor seems to be bulky, implying NERA or ceramic, since the hollow steel spacers on the M10 are as deep as the smoke launchers are

      its intended to be able to take anything the M1A2 can take, including ERA, remote-weapons system, thermal sights, lock-on detectors, and APS

      >Because even if the Booker will be used against enemy infantry
      even without APS, which it will have anyways so its moot, its still leagues more armored than the JLTVs the infantry are getting
      and its unlikely to present itself as a target as infanty will vastly outnumber the M10 in combat actions, so even if the enemy has an ATGM they would have to fight through the rest of the infantry brigade first

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >its unlikely to present itself as a target as infanty will vastly outnumber the M10 in combat actions, so even if the enemy has an ATGM they would have to fight through the rest of the infantry brigade first

        So, what is one light tank going to do that the other 5000 soldiers in that infantry brigade can't?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >So, what is one light tank going to do that the other 5000 soldiers in that infantry brigade can't?
          its more of an assault gun, since light tanks are used for cavalry and recon
          and the 105mm cannon will easily be the strongest direct fire weapon in a brigade
          so its used to support the infantry in the brigade and give more reach and firepower to whichever unit its supporting

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > 105mm cannon will easily be the strongest direct fire weapon in a brigade

            Anything close, take out with a LAW. Anything far take out with artillery or air power. And $13M and hundreds of tons of airlift to support that Booker buys a hell of a lot of LAWs.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Anything close, take out with a LAW.
              M10 has more range and power than a LAW, and its less vulnerable to enemy fire while attacking

              >Anything far take out with artillery or air power.
              calling a strike requires asking for out-of-division elements and will have timelag between calling and it arriving
              artillery
              the M10 is attached at a much lower level than artillery spotters or FAC, with individual platoons able to coordinate with M10s directly and provide organic fire support without need for intermediate channels

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >M10 has more range and power than a LAW

                Which you need to take out a pillbox why?

                >calling a strike requires asking for out-of-division elements

                Brigades no longer have Artillery and tasked air power elements? Are you sure....?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Which you need to take out a pillbox why?
                a cannon can hit a pillbox from further out and has much more effect on target
                and targets like fortified buildings will not be overcome with just handheld rockets

                >Brigades no longer have Artillery and tasked air power elements? Are you sure....?
                calling in a strike will have an inevitable delay between a helo or plane taking off and engaging targets
                having an assault gun with which you can request fire from directly fills a gap between handheld weapons and air strikes or artillery barrages

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Also, there might not be an air support or artillery element available. And there’s a lot more risk for frickups with indirect fire than direct.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                > the magic 105mm can hit a pillbox from further out

                So can a lot of things. Air transporting that 105mm on a $13M light tank a hundred miles from the fight,. having to drive that gunbus into action, while praying that no one on the other side attacks with anything heavier than a rifle is wishful thinking.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >So can a lot of things
                its not magic, it has the same FCS as the M1 abrams, so it can accurately hit out to beyond 2km with HEAT-MP
                and their programmable rounds allow for delayed bursts to kill hostiles inside of buildings more efficiently
                it fills the gap between the handheld carl gustaf and artillery fire

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Your entire thread is moronic distraction posting. Nothing you just said is true and you keep clinging to it.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              > Anything close, take out with a LAW
              Psst, machine guns are a thing

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What are its tolerances for high-altitude? I fought it was neat the Chinese have long maintained a light tank fleet to do armoured recon and infantry support in the Tibetan Plateau.

    I suppose the main thing will be the specs on the engine. MBTs in general have issues in hypoxic environments and I bet India would be interested in having something on the ground to team with the HAL Prachand.

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It really is a moronic idea. It offers literally no advantage over a conventional tank but compromises on protection and off-road mobility to do so.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      j-just add tanks to the infantry units!

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      its 30 tons lighter than the M1 abrams and will need less specialized engineering equipment, which makes it more suitable for use in infantry brigades

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >basically a T-55
    you wish, zigger

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Army has been missing the armored fire support capability for airborne troops for ages. Sadly the armored vehicle has become obselete at the hands of ATGMs. Right now, this instant, M1A1s are getting clapped by old Russian ATGMs. If the M10 had to face Chinese Javelin clones what does anyone think would be the outcome? You may as well just blow them up as they roll off the assembly line — that way you could at least save the logistics burden of moving them to a warzone. With light top-attack weapons swarming the battlefield the era of these vehicles is over.

  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    if the intended enemy is just going to be infantry and bunkers/light fortifications, why not just have a drone carrier?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Because that's getting the meta backwards. Drones are great versus easily visible but hard to hit things like moving vehicles over the horizon.
      The problem in infantry combat which tanks are supposed to solve is two steps
      1) ohshit they're shooting at us
      2) return fire now! but we don't know exactly where they are (because it's a city or a jungle) so shoot the most likely 5 spots in that direction
      2.1) >1kg HE with semi-rapid reload and instant response which don't get propellers caught on tarps or bushes is ideal for this.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Except infantry get noticed frequently by drones. Sure you can dig in and hide from drones, but then you're basically a static position. So you're right about the meta being wrong with fortifications, but you're not right about drones being bad against light infantry in general.

        If anything, I'd expect a drone carrier to be attracted to concentrations of light infantry that need to move frequently. It's there to create a constant threat.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It's about timing and visibility.
          Tanks are for situation where you don't get to choose the first shot.
          Drones are for when you do.

          Suppose you're an infantry team on the attack which makes contact with another infantry team.
          Drones are helpful, but even if the pilot is offsite (and thus jammable) they're not a help the way a tank is. Look at the Ukrainian footage of trench assaults under FPV fire vs under tank fire if you don't believe me. Those wide open areas are ideal drone country and yet they can't compete in a 10 second long firefight the way tanks do. They're for multi-minute fights.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not agreeing with the guy above in saying that a drone carrier just outright replaces a tank. I'm just saying that a drone carrier is still effective against light infantry so long as the infantry has reason to move.

            Like, say combine your example with a drone carrier. Blue force is trying to take an objective in a city and establish a corridor to that objective. Yeah the tank is going to be what you attack fortifications with, but as your combined arms forces push, the drone carrier has a role. Red force has to pull back and the constant surveillance of the drones (which are attached at a low level to the forces directly in combat) with constantly harassing attacks on enemy forces over the course of the battle will make their own response more difficult. Any decision to maneuver and establish the next fortifications is difficult.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >I'm just saying that a drone carrier is still effective against light infantry so long as the infantry has reason to move.
              Yes, of course, I agree but that's not what America is buying the M10 for. We already have a hundred and one ways to kill infantry on the move. Everybody does. Afghan goat herders with AK47s can blast infantry (well, navy seals) on the move. That's the worst case scenario for infantry and it's easy to go on the offense against them.

              America is concerned with reducing casualties to its own infantry. When your infantry are on an attack, after all the other steps like air strikes and drones have been used, and their infantry are dug in on the defense - that's where having a tank saves your troops lives. It converts an ambush where 5 of your guys die and one of theirs does into 1 of your guys dies and 5 of theirs do. Drones can pick off their guys here and there, but they cannot do that. To use another recent example look at Israel vs Hamas. Israel has plenty of drones and they use them aggressively but they aren't begging Uncle Sam for more. They're demanding 120mm MPAT 10k at a time.

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I’m sure it made some company a very tidy profit

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