Is the Swedish CV90120 the better choice over the American M10 Booker?

I have my thoughts on the M10 Booker vehicle and I think its a great platform but the words 'Go hard or go home' come to mind when it comes to the CV90-120 platform with that 120mm smoothbore gun. 105mm is a great platform and I know the M10 Light Armor Vehicle is not there to take on tanks, but if thats the case don't make it like one. Pentagon Wars anyone? Ahem.....Bradley IFV.....
Hope you enjoy!!
💥 💣 Check out our partnership clothing brand! Attire For Effect💣 💥 www.attireforeffect.com 📸 Also follow them on Instagram: # attire_for_effect
💰 Want to support my channel? Check out my Patreon Donation page! www.patreon.com/user?u=3081754
💰PayPal: paypal.me/Matsimus?locale.x=e...
👕 Check out my Merch: teespring.com/stores/matsimus...
📬Wanna send me something? My PO Box: 210A - 12A Street N Suite No. 135 Lethbridge Alberta Canada T1H2J
📸 My instagram: Matt_matsimus
🎮 Twitch: / matsimus_9033
👋DISCORD: / discord
📘 Facebook: profile.php?...
🐦Twitter: / matsimusgaming

[@_Matsimus_]

What do think would be the best 'light' or 'medium' tank out there today? And do you think the M10 Booker makes sense for todays battlefield? Let me know in the comments!

[@Jreg1992]

Yo, i figure the booker will be the "m4 sherman" to the cvt90's "panther". Yes, the cvt90 120 is the ideal light tank; with the lower height, superior firepower, and the center of gravity is lower. The use of the booker is infantry support - you won't see the enemy tank before sub-3klm range unless your shaping operation already destroyed it. So I figure the 120vs105mm is almost irrelevant against a hull-down hidden t90/ open-field crossing t-72 reinforcement on the otherside of the treeline. The stryker m1128 remote turret upgunned to the L44 or L55 reinmettal 120mm would be sickkkkkk on a cvt90 chassis but what do I know ehy? Luv ya, Edmonton says hi.

[@TimothySielbeck]

The only thing you didn't cover in this 120 vs 105 discussion was how many rounds can the vehicles store on board. If the M10 carries more then having more, slightly smaller, rounds may be more beneficial given that fighting heavy armor is not the primary purpose of this system.

[@Sir_Godz]

is the any real reason an IFV cant be fielded that is one road wheel/ seat longer rather than armies rearranging their entire battle groups because the existing vehicles cant carry the correct fire squad / section numbers? surely any cargo carrier we use wont be obsoleted for the extra 2-4 feet from transporting 1-2 IFVs? please talk about this. it infuriates me

[@LrdBxRck]

The M10 Booker is just a repurposed Bradley Frame with a 105 with some upgrades. From a logistics point of view it would be easier to reuse the old Bradley when they introduce a new variant.

[@tasman006]

Its for infantry support but I could say they could give the Booker depleted Urainuim rounds it could go up agianst some MBTs succesfully if needed.

[@mikedrop4421]

According to the DOD the M10 Isn't supposed to be used against tanks but against hardend cover like buildings and such. That's why they don't want anyone calling it a light tank. They don't want officers thinking of them like a tank becausethe they might use it that way. The CV90 is probably the better vehicle but it's not produced domestically in the US and we all know that's important. Additionally they claim the 105mm gun gives them more rounds onboard since the smaller round takes up less space.

[@spartanx9293]

In this humble civilians opinion that's incredibly stupid and pedantic it is for all intents and purposes a tank

[@TheWizardGamez]

All of that could be negated with the AMP round since you’d have much more round availability assuming you still wanted an independent HE round. Now your stuck with x amount of HE, y amount of canister, and z amount of HE frag. When you just spent billions to make all of that 1 round that was able to fox the comparability and ammo limit problem. What happens when your run out of 105 he?

[@TheWizardGamez]

@@spartanx9293it is a tank, in the sense that it is armoured and meant to engage in a frontal attack. It isn’t a tank in the sense that it isn’t meant to “defend” or attack against any other decently armoured vehicles

[@spartanx9293]

@@TheWizardGamez by that standard the original tanks weren't tanks because they weren't designed to fight other tanks

[@anthonykaiser974]

It's an Infantry tank like the Sherman, with relatively less armor vs the main gun, so more of a light, turreted assault gun. A CV90/120 is more like our old TDs.

[@sweinnc]

I was in the Swedish Army back in 1987. I was a tank turret, weapons and telecom mechanic at P6 in Kristianstad. We had Strv104 and Pbv302. I would have loved to have the CV90. Both the Leopard2 and the CV90 was introduced a couple of years after I had done my service.

[@szymonwei9736]

Shoud have stayed in the army bro

[@zerksari]

@sweinncc I was part of the first CV90 test plutoon in Sweden. Yes it was revolutionary, killed your PBV's like they were flies. Which they were in comparison.

[@kungsverige1886]

1987- 88 I 11 Växjö

[@jesse7644]

Kristianstad closed P6 some years ago :-/

[@zerksari]

@@kungsverige1886 way later, add 6 years.

[@TheSimon253]

If you use the CV90 in your army already it's the clear choice. Most of the parts are probably interchangeable so the logistics would be a lot simpler.

[@DanielTheAu]

Cv90120 is the better tank, but M10 booker is the better tank for the US army, reason being: It is made by GDLS, the same company that makes Abrams. The logistical tail of the booker would be much easier to setup and maintain compared to CV90120. I’m a CV90120 fan myself, and am sad it wasn’t even offered as a candidate in the MPF trials. But the Booker should do alright, and in time to come, i’m sure it will make a good name for itself. Spitballing the size of the booker’s turret ring, I reckon it would be possible for the booker to receive a low recoil 120mm at a later date (XM360 comes to mind)

[@cades93041]

Couldn't have said it better.

[@ameritoast5174]

I remember someone saying that they chose the 105 instead of the 120 is because they have a lot of 105 rounds in storage for it to use. Not sure if that's true but sounds like a reason to me. I do think the cv90120 is the better choice but too late now.

[@josephahner3031]

The original prototype for the booker had a 120mm.

[@scratchy996]

This. It's not about being "better", it's about meeting the Army requirements.

[@scratchy996]

@@ameritoast5174 The M10 is all about logistics and fighting China on small islands, to put it honestly. You can load more 105mm ammo than you can 120mm ammo , and you can transport more 105mm ammo per air. Nowadays we got mines, drones, Javelins, artillery and a whole bunch of other things to destroy tanks. 120mm is not needed, al it does is hinder the logistics, and destroy the whole reason of being for the M10.

[@greglee1587]

I think the 105mm was chosen cause it’s a vehicle made to support the airborne division. 105 ammunition is less heavy and you can take more in an AirDrop on the 120. It’s for Specific vehicle for a specific job. That was my impression anyway.

[@RockSolitude]

That would make sense if it wasn't for the fact that they (the US military) decided weight didn't really matter much and only hindered capability as far as protection goes. Oh and the fact that it weighs over 42 tons in combat spec.

[@daspas2111]

The gun itself is lighter than the M256 by a lot, and given its role in supporting infantry against fortifications and lightly armored vehicles, the 105mm has no real disadvantages. Plus there is some parts commonality between the booker and the abrams in terms of the turret, so logistics are a little easier there. Not to mention the logistics of sourcing 105mm ammunition being easier as well given the greater prevalence due to the legacy of the caliber.

[@pedrorequio5515]

@@daspas2111This was a key quoted reason for the 105mm gun, I believe the fact this is a proven calibre during the Cold war, and the 105mm is a very available round with legacy industrial equipment from the cold war. I believe the logistical environment is not Europe but the Pacific. But for doubt the Chinese who have the same environment in mind also have light tanks(or whatever they are called).

[@daspas2111]

@pedrorequio5515 The chinese have entire families of different vehicles for supporting infantry in this niche. 100% agree with your statement since the Cold War made 105 mm still relevant even today.

[@willl7780]

ill still take the 120mm gun all day

[@richardtisdale3245]

I'm American and I would still take the cv90... the Swedish can build badass equipment

[@ibuprofen_]

Would be interesting to see mobility differences

[@bertnl530]

The M10 seems to run on rubber tracks. I know that the NL army replaces steel tracks with rubber tracks during it's midlife update.

[@HelminthCombos]

its slower then the M1

[@yamahaevo]

KZbin cv90 vs bradley and you can see cv90 never get stuck.

[@Reticulosis]

Hot take: the M10 doesn’t need a 120 mm cannon to take out enemy tanks just like the M2 Bradley (tank destroying champion of desert storm) didn’t need a 120 mm cannon. The TOW gets the job done.

