For something that's supposedly not a tank, it does. It's also designed to be functionally similar to the Abrams for situations where transporting or supporting an Abrams would not be feasible, and also to be as compatible as possible with the Abrams maintenance-wise.
Cause it’s classified as an ifv I believe but this is only information for people who have very limited tank knowledge. The booker is very different for the abrams and is not made to fit the same role rather to replace older ifv’s but not act as an mbt
They know they’re heavy, have armor, have tracks (impressive), and they have this big gun thing connected to this spinny turret thing that has a lot of armor in the front.
@@hagestadwe don't have unmanned tanks. No one does. Edit: When I said there are no unmanned tanks I meant there are no tanks that require 0 crew. All the crewless turret tanks still have a driver
This vehicle is named for Staff Sergeant Booker 3rd infantry Division U.S. Army who was killed during the Thunder run into Baghdad while fighting Saddam’s Army, SSG Booker’s Tank main guns were out of ammunition or inoperable SSG Booker engaged enemies with a service rifle from the top of the turret in the prone position as the Tank continued to advance until he was mortally injured 🫡🎖️🇺🇸
It ways as much as a Russian MBT. And it’s not supposed to engage armored targets, it’s sole responsibility is Infantry support. It’s neither weight nor role wise a light Tank.
Booker isn't a tank. You better not try and use it like a tank. Call it a tracked gun truck. Call it a fire support vehicle. Call it anything but a tank. It's got a lot more in common with a Bradley or Stryker mgs.
@@noneyabusiness3253 It's not just not a tank in the passive sense. It's very actively and deliberately NOT A TANK. Because tanks have armor and this doesn't. This makes the army very worried that commanders with think they can use it like a tank and that will end badly. So it's a class of vehicle most accurately described as a NOT A TANK more than it isn't a tank.
"Yeah, so the turret is probably functional, as you can see a gun on there." "It probably has armor because if you look at the roof theres metal up there as well." "It most likely moves because it is fully tracked, and its turret does indeed use modern technology because it rotates 360 degrees."
M10 is designed for narrow streets cities. Such as Philippine, South Asia and Taiwan. M10 would have better mobility and access to environments better than M1.
It’s also designed with more mobile forces like airborne units in mind. The weight difference is massive in allowing it to be transported more easily. It’s not an Abrams replacement. It’s another option for the units that need it.
The fact that the Abrams is designed for crews protection says everything that is important, the crew's are the most important part of the whole system, the tanks can be rebuilt but it takes a very long time to train the crews and that's the most deadly part of the tank
@@EnZo7992Because the Booker doesn’t engage enemy armor, genius. It is a fire support vehicle, meant to support troops with heavy fire away from the front line.
It's more like a modernized Walker Bulldog because whether the Army will admit it or not the Booker is a light tank. But the original M10 was pretty cool
The original protypes had a armorless M1 turret on the AJAX hull. Which is what this vehicle basically is. A modified AJAX hull with a turret similar to the M1 but with much different armor. Inside from what I hear is very similar layout
@@itnotmeitu3896it's designed for the airborne. They need a mobile gun that can take out bunkers and stuff in the first wave of a paradrop operation. This tank is airlandable and more can be carried by lighter cargo planes. It's not designed to operate anything like an Abrams, it's only there for infantry support against hardened positions.
How would you run the electronics need to run 360deg from turret to main body, and with some combat survivability? Real easy to talk, engineering challenges get a little more interesting.
I find the M10 Booker fascinating in its role. I was reading articles of what the booker is supposed to do, it’s mission, and a recurring word was “Assault Gun” and my gut reaction was “Wait is this just a modernized Stug 3?” The mission of the booker is to role up in a mission where a heavy canon is needed but a tank is too much, fire at the target, and role away, carry some AP ammo in case you find an armored target but you are not meant to brawl with other vehicles. My main concern with the M10 Booker is the joke about it being a light tank and the fear that it will influence people to treat it as a tank. For the US, a light tank is more of a role whose mission has to include some form of reconnaissance. As far as it has been reported the Booker isn’t fit to do reconnaissance. I also fear if people keep calling a light tank, people will treat it as a light tank and send it on mission not suited for it and lead to crewman getting killed. Also, the point that the Booker looks like the Abrams is partly true but misleading. We know what an Abrams looks like and we know Booker looks like, but let’s imagine we don’t. Let’s imagine we are opfor, we see what looks like a tank from a distance but you can’t spend too much time trying to identify because you may get spotted. You know if it is an Abrams it will require heavier weapons to destroy, so you make the call and say you see an Abrams. You, opfor, fire the heaviest weapon you got and boom a dead tank, but it wasn’t an Abrams but a Booker. I feel this situation would be common with the M10 leading to a higher casualty rate for the Booker crewmen.
