M10 Booker: The $13 Million Mini Abram That’s Not A Tank

[@chillman6901]

Only one error in the comparison, the M10 has a 105mm main gun and the M1 has a 120mm main gun not a 105mm as suggested by the creator….

[@mackenziepeek9317]

The M1 has a 105mm. The M68e1 105mm

[@keithreh9338]

M1A1 & M1A2 Abrams use a 120mm smoothbore main cannon;

[@mackenziepeek9317]

@@keithreh9338 was not the original gun. Those are both updated models. The M1 had a 105mm gun. A1 and A2 are updated models

[@BlitzenSpeaks]

The first M1 had a 105mm gun. It was upgraded to the (West) German (at the time.) 120mm gun in the mid 80s. Hence, the M1A1 designation.

[@SIERRA-dx9wm]

Mack your information is decades old

[@TheDustysix]

The M 10 is an M-41 Walker Bulldog upfitted with a 105mm gun, A/C and Wifi.

[@GuapoJhimi]

Shhhhh.

[@DANIEL_THE_BRIGHTEST]

Yes, and this is a very strange decision. I still don't understand why it's needed. Doesn't Abrams have the best armor against Russian ATGMs?

[@savec27p18]

the m10 is not to replace the abrams, it has a different role​@@DANIEL_THE_BRIGHTEST

[@doc0core]

Does it have 5G? Huh, huh? Can it play Candy Crush???

[@Alex-pj8nz]

It’s a Stug 3

[@bennuredjedi]

So should we call it a medium tank. I see the Haruman medium tank share similar characteristics

[@Siviks309]

Closer to a light tank

[@DANIEL_THE_BRIGHTEST]

@@Siviks309 Why? It weighs 40 tons. Just like the medium tanks of the 1950s and 60s. And a gun of the same caliber.

[@michaeljennings6647]

😅 that's what I said!

[@ImOnGearSoWhat]

@@DANIEL_THE_BRIGHTEST It’s considered a light tank in the modern era.

[@ry0usama511]

​@@ImOnGearSoWhat funny enough this thing would be anything but light. Weights around as much as a modern T-72 configuration. Something like Type 15 is a lot lighter.

[@tomwhite4488]

Now that's how you support our infantry. I being a former grunt appreciate effective armor.

[@DANIEL_THE_BRIGHTEST]

May I ask you as a professional? Would you prefer more Abrams or Booker to support your infantry company during an attack on an enemy company stronghold?

[@jefffinlayson3002]

M1A1 and M1A2 use a 120mm cannon, while the M10 uses a 105mm cannon. (Earlier Abrams versions (XM1 &, M1) did use a 105mm cannon however.)

[@jonathanbaum3499]

It's a light(er) tank but with the function of an assault gun. Like the old German StuG III, it's job is to 'shoot in' the infantry, and has a secondary anti-tank role.

[@bl8danjil]

It doesn't have an anti tank role. It's 105 can hurt armored fighting vehicles and Soviet era tanks before the advent of main battle tanks. But for modern MBT, that's asking way too much of this. It's going to need to rely on anti tank teams, accurate artillery, and strike aircraft.

[@T_81535]

​@@bl8danjil105mm high velocity with apfsds will kill MBT's.

[@bl8danjil]

@@T_81535 Nope, it is not combat effective enough against MBT from the front. If it did then every single modern MBT would have switched over to that barrel size instead because they could carry more rounds. The reality is that everyone switched because a 120mm just had more bang for the size, which means more kinetic energy. The main problem is that the M10 Booker has a rifled barrel from what I read. APFSDS rounds are hindered by rifling and they decrease the barrel life. For something that is just going to take on hardened fortifications or provide direct fire support for infantry the Army will not be wasting precious space in that AFV for something that anti tank teams, aircraft, and tanks can do far better and with less risk. If it is going up against other armored fighting vehicles that are not MBT, then it might engage them because the rounds that the Booker would be carrying would suffice.

[@jonathanbaum3499]

Part of being a good anti-tank gunner is knowing where to aim. You don't necessarily need a hit on the front or the turret to knock out a tank. A mobility kill is certainly better than no hit at all. @@bl8danjil

[@TheAlmightyCensor]

Still the lacking turret armor makes it weak to small(haha) main tank weapon systems as as guided rocket systems.