[@cjclark1208]

Desert Storm was almost 35y ago and today’s battlefield is different, not much but significant enough and keep in mind Russia has been turning whatever we send to Ukraine into scrape heaps relatively easily, I’m not confident of the Bookers survivability tbh.

[@alexnderrrthewoke4479]

​@@cjclark1208no it won't. Look at Russian light tank Sprut SD. 125 mm gun made to fight anything and rapid response. Plus it's for vdv airborne forces. Surpass booker in amphibious operations, firepower, mobility and airborne. All 3 in one. Sorry but booker I am disappointed

[@Optimusprime56241]

@@cjclark1208 Russia hasn’t been turning anything but their own tanks into scrap heaps lmao

[@cjclark1208]

@@Optimusprime56241 Ohh I see, believe everything MSM and Ukraine says and don’t mind censorship gotcha.

[@Optimusprime56241]

@@cjclark1208 keep coping buddy

[@Jason-fm4my]

What are the maintenance requirements like for each? I'm guessing the M-10 cards haven't been written yet, si it's hard to say which one will be better.

[@OperatorJay141]

Its basically what the Shermans did in ww2. Longer barreled 76mm shermans had the firepower for tank on tank combat while short 75mm weremore for clearing buildings for infantry support

[@eajjoutlaw]

Ok the booker is cool, it’s a mini Abram’s, but that CV90120 is absolutely beautiful, sexy, sleek, drop dead gorgeous. Literally…. The enemy will drop dead because it’s so gorgeous, making it an effective ICV.

[@joshstreet6819]

The more I read about the CV-90 and it's family I can't help but fall in love with it even more (Before finding out about the CV-90 I use to think the Bradley and Warrior were the best IFV's out there). What is strange to me is the CV90-120T wasn't even aloud to compete in the selection when BAE entered the competition. I think it would have been better to take a vehicle that has been tested over years and can use the same arounds as my main battle tank.

[@JustLiesNOR]

Not made in the US = automatic disqualification.

[@joshstreet6819]

@@JustLiesNOR if we go with that kind of thinking then the LAV-25 should have had a automatic disqualification when the Marines adopted it (Since it is a Licensed production of the Swiss Mowag Piranha).

[@dna6882]

yes but those licensed productions were still constructed in the USA. Unless the cv90 could have set up a shop in the US I doubt it would work. Also the US defense industry would never allow another player to come into their market like that. @@joshstreet6819

[@adamroach3407]

@@joshstreet6819It’s more a factor that the CV-90 team wasn’t interested in setting up domestic production because of the political competition over here.

[@truisticprince]

​@joshstreet6819 it's law namely the 1933 buy American act and the 1941 berry amendment. These laws require the DOD to only purchase product made in america. For example the FN minimi and MAG are Belgian weapons, but when purchased by the DOD they are produced in the factories of FN America in South Carolina.

[@nekomakhea9440]

Regardless of the 120's ability to actually threaten modern tanks, there's a nonlinear relation to shell diameter and how much explosive mass it can hold per shell. A more powerful HE round will be more effective at knocking down machine gun nests and bunkers, which are the primary targets of infantry support guns, and removes the need for an entire lineup of cannon shells separate from what the MBTs use from your logistics chains. CV90 is a better, more modular, and more mature design over all; also being a credible threat to tanks is just a bonus.

[@iivin4233]

Isn't it non-linear in the sense that double the amount of explosives does not double It's explosive power?

[@cstgraphpads2091]

@@iivin4233 No one's claiming that though.

[@perelfberg7415]

Thats a very good point. Another one is that a larger diameter round provide a prerequisite for future upgrades. We move forward very repidly to advanced and tech filled munitions. That is limited when one pick a smaller caliber. Its very true for the smaller calibers on the CV90 and other platforms. Like 25 and 30mmguns compaired to the 40mm or the naval used 57. Many of the smart functions have existed for some time that they historicaly have failed on with the smaller caliber. Such as different versions of airburst or penetrative rounds.

[@vizender]

@@iivin4233it’s non linear in the sense that doubling the diameter would theoretically allow to multiply by 4 the amount of explosive mass du to the relation between 3 the diameter and volume (considering the rounds are the same length), meaning that from 105 to 120, it would not be an increase 14%, but much more than that. Also, the higher the diameter, the more kinetic energy the round has, meaning that the ballistics will also be much better. Last but not least, if you want to sacrifice a bit of explosive mass, a bigger round allows for more complexity, hence why the US, France, Germany are all developing their in house OTAN standardized multi purpose HEAT, which would allow 1 round to act as a standard HEAT, HE, Armor piercing… at the same time.

[@jjkenyon172]

@@vizender This isn't a theoretical exercise...the rounds used for those calibers are known. 105mm rounds contain roughly 2kg of HE filler while 120mm rounds contain roughly 3kg of HE filler. However, while the 120mm has 50% more HE that's overkill since a 105 HE round will knock out a machine gun nest or bunker. So that extra explosive power is just being wasted on a target that is already dead (they can't get deader). The smaller 105mm rounds means you can carry more rounds of ammunition in total. It also means you don't have to compromise safety for storage volume. The M10 stores its rounds in the turret bustle like the Abrams in a compartment separate from the crew. That means that rounds don't have to be stored inside the hull, as they are for the CV90-120 (33 rounds in fact), which dramatically improves crew safety as well as recoverability of a damaged vehicle (it won't self-immolate or detonate). Further, while you are concerned with the logistics of munitions, you overlook the logistics behind vehicle maintenance. The CV90 is a platform that hasn't been and will not be adopted by the US Army. The GDLS M10 Booker is built on and uses components from the ASCOD chassis which is in the running for the OMFV program. So there are some potential commonality benefits that could result if the GDLS submission wins that program in terms of parts availability, training, and depot maintenance.

[@thalo215]

CV90120 would be my choice. but the regular CV90 would be my choice for an IFV anyway so might as well get the big gun to run beside the rest of them. would save a tom of money on logistics outside of the specific stuff for its weapon systems.

[@hatchet646]

"saving money" and "U.S" in one sentence.... yeaaahh not happening.

[@roberttio2839]

“Jack of all trades master of none, is better than master of one” is the full quote.

[@jarodarmstrong7836]

For most countries I would agree that the CV 90120 would be the no brainer option due to its modularity. We don’t know the exact specifications of the M10 so we can’t say for sure what the US military prefers about it. My guess is that, unlike the CV 90120, it is purpose built around its mission, being an assault gun. Maybe it is only 5 or 10% better, which would not be enough for a smaller military (pretty much all of them save for China and India) to justify it being locked to one role. If we need a different capability, we can simply fly in a vehicle specially built for the role. Smaller militaries would also have to care about economies of scale, but this is the US military we are talking about where, despite it being a relatively minor addition to the force, it is still planned to be procured in numbers that would almost equal 1/3 of all CVs of all types for all users produced/ordered.

[@WeirdSeagul]

nobody is ever going to order the cv90120 and take the turret off for modularity lmao. the benefit is all in the logistics train for servicing CV90s and any potential upgrade packages. they will never go this mission doesn't need 120s remove them all and put on the 40mm turrets

[@jarodarmstrong7836]

@@WeirdSeagul I was responding to the point Matsimus was making. I agree, the big reason for small countries to want the CV90 is there are 1,600 of them out there or on order which is more armored vehicles than all but a handful of nations have. It's also a typically well designed and supported Swedish weapons system. I could see a smaller country buying say 18 might consider it useful that for a minor cost they could switch them to mortar carriers or SPAAGs down the road, but that isn't the main reason. Again, this is the US military we are talking about, a new vehicle would simply be procured in that case so it's moot with the M10.

[@vazev]

I'm a huge CV90 fan, but I'd much rather pick a team of something like 2 CV9030s + 1 CV90 Mjolner than 3 CV90120s. I think they would in combination be far more effective at accomplishing the same tasks as the CV90120. Although, maybe the CV90120 could fill a niche role when they need some quicker fire toward something like a bunker complex. Or in particular terrains where there might suddenly show up a tank in close range. But using it specifically against tanks seems like a terrible idea, when there are rockets for that.

[@AB-gi3qy]

A 105mm main gun is still more than capable of knocking out an mbt, probably not across the frontal arc, but easily on the sides and rear of enemy tanks. It is interesting though because there would surely be a good case to have commonality with on the main gun and ammunition of the Abrams, but they obviously preferred the 105mm, as others have mentioned, I suspect they can carry more ammo with the M10.