Feels like a worse Stryker M1128, tracked vehicles require support to be transported and seams that the M10 is even slower than the Abrams. At the end the US got a light tank that is more expensive and slower than an MBT, requires the same maintenance and replace a vehicle that performed better the same role (Stryker). The only improvement is that the engine use only disel, so it’s more ecofrendly than previous machines.
You're talking like the crew and military personnel responsible for planning and carrying out its missions are the people watching this video. Do you think the military doesn't know what its equipment is? How does a couple people on youtube calling it a light tank influence a commander's decision making in using it in missions? (As an aside it is STRIKINGLY similar to a light tank as you mentioned, ESPECIALLY because they aren't meant for brawling against heavy weaponry)
@@andreambuter6806 Are you forgetting that the military are staffed by humans. Yes the the military know the specifications and capabilities of their equipment but even internally there are people who are calling it a light tank. You think privates aren’t calling it a light tank? There was an article by NYT that quoted a general who said (paraphrasing) “It looks like a light tanks, smells like a light tank, feels like a light tank, we are not calling it a light tank.” Remember, for the US, a light tank HAS to be recon capable, and the booker (as reported rn) only has standard optics and isn’t using any advance reconnaissance tools. The US rn, doesn’t have a light tanks but uses multiple vehicles for recon and relies entirely on air capability for recon. Back rot the point I’m trying to make: if people keep calling it a light tanks, think of it as a light tank, even if officially it ain’t, troops and commanders will treat it as a light tank. It happend in WW2 when commanders pushed their TDs to attack because they treated it as tanks. It happens with the A10 with pilots over reliance on the gun rather than the aircraft’s capability to carry large loads.
@@sfigatto_0167 read the performance of the m1128 and you will start doubting how good it is. Was the M1128 fast and the canon strong? Yes. Did it jam a lot and was a pain to maintain? Also yes. The gun being fully automatic meant that if their was a miss fire or a jam than it was up to the guns auto systems to un jam it, and it couldn’t/failed to do so enough for it to be brought into Maintnance frequently. There were multiple incidents where the Stryker’s gun jammed in mission and just had to leave because the crew had no way to fix it. The other problem with it was its doctrinal connection. The army wanted it attached to the Tank Company problem is the tank company mechanics are trained in the maintenance of the Abrams not the Stryker. Meaning that they had to take it to Mechanized Company mechanics who are trained on the Stryker but didn’t have tool to operate on the gun (the gun was proprietary and needed training from the company to fix the system) and still had to operate on their own strykers. Also tracks vs wheel has been argued since forever and my main caveat is that you want to keep it consistent in a unit. Also the criticism is leveled at the M1128 not other variants of the stryker
@@Ramiro.salcidoit’s not a vehicle with extra layers of armour. It’s literally a light vehicle it’s not meant for armour rather it’s meant for its speed and fairly small size and mobility. It also has good weaponry. You just made yourself look stupid with the first comment you made.
The Booker is a light tank meant to replace the role of the Stryker as infantry support vehicle. Its not meant replace the Abrams or even go toe to toe with other heavy tanks. Its filling the role left by the obsolete Stryker. If anything its purpose is similar to the original intent of the Challenger II. I cant wait to see the M10 Booker in action! ❤ 🇺🇲
Are you referring to the m1128 MGS Stryker or strikers in general? because this vehicle sounds and looks like its going to to fill a different role other than troop carrier
@@diegomoreno7760 right, I was just saying that the way she described the vehicle in the beginning was like describing any other ordinary tank, but I get your point
I imagine it's half the weight because they've realized physical armor doesn't really matter as much anymore with weapons that can essentially one-shot most tanks if a hit is made
It isn't a light tank, it's more so related to an assault gun. This vehicle still weighs a large amount, a Russian T-72B3 weighs around the same as it.
To be fair, the best defence against any weapon is to not be there, and I would guess that the lighter tank can probably reverse much faster than the heavier one. If you assume that the sensor-array and cameras are at least as good as the abrams, then I would assume that the booker is probably safer. But I don't know much about tanks, and things like mine resistance and ammo placement of these two, so it probably depends on what you expect to face, and where you face it.
@@PantherAusfD1944 It has a larger gun that isn't an auto cannon, it doesn't carry infantry, and more armor, it is also going to be used in the assault gun role.
