User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 1:32:47 AM EST
https://www.army-technology.com/news/us-army-spends-258m-for-more-m10-booker-vehciles/
 Designed by General Dynamics Land Systems, the mobile direct-fire combat vehicle melds recently developed designs to dominate ground threats. The Booker has a four-person crew; an enhanced thermal viewer; a large-calibre cannon; a lightweight hull and turret and a modern diesel engine, transmission and suspension system. It has been designed from the start for capability upgrades, based on future operational needs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 1:37:48 AM EST
[#1]
So what does this do that a regular tank doesn't?
How does the gun compare? Weight/transportability? Speed? It kinda sounds like this is supposed to supplement infantry troops. Does the M1 not already do that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 1:39:05 AM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So what does this do that a regular tank doesn't? How does the gun compare? Weight/transportability? Speed? It kinda sounds like this is supposed to supplement infantry troops. Does the M1 not already do that? Google. Google. Google. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 1:52:10 AM EST
[#3]
How much is it going to weigh once there's enough ERA/APS on it to make it useful against modern ATGMs?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 1:52:27 AM EST
[#4]
I don't know where this vehicle will really fit in. Direct fire is nice, but it is still 40 tons heavy. I'm not sure how much armor they can put on that thing to make it survivable at that weight.
I think a lighter platform with more mobility, a smaller gun, and a simpler design would provide more bang for your taxpayer dollar. The ability to reasonably survive artillery and threats like a RPG would be enough if you can get it under 30 tons. Make it simple enough that it is cheaper to produce, maintain, and provide logistics for. Just my two cents. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 1:56:53 AM EST
[#5]
So, let me guess:
Aluminum "armor," and a 105. In other words: same shit we've had for forty years, and which can be peeled apart by rpg-2's and saggers, right? Effing brilliant. At least it has a crew of 4 "people," and not 4 men. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 1:57:07 AM EST
[#6]
It was supposed to be an air-mobile light tank.
Too heavy now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 1:57:58 AM EST
[#7]
Why no EV?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 1:58:05 AM EST
[#8]
 Inside the Chieftain's Hatch: BAE XM1302 MPF, Part 1  Inside the Chieftain's Hatch: BAE XM1302 MPF, Part 2 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 1:58:21 AM EST
[#9]
Adding an armor capability to airborne is an important
concept but unless it's airdroppable I don't see the practical application. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 1:58:43 AM EST
[#10]
Yeah shitty for all the 82nd AB 19D. They’re getting reclassed to 19K to man this tank.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 1:59:39 AM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So, let me guess: Aluminum "armor," and a 105. In other words: same shit we've had for forty years, and which can be peeled apart by rpg-2's and saggers, right? Effing brilliant. At least it has a crew of 4 "people," and not 4 men. There's not a whole lot that can't be torn apart by a sagger. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 2:05:45 AM EST
[#12]
So did they spend more or less on the base name changes?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 2:05:54 AM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There's not a whole lot that can't be torn apart by a sagger. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: So, let me guess: Aluminum "armor," and a 105. In other words: same shit we've had for forty years, and which can be peeled apart by rpg-2's and saggers, right? Effing brilliant. At least it has a crew of 4 "people," and not 4 men. There's not a whole lot that can't be torn apart by a sagger. After the experience of the last 18 mos. in Ukraine, that's pretty much my point. If it ain't even a little bit survivable, I'm sure-as-hell not going to expect other men to serve in it. Would you? Maybe when APS get perfected, this can be a thing again, but not now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 2:05:55 AM EST
[#14]
I am going with why, as in the actual need and use of the Booker, not the lining of the Military Industrial Complex pockets, and the generals that retired to get the project pushed through.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 2:09:06 AM EST
[#15]
Its role is redundant as drone's kill all its intended targets except maybe bunkers/fixed fortifications.