[@CharChar2121]

Well, you see, for American weapons to be built, all of the components and assembly need to be in different states because politics. We could use vertical integration, but it's a hard sell, despite being better in every possible way.

[@bluntcabbage6042]

With a 105, the M10 can carry _much_ more ammo. The original Abrams had a 105 for this reason. With M900 APFSDS, the M10 can handle pretty much anything except for the very most modern enemy MBTs, which is being shown to be rather rare ultimately.

[@samoldfield5220]

From what I've seen of tank on tank engagements in Ukraine, they're often taking place at ranges where the Rh-120 smoothbore is not effective anyway, or taking place at such close range that even an autocannon could get the job done. The ATGM didn't obsolete the tank, but it did obsolete the anti-tank gun. So in terms of ammo commonality it's just the ammo you don't need. HEAT and APFSDS just aren't as useful as an ATGM or a loitering munition. The most effective anti-tank weapon on an MBT is the radio. Meanwhile the best round to knock down a wall is HESH and HESH needs a rifle.

[@TheWizardGamez]

⁠@@samoldfield5220the army developed the AMP round to simplify logistics just to reintroduce the 105 after the MGS got nixed from service. It’s weird that we made such a nice leap forward in standardization, just to take 10 steps back. The “defense” industry is milking the taxpayer and congress doesn’t care either way

[@PeterMuskrat6968]

@@TheWizardGamez I'm fairly certain they are making a 105 AMP round as well.

[@weije093]

Hello Mat, I do not have a military background. Actually, I am a forestry engineer specialised in forest mechanisation. In forestry the terrain characterestics are most important in vehicle design. All the rest is secondary. The logic is straight forward: if the vehicle gets stuck, all the rest becomes totally useless. Consequently, there is a huge knowledge and understanding about track behavior on the various underground. Especially groundpressure is a key subject. Those who love skiing may know that longer skies result in significant higher speeds. The same rule applies for tracked vehicles. Longer tracks means higher speeds and reduced fuel consumption. Yet, longer tracks also reduce agility. This is resolved by using dual carriage articulated vehicles. Now my point: haglunds is the only developer who follows a similar approach. The CV90 has 7 road wheels. The booker has 6 wheels. I don't know the size, but it suggests that the cv90 has a higher flotation, which may critical in case of very soft soil. From that point of view, I can see a tactical advantage of both vehicles: i.e. the ability to move in areas where tanks can not. As mentioned, I am absolutely not a military, so feel free to shoot me if I am wrong.

[@arvypolanco]

My impression of the latest generation of combat vehicles for the US comes down to: "we have been faffing around with expensive sci-fi super vehicles with drawn out developments and now war is actually around the corner and need to get something out there". The pivot to "off the shelf" solutions for rapid deployment is telling, e.g. Constellation frigates vs Zumwalt destroyers, F15EX vs more F22's, Invictus helo vs Comanche, and now the Booker. This is not to say they are bad per se, just an acceptance of "good enough" (and faster procurement) as a standard given the rising tensions. The Booker is essentially America's modern Sherman. And yes, it IS a tank.

[@PeterMuskrat6968]

"F-15EX vs More F-22's" Why in gods name would we spend a kajillion dollars reopening the production lines for a plane that hasn't been built upgraded for literal decades and is pretty much red lined as far as upgradability goes? The F-15EX was designed to be a missile carrier, that's why its most important upgrade is the ability to link with F-35's to fire long range AtoA missiles which are guided onto target by Stealthy F-35's.

[@Bob_Betker]

I agree with everything you say except that it is not a tank. It looks like a tank but it is really a turreted assault gun.

[@arvypolanco]

@@Bob_Betker lol I guess we could go into the semantics of it infinitely. If you consider the Sherman to be a tank, then this is a tank too. That, or the Sherman is a turreted assault gun too lol. In fact the original purpose of a tank was precisely to support infantry (and the way it was used by far), the anti-tank role came afterward. All MBTs are tanks, but not all tanks are MBTs, we have just gotten used to them being the only tanks in modern warfare. In my opinion, the most accurate title for the Booker is light tank.

[@VitoDepho]

Things evolve. The Booker is not a tank. The Sherman was a tank in its day, given most threats at the time. The Booker would've been a powerful tank in WW2 if you could take it back in a time machine. But also, if you deploy a Sherman today, it would not be classified as a tank but an MPF or MGS and a weakly armed one at that.

[@cstgraphpads2091]

@@arvypolancoIncorrect. The original purpose of the tank was to break through enemy lines. The fact that infantry was supported by this action is irrelevant, and the tanks at the time did not need the infantry to accomplish their own objectives. The Booker IS NOT a light tank, as US light tank doctrine had them used as recon elements for armored units. The Booker is an assault gun, as it is designed to provide fire support for airborne infantry, NOT engaging enemy armor or performing recon for armored units. ia800303.us.archive.org/25/items/Fm17-12/Fm17-12.pdf

[@gerlachsieders4578]

The Leopard 1 introduced in the 60s was the first post WW2 light weight tank / fighting vehicle, so this 'light weight' concept has been around for more than half a century. The Leopard 1 weighs only 40 tonnes and - like the Booker - has a powerful and accurate 105mm barrel - though rifled. Approx a 100 Leopard 1's will be provided to the Ukraine and most likely will have the same utility of rhe M10 Booker, that of infantry support. The Tank museum at Bovington has some great YT-videos on this Leopard 1, great stuff! ATB, Gerlach Sven.

[@worldoftancraft]

40 tonnes light tank. Reminds me of the 44 tonnes 30 tonnes tank "medium" tank Panther. Also with cringy gun for the weight

[@PannkakaMedSylt]

@@worldoftancraft The main reason the Panther was considered a medium tank is because "Medium" tanks were kinda the closest thing we today call Main battle tank (MBT). Meanwhile Heavy tanks were often more thought of as breakthrough tanks! The biggest design difference between a Breakthrough tank and Medium/MBT tank is side armour + possible top armour. Example the German Tiger 1 tank had close to as much side armour as front armour! because it was ment to be at the front and potentially getting shot from the side as much as front while breaking through, it also boosted among the strongest top armour among WW2 tanks aswell (still weaker then front/side ofc though). Meanwhile the Panther had fairly weak side armour, and only really boosted a solid armour from the front! also why it relied more on Sloped armour then Tiger too, when they designed the tiger they knew about slooped armour, but they weren't sure how MUCH better it was, but it was low prioritised for a breakthrough tank that was ment to get shot from all angles at the time time except the rear, so making it rely on certain angles weren't as important. BUT for long distance fights the tigers were actully planned to utilise sloped armour! not by having sloped armour panels but with tactical doctrine use! from the first manual to the last for Tiger 1, the crew were trained to park the tiger 45-90* angle to the front and thus achiving sloped armour by beeing diagonally to the incomming fire. So the terms Light-Medium-Heavy tanks for most nations around the world during WW2 was not about how much it weight, but rather the role it fills. Light viencles in turn acted more like fast moving scout or fast reaction viencles to where they were needed. The M10 booker and CV90 both fill the roles of Light tank the most, but they are not light tank either ofc. Just like the modern day MBTs aren't really medium tanks either, but closest thing to Medium tanks today, and no modern army uses heavy tanks anymore really.

[@worldoftancraft]

@@PannkakaMedSylt it was considered by Germans and only by them as medium. Since it had only three inch peashooter for this weight. Everyone around called it a heavy tank. Your sophistry is noteworthy, but has little in common with actual reality of '1940s

[@PannkakaMedSylt]

@@worldoftancraft Never said all the other nations considered it a Medium tank! But the country using it kinda is the most important one. Soviet Union used tanks they classified as medium towards the end of the war that germany classified as heavy too. And about the armament of the panther, it was NO pea shooter. The armament is another point show casing WHY it was a medium tank! Heavy tank = Breakthrough tank, ment to bust bunkers aswell as infantry / viencles / tanks. Meanwhile Medium tanks generally wasn't prioritised to be a bunker buster. Thus it didnt need an 88m+ gun, it instead focused on an 75mm gun, BUT one with extended barrel and higher charge cartriges for improved penetration! Barrel width is far from everything, the charge, the barrel lengh, the projectile type is all just as important when it comes to combating other enemy viencles. A bigger width of the barrel does increase the explosive yield a projectile of high explosive type can deliver though! Thus the Panther 75mm actully had higher penetration value then the tiger 88mm by a small ammount. But, the tiger 88mm had a much more devestating high explosive ammo, since it was considered a "heavy tank" = breakthrough tank, ment to target bunkers as much as enemy viencles. Thinking Light / Medium / Heavy tank only has to do with the viencles weight is a too simplified view, as the most important aspect was the viencles intended role on the battlefield! Also during the war the weight of tanks generally went up as the years passed. But a 4 year old tank that used to be a Heavy or Medium tank, didnt all of a sudden become a Medium/light tank when the newer tanks became heavier.