[@justen122]

It's more like an MGS. Probably to replace the Stryker Mobile Gun System. Gives the infantry heavy firepower in areas that the Abrams couldn't get to. When I was in 2nd Stryker, we used the MGS on more of a role like it sounds like they want this to be in.

[@lawrencemay8671]

And the Phasing out of Bradleys

[@Wised1000]

​@@lawrencemay8671 Bradleys will be around for another 50 years. Just like the M113.

[@davidfisher12865]

Remember the m10 tank destroyer of WW2.

[@crazyjack3357]

The designation M10 makes me think of the M10 wolverine early tank destroyer able to take some hit but not a lot, provide over watch on allied troops and armor. Which i think the M10 Booker fits that build

[@xwing8029]

To me its like Sherman. Made for infantry support with smaller gun and much more easily transportable in large numbers.

[@crazyjack3357]

@xwing8029 yeah either or if the millitary uses it as more mobile artillery like the early 75mm sherman or if they uses it to take out heavy armored targets like what the m10 wolverine would have done

[@PlayfulDoggy]

​@@xwing8029105 sherman

[@noeenricodomanais2517]

It's as expensive as a Leclerc, as heavy as a T-72, and is armed with a gun having caliber similar to an M60.

[@JAnx01]

And protected up to 30mm caliber in the standard configuration. The original T-64 with a 115mm gun weighed 35 tons and was protected up to 105mm.

[@T_81535]

​@@JAnx01wrong

[@mtf_savage_beasts2565]

And It will be Blown up by RPG-7

[@healspringy6300]

@@mtf_savage_beasts2565 no shit Captain Obvious, because it's a LIGHT TANK

[@niweshlekhak9646]

@@mtf_savage_beasts2565 it has trophy active defense system.

[@chadpaddock9968]

The Booker is 30 tons lighter, goes 100 miles farther and Carrie’s the same gun the Abrams first came out with. I would call it a medium tank not light. With a four man crew it can shoot faster than an auto loader. The key is why, u can carry two Bookers for every one Abram, on aircraft, C-17, C-5 maybe a C-130j can carry one or the replacement of C-130 and on ships. You can carry two on an LCAC, which can carry only one Abrams. In Europe we can leave Abrams, in the Pacific we have to transports all Vehicles to each location even S Korea. Even if we store Abrams in Japan one in danger of attack from enemy missiles two still need to transport to fight. The next fight will be in Pacific, at least we r gearing up for it. Then u have the soil problem on islands like Philippines Taiwan and other locations. If an amphibious landing the beach sand. Fuel will have two come by ship, with submarines can u count on enough fuels or cruise missiles. In Desert storm we had cruise missiles not the enemy, today? Guess what I’m saying it’s logistics. Second the Russian modern tanks have not proven very good so an Abrams is over kill even in Pacific and the Chinese will have to transport their tanks to each island.

[@PlayfulDoggy]

The 105mm gun is for taking out fortifications. Its not meant to combat other tanks. And medium tanks dont fit modern-day warfare. It's basically a modern day 105 sherman.

[@GuapoJhimi]

No. The teal issue is how many senators and congressional charlatans have gotten rich. I mean AIC went from nothing to Congressperson to multi millionaire on her $120 k salary. I wonder how they do that.

[@DANIEL_THE_BRIGHTEST]

Speaking of Russian tanks, did you mean that in general all heavy tanks with composite armor did not justify themselves at such a weight? So are they as vulnerable as medium or light tanks?

[@seb_1504]

The Russian tanks has proven not very good according to my consumption of war propaganda.

[@layneparker7408]

​@@PlayfulDoggyIt's meant to combat everything but a main battle tanks.

[@chiefsthunder7579]

Logisyically this is a great move. I can see being able to move these via Air more easily due to the tonnage.

[@Withnail1969]

And they can cross bridges without them collapsing.

[@slshusker]

"Mini"! Big Brother is a beast.