The US army is definitely good at wasting taxpayer money. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 2:10:08 AM EST
[#16]
Almost 10 million each? The whole procurement process needs to be burned to the ground. Am Abrams was 6-7 million.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 2:13:03 AM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: After the experience of the last 18 mos. in Ukraine, that's pretty much my point. If it ain't even a little bit survivable, I'm sure-as-hell not going to expect other men to serve in it. Would you? Maybe when APS get perfected, this can be a thing again, but not now. There have been studies done on the use of direct fire guns in combat. They absolutely have their use. You just have to know how to fight the vehicles correctly. Unfortunately a lot of infantrycentric officers think..."Welp, it's got a turret, must be a tank" don't do that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 2:13:33 AM EST
[#18]
26 Javelins or equivs = $258m loss plus another 100m burnt on maintenance and logistics. Lol USG winning…
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 2:14:05 AM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Google. Google. Google. Great interaction there OP. Quality discussion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 2:16:24 AM EST
[#20]
Didnt they try this with the MGS and decide it didnt work? Aside from the obvious wheels vs tracks whats changed and how will this improve?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 2:16:57 AM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Adding an armor capability to airborne is an important concept but unless it's airdroppable I don't see the practical application. if they could add the armor on after the drop. they might have something. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 2:17:45 AM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Didnt they try this with the MGS and decide it didnt work? Aside from the obvious wheels vs tracks whats changed and how will this improve? It won't. Same exact shortcomings. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 2:18:47 AM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: if they could add the armor on after the drop. they might have something. One would think that was doable. Just the bare bones then start bolting on once it hits the ground. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 2:26:12 AM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There have been studies done on the use of direct fire guns in combat. They absolutely have their use. You just have to know how to fight the vehicles correctly. Unfortunately a lot of infantrycentric officers think..."Welp, it's got a turret, must be a tank" don't do that. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: After the experience of the last 18 mos. in Ukraine, that's pretty much my point. If it ain't even a little bit survivable, I'm sure-as-hell not going to expect other men to serve in it. Would you? Maybe when APS get perfected, this can be a thing again, but not now. There have been studies done on the use of direct fire guns in combat. They absolutely have their use. You just have to know how to fight the vehicles correctly. Unfortunately a lot of infantrycentric officers think..."Welp, it's got a turret, must be a tank" don't do that. I don't doubt that. I'm just saying that, as things stand now, asking troops to go in against a peer opponent in something like this is a first-class NO-GO for me. When I was in, long years ago, the doctrine for our 113-equipped inf (of whom I was a member) was that, under no circumstances were those vehicles to be exposed to direct-fire larger than .30 cal. Like most young men, I accepted that, and assumed that, somehow, we'd kick the living sh** out of the enemy, anyway, and "drive on." As an admittedly "old" man, now, I say "Hell, NO!" Given the accuracy and lethality of munitions on the battlefield now, I just don't see any place for aluminum AFV's. As far as I am concerned, expecting men to serve in such vehicles in a peer-on-peer environment is positively immoral. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 2:41:18 AM EST
[#25]
I wonder if it wouldn't be better to design it like an assault gun. No moving turret saves on weight and simplifies the design. Let's more weight go to armor and defensive systems. Or go the other way and keep it light to increase mobility.
It would also bring the cost down on production and maintenance as well. Being able to field more of them and keep them serviceable cheaply should be a consideration. If you try to design a vehicle to handle too many roles, you end up with something like a Bradley. Stug IV (WWII assault gun) as an example  |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 2:44:36 AM EST
[#26]
Did the strikers with the 105 not pan out.
 Was sure fun watching the videos of them maneuvering and firing on ice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 2:52:30 AM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Did the strikers with the 105 not pan out. Was sure fun watching the videos of them maneuvering and firing on ice. From what little info I was able to get on the web, both the guys that served in them, and the guys they supported, said that they were first-class, at least in a COIN environment. I have never understood why the Army was so eager to get rid of them, especially when reducing "armored cavalry regiments" to stryker inf brigades w/ cool names. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 2:56:59 AM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So what does this do that a regular tank doesn't? How does the gun compare? Weight/transportability? Speed? It kinda sounds like this is supposed to supplement infantry troops. Does the M1 not already do that? Quote HistoryQuoted: So what does this do that a regular tank doesn't? How does the gun compare? Weight/transportability? Speed? It kinda sounds like this is supposed to supplement infantry troops. Does the M1 not already do that? It's 40 tons instead of 70. Quoted: I don't know where this vehicle will really fit in. Direct fire is nice, but it is still 40 tons heavy. I'm not sure how much armor they can put on that thing to make it survivable at that weight. I think a lighter platform with more mobility, a smaller gun, and a simpler design would provide more bang for your taxpayer dollar. The ability to reasonably survive artillery and threats like a RPG would be enough if you can get it under 30 tons. Make it simple enough that it is cheaper to produce, maintain, and provide logistics for. Just my two cents. I think this should have been a 40-50t medium tank with a 120mm or a 15-20t 50mm. Quoted: So, let me guess: Aluminum "armor," and a 105. In other words: same shit we've had for forty years, and which can be peeled apart by rpg-2's and saggers, right? Steel hull, unsure what the applique is. Anything short of an Abrams can be killed by ATGMs and even that can be from the side. Quoted: It was supposed to be an air-mobile light tank. Too heavy now. That was not in this solicitation. Quoted: I am going with why, as in the actual need and use of the Booker, not the lining of the Military Industrial Complex pockets, and the generals that retired to get the project pushed through. Direct fire support for infantry. Quoted: Its role is redundant as drone's kill all its intended targets except maybe bunkers/fixed fortifications. The US army is definitely good at wasting taxpayer money. Drones aren't as effective as the highlights reel on twitter would lead you to believe. Quoted: Almost 10 million each? The whole procurement process needs to be burned to the ground. Am Abrams was 6-7 million. An Abrams is $4.5m plus your donor M1A1, and that's a mature design where the tools have been bought, people trained, facilities prepared to support them, etc. An FMS Abrams for a country that doesn't use Abrams already is $20m. Quoted: 26 Javelins or equivs = $258m loss plus another 100m burnt on maintenance and logistics. Lol USG winning… Should we expect to shoot 40 Javelins a day at enemy machineguns and concentrations in buildings? Does the Javelin work as well on buildings as HEP? How does it do through heavy tree cover? How well is it armored so you can stand there looking for your target while they shoot at you? Quoted: Didnt they try this with the MGS and decide it didnt work? Aside from the obvious wheels vs tracks whats changed and how will this improve? MGS was unreliable. This is doctrinally similar but will work in IBCTs only while SBCTs have the 30mm Dragoon for direct fire support. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 2:57:20 AM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I wonder if it wouldn't be better to design it like an assault gun. No moving turret saves on weight and simplifies the design. Let's more weight go to armor and defensive systems. Or go the other way and keep it light to increase mobility. It would also bring the cost down on production and maintenance as well. Being able to field more of them and keep them serviceable cheaply should be a consideration. If you try to design a vehicle to handle too many roles, you end up with something like a Bradley. Stug IV (WWII assault gun) as an example https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Sturmgeschutz_iv_Muzeum_Broni_Pancernej_CSWL_2.JPG/300px-Sturmgeschutz_iv_Muzeum_Broni_Pancernej_CSWL_2.JPG If it’s for the 82nd, the comparable vehicle to reference would be the ASU-85  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 2:58:42 AM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: From what little info I was able to get on the web, both the guys that served in them, and the guys they supported, said that they were first-class, at least in a COIN environment. I have never understood why the Army was so eager to get rid of them, especially when reducing "armored cavalry regiments" to stryker inf brigades w/ cool names. The MGS never worked right. This does what the MGS did, except in IBCTs and not SBCTs. I do think the Army would be right to build a new Stryker based 105mm, but turn the power pack around and put it in the back to lower the hull and use a turret that actually has a functioning gun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 3:02:31 AM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If it’s for the 82nd, the comparable vehicle to reference would be the ASU-85 http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/firearmcentral/images/1/1c/ASU-85.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20160604124541 I've wondered if the S-tank may have been on to something. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 3:10:17 AM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I've wondered if the S-tank may have been on to something. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: If it’s for the 82nd, the comparable vehicle to reference would be the ASU-85 http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/firearmcentral/images/1/1c/ASU-85.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20160604124541 I've wondered if the S-tank may have been on to something. That was the cool-as-hell (tho' not necessarily practical) option long ago when I was a young man. I think that role has now been filled by the CVT-90: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Vehicle_90 Kickass, to be sure, but probably not an MBT-killer, except from ambush. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 3:11:07 AM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I've wondered if the S-tank may have been on to something. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: If it’s for the 82nd, the comparable vehicle to reference would be the ASU-85 http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/firearmcentral/images/1/1c/ASU-85.