[@worldoftancraft]

@@PannkakaMedSylt no, it does not. It's a 44 tonnes 30 tonnes medium tank. Say "thank you" to magnificent Jormani Ingeniireng. They classified them heavy, because in their imagination an 85 millimeters gun is a gun for a heavy tank. Just as fully capable 5 incher (122mm regimental artillery) gun. It was a pea shooter. Because it was and is absolutely cringy for such heavy weight to have such small gun. It's not a tank. It's a tank destroyer. Tank fighter. Firing anything else, except armour piercing ammo, using this gun - is a waste. Waste of rifling and durability of barrel. And a tank is just an armoured high mobile gun, meant to do breakthrough. Not "armoured high mobile ANTI-TANK gun" See, the weight of the vehicle dictates the maximum possible hardware, thus, roles the mobile bunker can perform. Light vehicle is always going to be a heavy compromise, generally armourless. Medium is a lesser compromise, but a common sense says it shouldn't be as mobile as lighter machines. And heavy means equipped with maximum amount of means of combat: maximum armour and protection, maximum gun, maximum ammo quantity.

[@mauriciomdea]

I think you missed the point in that the M10 isnt designed to be used alongside mechanized or armored units, like the CV90120, but together with airborne light infantry. So the logistics are totally different. They are supposed to be resupplied by air, that's why they went for the 105mm caliber, more ammunition per flight, for example. You are correct, as always, to point the CV90120 as the better armored vehicle, but that's not the point. Ad sumus!

[@dwwolf4636]

CV90/105. Still leaves the rest of the IFV family for better parts and (maintenance) training commonality.

[@RedXlV]

The CV90105 also exists. I think the 105mm gun choice was a mistake, but even with that choice it's not a reason to exclude the CV90. Unfortunately, the CV90105 wasn't even in consideration, since for whatever reason BAE offered an upgraded M8 AGS instead. (Presumably they thought a design of American origin would have a better chance of winning even if it was a clearly worse vehicle than the CV90.) What's even more inexplicable is that the CV90 isn't one of the contenders of the XM30 MICV either. Instead it's between the Rheinmetall Lynx KF41 and GDLS Griffin III. I'd say the Griffin III is a shoe-in since the Lynx is a foreign design *and* the Griffin II just got adopted as the M10 Booker.

[@ashvandal5697]

The army keeps trying hard to make the 105 gun an effective weapon but inevitably returns to the tried and true 120.

[@HelminthCombos]

and since the M10 is the tip of the spear you'd think it would have all the best active protection systems, LWS, ERA and an autoloader but no it has non of those things. its just a smaller MGS Stryker with a bit more steel armor.

[@Dramigbaklanges]

They should build a modern Begleitpanzer 57 on the cv90 platform. And use the mk3 57mm with 3P and ORKA.

[@roceye]

The M10 has some parts compatibility with the Abrams which simplifies logistics somewhat so for the US it probably makes sense. A 120mm would be an advantage but the 105mm allows the vehicle to carry more ammo. There really isn't a peer armored vehicle that the 105mm couldn't mission kill, that being said, it really needs to keep out of the tank on tank battles.

[@kevinblackburn3198]

They use the 105 because it can fire rifled HESH as well as bee hive rounds

[@ph6560]

Great episode. Quite intriguing topic. (Hope to see more of this.) I also find it a no.brainer that the *_CV90120_* is a clear winner when doing a side-by-side comparison with the M10 Booker.

[@GoshkaPolska]

7:08 Poor Soviet Tank, Just left to rust!...

[@danielfrisk925]

The CV90 is a lot more versatile, able to in combination with other CV90s create a total power/effectiveness that is much larger than the same numbers of other IFVs. The survivability of troops, especially experienced, welltrained ones - including the CV90 crew is so ridiculously important, and is the highest priority of the CV90. IFVs, and other personell carrying armored vehicles, tanks rely hugely on infantry working in tandem with them & add support. Which also makes the CV90 a lot more effective and useful. Ontop of it - CV90 has effective anti-drone capabilities with its 3p ammunition, programmable to explode at a specific point along the trajectory, such as on/next to an incoming UAS. The CV90's main cannon has an increased range of how far up you can tilt/aim the gun for this specific purpose. This is also great for trench warfare, where the progeammable ammunition can be set to explode right above a trench for much greater effectiveness, damage.

[@kroooassant9899]

I think it's not comparable, right from the start the industrial base and production plan probably differs by a world appart. The booker will probably be produced to integrate the US army, it's like the movies, they don't need foreign customers to enjoy the economy of scale, maybe booker will be less effective but you have to count for how it will play in that particular army it's much more complex thna just looking at the vehicles, each army have their own particular need and US needs are very particular.

[@Leo137156]

@@kroooassant9899 Exactly, this video compares apples to oranges. Well said.

[@chickenfishhybrid44]

Thats the thing, this is built for a pretty specific role.. versatility isnt necessarily a requirement as goofy as that may seem.

[@svensvensson627]

i really like the point about integration and the easy switch to another role. Very important and cost saveing.

[@NitrogenPurged]

Totally agree. Great vid and spot on Donny.

[@ohmybrowncow]

From what I read the m10 was designed with weight in mind. The U.S. wanted to be able to cargo lift two m10's with one C17 (opposed to one Abrams per C17) to aid expeditionary forces possibly for the pacific theater (Island hopping).

[@andrewreynolds4949]

The CV90120 is around 10 tons lighter I believe

[@einar8019]

@@andrewreynolds4949 or more depending on what setup you have

[@diobrando2575]

I'm a big CV90 fan, but I have to admit the Booker seems just fine. The 105mm seems just fine for it's role, which isn't fighting tanks. Doctrinally, they're meant to give the infantry a little more bang against emplacements, and would work well in places where MBTs wouldn't work due to their weight, which would mean the 105mm would be more than enough for the targets it'd face in such scenarios, such as the Type-15 Light Tank, and the 2S25 Sprut-SD thanks to M900.

[@dwwolf4636]

CV90 105mm cannon turrets exist.

[@diobrando2575]

@@dwwolf4636 The XC-8 is autoloaded though, and considered how US doctrine has shied away from autoloaders, it's understandable they'd stay consistent on that matter.

[@einar8019]

@@diobrando2575 stryker 105 uses a autoloader

[@diobrando2575]

@@einar8019 And the MGS is getting retired. The M10 Booker was picked over BAe's autoloaded XM1034, and I imagine that the fact the BAe prototype's had an autoloader was one of the reasons why it wasn't picked.

[@bert26a]

Hey at least with 105mm L7 or M68 you can still fire HESH rounds great for bunker busting and taking out lighter vehicles! I still vote for the CV90-120 its a proven platform.

[@PeterMuskrat6968]

I don't think this is an L7 cannon, it's actually a smoothbore IIRC

[@bert26a]

@@PeterMuskrat6968 I never said it was an L7 the American's made their own under licence starting with the M48A5 and M60 called the M68. The CV90-120 uses a 120mm smoothbore.

[@Pincer88]

Wholeheartedly agree Matsimus! It does make me wonder however, why BAe Systems decided to make its M8 compete and not the CV90-120. After all, the CV90 is now a BAeS franchise.

[@gusgone4527]

Makes me wonder too. Something fishy going on.

[@Kishanth.J]

The M8 is a American design, while the CV90 is Swedish. Other than the small arms, the Constellation class, and some specialized equipment the USA armed force alway favour American weapons, even if it a worse choice.

[@squgieman]

@@Kishanth.J thats not entirely true, our tanks have used EU guns ever since the end of ww2, and british armor designs with the M1

[@ibuprofen_]

@@Kishanth.J to some extent, but AT4 , MAAAWS , Mk57 naval guns , Excalibur, Giraffe radar are some of the Swedish contributions to the US Army and Naval forces.

[@Bob_Betker]

@@squgieman THe US prefers to use US systems for major end items. Yeah, the US uses an EU gun but where it the US version made? In the US at Watervliet. A major selling point of the M-10 was the internal turret equipment and arrangement is very similar/almost identical to the M-1, which makes transition training between the two systems much quicker and also simplifies the logistics chain.