[@BigJohnson6]

Yes, they do refer to it as a "mini tank." They do that because there is a much larger tank known as the M1 Abrams. The M1 Abrams, believe it or not, is actually much larger than the M10 Booker. The M10 Booker also has a striking resemblance to the M1 Abrams. Thus, giving it the nickname "mini tank."

[@koolbreeze6192]

Nothing but a target!

[@BulbBunny]

A 300 fpv drone will grab a hold of it

[@snaker9er]

cant be air dropped cant engage other tanks with cannon isnt equipped with javelin or tow no loitering munition capability and a four man crew waiting for the end

[@EdReed-r8n]

@@snaker9er Yep

[@mikes.4136]

It should have been designed with an autoloader, given weight requirements, a need for one less man, and it would provide for better performance.

[@t-5538]

I saw the chieftains video and I think either this vehicle or one of the other prototypes had an autoloader

[@championxxlNL]

Autoloader is just another point of failure in my eyes, just look at the russian tanks, they keep getting hit in the Autoloader and exploding

[@LockeLynx]

Yep​@@championxxlNL

[@DANIEL_THE_BRIGHTEST]

I agree with you 100%.

[@DANIEL_THE_BRIGHTEST]

@@championxxlNL The autoloader can be combined with the kick-off panels. Like a French or Japanese tank. And actually, Western tanks also explode, since additional ammunition is located in the hull near the driver.

[@pinolacleo2940]

The US government probably recognizes that the next conflict would be in Asia. Light Tanks would be more applicable in Asia's terrain because of the small streets and roads, and also the jungle. A 74 ton Abram Tanks would have a difficult time working its way on small Asian streets and roads. It might also get stuck in the jungle and mud.

[@kabloosh699]

Also with island hopping. The Abrams just wouldn't be as easily transported as the Booker as we got from island to island.

[@nickl5658]

At 38-40 tons? It will do no fighting in Asia. It would just sink in the mud. If it wants to fight in asia, it would need to drop 15-20 tons and increase the width of its tracks by 50%. It would need AC too. Else between the humidity and heat, the environment will kill the crew inside. Since 1990s, average day time temperature in SEA has increased from 28 Celsius to 35 Celsius. And right now we are experiencing a heat wave with +40C temperatures and +90 humidity. ie you do not sweat. You feel like you are being suffocated. The only way to cool down is to bath in cold water. Fans only blow hot air at you. People can die from heat stroke in the shade. And the booker is still too wide and too long. 2.4m wide? 6.8m long? Unless US tank drivers drive into buildings to doge enemy fire, every street will be a kill zone. There is no space for this big boy to turn. Got to make the tank even smaller. 2 - 3 man crew at most. 1.8m wide, 4m long at most. And even this will barely allow you drive on the road. And yes... this is why tanks are not an important component in SEA armies. Sure APC and maybe a few IFV. And lots of guys on foot with RPGs. While SEA government do go about buying a few tanks, their primary use in SEA is for parades.

[@HANZ_HEINRICH]

If it's not a light tank, how bout classify it as a medium tank instead?

[@asturiancetorix2552]

Well, I suppose they wanted a lighter armored vehicle to support IFV with some artillery power, thus this thing was designed to fill the increasing gap between the IFV´s and MBT, sometimes too heavy for some tasks.

[@philchristmas4071]

Glad the M10 Booker is finally in production. 🇺🇸💪

[@tagger0892]

I love that the drip pan is in the front. well done Spc.

[@JAnx01]

5:31 - LMAO, that's the M8 AGS, not the M10 Booker.

[@bradolsen8629]

That mini Abrams is a cute little tank

[@larrylem3582]

More comparison numbers vs heavy and light tanks would have been good. How fast?

[@ThroatSore]

Innovation? World War 2, infantry support tank?

[@edl653]

It is absolutely a Tank and fills the mission of the first tanks of WW1.

[@masterdon3821]

So, they invented the Romanian TR85 medium tank.