“The Abrams and booker look similar” and then just immediately goes on to describe literally just a basic tank design. 😅🤷🏻♂️ That’s like saying a corvette and Camaro are similar because they have tires and a windshield. 😋
If you want accurate information on this vehicle please go see the Chieftains videos on it. He has two videos with the colonel who was involved in the testing at the M10 Booker, one of which is a walk around of this particular vehicle, and the other is of the competing vehicle the M8 MGS.
@AHappyCub Don't be a fun killer, just judging by that comment I know you play WarThunder. Yes the correct term is M10 GMC. But who likes that over the M10 Wolverine? Not anyone I know.
Breaking news: a light tank does not afford the same protection as a heavy tank. We'll pause a moment to allow the audience to recover from that shock.
Ikr, so many people in this comment section "it doesn't have as much armor as Abrams so it won't work" not everything can have a mountain of armor stacked on top of it
That's not trading protection. That's trading Mobility for death if it's hit with any Javelins because they attack the top of the tanks, you know, the part they took armor away from to make lighter.
Its not meant to replace the Abrams. It's meant to operate in a more similar way to the Sherman tank - which officially wasnt comsidered a tank - it was a fast infantry support mobile gun.
Interesting to see the change in doctrine. It's a good change too; with anti-tank weapons becoming a lot better, speed is at a better premium than armor.
Right up until it takes a main gun round from an MBT. Then, it has proven that the odds of survivability are not as good as the Abrams. Wonder if the Booker is as armored on top against RPG rounds as well. You know, because of the "fairly well protected" aspect.
@isoboy2125 my family and I have great insurance through my employer. Insurance wouldn't be so expensive if we didn't have to pay the Healthcare of all these lazy bums and illegal immigrants.
“As you can see, this tank is tank shaped”
As you can see, the IFV is made of MBT
😂 that line would have fit in seamlessly in this clip.
But is it using its pronouns
💀sent me into orbit
The floor is made out of floor
The booker looks very much like an Abrams -- Aight, I'mma stop you right there.
For something that's supposedly not a tank, it does. It's also designed to be functionally similar to the Abrams for situations where transporting or supporting an Abrams would not be feasible, and also to be as compatible as possible with the Abrams maintenance-wise.
Cause it’s classified as an ifv I believe but this is only information for people who have very limited tank knowledge. The booker is very different for the abrams and is not made to fit the same role rather to replace older ifv’s but not act as an mbt
@@nofwild6325 it's not an IFV and it's not made to replace IFVs
@@uku4171 yeah that’s what I ment
@@nofwild6325it is supposed to plug the gap betwen Bradley and Abrams I think
“Tell me you know nothing about tanks without saying you know nothing about tanks”
Its probably ai
@@petros5155what about the script?
@@Marder_IFVAi written😂😂😂
@@Tanknuggets217 most likely
They know they’re heavy, have armor, have tracks (impressive), and they have this big gun thing connected to this spinny turret thing that has a lot of armor in the front.
The turret connects the gun to the body.
Thank you chatgpt. Very cool. This is one of the tanks of all time.
It also has a “Large Caliber Gun”
@@jjOnceAgainand a "engine" put inside the tank
I think once again & at least for now, B.S.-GPT 😁 TANKED!
Translate from chinese using chatgpt
@@Marder_IFVIt is also a fully tracked vehicle
"A 360° turret"
"The turret connects the gun to the main body"
Which AI wrote this script
its not wrong. Also its pointless to make manned tanks these days it seems but they keep doing it.
@@hagestad They do have them in development, it's just that the booker is what we're getting first because it's ready now.
@@hagestadwe don't have unmanned tanks. No one does.
Edit: When I said there are no unmanned tanks I meant there are no tanks that require 0 crew. All the crewless turret tanks still have a driver
@@hagestadits also describing base ww2 tanks. Completely useless description and comparison
@@captainjacksparrowthehedge8186 Russia does
“The Booker looks very similar to the Abrams”
*proceeds to describe features that literally all modern tanks have*
☕
@@Proud_2B_Russianthe US like having tanks that don't implode if you breath too hard
@@Proud_2B_Russianpretty much only Russian and Chinese tanks use autoloaders
@@therussianbias3703no French and Japanese tanks come to mind?
I was just gonna comment that, but my brain was thinking that someone might had have already commented that 😅😂
"The Booker looks very much like an Abrams, Sherman, KV, Panzer, or really anything with treads and a turret" i smell toast. Plz help
Really bringing it back with the KV 🥶🥶🥶
The booker looks similar to the infamous Tiger 2
Ft-17
@@Tanknuggets217 m10 sabertooth, that's a tank from resistance games
It kind of looks like every mbt except t-14 (armata)
The reason the M1A2 Abrams turret is armored is because it’s a main battle tank not a afv
Well it is. All tanks are AFVs, not all AFVs are tanks tho
The dumb AI is comparing it to a Main Battle Tank.
