M10 Booker: The $13 Million Mini Abram That’s Not A Tank
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 09. 2023
- What if the key to triumph on the modern battlefield wasn't brute force, but a perfect blend of agility, firepower, and innovation?
After four decades of reliance on battle tanks like the Abrams, the U.S. Army finally unveils a provocative contender: the M10 Booker, formerly known as Mobile Protected Firepower or MPF.
With its fully traversable turret, a potent 105-millimeter main gun, and the ability to navigate terrains that would confound traditional tanks, the M10 Booker has ignited a fierce debate among military circles. Is it a light tank or a harbinger of a new era in armored warfare? How does it measure up against the battle-hardened Abrams, and why has the Army poured over $1.14 billion dollars into this audacious venture?
In today’s episode, we invite you to explore the world of the M10 Booker: diving into its unique features, design decisions, roles in combat, and the vision behind its inclusion in the United States Army's weaponry.
Subscribe Now :
/ @military-tv - Věda a technologie
Only one error in the comparison, the M10 has a 105mm main gun and the M1 has a 120mm main gun not a 105mm as suggested by the creator….
The M1 has a 105mm. The M68e1 105mm
M1A1 & M1A2 Abrams use a 120mm smoothbore main cannon;
@@keithreh9338 was not the original gun. Those are both updated models. The M1 had a 105mm gun. A1 and A2 are updated models
The first M1 had a 105mm gun. It was upgraded to the (West) German (at the time.) 120mm gun in the mid 80s. Hence, the M1A1 designation.
So should we call it a medium tank. I see the Haruman medium tank share similar characteristics
Closer to a light tank
@@Siviks309 Why? It weighs 40 tons. Just like the medium tanks of the 1950s and 60s. And a gun of the same caliber.
The M 10 is an M-41 Walker Bulldog upfitted with a 105mm gun, A/C and Wifi.
Shhhhh.
Yes, and this is a very strange decision. I still don't understand why it's needed. Doesn't Abrams have the best armor against Russian ATGMs?
the m10 is not to replace the abrams, it has a different role@@Danila_SLAVA_RUSIA
It's a light(er) tank but with the function of an assault gun. Like the old German StuG III, it's job is to 'shoot in' the infantry, and has a secondary anti-tank role.
It doesn't have an anti tank role. It's 105 can hurt armored fighting vehicles and Soviet era tanks before the advent of main battle tanks. But for modern MBT, that's asking way too much of this. It's going to need to rely on anti tank teams, accurate artillery, and strike aircraft.
@@bl8danjil105mm high velocity with apfsds will kill MBT's.
@@T_81535 Nope, it is not combat effective enough against MBT from the front. If it did then every single modern MBT would have switched over to that barrel size instead because they could carry more rounds. The reality is that everyone switched because a 120mm just had more bang for the size, which means more kinetic energy.
The main problem is that the M10 Booker has a rifled barrel from what I read. APFSDS rounds are hindered by rifling and they decrease the barrel life. For something that is just going to take on hardened fortifications or provide direct fire support for infantry the Army will not be wasting precious space in that AFV for something that anti tank teams, aircraft, and tanks can do far better and with less risk. If it is going up against other armored fighting vehicles that are not MBT, then it might engage them because the rounds that the Booker would be carrying would suffice.
Part of being a good anti-tank gunner is knowing where to aim. You don't necessarily need a hit on the front or the turret to knock out a tank. A mobility kill is certainly better than no hit at all. @@bl8danjil
Still the lacking turret armor makes it weak to small(haha) main tank weapon systems as as guided rocket systems.
Now that's how you support our infantry. I being a former grunt appreciate effective armor.
May I ask you as a professional? Would you prefer more Abrams or Booker to support your infantry company during an attack on an enemy company stronghold?
Logisyically this is a great move. I can see being able to move these via Air more easily due to the tonnage.
It's as expensive as a Leclerc, as heavy as a T-72, and is armed with a gun having caliber similar to an M60.