[@DANIEL_THE_BRIGHTEST]

You're a wit! )))))

[@masterdon3821]

@@DANIEL_THE_BRIGHTEST Slava Ucraina :)

[@DANIEL_THE_BRIGHTEST]

@@masterdon3821 I said it - you're a wit! x)))))) Good time of day!👋

[@tisoyowens724]

What is the M10 booker’s hull based on? Cuz I saw on one of the videos somepne said that it’s based on the “Bradley’s” hull

[@jonathanliu7999]

105mm gun 13 millions? Thats almost 3 T90!!!

[@chrisp.5272]

It’s all about logistics with this tank, clearly designed for infantry support and to fight in Asia. If it can be built fast enough, and in large numbers it’ll be extremely useful to the US/NATO.

[@robendert7617]

If a heavy infantry fire support vehicle with such a price tag would be based on the Ukrainian experience, something that would look more like a Terminator would be expected. If a 30-ton tank with a 105 mm cannon would be needed, just take over a batch of second-hand French AMX-30 tanks and refurbish them. This would present a much more cost-effective solution.

[@arnoldshmitt4969]

but then how will military industrial complex sheer the american sheep public

[@youmad7068]

Russian infantry wants more BMP-3s, looks like that concept works best for them. BMP-3 is IFV but its 100mm low pressure gun, combined with 30mm auto-canon proved its self in infantry support role more than any other Russian system so far. Terminator can not do nothing that BMP-2 already can minus crew carrier capability, ofc l am aware of armor difference but still l do not see Russian troops crying for more Terminators, they want more BMP-3s. BMP-3 is far more lighter than Booker, but Russian infantry did asked for more armor on their BMP-3s. In the end l think we might see more tank diversity in future just like during WW2, and this lite/medium size armored vehicles will be backbone of armies.

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

@@youmad7068 Russia had 400 BMP-3s in active service at the start of the war and have lost a minimum 300 BMP-3s

[@youmad7068]

@@n3v3rforgott3n9, l do not see what is your point? My point was BMP-3 showed more effective then any other vehicle in infantry support role during this war. Ukraine lost more than half of its Bradley fleet in less then couple of months after introduction... it is high intensity war, what do you expect? As for BMP-3s, Russia had 640 before the war, close to 300 were lost but not all destroyed, damaged vehicles get repaired and sent back to front and they are producing new batches every month. In the end the side that can keep up with math of war will win. If west can feed Ukraine with more armor and ammo than Russia can produce, then maybe Ukraine can win. That is if they do not run out of man power. Russia has five times the population and far more people to trow into furnace.

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

@@youmad7068 "Ukraine lost more than half of its Bradley fleet in less then couple of months after introduction" -based on what? I am tracking 55 being less than half of 124(190) with the smaller number being the last known amount in Ukrainian hands but that was 3 months ago sooo. " it is high intensity war, what do you expect?" -I'll be frank the US attacking Ukraine wouldn't even suffer 1/16 of Russia's losses even at the highest estimate. "If west can feed Ukraine with more armor and ammo than Russia can produce" -NATO has barely sent 4% of its yearly military budget 2 times to Ukraine...

[@dansorkin6985]

So call it a medium tank. People know what a tank is.

[@notsoanonymousmemes9455]

The M10 Booker is effectively in purpose comparable to the WW2 M10 tank destroyer, both were designed with similar purposes in mind.

[@Mitch.Richards44]

Considering MBTs are somewhat dinosaurs today, this is a good way to add expeditionary firepower to our capabilities. This will go where the Abrams cannot and deliver what the Bradley cannot.

[@jeffreytan2948]

Why did the military pour 1.14 Billion dollars for the Booker Tank? Same way they poured billions of dollars on the Littoral Combat Ships.

[@Zgreasewood]

The time to find out you made a mistake is when you are at peace. Case in point the M3 becomes the M4. BEFORE WWll, the brits were putting Aluminum Armour on some of their ships, that changed QUICK.

[@EdReed-r8n]

@@Zgreasewood Shill

[@RFMaster6]

What is its protection compared to ? Does it have an equivalent protection to an M60A1, or 3 or is it more comparable to a M2/3 Bradly ? At 38 to 42 tons it’s too heavy for “light tank”. It’s therefore a medium tank, designed for use with light infantry. It has the same size gun as the M60A series, 105mm. Can it take a direct hit from a 105mm ? If so it’s protected to the level of the projectile it can fire. Haven’t seen anything on the 10th Mountain or 25th ID “Tropic Lightning” getting them and they’re Light Infantry Divisions (LID). I can understand about the 25th, training area. Tracked vehicles need maneuver space and Oahu just doesn’t have it. The PTA on the Island of Hawaii is a lava field, good for AT, artillery and aviation gunnery, but I can imagine how tracks and lava rock would badly commingle.