Apples and oranges
POW!🤜🤖
Take that! You over glorified pocket calculator.
Haha
Wrong. AFV just means armored fighting vehicle. That means MBTs, IFVs, light tanks, tank destroyers, and APCs are all different types of AFV.
@@justamicrowave2572
Wrong!
AFV=America's Funniest Videos.
@@justamicrowave2572
Here's some more for the overbuilt coffee pot AI
BAM!🦶🤖
Scrapyard next destination.
They just described every tank in the past 100 years
Women......
@@j0m4m46😂😂😂
@@j0m4m46that's an ai voice 💀
Right? What a useless speech xp
Chalanger 2 and leapord 2 are likely more survivable than abrams.
This vehicle is named for Staff Sergeant Booker 3rd infantry Division U.S. Army who was killed during the Thunder run into Baghdad while fighting Saddam’s Army, SSG Booker’s Tank main guns were out of ammunition or inoperable SSG Booker engaged enemies with a service rifle from the top of the turret in the prone position as the Tank continued to advance until he was mortally injured 🫡🎖️🇺🇸
"Booker lives forever because the core lives forever' Semper Fi
good
@wolfrickthedesigner4748 Staff Sergeant Booker was in the Army. Also it's Marine Corps.
All that for nothing huh?
@@Red13.0Saddam is dead, has been since 2003
"Probably fairly well protected"
Great selling point for a tank
Army: how's the armor
General dynamics: yes
Probably cost Americans their public healthcare.
“The two tanks are similar and look alike”
Proceeds to describe what a tank in general is
Dont care what the Army says, thats a light tank.
We going bqck to the 40s with this one
As the world becomes more and more city focused light tanks make more and more sense.
It ways as much as a Russian MBT.
And it’s not supposed to engage armored targets, it’s sole responsibility is Infantry support.
It’s neither weight nor role wise a light Tank.
@@AnonD38The role of light tanks isn't to destroy enemy tanks. A light tank isn't an MBT. The M10 Booker fits very well into the role of light tanks.
It really is not. It's comparable to the Stug 3
“They look very similar, because they are both tanks”
Booker isn't a tank. You better not try and use it like a tank. Call it a tracked gun truck. Call it a fire support vehicle. Call it anything but a tank. It's got a lot more in common with a Bradley or Stryker mgs.
Been on Ryan McBeth's channel?@@BadOompaloompa79
@@BadOompaloompa79idk man seems like a light tank to me, definitely not a mbt but a light tank? Hmm
@@noneyabusiness3253 It's not just not a tank in the passive sense. It's very actively and deliberately NOT A TANK. Because tanks have armor and this doesn't. This makes the army very worried that commanders with think they can use it like a tank and that will end badly. So it's a class of vehicle most accurately described as a NOT A TANK more than it isn't a tank.
@@BadOompaloompa79Really?
How many infantryman can carry?
Where is his TOW missiles?
Why do have tracks ?
"Yeah, so the turret is probably functional, as you can see a gun on there." "It probably has armor because if you look at the roof theres metal up there as well." "It most likely moves because it is fully tracked, and its turret does indeed use modern technology because it rotates 360 degrees."
When you're trying to make your essay longer:
M10 is designed for narrow streets cities. Such as Philippine, South Asia and Taiwan. M10 would have better mobility and access to environments better than M1.
Your comment is literally 10x better than the video. Thank you
It’s also designed with more mobile forces like airborne units in mind. The weight difference is massive in allowing it to be transported more easily.
It’s not an Abrams replacement. It’s another option for the units that need it.
Narrow streets yet they make a rear mounted turret
Its really not designed for urban fighting environments its basically for troop support
are you filipijo
“The turret is the most likely part to be hit”
Warthunder players: allow us to introduce ourselves
*pens lower frontal plate of the hull*
@@PatriotAnimationgun port or crew hatch
The army need to recruit war thunder players, the hours and hours of play with that game is like hours of training in a real tank😂😂
The US should start selling Ghostshells to Opfor
@@signor_Noevery time they do that, classified vehicle manuals get leaked
The fact that the Abrams is designed for crews protection says everything that is important, the crew's are the most important part of the whole system, the tanks can be rebuilt but it takes a very long time to train the crews and that's the most deadly part of the tank
Man explicitly at the end said expectations isn’t there that it’s as survivable as the Abrams 💀
@@EnZo7992Because the Booker doesn’t engage enemy armor, genius. It is a fire support vehicle, meant to support troops with heavy fire away from the front line.
