User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 9:36:24 AM EST
Inside the US Army's latest weapon of war: Officials release specs for new $13M combat vehicle the M10 Booker that they insist is NOT a tank
The US military has invested over $1.3 billion into a high-tech weapon of war M10 Booker 'light tanks' are seen as an upgrade to the classic M1A2 Abrams The vehicle is decked out in sophisticated combat weaponry  The reduced size of the Booker sparked debate over its categorization, with some of the top brass wary of the word 'tank' and preferring to downplay its potency. Maj. Gen. Glenn Dean, program executive officer of Army Ground Combat Systems told a press conference in June that the Booker is set to be used in a different capacity to its larger predecessors. 'The historic use of "light tank" is to perform reconnaissance functions, and this is not a reconnaissance vehicle, it’s an assault gun,' he said. 'Historically, it’s not actually a mission match, even though it looks like, feels like, and smells like (a tank).' https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12461451/Inside-Armys-latest-weapon-war-M10-Booker.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 9:44:14 AM EST
[#1]
Looks like a tank.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 9:44:30 AM EST
[#2]
So this is a trans-tank?
Weighs less, weaker armament, & costs millions more than a real tank. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 9:47:11 AM EST
[#3]
Is it a mineral?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 9:49:41 AM EST
[#4]
Assault gun you say?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 9:51:23 AM EST
[#5]
Could just be all of the lies our Government has been rolling out over the last three years.. but I have a nagging suspicion that this non-tanks primary design function is less international and more ..domestic.
Good chance that people in high levels of power.. right now are plotting the final solution for the American Patriots. Commanding officers with blue hair and mutilated genitals don't view threats to American values the same way officers in the past may have. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 9:51:24 AM EST
[#6]
That deal on the end of the tube is not a laser. It is a culminator. For some reason I thought this was going to have a auto loader.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 9:51:38 AM EST
[#7]
Assault weapon? Tanks a lot!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 9:51:40 AM EST
[#8]
It's a light tank.
You'd think a general could tell huh? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 9:52:15 AM EST
[#9]
Typical .
The MRS isn't a laser . |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 9:52:53 AM EST
[#10]
O
Quote HistoryQuoted: Could just be all of the lies our Government has been rolling out over the last three years.. but I have a nagging suspicion that this non-tanks primary design function is less international and more ..domestic. Good chance that people in high levels of power.. right now are plotting the final solution for the American Patriots. Commanding officers with blue hair and mutilated genitals don't view threats to American values the same way officers in the past may have. Oh I like that ... we are NOT deploying tanks on American streets to repel the usurping bitter clingers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 9:53:30 AM EST
[#11]
i understand its not a tank. the capabilities / armor etc make it 'not a tank'.
but i also understand people will still refer to it as a tank -- just out of convenience and / or ignorance kinda like people mislabel ARs as assault rifles. its wrong -- but they still do it. you start sounding like the 'actshuuualllly' guy. i'm just glad they are fielding these. great to see the infantry getting some heavier firepower. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 9:54:37 AM EST
[#12]
Surprised it isn't all electric.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 9:54:57 AM EST
[#13]
Definitely a light AFV.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 9:55:39 AM EST
[#14]
'Culminater'?
Oh, 'collimator'? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collimator_sight |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 9:55:40 AM EST
[#15]
I don't care if they call it their uncle George. It's going to be used as a tank. Just like they use the Bradley and that (sometimes) floaty thing the Marines have.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 9:55:53 AM EST
[#16]
Clankity-clank, looks like a tank
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 9:56:11 AM EST
[#17]
WTF is a 24hr run time? Is this thing EV?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 9:57:26 AM EST
[#18]
seeing this thing getting out in the press make me feel proud of myself for the first time in my life. Finally got my career choice on track and I can say my fingerprints are inside that thing. Seeing your effort turn into something is cool.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 9:57:48 AM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Typical . The MRS isn't a laser . Muzzle Reference System used to compensate for the barrel warping as it heats up. 3 minute something video that explains the old MRS system and the new Dynamic MRS system being implemented.  Muzzle Reference System (MRS) - What is it |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 9:58:33 AM EST
[#20]
Tankeet
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 9:58:40 AM EST
[#21]
For Better or Worse we found out pretty quick that the Bradley is a better Tank Killer than the Abrams is. And the end the Abrams has been more of a assault gun than a tank in actual combat so why not make a assault gun?