[@gidsinveenhuizenpuntnl]

Abrams' gun is 120mm and not 105mm .

[@ernestpaniagua1210]

It's more like a light tank . Infact it is a tank just not a MBT.

[@bbgcars]

JUST NASTY! LOVE IT

[@jeffyoung60]

The U.S. Army's last light tank was the M551 Sheridan, withdrawn from service in 1991. Before that the U.S. Army fielded in 1951 the excellent M41 light tank Walker Bulldog, with its 76mm high velocity cannon. And before that came the excellent light tank design, the M24 Chaffee. Finally, the first light tanks of WW2 in the U.S. Army were the M3 and M5 Stuart light tanks. In spite of this, the U.S. Army decided the light tank concept was a doctrinal and technological dead-end. However, the old axiom remains relevant. Necessity is the mother of Invention. The need for something like a light, fast, maneuverable tank remained and resurfaced in Desert Storm, Iraqi Freedom, and Afghanistan. Historians could argue that the U.S. Army had inadvertently created such a viable vehicle in WW2, the M18 Hellcat tank destroyer. All it needed was a roof and then the Army would have an excellent light tank with a 76mm cannon. Nonetheless, the Army was poised to return to the light-tank concept, but eschewing the term, 'light tank', in favor of, tracked armored vehicle, infantry support self-propelled cannon. It also sounded better to a suspicious Congress, not wishing to invest more billions in new tanks. This was the AMC light tank in 1994. It was a marvelous design and also resembled a miniature M1 tank. The U.S. Army was set to commit the AMC to mass production until its sudden cancellation in 1994. The dissolution of the adversarial Soviet Union meant the U.S. Army could dispense with any new armored combat vehicles and save lots of money. But no one could foresee 9/11, and the ensuring campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. While the M1A1 Abrams main tank and the M2/M3 Bradley did a good job, the infantry and armor both began wishing for a light tank again. What you see here, folks, is a resurrection of the AMC, albeit a new design by a new corporation. But all the required old specifications are still there including some new ones, since computer technology has advanced considerably. The benefit of the M10 Booker is that it is a completely new design. Had the AMC been adopted, we would be looking at a 29 year old light tank design, wondering if it is still relevant. We can only hope the U.S. Army doesn't come up with cold feet again and bow out of the M10 Booker citing any number of new excuses for not following through. Just give the infantry and armored soldiers what they want. Everyone loves the M1A1 and the Bradley. But they still want a versatile light tank that is a useful jack-of-all-trades.

[@madkabal]

All Abrams tanks are armed with the M256 120mm smoothbore gun. The 105 rifled gun on the Abrams was phased out 30 years ago. This was a poorly researched video

[@globalcitizen8321]

The Booker seems to be a fine combat vehicle. However, for what it offers, it seems to be too expensive ... For much less, you could get a modernized Tanque Argentino Mediano TAM which is quite similar in mission and performance, or something similar to a T-72, which weights almost as much, but it cheaper, better protected and better armed....

[@Nebris]

Yes to TAM [the upgrade version]. But no to the T-72. The war in Ukraine has shown it to be death trap.

[@GuapoJhimi]

Listen, knucklehead. Stifle that shit. Ain't no money in that for our Senators and Congresspersons. Hush.

[@EdReed-r8n]

It's mor e expensive than the Abrams. Thus revealing the actual purpose of the project.

[@wikolib6821]

How many can be made in what time frame?

[@phil20_20]

This does everything "some" generals thought a tank was for in WWII, plus it has an effective assault gun and artillery piece. I submit the 105mm is the best all around heavy weapon on the battlefront. You can have all the other stuff you want, but this can fill those unexpected gaps when they occur. We should get a lot more. The M-10 and the new 6.8mm round for infantry showcase an effective effort to improve our troops capabilities and protection.