And protected up to 30mm caliber in the standard configuration. The original T-64 with a 115mm gun weighed 35 tons and was protected up to 105mm.
@@JAnx01wrong
And It will be Blown up by RPG-7
@@mtf_savage_beasts2565 no shit Captain Obvious, because it's a LIGHT TANK
@@mtf_savage_beasts2565 it has trophy active defense system.
The Booker is 30 tons lighter, goes 100 miles farther and Carrie’s the same gun the Abrams first came out with. I would call it a medium tank not light. With a four man crew it can shoot faster than an auto loader. The key is why, u can carry two Bookers for every one Abram, on aircraft, C-17, C-5 maybe a C-130j can carry one or the replacement of C-130 and on ships. You can carry two on an LCAC, which can carry only one Abrams. In Europe we can leave Abrams, in the Pacific we have to transports all Vehicles to each location even S Korea. Even if we store Abrams in Japan one in danger of attack from enemy missiles two still need to transport to fight. The next fight will be in Pacific, at least we r gearing up for it. Then u have the soil problem on islands like Philippines Taiwan and other locations. If an amphibious landing the beach sand. Fuel will have two come by ship, with submarines can u count on enough fuels or cruise missiles. In Desert storm we had cruise missiles not the enemy, today? Guess what I’m saying it’s logistics. Second the Russian modern tanks have not proven very good so an Abrams is over kill even in Pacific and the Chinese will have to transport their tanks to each island.
The 105mm gun is for taking out fortifications. Its not meant to combat other tanks. And medium tanks dont fit modern-day warfare. It's basically a modern day 105 sherman.
No. The teal issue is how many senators and congressional charlatans have gotten rich. I mean AIC went from nothing to Congressperson to multi millionaire on her $120 k salary. I wonder how they do that.
Speaking of Russian tanks, did you mean that in general all heavy tanks with composite armor did not justify themselves at such a weight? So are they as vulnerable as medium or light tanks?
The Russian tanks has proven not very good according to my consumption of war propaganda.
@@PlayfulDoggyIt's meant to combat everything but a main battle tanks.
M1A1 and M1A2 use a 120mm cannon, while the M10 uses a 105mm cannon.
The US government probably recognizes that the next conflict would be in Asia. Light Tanks would be more applicable in Asia's terrain because of the small streets and roads, and also the jungle. A 74 ton Abram Tanks would have a difficult time working its way on small Asian streets and roads. It might also get stuck in the jungle and mud.
Also with island hopping. The Abrams just wouldn't be as easily transported as the Booker as we got from island to island.
The Booker is as wide as the Abrams. I would have wanted to see them make a more narrow tank to fit down those roads and city alleys.
At 38-40 tons? It will do no fighting in Asia. It would just sink in the mud. If it wants to fight in asia, it would need to drop 15-20 tons and increase the width of its tracks by 50%.
It would need AC too. Else between the humidity and heat, the environment will kill the crew inside. Since 1990s, average day time temperature in SEA has increased from 28 Celsius to 35 Celsius. And right now we are experiencing a heat wave with +40C temperatures and +90 humidity. ie you do not sweat. You feel like you are being suffocated. The only way to cool down is to bath in cold water. Fans only blow hot air at you. People can die from heat stroke in the shade.
And the booker is still too wide and too long. 2.4m wide? 6.8m long? Unless US tank drivers drive into buildings to doge enemy fire, every street will be a kill zone. There is no space for this big boy to turn. Got to make the tank even smaller. 2 - 3 man crew at most. 1.8m wide, 4m long at most. And even this will barely allow you drive on the road.
And yes... this is why tanks are not an important component in SEA armies. Sure APC and maybe a few IFV. And lots of guys on foot with RPGs. While SEA government do go about buying a few tanks, their primary use in SEA is for parades.
Glad the M10 Booker is finally in production. 🇺🇸💪
It's more like an MGS. Probably to replace the Stryker Mobile Gun System. Gives the infantry heavy firepower in areas that the Abrams couldn't get to. When I was in 2nd Stryker, we used the MGS on more of a role like it sounds like they want this to be in.