Bro just described the average tank 💀💀
"The expectation is not there that it would be as survivable as Abrams..." Great selling point.
The selling point is heavy tanks are hard to transport by. This is all logistics
Speed
@@Random-ed2xf I heard lines like yours before with hummer h1s
T-95 beating both in armor thickness: weak
USA makes weak tank.
5th gen warfare says hello.
M10 GMC: “Ah a little version of me”
Well really a bigger version of him.
The Wolverine is a cool tank
It's more like a modernized Walker Bulldog because whether the Army will admit it or not the Booker is a light tank. But the original M10 was pretty cool
@@thatdude2508 oh shoot I see haha well it reminded me of the beauty of the M10
"probably very well protected.."
Yah I'm sold.
If you build a combat machine and use the term “not as survivable” then have your kid drive it into combat.
"looks very similar to the abrams" WHAT? No it does NOT!
I mean it does look like the IFV version of the abrams (I’m aware it’s not an IFV)
I mean at a glance I can see it but it’s like saying a m10 looks like an m36 it just doesn’t
but it has tracks and the turret spins all the way around! same thing!
@@nickkonkle541that sums up most tanks. In that case we can say the Abrams looks very similar to the German Tiger tank
"it looks like a tank" - voice over lady
"The Booker looks very similar to the Abrams"
The Booker and Abrams: 🌚🌞
More like 🌚🍉
Hey the moon and the sun are both round! I give them that.
‘Our dad’s spare tyres were tyres in name only.. They were round, and had once been made of rubber…”
“The turret connects the main gun to the body of the vehicle “
Definitely the guy who wrote this doesn't know nothing about tanks.
No way a tank with 360 of turret rotation is just like the Abrams fr fr!!! 🤩🤩🤩🤯🤯🤯
"They looks very similar..." Yes, exactly! They are both made of metal, both has moving elements and people can fit inside.
The original protypes had a armorless M1 turret on the AJAX hull. Which is what this vehicle basically is. A modified AJAX hull with a turret similar to the M1 but with much different armor. Inside from what I hear is very similar layout
I just don’t know what role it would be, the Abrahams seem superior in every metric
@itnotmeitu3896 it's an infantry support tank basically. Aka a heavy light tank
@@itnotmeitu3896it's designed for the airborne. They need a mobile gun that can take out bunkers and stuff in the first wave of a paradrop operation. This tank is airlandable and more can be carried by lighter cargo planes. It's not designed to operate anything like an Abrams, it's only there for infantry support against hardened positions.
“The booker looks very similar to the Abrams because both are tanks”
As a war thunder player, it is so infuriating how it was stated that the Abrams looks like the booker based off it's main features 💀
"360° turret", well yeah, duh...
And it has a gun! Can you believe it
@@-Lazydon't forget the hull!
How would you run the electronics need to run 360deg from turret to main body, and with some combat survivability?
Real easy to talk, engineering challenges get a little more interesting.
why's it "duh"? Not all turrets have full traverse ability.
@@onothankyouduh, the KanJgdpz. 105 is the last vehicle I know that doesn’t have a turret, and that was put out of service over 3 decades ago
- Booker! What is your profession?
- I'm a librarian, sir!
You know it's only a matter of time until someone call it booger?
Wait I just did! 😂
It's just truely disqualified from being a spartan.
Booker is misleading.
Look up why it's called the booker
Witty and slightly offensive joke considering why the tank is named Booker
The M10 Booger!
"You can see from the picture that the turret has armor"
“360 degree turret” “large calibre gun” splendid in depth reporting as always.
Very similar to the abrams it has tracks armour and a gun
Tesla tank.... no optiioons, one color...
When you have no clue about the project but you’re put in charge of presenting it
I stand by this vehicle..
“The turret connects the gun to the tank”
WHAT? I thought it floated above the tank and magically transferred its recoil to the tank!!!