[@789know]

They are just playing mental gymnastic at this point. It perform everything a tank did and it does what the tank normally when engage in combat.

[@Big6Duke]

Want do we need a 105 for still.... id rather see something like a 50mm auto canon more ammo options and more ammo.

[@IsraelMilitaryChannel]

Equip the M10 Booker with Trophy Active Protection System and it will be near unstoppable.

[@milangorenjak]

Why would you install a "Trophy" system?! Don't the Israelis consider it outdated?! They installed a new "Windbreaker" active protection system on the Merkava Mk5!

[@IsraelMilitaryChannel]

@@milangorenjak Windbreaker is Trophy. "Trophy" is the export name.

[@IsraelMilitaryChannel]

@@milangorenjakTrophy system is not outdated. It is being constantly upgraded.

[@mtf_savage_beasts2565]

​@@IsraelMilitaryChannelRPG-7 is enough for this tank.

[@mtf_savage_beasts2565]

​@@IsraelMilitaryChannelHow many RPG-7 will your Trophy active protection system stop?

[@raptor6ify]

Todays abrams are equipped with 120mm, the only abrams fitted with 105mm are the early standard M1 used during the gulf war 1990

[@KevinHuff23]

No, only prototype M1 tanks were outfitted with the 105, in 1979 the decision was made to go to 120mm because the US was afraid the depleted uranium ammo developed to be used with the 105mm would violate the Geneva convention.

[@TheAlmightyCensor]

That turrets SHITE armor makes it vulnerable to even smaller turrets. Hell a well placed recoiless(obviously a joke, but 85mm probably can) might knock out the main gun.... the fuck is the us military thinking.

[@bigvaxmeanie925]

The army was thinking of diversifying its options. If you need heavy armor, you got abrams, if you need light armor, you got booker

[@EdReed-r8n]

It will probably die from the BMP 30mm

[@BlitzenSpeaks]

They should call it a Medium Tank; based on it's weight. During WW2, the Sherman was considered a Medium tank, but weighed under 30 tons. Just saying!🤷

[@nickl5658]

It is 38-42 tons. The Russian MBT T90 is only 46 tons. It is slight narrower and shorter than the Booker. In fact The M10 Booker would be considered a heavy tank by most nations.

[@GusthoffBurgerberg]

13 million dollars is absolutely absurd

[@EdReed-r8n]

Lmao it's more expensive than the Abrams.

[@bittersaint8831]

So the M10 Booker is the shock troopers tank?

[@GuapoJhimi]

Vaccination Enforcement Brigade.

[@bigtoad45]

It's the army's version of the air force/navy F-35 disaster. Too expensive to lose and hammered with problems and issues. The infantry needed a light vehicle with a weapon big enough to knock down a house or small building. Something along the lines of the M551 "Sheridan" only with a 75mm or 90mm gun. If nothing else bring back the 106mm recoil-less rifle on a utility vehicle. But no. Those wouldn't cost enough.

[@dundonrl]

Look up the M1128 Mobile Gun System, a Stryker with a 105 mm gun on it.

[@Toastontheground]

True

[@EdReed-r8n]

They could have just welded a 105mm cannon to a Bradley Chassis like a Stug. Or copied the BMP-3 with it's 100mm infantry support gun and 30mm gun

[@EdReed-r8n]

@@dundonrl And it failed

[@aaronbrisson8487]

This is all great in theory, I'm hoping it's an effective vehicle for our military. My question is, if it is a good salad platform for combat. How many years will it be for them to get an effective amount in inventory to be online effectively as formidable force! To which we would need at least several thousand to be militarily effective against any number of adversaries we face and doing so within a short period of time say 6 months to a year...

[@bl8danjil]

They aren't using them in that way. They will go to infantry units rather than dedicated tank units.

[@ashvandal5697]

It’s not a replacement for the MBT. Abrams X or another future build will replace Abrams in Armored Divisions in the event the Army determine that an Abrams replacement is even necessary. Booker is designed specifically to deploy with airborne and air assault forces in the opening hours of a drop. Not that I’m sure that mission is necessary, or best filled by a tank of this sort, but the Booker is meant to give more weight to traditionally light infantry forces.