And the Phasing out of Bradleys
It should have been designed with an autoloader, given weight requirements, a need for one less man, and it would provide for better performance.
I saw the chieftains video and I think either this vehicle or one of the other prototypes had an autoloader
Autoloader is just another point of failure in my eyes, just look at the russian tanks, they keep getting hit in the Autoloader and exploding
Yep@@championxxlNL
I agree with you 100%.
@@championxxlNL The autoloader can be combined with the kick-off panels. Like a French or Japanese tank. And actually, Western tanks also explode, since additional ammunition is located in the hull near the driver.
JUST NASTY! LOVE IT
"Mini"! Big Brother is a beast.
The designation M10 makes me think of the M10 wolverine early tank destroyer able to take some hit but not a lot, provide over watch on allied troops and armor. Which i think the M10 Booker fits that build
To me its like Sherman. Made for infantry support with smaller gun and much more easily transportable in large numbers.
@xwing8029 yeah either or if the millitary uses it as more mobile artillery like the early 75mm sherman or if they uses it to take out heavy armored targets like what the m10 wolverine would have done
@@xwing8029105 sherman
That mini Abrams is a cute little tank
More comparison numbers vs heavy and light tanks would have been good. How fast?
Wah desain mirip tank harimau pindad
Dengan mesin di belakang , full track ,
Tapi booker lebih unggul di harga dan sensor..
Hebat sekali...
Ya kita butuh tank medium
Karena hanya 10 persen area di dunia yang berupa dataran luas...
Lebih banyak pegunungan hutan rawa sungai
Salam dari indonesia
Tank pindad
5:31 - LMAO, that's the M8 AGS, not the M10 Booker.
The Booker seems to be a fine combat vehicle. However, for what it offers, it seems to be too expensive ... For much less, you could get a modernized Tanque Argentino Mediano TAM which is quite similar in mission and performance, or something similar to a T-72, which weights almost as much, but it cheaper, better protected and better armed....
Yes to TAM [the upgrade version]. But no to the T-72. The war in Ukraine has shown it to be death trap.
Listen, knucklehead. Stifle that shit. Ain't no money in that for our Senators and Congresspersons. Hush.
Well, I suppose they wanted a lighter armored vehicle to support IFV with some artillery power, thus this thing was designed to fill the increasing gap between the IFV´s and MBT, sometimes too heavy for some tasks.
How many can be made in what time frame?
Wow look at all the military experts in the comments. Judging a vehicle like this comparing it to main battle tanks with a totally different use case scenarios.
Todays abrams are equipped with 120mm, the only abrams fitted with 105mm are the early standard M1 used during the gulf war 1990
This is all great in theory, I'm hoping it's an effective vehicle for our military. My question is, if it is a good salad platform for combat. How many years will it be for them to get an effective amount in inventory to be online effectively as formidable force! To which we would need at least several thousand to be militarily effective against any number of adversaries we face and doing so within a short period of time say 6 months to a year...
They aren't using them in that way. They will go to infantry units rather than dedicated tank units.
It’s not a replacement for the MBT. Abrams X or another future build will replace Abrams in Armored Divisions in the event the Army determine that an Abrams replacement is even necessary.
Booker is designed specifically to deploy with airborne and air assault forces in the opening hours of a drop.
Not that I’m sure that mission is necessary, or best filled by a tank of this sort, but the Booker is meant to give more weight to traditionally light infantry forces.
They are gonna send the first 100,000 of them to Ukraine. Then 400 will be dropped off in Afghanistan to make up for shortages on shit we didn't leave them already. 3000 will be built for the new armed IRS to facilitate checking 1040A's. 120 per state in case we refuse to get the next shot coming up. It is an election year, you know. Gotta mail in them ballots.
lancet: fine, fine!
Equip the M10 Booker with Trophy Active Protection System and it will be near unstoppable.