[@Echowhiskeyone]

Since I heard about the M10 Booker, I have been waiting for a video from you. The M10 sounds good, but I like the 'modularity' of the CV90. If the M10 could swap turrets and weapons as easily as the CV90, it will be a force on the battlefield.

[@PeterMuskrat6968]

The M10 swaps parts with the Abrams... its modular alright... just with a system that is actually good and not an overhyped, underselling platform.

[@zoom5024]

@@PeterMuskrat6968 CV90 is underselling? It's in most northern European armies. And around 500 on order right now from Slovakia and Czechia, Sweden is likely going to order some MK4 soon aswell.

[@zoega0850]

​@@zoom5024we are involved with the development of the future Mk V so it will probably be that version we upgrade to. Cant wait!

[@scratchy996]

Does the CV90 share parts and operating manuals with the Abrams ? - because that was a mandatory requirement from the US Army.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

@@scratchy996 No, it wasn't. That the M10 is very similar to the M1 in terms of turret components and training was a fringe benefit, but the company was given no credit for that fact. The BAE submission had almost nothing in common with anything else in the Army's inventory, but was still a valid contender. It had serious issues, and I for one would not have wanted to fight in it, but that is another matter entirely.

[@gusgone4527]

I completely agree with you. CV90120 is the better choice for several reasons. The CV90 platform is the best IFV, APC too, in all of it's variants. It should have been selected for the British Army rather than Ajax. Also as the future Warrior replacement. It's size weight and capabilities hit the sweet spot. It has been continuously upgraded and brought bang up to date, with much more to come. It will enjoy a very long service life in many countries.

[@scratchy996]

". CV90120 is the better choice for several reasons." - maybe for another country, but the CV90120 didn't meet the requirements demanded by the US Army.

[@gusgone4527]

@@scratchy996 Yet the Ajax cousin did. Then I wish the US well and hope GM don't produce yet another cursed design like Ajax. I still think CV90 hits that sweet spot for ALL nations who want an IFV. Be it hosting a 120mm or a 40mm gun plus an infantry section.

[@scratchy996]

@@gusgone4527 The Ajax is a messed up version of the ASCOD. The M10 is an ASCOD without the messed up part.

[@gusgone4527]

@@scratchy996 Messed up by GM! We should have gone for the better CV90 in all it's various forms. It's the AFV equivalent of Centurion. Either by luck or design it sits in the Goldilocks zone, the sweet spot.

[@redrum707monkey]

you make valid points im on board with your opinion

[@zachv1942]

The M10 is designed for a Shift in Doctorine. The US has the Bradly and Other Vehicles to pick From. They are Specifically wanting this Vehicle to Accompany a New Platoon Structure. These will be Made Directly Available to Platoons.

[@jimmiller5600]

I haven't seen much in the way of how the M10 will fit into tactics.

[@zachv1942]

@jimmiller5600 you don't read do you. The US Army got rid of the Speed Mobility and Firepower Triangle a few Years Ago. Look to The Chieftain and PowerPoint Man for better information. Also this Video was made by a Artileryman.

[@seanmonyhan7800]

Cv90120 seams hands down the better vehicle in terms of firepower, mobility, and versatility. But suffers from the not made here problem plus the US wanted the M10 to have the same layout of the Abrams.

[@jjohnson796]

I like both platforms, the CV90 is excellent by any standard. I want to see what happens with the M10 after it goes through operational integration and doctrinal work ups.

[@VitoDepho]

Boxer Tracked with 120mm gun remote turret and six dismounts.

[@Strategy_Analysis]

Mat it really depends on the operational requirement. I see the CV90/120 as a tank destroyer. A focus on firepower and mobility and not so much on protection. The M10, as an infantry fire support weapon, should be carrying more rounds than the CV90/120, and 105mm rounds should be more than sufficient for the requirement. Agree that the whole CV90 family offers a lot of flexibility.

[@gerlachsieders4578]

Yes, lots of sentiment around the introduction of the Booker and also the introduction of the Abrams in Ukraine, above all American heroics and patriotism around these vehicles. Personally, I think the Abrams add nothing that the Challenger 2's and Leopard 2's can already do in the Ukraine - and may even be a logistical burden. I think the 100 Leopard 1's to be provided to the Ukraine area more valuable addition, in the same role as the Booker, as an infantry support vehicle. Likewise, as a quarter master, I would opt for the CV90 family anytime, certainly the 120 over the M10. Especially the CV90-120 Ghost is a marvel and ahead of its time.

[@agactual7901]

Obviously 120mm out Guns 105mm. But the ultimate advantage pf CV90 family vs Any Booker variant is that Only CV90 series is designed & built for Modularity. Booker is good as a 'one hit wonder' It can't be as modular to adapt to changing/evolving warfare. Both are Good. One is Better.

[@Bob_Betker]

Yes the 120mm outranges the 105mm gun and has superior armor penetration but the 105mm has a better HE round and that is more important for its mission.

[@vasilikosolov]

Booker is also modular, booker is based from the ASCOD IFV which is pretty modular as well

[@7.62musang]

I think they choose the 105mm for the Booker because of its higher gun elevation which is important if they projected the vehicle to fight in a mountainous terrain. I had such assumption because of ascod sabrah which is basically a Booker with autoloader. Sorry for my English 😅

[@einar8019]

@@Bob_Betker better he round???????? the 120 has the AMP which is the best HE round right now

[@daveriddell3704]

Love your stuff as usual. Just not sure why so much video of the revamped M8 AGS.

[@Outside85]

I think this is more of a case of the breath of the American armed forces showing itself. For one thing, they prefer their own stuff in general, and the M10 appears to have been designed to do one job that the armed forces wants it to do. The CV90 however is, as mentioned, a utility platform the user can change into whatever is needed thus making the whole family cheaper to run and operate... so yeah, I would say the CV90 is the better option for everyone who doesn't have the deep pockets of the American army.

[@Jason-fm4my]

You want easily sourcable spare parts to keep these out of the depots when shtf.

[@342Rodry]

to be fair, tank to tank engagements are extremely rare, arty and infantry and now drones are more likely to wipe armor.

[@bl8danjil]

Yup and that's if the strike aircraft haven't bombed them yet.

[@davidty2006]

@@bl8danjil Or the artillery...

[@davidty2006]

Yeah we have seen in ukraine that tank on tank engagments are quite rare. And thats without any air dominance by any side. 90% of the time tanks are gonna be shooting their guns at infantry or their transports.

[@zoom5024]

I just think you wouldnt see this slow war if Europe/US went to war.

[@342Rodry]

@@zoom5024 I mean, us and europe have a massive air force and a drone army, they surely will be ahead of tanks, and, US already have the ambrams and si working in the abrams x, the M10 is more like a first fist, designed for easy logistics.

[@strategosopsikion8576]

I read somewhere that a 120 was considered for the M10. But the Army rejected that idea for a few reasons. 1. It could cause the M10 to be used in a non-doctrinal way. Ie. As armor 2. The 120 would reduce the ammo stowage to below 40 rounds. Deemed to be insufficient by the army. 3. the 105 is lighter, and cut down on the weight of the vehicle by several tons. Thus reducing the logistical strain of a M10 battalion.

[@einar8019]

the cv90120 is over 10tons lighter than the m10 and carries 45 rounds for the 120mm

[@DarkHorseSki]

Yes the CV90 with the big gun is better. The 120mm armed KF-41 from Rheinmetall would also be better, particularly if the KF-41 wins the XM30 contest (formerly known as OMFV). I do agree that GD would have done better to put the 120 in the Booker, but there are plenty of DU 105 rounds remaining from when the M1 used a 105, so it will be able to fight against tanks quite effectively.

[@dominuslogik484]

don't forget about the 105mm ammo procured for the Styker mobile gun system the M10 is supposed to replace.

[@DarkHorseSki]

@@dominuslogik484 I'm sure they can up gun it later, like they did with the Abrams.

[@dominuslogik484]

@@DarkHorseSki probably, they made that lightweight 120mm gun a while back and still haven't found a use for it. If the U.S adopts the sibling vehicles of the M10 which are the Griffin AFVs from general dynamics then we could see a whole family of different armaments on board. One of the Griffin vehicles was equipped with the 120 and the other was using the 50mm bushmaster the army recently had developed.

[@dominuslogik484]

@@DarkHorseSki basically just look up the general dynamics Griffen and you will see a little bit of info on all three varieties. 120-105-50mm guns respectively

[@DarkHorseSki]

@@dominuslogik484 I know. I worked at TACOM when the Griffen was brought back around and one of the folks I worked with had been at GDLS at the time it was originally made, and another guy had worked on the old light tank so we'd walk over and look and talk about it. And even the 105 can work and I don't mind using up all the old 105 ammo for a bit.