I find the M10 Booker fascinating in its role. I was reading articles of what the booker is supposed to do, it’s mission, and a recurring word was “Assault Gun” and my gut reaction was “Wait is this just a modernized Stug 3?” The mission of the booker is to role up in a mission where a heavy canon is needed but a tank is too much, fire at the target, and role away, carry some AP ammo in case you find an armored target but you are not meant to brawl with other vehicles. My main concern with the M10 Booker is the joke about it being a light tank and the fear that it will influence people to treat it as a tank. For the US, a light tank is more of a role whose mission has to include some form of reconnaissance. As far as it has been reported the Booker isn’t fit to do reconnaissance. I also fear if people keep calling a light tank, people will treat it as a light tank and send it on mission not suited for it and lead to crewman getting killed. Also, the point that the Booker looks like the Abrams is partly true but misleading. We know what an Abrams looks like and we know Booker looks like, but let’s imagine we don’t. Let’s imagine we are opfor, we see what looks like a tank from a distance but you can’t spend too much time trying to identify because you may get spotted. You know if it is an Abrams it will require heavier weapons to destroy, so you make the call and say you see an Abrams. You, opfor, fire the heaviest weapon you got and boom a dead tank, but it wasn’t an Abrams but a Booker. I feel this situation would be common with the M10 leading to a higher casualty rate for the Booker crewmen.
Feels like a worse Stryker M1128, tracked vehicles require support to be transported and seams that the M10 is even slower than the Abrams.
At the end the US got a light tank that is more expensive and slower than an MBT, requires the same maintenance and replace a vehicle that performed better the same role (Stryker).
The only improvement is that the engine use only disel, so it’s more ecofrendly than previous machines.
You're talking like the crew and military personnel responsible for planning and carrying out its missions are the people watching this video. Do you think the military doesn't know what its equipment is? How does a couple people on youtube calling it a light tank influence a commander's decision making in using it in missions?
(As an aside it is STRIKINGLY similar to a light tank as you mentioned, ESPECIALLY because they aren't meant for brawling against heavy weaponry)
@@andreambuter6806 Are you forgetting that the military are staffed by humans. Yes the the military know the specifications and capabilities of their equipment but even internally there are people who are calling it a light tank. You think privates aren’t calling it a light tank? There was an article by NYT that quoted a general who said (paraphrasing) “It looks like a light tanks, smells like a light tank, feels like a light tank, we are not calling it a light tank.” Remember, for the US, a light tank HAS to be recon capable, and the booker (as reported rn) only has standard optics and isn’t using any advance reconnaissance tools. The US rn, doesn’t have a light tanks but uses multiple vehicles for recon and relies entirely on air capability for recon. Back rot the point I’m trying to make: if people keep calling it a light tanks, think of it as a light tank, even if officially it ain’t, troops and commanders will treat it as a light tank. It happend in WW2 when commanders pushed their TDs to attack because they treated it as tanks. It happens with the A10 with pilots over reliance on the gun rather than the aircraft’s capability to carry large loads.
@@sfigatto_0167 read the performance of the m1128 and you will start doubting how good it is. Was the M1128 fast and the canon strong? Yes. Did it jam a lot and was a pain to maintain? Also yes. The gun being fully automatic meant that if their was a miss fire or a jam than it was up to the guns auto systems to un jam it, and it couldn’t/failed to do so enough for it to be brought into Maintnance frequently. There were multiple incidents where the Stryker’s gun jammed in mission and just had to leave because the crew had no way to fix it. The other problem with it was its doctrinal connection. The army wanted it attached to the Tank Company problem is the tank company mechanics are trained in the maintenance of the Abrams not the Stryker. Meaning that they had to take it to Mechanized Company mechanics who are trained on the Stryker but didn’t have tool to operate on the gun (the gun was proprietary and needed training from the company to fix the system) and still had to operate on their own strykers. Also tracks vs wheel has been argued since forever and my main caveat is that you want to keep it consistent in a unit. Also the criticism is leveled at the M1128 not other variants of the stryker
I mean I could see it being used for recon companies as support for its speed and maneuverability
“Probably fairly well protected” Yeaa homie I’m not taking those odds 😂
Every vehicle can be destoyed mate this isn't meant to be like the Abrams it's just a tank destoyer it's better then a stryker or bradley
What do you mean? Where do you think your odds are better
@@Prootgen anywhere that is better than “probably fairly well protected”
@@Ramiro.salcidoit’s not a vehicle with extra layers of armour. It’s literally a light vehicle it’s not meant for armour rather it’s meant for its speed and fairly small size and mobility. It also has good weaponry. You just made yourself look stupid with the first comment you made.
It is not better than the striker @magnusthered4973
Realisticly with atgms being so prolific and probably the main threat, heavier side armor and rear armor would make the most sense.
“It looks just like a Abrams.” Continues to list of every common modern main battle tanks.