Why would you install a "Trophy" system?! Don't the Israelis consider it outdated?! They installed a new "Windbreaker" active protection system on the Merkava Mk5!
@@milangorenjak Windbreaker is Trophy. "Trophy" is the export name.
@@milangorenjakTrophy system is not outdated. It is being constantly upgraded.
@@IsraelMilitaryChannelRPG-7 is enough for this tank.
@@IsraelMilitaryChannelHow many RPG-7 will your Trophy active protection system stop?
This is not a "contender" to the Abrams tank. This is another weapon thst will be used by Infantry Combat Brigade Teams.
Send it see if it's the Wonder weapon
Can't know til it comes home with battle scars and video
Only time will tell if this system is worth it. Also the tactics mut support its use or it will fail.
They are already working on its replacement. AOC wants a beach house tool
This does everything "some" generals thought a tank was for in WWII, plus it has an effective assault gun and artillery piece. I submit the 105mm is the best all around heavy weapon on the battlefront. You can have all the other stuff you want, but this can fill those unexpected gaps when they occur. We should get a lot more. The M-10 and the new 6.8mm round for infantry showcase an effective effort to improve our troops capabilities and protection.
They are just playing mental gymnastic at this point. It perform everything a tank did and it does what the tank normally when engage in combat.
Want do we need a 105 for still.... id rather see something like a 50mm auto canon more ammo options and more ammo.
I always thought of the Booker as a Heavy Assault Vehicle.
I always thought it was somebody who left really fast.
Why did the military pour 1.14 Billion dollars for the Booker Tank? Same way they poured billions of dollars on the Littoral Combat Ships.
The time to find out you made a mistake is when you are at peace. Case in point the M3 becomes the M4. BEFORE WWll, the brits were putting Aluminum Armour on some of their ships, that changed QUICK.
If it's not a light tank, how bout classify it as a medium tank instead?
If a heavy infantry fire support vehicle with such a price tag would be based on the Ukrainian experience, something that would look more like a Terminator would be expected. If a 30-ton tank with a 105 mm cannon would be needed, just take over a batch of second-hand French AMX-30 tanks and refurbish them. This would present a much more cost-effective solution.
but then how will military industrial complex sheer the american sheep public
Russian infantry wants more BMP-3s, looks like that concept works best for them. BMP-3 is IFV but its 100mm low pressure gun, combined with 30mm auto-canon proved its self in infantry support role more than any other Russian system so far. Terminator can not do nothing that BMP-2 already can minus crew carrier capability, ofc l am aware of armor difference but still l do not see Russian troops crying for more Terminators, they want more BMP-3s. BMP-3 is far more lighter than Booker, but Russian infantry did asked for more armor on their BMP-3s. In the end l think we might see more tank diversity in future just like during WW2, and this lite/medium size armored vehicles will be backbone of armies.
@@youmad7068 Russia had 400 BMP-3s in active service at the start of the war and have lost a minimum 300 BMP-3s
@@n3v3rforgott3n9, l do not see what is your point? My point was BMP-3 showed more effective then any other vehicle in infantry support role during this war. Ukraine lost more than half of its Bradley fleet in less then couple of months after introduction... it is high intensity war, what do you expect? As for BMP-3s, Russia had 640 before the war, close to 300 were lost but not all destroyed, damaged vehicles get repaired and sent back to front and they are producing new batches every month. In the end the side that can keep up with math of war will win. If west can feed Ukraine with more armor and ammo than Russia can produce, then maybe Ukraine can win. That is if they do not run out of man power. Russia has five times the population and far more people to trow into furnace.
@@youmad7068 "Ukraine lost more than half of its Bradley fleet in less then couple of months after introduction"
-based on what? I am tracking 55 being less than half of 124(190) with the smaller number being the last known amount in Ukrainian hands but that was 3 months ago sooo.
" it is high intensity war, what do you expect?"
-I'll be frank the US attacking Ukraine wouldn't even suffer 1/16 of Russia's losses even at the highest estimate.