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20160604124541 I've wondered if the S-tank may have been on to something. The M10 Booker is 42 tons and sports a 105mm. The Stridsvagn 103 is also 42 tons and also sports a 105mm. So maybe? The lower profile of the S-103 is a huge deal when fighting other tanks, but likely not a factor if your primary concern is drone or top-attack ATGMs. Also what is the max el, for fighting in areas with taller buildings? (One can just say “tanks don’t belong in cities”, but it’s not true, and infantry commanders will want and use them in cities, inevitably). |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 3:11:40 AM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 26 Javelins or equivs = $258m loss plus another 100m burnt on maintenance and logistics. Lol USG winning… Should we expect to shoot 40 Javelins a day at enemy machineguns and concentrations in buildings? Does the Javelin work as well on buildings as HEP? How does it do through heavy tree cover? How well is it armored so you can stand there looking for your target while they shoot at you? The US could buy a shitload of 155mm HE arty shells, Carl Gustav rounds and Hellfire rockets for 10 million bucks but one $2500 RPG-7V2 launcher with a $400 HEAT round, could jack up a 10+ million dollar clusterfuck. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 3:16:26 AM EST
[#35]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 3:17:13 AM EST
[#36]
Maybe get some Shermans out of moth balls.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 3:22:54 AM EST
[#37]
40 tons brings you to places to fight where a 70 ton tank can't go to. Think bridges in contested areas.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 3:25:23 AM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 40 tons brings you to places to fight where a 70 ton tank can't go to. Think bridges in contested areas. We tried that w/the M551. It never really worked out all that well ('cept maybe in Panama in 89 when the enemy didn't have ATGMs). |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 3:39:19 AM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The MGS never worked right. This does what the MGS did, except in IBCTs and not SBCTs. I do think the Army would be right to build a new Stryker based 105mm, but turn the power pack around and put it in the back to lower the hull and use a turret that actually has a functioning gun. Bingo, that is the way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 6:13:40 AM EST
[#40]
What’s old is new again.
Just bring back 105mm recoiless rifles, put on Toyota technicals with an auto loader. Throw some cheap plate and reactive armor for a 2 man crew survival. Same platform and put some anti-air and anti-drone. Make it in Mexico for pennies. But that would make too much sense for an airborne force. Simple, rugged, and cheap. It should be light, fast, and pack a heavy punch. They are airborne, not a heavy force. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 6:18:07 AM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why no EV? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 6:19:41 AM EST
[#42]
They had the Textron Stingray III light tank in the past that could have fulfilled the same role
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 6:22:08 AM EST
[#43]
Need Cyclones ASAP
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 6:22:29 AM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They had the Textron Stingray III light tank in the past that could have fulfilled the same role Apparently Textron didn’t own nearly enough congress-critters and generals. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 6:28:14 AM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Google. Google. Google. Ssoooo... they renamed the M-1 and dropped a few tons. Hell, they could have promoted me one pay grade and I could tell them to do that. It'd be cheaper than actually trying to make a new vehicle. "No, no. See, a tank is for killing other vehicles, and can shoot fortifications as a secondary mission. This vehicle kills fortifications, and killing enemy tanks is its secondary mission." |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 6:31:43 AM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Maybe get some Sheridans out of moth balls. FIFY |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 6:37:11 AM EST
[#47]
Shouldn’t the oil drip pan be in the back under the engine?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 7:45:16 AM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What's old is new again. Just bring back 105mm recoiless rifles, put on Toyota technicals with an auto loader. Throw some cheap plate and reactive armor for a 2 man crew survival. Same platform and put some anti-air and anti-drone. Make it in Mexico for pennies. But that would make too much sense for an airborne force. Simple, rugged, and cheap. It should be light, fast, and pack a heavy punch. They are airborne, not a heavy force. But in 120mm. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 7:59:04 AM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So what does this do that a regular tank doesn't? How does the gun compare? Weight/transportability? Speed? It kinda sounds like this is supposed to supplement infantry troops. Does the M1 not already do that? It's not meant as a tank to go toe to toe with enemy tanks which is what the M1 is for. The M1 is its own fighting platform and not for IN support. This is purely to add firepower to the IBCT. Hence the name mobile protected firepower. It's much lighter than the M1 and will now be organic to light divisions instead of having attached armor. Attached units have problems plugging in to the units they are attached to and the unit they are attached to often has problems understanding that unit's needs and therefore supporting them. This solves those problems. The organic to a light division MPF bn will also foster a good home station training relationship. Likely an MPF company per BCT. These relationships developed at home station pay off elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 8:00:01 AM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Great interaction there OP. Quality discussion. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Google. Google. Google. Great interaction there OP. Quality discussion. That's his shtick. Posts something he knows nothing about and tells you to do the work for him. |
|
|
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.
Attached File