The Booker is a light tank meant to replace the role of the Stryker as infantry support vehicle. Its not meant replace the Abrams or even go toe to toe with other heavy tanks. Its filling the role left by the obsolete Stryker. If anything its purpose is similar to the original intent of the Challenger II. I cant wait to see the M10 Booker in action! ❤ 🇺🇲
Are you referring to the m1128 MGS Stryker or strikers in general? because this vehicle sounds and looks like its going to to fill a different role other than troop carrier
@@tryingtolearn3157Pretty sure it’s just meant to replace the 105mm variant of the Stryker.
@@Ghent_Halcyon that's what I was thinking
It’s meant to be just strong enough not to be damaged by domestic armories but cheap enough to mass produce quietly. Mark my words.
That intro was pretty much "they're both tanks"
The army says , the Booker is not a tank
@@diegomoreno7760 right, I was just saying that the way she described the vehicle in the beginning was like describing any other ordinary tank, but I get your point
I imagine it's half the weight because they've realized physical armor doesn't really matter as much anymore with weapons that can essentially one-shot most tanks if a hit is made
"Looks very similar to Abrams"
"YEP, THATS A BOOKER RIGHT THERE... MAN THAT WAS THE HARDEST TEST I HAD."
About time we got a light tank back into the inventory since they can be shipped much easier via air.
It's not a light tank, it's an Assault Gun, similar in role to the StuG III and M8 Scott from ww2.
@@userequaltoNulllol. No.
It isn't a light tank, it's more so related to an assault gun. This vehicle still weighs a large amount, a Russian T-72B3 weighs around the same as it.
It is mobile protected firepower it is a replacement for the stryker ags
It's very similar to the Rheinmetall lynx 120, and this is labeled as a "fire support vehicle"
"The Booker looks very similar to the Abrams" "You can see from the roof on the turret, in particular, is actually armor" 😂
xdddddd
That second shot, its already got an oil pan under it. Truly an American vehicle moment
The booker looks very much like the abrams "hold up wait a minute"
The booker is literally a different type of AFV, and looks completely different
Tracked, 360 degree turret and large caliber gun describes like 95% of all Armoured vehicles of war for the last 120 years...
"And the turret spins 360" yeah we've been doing that since ww1...
The brooker looks like an Abram’s and a Bradly had a baby but the Abram’s is demanding a paternity test…
I’ll stick with the Abrams for safety
To be fair, the best defence against any weapon is to not be there, and I would guess that the lighter tank can probably reverse much faster than the heavier one. If you assume that the sensor-array and cameras are at least as good as the abrams, then I would assume that the booker is probably safer.
But I don't know much about tanks, and things like mine resistance and ammo placement of these two, so it probably depends on what you expect to face, and where you face it.
"looks like the abrams" yes they are indeed both tanks
Lighter tanks are very useful, getting over bridges and not bogged in mud is very useful.
Don’t worry. The full blueprints will be on war thunder’s forums by tomorrow
Abrams: I'm going to call him... mini me 👨👦
“Well you see it’s got tracks, which makes it a variant of the abrams. Very similar.”
Guy took the cloth off the tank like it was covering anything. "And now may I present... A tank!"
Thermal and infrared are the same. The TC and Gunner have always had thermals. The only difference is that the Booker will melt!
The booker is basically a bradley with a new turret.
No.
@@syzygy9 provide reasoning.
@@PantherAusfD1944 It has a larger gun that isn't an auto cannon, it doesn't carry infantry, and more armor, it is also going to be used in the assault gun role.
@@zacharykelly7926 my bad. I judged it because of how it looked on the exterior.
@@PantherAusfD1944 That's ok, we all make mistakes.
That's a good way to remember this Brave sergeant
My first thought was “Pentagon Wars”
“The Abrams and booker look similar” and then just immediately goes on to describe literally just a basic tank design. 😅🤷🏻♂️
That’s like saying a corvette and Camaro are similar because they have tires and a windshield. 😋
If you want accurate information on this vehicle please go see the Chieftains videos on it. He has two videos with the colonel who was involved in the testing at the M10 Booker, one of which is a walk around of this particular vehicle, and the other is of the competing vehicle the M8 MGS.
Thr M10 Wolverine is my favorite tank, or rather TD.
I hope this new M10 Booker is a worthy successor to the M10 Wolverine
M10 GMC, not M10 Wolverine, nobody even knows where the "Wolverine" comes from
@AHappyCub
Don't be a fun killer, just judging by that comment I know you play WarThunder.
Yes the correct term is M10 GMC. But who likes that over the M10 Wolverine? Not anyone I know.
@@soulnvictus In the Close Combat series they call it Wolverine. Same with Avalon Hill's "Squad Leader."