"If west can feed Ukraine with more armor and ammo than Russia can produce"
-NATO has barely sent 4% of its yearly military budget 2 times to Ukraine...
T90 tanks have 125mm main cannon. This is likely the tank it will face in the future. Or the T14 armata. Not to mention enemy man portable anti-tank weapons and killer drones.
With these kind of threats, the booker should be fitted with an active protection system as well as bolt-on armor for improved survivability. And a 120mm main gun for improved lethality.
This is not a MBT. It's purpose is solely an Assault Gun role. It might go up against other ARMORED Fighting Vehicles, but it's job is to help the infantry destroy bunkers, blockades, and enemy infantry in buildings. It is not replacing the Abrams, which has things such as the features you stated when going up against other MBT.
@@bl8danjilIt will be destroyed by a RPG-7
@@mtf_savage_beasts2565 Oof. IFV and other armored fighting vehicles are also vulnerable to that too. That argument is never going to deter a country from using them either.
@@bl8danjil Waste of Money That's what it is.
@@mtf_savage_beasts2565 Maybe, maybe not. It's certainly better than all of the armored fighting vehicles Russia has sent into Ukraine. The better reverse speed alone makes it better than all the Soviet era tanks.
Send it to Ukraine for testing 😂
you mean for rapid violent disassembly
@@marsmotion
Exactly 👍
It will be destroyed by a RPG-7 lol
@@mtf_savage_beasts2565 your mothers v@g1na got destroyed by RPG-7
I am a 68 year old retired U.S. Army Master Sergeant (E8/1972-1993) and former Defense Contractor (2005-2010). In my opinion this is a total waste of money! Although tracked, this is similar to the M1128 wheeled Mobile Gun System and will probably end up going the same way in the end. They can tell you what is isn't, but have a hard time articulating what it is. While they deny it, this is nothing more or less than a light tank and much more vulnerable because of that. When heavy tanks are having a tough time on the battlefields of Ukraine, how do you think this vehicle will do against drones and anti-armor weapons? What is really needed in my opinion are assault guns and flame thrower tanks for urban environments. We haven't had something like an assault gun since we retired the M728 Combat Engineer Vehicle. It's replacement, the M1150 Assault Breacher Vehicle, got rid of the gun which in my opinion was a silly decision. The 165mm M135 short-barreled demolition gun which fired HEP (high explosive, plastic) squash head ammunition was perfect for dealing with structures and fortifications of all types in an urban environment. I know since I was a mechanized combat engineer squad leader in an Armored Cav Regiment from 1980-1984, and we had these vehicles. Flame thrower tanks should also be brought back as well. They have an extreme psychological and intimidation effect on the battlefield and are great for clearing people out of structures and fortifications. Getting rid of flamethrowers of all types was one of the biggest mistakes the army made years ago when the decision was made to eliminate them.
Named after 3 Booker's. I transported SSG Booker to the 86th Cash at LSA Adder. 2nd BCT 3ID. Dog Face Soldier forever. Til Valhalla brother.
Philippines need this
Maybe the M10 was given the 105 gun to stop higher ranks from thinking about using it agenst tanks with a 125 gun . Upgrades yes a new turret with an autoloader is the way ahead and maybe among the wish list add ons is a couple of drones to spot the targets quickly whilst you are on the way to the position and or a link so Drone footage can be sent to the TC so he and the crew can see what the situation is before they get there . And the infantry can feed information to the M10 so if they spot a Cornet being set up the tank sees it at the same time as to who would be keeping an eye on this I volunteer the driver as he would have the tank in reverse anyway as most tanks now pop up and shoot then drop back if he's showen the Cornet he does not have to Rely on the tc to tell him to reverse or move get the he'll out of here lol
The decision was partially driven by that, but also economics (less wear, already available ammo) and the ability to carry more ammo per vehicle.