[@DaveAtUofL]

We've seen the Bradley take out tanks with it's gun. The 105mm round should be fine. For 'near' peer combat the 105mm will do fine against potential adversaries. Russian tanks have already shown they are vulnerable in testing against this round, and I believe there's a new round either entering service or in late state development that the US that has shown the capabilities to do so. The other peer being China, and in the most likely place where these will see combat is Taiwan, the tanks that it will face will be lighter armored as they'd have to be transported to the conflict via ship. So the more rounds and faster fire rate of the 105mm is going to be a better in that conflict.

[@ryanj610]

This obsession over needing bigger guns for tank on tank has always been ridiculous, to me. Ukraine has shown that tanks are usually disabled by a mine, killed with ATGM's or drones. On the rare occasion that tanks have faced off, they haven't been head to head, and as far as I know, no side armor can hold up against any cannon.

[@bl8danjil]

I think I read that there was a program to make a round similar to the 120mm AMP, but for 105mm. Assuming that the program hasn't been cancelled, a 105mm AMP round would be ideal for the Assault Gun. As for the M10 Booker, I have mixed opinion about it. I have defended it being called an Assault Gun and not "light tank." I just don't think it is the best example of an Assault Gun. It seems like the US Army just wants to settle with something that was good enough to replace the Stryker MGS.

[@davidty2006]

Im thinking gun motor carriage could also work for the M10. Since it's older counterpart was used in a somewhat similar role when deployed..

[@adamroach3407]

This comes down to politics and development goals. The CV-90/120 is a pretty solid platform for a “light tank” but this was specifically something the Army wanted to avoid. The Booker is, theoretically, never going to be deployed in any real anti armor role. It’s not meant to be a tank killer but more of a tankette. I frankly think it’s too damn big for it’s intended role. A modern version of the old British Scimitar or Scorpion is what they wanted but they ended up with a modern Sherman. Which is fine. Politically, if they had considered the CV-90 for this, in any variation, it would have put the CV-90 into contention for the next IFV replacement and that was a big deal. Clearly the USArmy has considered the CV-90, considering how many Allies use it, but discounted that possibility. They want something new. Not simply for the sake of newness but as a full scale interoperability issue. This M-10 will share some parts commonality with Abrams and very likely the next IFV. If they can get that interoperability into the 60% range they will save money over time. I do not know but do suspect that the Booker has better armor than the CV-90. Not to discount the Swedish Armor but the CV-90 follows that European preference for speed and sensors over sheer toughness and that not usually how the US Army thinks about tracked vehicles, even on one that isn’t supposed to face tanks. I suspect BAE might build the CV-90 in the US and source 100% of components there but, this will annoy everyone already in this space in North America. For “off the shelf armor” the CV-90 is probably the best option on the market but,it’s actually an expensive boutique product built for design parameters that are outside of Pentagon thinking. Which is fine but not really how the Pentagon works. As funny as it sounds, the CV-90 is almost too modular for the USA. They wanted a dedicated platform for a specific purpose. One of which is actually to test the viability of the light tank in today’s battlefield, even if the swear on a stack of bibles they are not doing that. I will say, if the US had been looking for a Reconnaissance Tank, then the 90/120 would be perfect, but that wasn’t the brief. This program was for Airborne and Air Assault Brigades to have some heavy firepower assets. As to the 105 vs 120 argument, that’s just a gun swap issue. The US probably has a mountain of 105 shells somewhere and that’s why they keep mounting that gun on vehicles. This is a cost benefit issue more than covering a capability gap. It’s the same for the 25mm Bushmasters, there are better guns on the market but the US has a mountain of ammo and a bunch of gun parts laying around. They’ve not upgraded to the 30/35 because they are working out the 50mm gun that will probably be standardized eventually. The Booker’s first weapon swap might be to that 50mm cannon rather than the low pressure 120 that looks so interesting. There is ego involved in these plans. The American defense contractors already feel a pinch from BAE I suspect. Which does a lot of business with the US already.

[@vandecasa3795]

As far as I can tell from available sources the CV90-120 has a semi-automatic loader with 12 rounds ready to fire and 33 rounds stowed in the lower rear hull. So after emptying the magazine the vehicle has to disengage and reload. M10 Booker has a human loader, regarding ammo capacity I can't find any information, however I doubt it's less than the CV90-120. M10 doesn't need to reload the magazine and can stay in the fight without pause for as long as the ammo lasts. The smaller and lighter 105mm-rounds are also easier to handle and and transport. My guess is that M10 may be better suited for offensive operations, by being able to keep continuous pressure on the enemy (fire superiority).

[@gogogomes7025]

Put it on wheels and the French have been doing this for years now.

[@PeterMuskrat6968]

With wheels you cannot even put any goddamn armor on it, with tracks you can still put on Armor packages that will actually protect the crew from Autocannons and artillery shrapnel.

[@quakethedoombringer]

The reason many armored vehicles of French origin are wheeled because their main theatre of operation is the dry super wide desert in the Sahel, where having a gas guzzling, maintenance heavy tracked vehicle would be a hinderance logistics. Also most anti armor weaponry the troops will face are machine guns, old RPG or recoilless rifles. The M10 is supposed to be used for the wetter, muddier battlefield in South East Asia or Eastern Europe, where the enemies have access to better anti-armor weaponry and wheeled vehicles suffer

[@ArmorCast]

I’m just gonna echo Nick Moran’s statement on this - Hagglunds has been flogging the CV90120 for decades with nearly zero foreign or domestic interest. There’s a reason for that

[@_Matsimus_]

Care to share?

[@PeterMuskrat6968]

The CV90120 was first unveiled around '98 or so... still haven't exported a single one.

[@ArmorCast]

​@@_Matsimus_ On this I'll differ to Moran. I'll timestamp the point in his video from earlier this year. kzbin.info/www/bejne/o3fCZp2ki9eYb5I With BAE not even choosing to OFFER the CV90120 up for the MPF program, instead putting the XM1302 forward as the only real competitor to the GDLS vehicle, there are obviously flaws to the vehicle as it pertains to the role which we're not seeing in promotional material. These could be a number of things - armor packages not being up to snuff to offer protection from 30mm sabot or artillery fragmentation, reliability specifically of the all-rubber track being below the army's required standards, ergonomics of the smaller turret, fuel efficiency, etcetera. Any number of issues could be present, and given that a number of nations are now developing similar vehicles - from the Sabrah to the Kaplan to the M10 itself - yet NONE are electing to go with the BAE vehicle... I'd assume that CV90120 doesn't fit the required roles quite as well as promotional material would suggest. Of course it's always possible that the US went with the M10 for more seemingly arbitrary reasons, including domestic production, commonality with Abrams SEP, etc, but even then you have to ask why CV90120 wasn't even offered for the MPF program despite BAE being anxious to finally sell it to someone! Also, referencing Pentagon Wars as if it has any credibility whatsoever is a pretty significant hit to your own, mate. You know I've been a fan for years, but my god do I grimace when anybody brings up James Burton's idiocy as any kind of justification for a point (this is the same guy who thinks the M48 Patton out performs the M1A1 Abrams and that radar can't see anything on the ground...).

[@Sweden-nt3vp]

Don't know what you mean like 7 countries using CV90 and more waiting for delivery

[@andrewbrown1695]

The CV90 is a superior system. But the M10 booker is purpose built. That being said, it always comes down to one thing for me. A dope ass paint job. CV90 baby

[@joejoemcgee]

The M10 looks so tall... and has no gun depression when pointing to the rear. The lower glacis looks huge. I hope it's a great tank, fingers crossed.

[@Apexseals87]

the stryker mgs was discontinued and phased out though. this is literally here to replace it as the stryker mgs was more of a makeshift system from what i recall.

[@TheWizardGamez]

Its(Stryker mgs) main problem as far as I’m aware was it’s short lifespan and crew wear

[@TheTrueAdept]

​@@TheWizardGamezno, the problem was that the gun itself was too much for the chassis.

[@Alexander_Hodge]

@@TheTrueAdept Yep. The gun was literally destroying the vehicle every time it fired

[@TheTrueAdept]

@@Alexander_Hodge however, it should be noted that it was an assault gun in practice, a StuGG if you will.

[@Alexander_Hodge]

@@TheTrueAdept I imagine a the m10 will retain a similar role. A support vehicle but with a bigger punch than the Bradley.

[@napoleonibonaparte7198]

Then again, the M10 is never meant to engage tank v. tank, but as an infantry support vehicle, much like the Sabrah (acquired by the Philippine Army).