Upgrading to the Rhinemetall 120mm was seen as the only possible way that we would ever be able to punch through Soviet armor and we spent billions upon billions of dollars to do that only to find out that the original 120 mm gun would have done just fine. Meanwhile the rest of the world still makes crap ton of Highly Effective 155 mm ammo. Along with that this thing is much lighter weight much easier to repair much more mobile and is more fitting for what a future war is likely to have especially with what we're seeing in ukraine. Mast armored columns won't have value in the future flying it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 9:58:41 AM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: seeing this thing getting out in the press make me feel proud of myself for the first time in my life. Finally got my career choice on track and I can say my fingerprints are inside that thing. Seeing your effort turn into something is cool. Oh do tell! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 9:59:34 AM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Looks like a tank. Quacks like a tank |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 10:01:50 AM EST
[#24]
People have called bearcats and mraps tanks. This thing has a big long gun on the top, so of course people will call it a tank.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 10:02:56 AM EST
[#25]
Based solely off casual observations of how armor is fairing on the modern battlefield, with much cheaper, man portable weapons and drones smoking modern armor it almost seems like they'd have saved a ton of money by just using those upgraded M60s if all they wanted a gun platform, especially now that our Javelin technology is out in the wild. It does look cool but not 13 million cool; and no, I'm not honestly saying that the US military should go back to the M60 even though it was one of the better looking US tanks (I think I must have built four or five of them back when I used to build plastic models, those and halftracks).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 10:03:09 AM EST
[#26]
what the hell are they thinking!
what about the huge carbon footprint? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 10:03:27 AM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: i understand its not a tank. the capabilities / armor etc make it 'not a tank'. but i also understand people will still refer to it as a tank -- just out of convenience and / or ignorance kinda like people mislabel ARs as assault rifles. its wrong -- but they still do it. you start sounding like the 'actshuuualllly' guy. i'm just glad they are fielding these. great to see the infantry getting some heavier firepower. What is your armor and capability standard for your definition of "tank?" |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 10:03:45 AM EST
[#28]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 10:04:19 AM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So this is a trans-tank? Weighs less, weaker armament, & costs millions more than a real tank. Well put.  Demi-char would be the French phrase. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 10:04:36 AM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Could just be all of the lies our Government has been rolling out over the last three years.. but I have a nagging suspicion that this non-tanks primary design function is less international and more ..domestic. Good chance that people in high levels of power.. right now are plotting the final solution for the American Patriots. Commanding officers with blue hair and mutilated genitals don't view threats to American values the same way officers in the past may have. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 10:08:08 AM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Typical . The MRS isn't a laser . All this time I thought it was a front sight post for the gunner if he lost his optics! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 10:08:34 AM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Oh do tell! I’m just a small cog in the machine that builds one of the subsystems on the vehicle. During Covid I got reassigned to the project during its EMD phase. It was an awesome learning experience. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 10:11:00 AM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Tankeet Tankette was the original term for those two man tracked AFVs good for chasing spear armed foe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 10:12:57 AM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Looks like a tank. It identifies as an assault vehicle, it's pronouns are "fuck your building", "fuck your bunker", and "fuck your infantry" |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 10:13:02 AM EST
[#35]
As a former 19k, it’s a tank
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 10:14:20 AM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That deal on the end of the tube is not a laser. It is a culminator. For some reason I thought this was going to have a auto loader. Do you mean collimator? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 10:14:40 AM EST
[#37]
It is a tank, just a smaller one.