@@vojtechpribyl7386 it's said that there developing a multi purpose round for the M10 in 105 like the Abrahams has if so then the M10 may only need say six Sabot rounds the rest multi purpose that wiould be a great game changer I'd also swap out the M2 Browning for a M230 LF put the M2 in as a coe axel you could also mount a GPMG on the crows station alongside the M230 LF still keep the GPMG at the loaders hatch
So, they invented the Romanian TR85 medium tank.
You're a wit! )))))
@@Danila_SLAVA_RUSIA Slava Ucraina :)
@@masterdon3821 I said it - you're a wit! x)))))) Good time of day!👋
It's a fucking tank!
The U.S. Army's last light tank was the M551 Sheridan, withdrawn from service in 1991. Before that the U.S. Army fielded in 1951 the excellent M41 light tank Walker Bulldog, with its 76mm high velocity cannon. And before that came the excellent light tank design, the M24 Chaffee. Finally, the first light tanks of WW2 in the U.S. Army were the M3 and M5 Stuart light tanks.
In spite of this, the U.S. Army decided the light tank concept was a doctrinal and technological dead-end.
However, the old axiom remains relevant. Necessity is the mother of Invention.
The need for something like a light, fast, maneuverable tank remained and resurfaced in Desert Storm, Iraqi Freedom, and Afghanistan.
Historians could argue that the U.S. Army had inadvertently created such a viable vehicle in WW2, the M18 Hellcat tank destroyer. All it needed was a roof and then the Army would have an excellent light tank with a 76mm cannon.
Nonetheless, the Army was poised to return to the light-tank concept, but eschewing the term, 'light tank', in favor of, tracked armored vehicle, infantry support self-propelled cannon. It also sounded better to a suspicious Congress, not wishing to invest more billions in new tanks.
This was the AMC light tank in 1994. It was a marvelous design and also resembled a miniature M1 tank. The U.S. Army was set to commit the AMC to mass production until its sudden cancellation in 1994. The dissolution of the adversarial Soviet Union meant the U.S. Army could dispense with any new armored combat vehicles and save lots of money.
But no one could foresee 9/11, and the ensuring campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq.
While the M1A1 Abrams main tank and the M2/M3 Bradley did a good job, the infantry and armor both began wishing for a light tank again.
What you see here, folks, is a resurrection of the AMC, albeit a new design by a new corporation. But all the required old specifications are still there including some new ones, since computer technology has advanced considerably.
The benefit of the M10 Booker is that it is a completely new design. Had the AMC been adopted, we would be looking at a 29 year old light tank design, wondering if it is still relevant.
We can only hope the U.S. Army doesn't come up with cold feet again and bow out of the M10 Booker citing any number of new excuses for not following through. Just give the infantry and armored soldiers what they want. Everyone loves the M1A1 and the Bradley. But they still want a versatile light tank that is a useful jack-of-all-trades.
Booker price 13 mil. per unit
Abrams price 33 mil. per unit
Russian T90M price 3 mil. per unit ( Abrams competitor)
Russian BMD 4 price 1 mil per unit ( Booker competitor)
The US has no chance with it's over overpriced military tech and vehicles over Russia.
And Russia crews have no chance of surviving in their poorly armored trash vehicles.
The US has been looking for a heavily armed light tank with the firepower of the Abrams that could be transported two at a time on aircraft for a while, something you have overlooked:)
Nothing but a target!
I would consider the M10 Booker as a medium tank by that I mean it's in between the Abrams and I like tanks
To borrow WW2 terminology, its a Pocket MBT idea, hopefully it wont be as useful as the US Army ACU camo programme..
I can see this being used in asian areas or mountain areas where a 50++ Ton MBT tank cant really go to be used.
Might also be more usable in some urban type areas as well, where an Abrams cant get in an move well. .
I see it being stuck the mud of most Asian region due to its weight and narrow tracks. And going into mountains, it will collapse bridges from it weight. As for urban areas, this tanks is too wide and too long and I see the streets being turn into concrete slot canyons where the tank can only go straight. It might be more usable than the Abram but it is simply too big.