[@djsturm685]

Cv90120 is best choice. I love the cv90 famíly.

[@jhonylg4045]

I agree that a specialized vehicke is better on that role, and in that regard nothing will change that, but a multi role in most cases can be the better option in the corrent modern warfare stage and the versatility to adapt in what is needed in any specific misssion can be the decisive caractheristic that can win more battles

[@TrangleC]

From a logistical point of view, since the US Army is supposedly considering adopting the Rheinmetall KF41 Lynx as a replacement for the Bradley, it would probably make the most sense to also get the Version of the Lynx with a 120mm gun. Not that I personally believe they will end up opting for a German design over the competing American design. Even if the Pentagon would, the immediate result would be that the US loser of the contest would mobilize a bunch of congressmen and senators to lobby against that decision and have it revoked, like they did when the Pentagon announced that it would buy tanker aircraft from Airbus. Just saying what would make the most sense from a logistical perspective. Yes, the absolute ideal solution, again, from a logistical point of view, would be to both replace the Bradley with the CV90 and the MGS with the CV90120, because that would mean more interoperability with European NATO partners, on top of using the same platform for a IFV and a fire support vehicle, but for whatever reason, the CV90 was eliminated from the competition to replace the Bradley.

[@tireballastserviceofflorid7771]

FYI. The stryker with the 105 gun was actually built as a stop gap after the Sheridan light tank was retired.

[@martinsmith9054]

I like the CV90/120 more. Apparently the Booker had an experimental 120mm turret, which they might find necessary to retrofit in the future.

[@nhansemark]

Retrofit a 130mm on a CV90 in an S-tank configuration 😅 In any case, CV90120 would have been really nice to see more of 😌

[@solarissv777]

Maybe there is some merit to this, but not exactly in this configuration. Maybe something with casemate low velocity high caliber gun-mortar and autoloader. Something akin 160mm mortar, designed to shoot heavy volume detonating rounds up to, like, 10km for mine (and trench) clearing. For reference, Bulgarian 160mm mortar round, that weights 43kg, has a warhead equivalent of 30kg with blast overpressure radius of 15m. With modern guidance kits, such rounds, could basically work as something like MICLIC from kilometers away. With the ability to make additional passages if needed, and of course it would be devastating anti infantry weapon. As for "why casemate?", with such amount of HE onboard, and close proximity to frontline, you would want to have as much armor as reasonably possible.

[@nhansemark]

@@solarissv777 Mjölner?

[@solarissv777]

@@nhansemark I believe, Mjolnir is 120mm

[@surgetsann]

I think basically everything would be better than the booker since it weighs more than many MBTs. I think this thing will probably not last very long relatively. For the weight, we could have gotten the 120mm armed tracked Boxer, that also would carry 6 dismounts. It would/could have two spikes, a 30mm coax, RWS, Trophy APS, LWR, and able to fire the new AMP round that we just spent years developing, not to mention the turret is completely unmanned, all of which the booker lacks completely for the same weight. Oh and the engine is more powerful.

[@kimkristensen2816]

I belive the Bradley IFV is credited with more kills during Desert Storm than the Abrams MBT. Is that due to use of ATGM guided missles or perhabs higher numbers of IFV versus MBT!

[@burre01]

the CV-90 in Ukraine that got shot twice by 125mm Russian tank rounds looked kinda fine inside, all the crew survived.

[@piers995]

Both AFVs look like the old concept of light tanks. In reality I expect in warfare they would end up being multi-role, infantry support, assaulting fortifications and mobile anti-tank. Being cheaper than MBTs they will inevitably act as light tanks suplimenting the MBTs. Remember M24 Chafees, holding the line in Korea, before heavier tanks arrived.

[@andrewreynolds4949]

The M10’s requirements were written for a heavy rapid response force, and the primary concern was to get firepower that could be rapidly deployed rather than any concern of cost. The Army has been describing it as “not a light tank” (even though it is) because it’s meant to stay attached to specific infantry units, and not for operating with Abrams.

[@lippertwe]

My general impression is that a big drawback of a 120mm gun - other than weight (more weight for the gun means less for armor, or less powerful engine in terms of ratio) - is the recoil. More recoil should require more mass to brace it. A lighter vehicle may experience damage over time to the recoil forces of a 120 mm gun. All else being equal, less recoil is better than more.

[@johnnyenglish583]

Theoretically, you're absolutely right. In practice, I've never heard of any problems with the CV90 as a result of it having the larger gun. The benefits for the crew and infantry on the battlefield are very clear - a more potent HE round to support the infantry, and AP rounds that can save your life if you run into an enemy tank.

[@pedrorequio5515]

@@johnnyenglish583 In the highly survailed Battlefield of today, even by non state actors, you dont happen to come across a Tank. And especially not in the environment the Army has in mind of the Pacific, where mobility and logístics are the biggest worry on planners. Not kidding even inttoducing mules for local logístics is in the cards because they cost almost nothing, Carry a lot, and move through very harsh terrain Common in many Western Pacific islands. Note: they are assuming a dennied environment where the Navy Sealift command will be restrained by enemy submarines and Anti ship capabilities.

[@awesomepawn2]

i do imagine the decision had more to do with contracting agreements, the fact that it had to be manufactured in the states, how many could be manufactured and how quickly -things like that- that led to the CV90 losing the contract.

[@luthfihar3211]

Even Indonesia and Turkey have made their own version and interpretation of the concept but in a more basic and flexible way by using a standard turret, a common gun and modular capacity

[@dwwolf4636]

Probably, yes. As it would be a FAMILY of related vehicles that are usefull in the IFV, Artillery, SPAAA and APC roles. Commonality of parts and training would ease logistics. Keep in mind the USA will select a new IFV soon. The USA will soon field the Booker, AMPV ( Bradley derivative), Bradley (numbers will go down ), a New IFV. Oh and some new 120mm tracked turreted mortar vehicle. One atleast hopes the logistics chain will be spared a bit and either the M10 derivative will be chosen for the IFV and a AMPV derivative for the mortar carrier.

[@gr4692]

I like the Lynx 120 its brand new with probably the most modern sensors and targeting system and a working active protection no other IFV got in the world

[@gusgone4527]

Sensors and networking systems can be fitted to any IFV. CV90 has been upgraded continuously since it's introduction. The process is ongoing. If memory serves, he Lynx is a much heavier platform to begin with.

[@gr4692]

@@gusgone4527 Yep but better engine with a better hp per ton ratio

[@letsgetricketywreckedson9455]

It's like the Pather and The Tiger tank cut the fat and upgraded the main weapon. Modernized. I love it.

[@RR-us2kp]

We all know Mat has a crush on CV90❤❤

[@ookiemand]

I think the bigger calibre gun allows for more powerful multi purpose (programable) ammo, and such ammo would offer a longer engamement and better logistics. On the other hand I think one should look at the economics, the complexity, the purpose (role) of this. The drone and AI revolution has started, so I think that in light of these developments different choices will be made, such as increased emphasis on stealth. With increasingly improved detecion, fast targetting and poweful ammunition stealth is the only way to stay alive. Being in a big loud and hot vehicle is not the way I want to enter a battlefield!

[@marrs1013]

The reality of infantry handheld anti-tank capability might be the main factor here. If dismounted infantry can (relatively) easily suppress and destroy enemy MBTs, this class has a perfect chance to have big impact for much less then sending 70tonne MBTs everywhere. The full spectrum of capabilities of a truly combined arms formation means a lot. If you have air superiority, artillery with precision strike capability, infantry with Javelins and NLAWs, you can afford lighter and cheaper tanks. Is it a breakthrough vehicle? Of course not! Just don't use it as such...

[@shovelhead2155]

Say it with me now ...."Modularity". Some where a General got warm fuzzy feelings.

[@Sweden-nt3vp]

Coming from Sweden and the same city where the CV90 is built, I am sure if there is an order, a new factory will be started in the USA, i.e. they will be built in the USA, the factory in Sweden is also fully booked until 2040, I think it was.

[@AtroFear]

I think it's too common to just compare and see what's "better". But there are other factors that doesn't have as much to do with the performance at play too. You can't just purely compare the vehicles side by side, that's one of many parts. There is also a massive benefit of having your own domestically designed and produced vehicle rather than purchasing a license to produce a vehicle originally designed by another country with VERY different military requirements. This gives you a lot of freedom to tinker around with said vehicle and draw from all your domestic experience without worry of secret military tech getting leaked or incorporated into license produced vehicles. An argument could also be made that you are actively retaining the "brains" of the designs and the military industry as a whole by keeping it domestic. I just don't think it's feasible for the US military industrial complex aswell as the US strategic interests to incorporate too many foreign designs into their armed forces.