@@AHappyCubAnd I presume that you're a World of Tanks player 😅
@@megakirbo4250 "AnD i PrEsUme ThAt YouRe a WoRlD oF tAnK PlAyEr"
No I'm not
Mans really explaining this like it’s ww1 and we realized turrets exist
The m10 booker looks like an Abrams
*Lists characteristics of a tank*
You know it's only a matter of time until someone call it booger or hooker?
Wait I just did! 😂
Can see tankers abandoning these all over.
Breaking news: a light tank does not afford the same protection as a heavy tank. We'll pause a moment to allow the audience to recover from that shock.
It's not a light tank. It's an assault gun.
Ikr, so many people in this comment section "it doesn't have as much armor as Abrams so it won't work" not everything can have a mountain of armor stacked on top of it
@@randominternetguy8735It's an Infantry Support Vehicle. Defense specialists say it is AKIN to an assault gun but that is not the actual designation.
Wow it’s like they have an assortment of Heavy and light tank designs that surprisingly have the same things
Bringing back family guy vibes when peter bought a tank. 😂 The tank is a tank 🙌
"The booker looks very much like an Abrams" *proceeds to describe features of every MBT*
Trade some protections for better strategic and tactical mobility.
That's not trading protection. That's trading Mobility for death if it's hit with any Javelins because they attack the top of the tanks, you know, the part they took armor away from to make lighter.
Survivability Onion:
Don’t be seen
Don’t be acquired
Don’t be hit
Don’t be penetrated
Don’t be killed
Thats like saying whales are like dogs and then describing what makes them mammals...
M10 booker is like the Abrams! *Being to listen things all tanks have*
The M10 has a 105mm while the M1 has a 120mm.
there is like a gazillion m1 variants most of them have 105mms
The M1 started with the 105mm
WT is going to NERF this to the ground
They're just going to set the repair cost at 10k for a few years.
Oh it’s absolutely going to be mounted firmly at 10.0, right next to the TAM 2c
this is a high-school presentation but the students actually forgot to research the project 💀
Where do you keep the new luxury "Abrams" with the miny bar and big screen TV.😂
Its not meant to replace the Abrams. It's meant to operate in a more similar way to the Sherman tank - which officially wasnt comsidered a tank - it was a fast infantry support mobile gun.
its official name was Medium Tank, M4
The Sherman was very much considered a tank…
I believe he meant Sheridan not Sherman
@@cameron8683 That would explain a lot :)
Looks similar? U sure abt that?
To unassuming civilians it is very similar to Abrahams.
Compared to russian T90s at least
@@meferswift yeah very simmilar, they have a gun, tracks, a turret, theyre both called a tank
@@kyizelma exactly
“Probably fairly well protected” - Drones defeat top armour....
Interesting to see the change in doctrine. It's a good change too; with anti-tank weapons becoming a lot better, speed is at a better premium than armor.
M10 Booker: Step aside old timer, its my time to shine.
Right up until it takes a main gun round from an MBT. Then, it has proven that the odds of survivability are not as good as the Abrams.
Wonder if the Booker is as armored on top against RPG rounds as well.
You know, because of the "fairly well protected" aspect.
The 1940s M10 Looking at 2020s M10 be like: "Do you not know how to name tanks USA?!!!!"
I am glad that I am not alone when I immediately thought about M10 Wolverine.
@@BloPsy__ "Wolverine" is not even a real nickname, nobody even knows where it comes from, while the real name is M10 GMC
Me when i fix my m1 to my m1 and climb out the m1
@@AHappyCubit's the Wolverine.
@@theEWDSDS It's really not
The M10 Booker - A vehicle with the protection of a Stryker, with the weight of a T72, and the size profile of a barn.
Pentagon Wars reference?
"As you can see, this Tank looks like a Tank, so it is a Tank."
Man, that’s dope.
Of all the tanks ive ever seen, this tank is certainly one of them.
“The front is most likely to get hit so it’s very well protected”
*Circles top of turret*
Finally we needed a new era of armor
As a taxpayer I'd rather spend 100+ billion dollars on the new Abrams X than send it to a corrupt Ukraine.
yeeee
How about 100+ billion dollars to Ukraine, and tanks. We can skip public healthcare though.
@isoboy2125 my family and I have great insurance through my employer. Insurance wouldn't be so expensive if we didn't have to pay the Healthcare of all these lazy bums and illegal immigrants.
It's as if an Abrams and a Bradley had a baby😂
"The booker looks very similar to the Abrams"
*Procedes to describe basic features on almost every single tank.*
Booker is US looking at Germany’s Leopard and thinking:
“Yep, I want that, but cheaper”
No it's not
Not in a mile