It's more like a light tank . Infact it is a tank just not a MBT.
All Abrams tanks are armed with the M256 120mm smoothbore gun. The 105 rifled gun on the Abrams was phased out 30 years ago. This was a poorly researched video
The M-10 BOOKER the new WOAK LIGHT TANK!
Since The Marines got rid of their Abrahms Tanks, these would be perfect for them in infantry support.
Yea, but they don't want something that has to be transported or recovered by other prime movers, that's why they got rid of their Abrams. Basically, they want everything to be completely amphibious and not in need of additional heavy vehicles for support.
Why do i foresee a pod of tow missiles just like on the Bradley that way if the gun doesn't do it the tow will
So...the end of the Stryker?
This video is a great example of saying 8 minutes worth of speech and about 30 seconds of anything worth speaking for.
I was just thinking that!😂😂😂 Boriiiinng😂
Top speed????
so it's like a Armored combat support vehicles
So a self propelled gun? Or possibly a TD?
Strictly an infantry mobile gun system. It does not want to fight tanks.
13 million dollars is absolutely absurd
They should call it a Medium Tank; based on it's weight.
During WW2, the Sherman was considered a Medium tank, but weighed under 30 tons. Just saying!🤷
It is 38-42 tons. The Russian MBT T90 is only 46 tons. It is slight narrower and shorter than the Booker. In fact The M10 Booker would be considered a heavy tank by most nations.
Ok so call it a medium tank.
The M10 Booker is the M1 Abrams' little brother.
So the M10 Booker is the shock troopers tank?
Vaccination Enforcement Brigade.
Price should drop when producing in large numbers like with f35 fighters. This looks like modern Sherman, great for transporting at overseas in larger numbers.
The modern Adrams has a 105?
I officially copyright the name "Baby A" as in baby Abrams. Please send royalty checks directly to me. Thank you.
Diesel, yes, the main default of the M1, sadly it is a 105 mm a very old gun from 1950; 70 years old. Going to CTCA should have been far better. For the same size sweden put a 120 mm gun, it demands less logistics then.
Abrams are just too heavy and expensive to operate & maintain, so Booker is there to provide alternative choice.
What kind of engine does it have ?
Pretty sure a light tank is still a tank, doesn't have to be a main battle tank like the Abrams
So call it a medium tank. People know what a tank is.
So...basically....its a Russian tank that the west made fun of
Difference is that the west can actually mass produce these tanks while the Russians are stuck with T-14 prototypes.
You do know they want "boomer" but got renamed
ITS A LIGHT TANK
Can a javelin blow the turret off? If so, it is a waste of money.
Javelin can blow everyone turret u can imagine...
Lol a RPG-7 is enough for it.
I don't see why we would use our own javelins on our own vehicles...but yes it probably could
13mil booker vs 10k drone, who wins?
It's the army's version of the air force/navy F-35 disaster. Too expensive to lose and hammered with problems and issues. The infantry needed a light vehicle with a weapon big enough to knock down a house or small building. Something along the lines of the M551 "Sheridan" only with a 75mm or 90mm gun. If nothing else bring back the 106mm recoil-less rifle on a utility vehicle. But no. Those wouldn't cost enough.
Look up the M1128 Mobile Gun System, a Stryker with a 105 mm gun on it.
Innovation? World War 2, infantry support tank?
Deadlined as soon as it gets to the motorpools
Has our military learn nothing from Ukraine? Why put a vehicle worth millions of dollars on the battlefield? When it can be easily destroyed by a single drone worth a couple of hundred? This makes absolutely no sense at all. Good grief.
Maybe the USA will offer the M10 to Taiwan instead of the Abrams its Contracted to provide. It would and really could complement Taiwan better.
Better strategic mobility than Abrams, for sure. And less maintenance. Great for expeditionary forces (looking at you, USMC).