[@RockSolitude]

Except the design is based off of the ASCOD platform. Also, since it's a brand new vehicle, it wasn't being domestically produced previously either. Like with all brand new vehicles, it's not domestically produced until it's formally adopted and put into domestic production. Your argument about retaining human capital and "incorporating too many foreign designs" is entirely moot, too, because it's irrelevant, and certainly not the foremost consideration of the US military in this day and age. All first world nations with advanced militaries use defense contractors from all over the world. Moreover, most have now resorted to using products developed by other foreign contractors, of which there are relatively few for any given field, simply due to the cost and advanced tech associated with modern military hardware. All of this is now being outsourced to global private military defense companies. No country has an issue "incorporating foreign designs" into their armed forces, and certainly not the US which use plenty, because there is no real issue with using "foreign designs" - especially if you're as big as the US military or you have a very well funded and robust military industrial complex.

[@Stigsens1]

Since tank to tank fight almost never happen anymore, and a Lancet can take out a Abrams or a Leo2, armies could be better off with 2x more CV90 than the twice as expencive Leo2 or Abrams. The CV90120 is perfect against infantry and their transport. Combined with some cv90 IFV and some CV90 with anti air, would somply be perfect.

[@johnnyenglish583]

That's not true because the crew of a Leopard hit with a lancet walks away with a few bruises, while the crew of a CV90 hit with a lancet gets killed. In the first months of the Ukrainian offensive, the Russians recorded about 30-40 lancet hits on Leopards. Only 4 Leopards were actually destroyed. In the remaining 36 cases, they required smaller or bigger repairs but came back to fight another day.

[@Shoelessjoe78]

The problem is there are more systems that can take out a CV120 than can take out a Leo or Abrams. They're indisputably more survivable. Having a crew that can recover and refit is far more effective than having to start over and replace the crew. Finally... Crews and personnel are the single biggest cost a military has. Double the vehicles double the crews. Not cheap at all.

[@AutoReport1]

The thinking is, you might be able to surprise an MBT with the 120, but you're not going to be facing "one" MBT, so best to avoid them, and for what it's intended for (taking out redoubts and machine gun nests) the 105 is enough.

[@bradleyanderson4315]

In Ukraine only a low percentage of tank loses are due to fire from other tanks. Most are due to loitering munitions, anti tank missiles, and mines. 105 is better for suppressing missile teams, snipers, and fortified sites with HESH or HE. Cheaper than an AMP round and available in surplus caches.

[@danysainz-gootenberg7809]

Any thoughts on the Chinese type-15 light tank? seems similar to booker but looks like it has a few key advantages like bustle autoloader with blowout panels, higher power to weight ratio, and barrel atgm capability. makes me think china will produce a bustle autoloader MBT soon. Great video overall however my opinion is that the booker is more of a anti insurgency / low intensity conflict tank compared to the cv90 120 which doesn't skimp on firepower.

[@CynicallyDepressedx]

I'm not sure which is actually the best choice, I personally also love CV 90 but whether or not it is actually better than M10 remains to be seen. I think it's not as simple as just opting for whichever is faster or has more firepower, since especially fire-control and information sharing will be crucial in any potential future war. I also think that whether or not CV 90120 is better, US would never opt for a vehicle that is not American simply on principle. I'm no expert on US military but I can't think of a time they adopted any foreign equipment. Of course they do use foreign parts within their own equipment all the time, but I would be very surprised if USA adopted any combat vehicle that was not American.

[@fredjansen2659]

agree does not matter wich is better, USA only adopts US made stuff.

[@sparty94]

the 105mm gun is quite adequate for the task these were built for.

[@g111g]

It will be interesting to see if any other armies reintriduce this infantry support role. Would a turretless platform, a la StuG or strv103, be more optimal for weight, therby mobility, and still suffice for hitting stationary targets in this role? Would the M10 or Cv90120 be useful in the cavalry role, like the CVR(T) or are they too heavy?

[@cmdr1911]

The Booker is in response to the "modular" LCS. This is what is needed. It will do this and do it well. It is also as transportable as any other American armor. The M10 also is looking to have more vehicles with fewer personnel in them. I don't think the CV120 is better one on one. But the M10 is likely going to operate with the M1.

[@iivin4233]

The M10 is slated to be in light divisions in battalion strength. Unless a leg or air mobile division lends one of the new types of armored divisions a unit of bookers it will not serve alongside M1s. Of course, that could change.

[@Sightbain.]

Let's be real the only reason they didn't go with the CV90120 is because they want to have a strong industrial base and have it made with all American parts etc and Sweden would never allow the technology transfer and independent manufacturing.

[@kittehgo]

​@aperpetualguardsmanwithafl2942 It will be interesting to see if there will be some Ukrainian innovations to the platform..

[@einar8019]

i mean a bunch of the parts are already us made

[@microcerto]

The use of armor in the Ukraine x Russia war with 100mm cannons or more to support infantry fire or self-propelled artillery could be covered in a future video with CV90120 and M10 Booker playing this role.

[@tironansunfrendlyskies5040]

You do know that the M10 can but upgraded to a 120mm because it was designed for that upgrade, yes? Also, the reason that it was chosen was because it uses the M2 Bradley chassis which is the basis for the AMPV M113 replacement. Equipping the M10 with the new ACE 1000 HP engine addresses the mobility issue as well.

[@jaimemartinez9792]

The think I don't get is that on paper the M10 is heavier than the CV90 120 but sports a 105 mm gun instead of a 120 mm. My question is what is the M10 Booker doing with most of this extra weight? Is the extra weight going into more armor? More ammo?

[@Bob_Betker]

It appears to be classified but having seen the Chieftain's videos on the Booker, it sounds like it has heavier armor than a Bradley. The 105mm gun is lighter than the 120mm gun, the Booker will carry about 25% more ammo than an Abrams. I can imagine the powerpack is no heavier than the Abrams, so that leaves the extra weight going to armor. Which makes sense if it will be working in close cooperation with the infantry. The Chieftain has a couple of good videos on the Booker. Here is a link to one: kzbin.info/www/bejne/o3fCZp2ki9eYb5I&ab_channel=TheChieftain

[@okanieba267]

Other vehicle that's very similar is the 2S25 Sprut-SD, seems to be designed on a similar concept

[@wilemelliott]

The full quote fits a little better. "Jack of all trades is master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one" (attributed to Wm. Shakespear)

[@HammerheadClassCruiser]

To dispel a couple of misconceptions The M10 Booker has a better power to weight ratio than the M1A2sepv3 Abrams and is nearly the same as the Japanese type10. This is reflected in the top speeds attained by each. The cost per unit of the initial batch of 96 low rate initial production units IF you simply divide the entire price of the contract by the number of vehicles comes to around 11million per M10, the second batch of 26 has a cost per unit of just under 10million per M10. It is virtually never the case that dividing the amount of a contract by the number a vehicles procured will give an accurate cost per vehicle as essentially all contracts include spares, tooling, etc.

[@brianphillips7696]

I am going to guess that the Booker will have better crew survival. That would be about the only advantage though.

[@dwwolf4636]

Why ?

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

@@dwwolf4636 For starters, it's effectively a modified Abrams turret, with the same bustle ammunition configuration. It's also a lot easier to safely get out of than the CV90 series if you have to.

[@Elementalism.]

I think that there would be more times as a tank crew that you'd wish you were in a CV 90 then a M10 Then being in a CV90 and wishing you were in a M10 Just because of the adaptability of the CV90, and it being more likely to be suited for the mission at hand, or at least that one of the vehicles in your group is.

[@corpi8784]

If they used a main gun smaller than a 120mm they should have put a ATGM launcher for Javelins or Tow on it as well. A 90mm or 105mm main gun witb an additional ATGM launcher that can be fired from inside. You would want a AFV that can take on ALL threats.

[@PeterMuskrat6968]

I would not be surprised if we see a version with a TOW launcher mounted on it.

[@jjkenyon172]

I think the author overlooks a few key aspects of the design 1) 105mm is sufficient for supporting infantry assaults 2) while not the best anti-tank gun it is still dangerous to armor from outside the frontal arc, as well as anything that isn't a battle tank 3) smaller 105mm rounds means you can store a sufficient combat load in a separate compartment with blowout panels which greatly improves crew survivability...versus putting 33 120mm rounds inside the hull (with the crew) of a vehicle that can be pen'd by an autocannon or ATGM.