The Army likes to use wordplay to get around certain regulations and requirements. The new mini drones being issued are not drones but instead "soldier borne sensors" to avoid FAA regs in CONUS. The Barrett M107 was characterized as a "tool" versus a weapon to get it added to the EOD MTOE, since it can be used to reduce ordnance like UXO submunitions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 10:25:52 AM EST
[#38]
At 42 tons, it's as heavy as a T-72B with less armor, smaller gun, slower and about 12x the price.
Sure it has far superior fire control and has newer composite armor, but it will burn just as bright as all those T-72/80/90 when fighting anyone that not arabs with decent equipment. Whos' bright idea is to have a front engine chassis with its massive weight penalty? On a supposedly lighter tank! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 10:29:28 AM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: seeing this thing getting out in the press make me feel proud of myself for the first time in my life. Finally got my career choice on track and I can say my fingerprints are inside that thing. Seeing your effort turn into something is cool. Do you consider it a tank? Please share what you can. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 10:29:48 AM EST
[#40]
Looking it up, even the latest M1 with all the bells and whistles is 9million. Uh yeah, 13 million for a light tank versus 9 million for a heavy is strange.
ETA: I hope it doesn't earn the same rep as the Sheridan. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 10:30:20 AM EST
[#41]
Later targeting system???
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA As a Tanker, I would absolutely call that a tank, a light tank, or even medium, but it’s a tank. Not a Main Battle Tank, not one I would want to crew, but it’s a tank. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 10:31:23 AM EST
[#42]
They should bring back the Sherman...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 10:32:55 AM EST
[#43]
I thought all new mil equipment was supposed to be electric.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 10:36:21 AM EST
[#44]
Looks like what the USMC should’ve transitioned to instead of divesting themselves of armor capability.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 10:37:40 AM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: At 42 tons, it's as heavy as a T-72B with less armor, smaller gun, slower and about 12x the price. Sure it has far superior fire control and has newer composite armor, but it will burn just as bright as all those T-72/80/90 when fighting anyone that not arabs with decent equipment. Whos' bright idea is to have a front engine chassis with its massive weight penalty? On a supposedly lighter tank! It's supposed to be for infantry support IIRC, kind of a mobile gun support platform, not meant to fight other tanks, that's the read I have on it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 10:39:38 AM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: i understand its not a tank. the capabilities / armor etc make it 'not a tank'. but i also understand people will still refer to it as a tank -- just out of convenience and / or ignorance kinda like people mislabel ARs as assault rifles. its wrong -- but they still do it. you start sounding like the 'actshuuualllly' guy. i'm just glad they are fielding these. great to see the infantry getting some heavier firepower. What are the physical differences between the M10 and a light tank? Mission profile doesn't matter because various vehicles are capable of performing the same missions |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 10:40:47 AM EST
[#47]
The real question is, given the drone threat and current gen ATGMs, do tanks have a viable place in the current battlefield?
What I've seen of Ukraine's results don't seem to give much of an answer. It appears they're sometimes useful, but their casualty rates are sky-high, and armored maneuver warfare doesn't seem to be occurring much by either side (or at least, when it does the results are a flop). |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 10:40:50 AM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Could just be all of the lies our Government has been rolling out over the last three years.. but I have a nagging suspicion that this non-tanks primary design function is less international and more ..domestic. Good chance that people in high levels of power.. right now are plotting the final solution for the American Patriots. Commanding officers with blue hair and mutilated genitals don't view threats to American values the same way officers in the past may have. Boom. Nailed it. Primary focus is urban pasification. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 10:41:01 AM EST
[#49]
Can I have a "not a tank"?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 10:43:18 AM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Based solely off casual observations of how armor is fairing on the modern battlefield, with much cheaper, man portable weapons and drones smoking modern armor it almost seems like they'd have saved a ton of money by just using those upgraded M60s if all they wanted a gun platform, especially now that our Javelin technology is out in the wild. It does look cool but not 13 million cool; and no, I'm not honestly saying that the US military should go back to the M60 even though it was one of the better looking US tanks (I think I must have built four or five of them back when I used to build plastic models, those and halftracks). A Stryker is $4+ million. Money flows faster than the Potomac when you're talking defense procurement. Kharn |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