I would definitely see the USMC using this. Ever since they got rid of their M1A1s, an amphibious variant of the M10 would be great for the USMC.
ww2 through Vietnam America had more then one "Tank".. USA needs more then one Tank, and US Military needs more then one kind of IFV.
Wondering why don't the USA make a slightly bigger "Bradley Style IFV" with a V Shaped under haul, the Leopards 2's diesel powerplant. Which has a MTU MB 873 Ka-501 liquid-cooled V12 twin-turbo diesel engine 1100 kW at 2600 rpm VS.. A 500-horsepower, supercharged, eight-cylinder, liquid-cooled diesel engine.
Equip it with Mk44 Bushmaster II which is a 30 mm chain gun manufactured by Northrop Grumman. It is a derivative of the 25 mm M242 Bushmaster, and uses 70% of the same parts as the M242 while increasing the firepower by as much as 50% with the 20% increase in caliber size. Include a SIG MG 338 which is primarily chambered in .338 Norma Magnum and has an effective range of approximately 1,700 meters. A full auto mk19 40mm grenade launcher,
and a Triple-tube, Tube-Launched, Optically Tracked, Wireless-Guided (TOW) Anti-Tank Missile Launcher. With deployable "smoke" & chaffing, an drone jamming capability. Upgraded latest and greatest internal computers, fire suppression, and seats. These Few upgrades, and modifications, could theoretically improve the Bradley designed vehicles while saving some costs. No need to completely redesign and build completely from scratch when you could remodel a known design, build off an around it, and it should shorten build times.
That turrets SHITE armor makes it vulnerable to even smaller turrets. Hell a well placed recoiless(obviously a joke, but 85mm probably can) might knock out the main gun.... the fuck is the us military thinking.
The army was thinking of diversifying its options. If you need heavy armor, you got abrams, if you need light armor, you got booker
It's a Sheridan replacement.
Is this Ai? Who is the Host?
Ukraine has demonstrated very limited tank on tank combat. Tanks are being used almost exclusively against infantry. This is much more feasable solution for this role.
How is feasable when is more expensive than a Abrams?
You already has a Stryker SPG with the same gun but at least was faster and cheaper
@@flavius5722 Booker cost $12.9m, Abrams sep v3 cost $24 million. The large gun variant of Stryker was cancelled.
@@timothygermann780 M1A1 cost 11 milions
I know it was cancelled , but they something worse ? ( the booker )
@@flavius5722 @flavius5722 As I said, Ukraine has had very limited tank on tank combat. The booker is optimized as infantry support tank which is what Ukraine needs. And the US is not putting an older version of Abrams back into production when its outclassed by most modern tanks in an anti armor roll and too slow and inefficient as infantry support armor. Its just not happening. And the Stryker M1128 was cancelled because it was plagued with problems.
@@timothygermann780 Read my "lips " The booker is usless on the battelfield în absolute any purpose, it has all the dezatvanteges of a tank but with less firepower and armour but somehow is more expensive
The french are already replacing their AMX 10 with a vehicle with autocanon
the US is going backword
The pure concept of M5 Ripjaw is making the Booker look like a piece of garbage
but will the forced conscript old men and now women be able to operate it in ukr?
Abrams' gun is 120mm and not 105mm .
Its a modernised leopard 1, just say that. Largeish, with a good 105 gun, maneuverable with armor that you would rather not test in combat. I just saved someone 8 minutes.
it's a light tank say on wiki
I don't find logic in a very tall vehicle with a 105 mm cannon, I would prefer to improve the Abrams with more technology, armor, protection, weapons, in short a super tank. But I see this broker as incompetent for modern combat
Con lo que vale el booker compro mejor el abrams o el k2 black panther surkoreano oe venden 4 t90 a precio de costo y cada t90 pesa lo mismo que el booker. Me va mejor la inversión para mi ejército.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
Who ordered the a Abrams jr.
Goldilocks tank?
Yeah, I guess if you always have a 5-second pause in between each sentence, that means you can take a 5-minute video and make it 8 minutes long... pretending it has more information than a 5 minute video would.