[@GuapoJhimi]

They are gonna send the first 100,000 of them to Ukraine. Then 400 will be dropped off in Afghanistan to make up for shortages on shit we didn't leave them already. 3000 will be built for the new armed IRS to facilitate checking 1040A's. 120 per state in case we refuse to get the next shot coming up. It is an election year, you know. Gotta mail in them ballots.

[@miket.2879]

You're saying it's not a light tank? Everything you just described about it is a light tank.

[@vincentrivera743]

T90 tanks have 125mm main cannon. This is likely the tank it will face in the future. Or the T14 armata. Not to mention enemy man portable anti-tank weapons and killer drones. With these kind of threats, the booker should be fitted with an active protection system as well as bolt-on armor for improved survivability. And a 120mm main gun for improved lethality.

[@bl8danjil]

This is not a MBT. It's purpose is solely an Assault Gun role. It might go up against other ARMORED Fighting Vehicles, but it's job is to help the infantry destroy bunkers, blockades, and enemy infantry in buildings. It is not replacing the Abrams, which has things such as the features you stated when going up against other MBT.

[@mtf_savage_beasts2565]

​@@bl8danjilIt will be destroyed by a RPG-7

[@bl8danjil]

@@mtf_savage_beasts2565 Oof. IFV and other armored fighting vehicles are also vulnerable to that too. That argument is never going to deter a country from using them either.

[@mtf_savage_beasts2565]

@@bl8danjil Waste of Money That's what it is.

[@bl8danjil]

@@mtf_savage_beasts2565 Maybe, maybe not. It's certainly better than all of the armored fighting vehicles Russia has sent into Ukraine. The better reverse speed alone makes it better than all the Soviet era tanks.

[@nasigorengpecelesteh1506]

Wah desain mirip tank harimau pindad Dengan mesin di belakang , full track , Tapi booker lebih unggul di harga dan sensor.. Hebat sekali... Ya kita butuh tank medium Karena hanya 10 persen area di dunia yang berupa dataran luas... Lebih banyak pegunungan hutan rawa sungai Salam dari indonesia Tank pindad

[@MelonHead887]

It's a tank period, and will replace the M1 over time as USA's MBT. IMO an enlightened design, and intelligent redirection of battlefield philosophy.

[@Toastontheground]

A mbt that can only stops 30mm auto cannon at front. You joking?? Does this bullshit even stops 12.7 armor piercing at its flank?😅😅

[@Toastontheground]

How can this thing even survive in the frontline?😅

[@EdReed-r8n]

You're a moron

[@particles1101]

K.I.S.S. The Booker T. is perfect for fire support and urban warfare. It's definitey got more survival protection thhan the Stryker gun platform, but we do love the Srtyker.

[@milangorenjak]

Send it to Ukraine for testing 😂

[@marsmotion]

you mean for rapid violent disassembly

[@milangorenjak]

@@marsmotion Exactly 👍

[@mtf_savage_beasts2565]

It will be destroyed by a RPG-7 lol

[@rhards]

@@mtf_savage_beasts2565 your mothers v@g1na got destroyed by RPG-7

[@EdReed-r8n]

@@mtf_savage_beasts2565 Or the BMP 30mm

[@phoenixlove76]

So a self propelled gun? Or possibly a TD?

[@KC_Smooth]

Strictly an infantry mobile gun system. It does not want to fight tanks.

[@CrazyDee279]

Named after 3 Booker's. I transported SSG Booker to the 86th Cash at LSA Adder. 2nd BCT 3ID. Dog Face Soldier forever. Til Valhalla brother.

[@steveyi2859]

With new defense systems against anti tank missiles, speed, maneuver, and firepower become priority since current tanks are just slow targets these days in the age of drones

[@deliaboga6714]

I believe that the M10 booker would be a great light tank but it could be a useful tank as to destroy BMP-3 and other light tank

[@daniilgerasimov817]

Idk what this thing is supposed to do. It can't fight against normal main battle tanks with its 105mm and no armor against Russian 125mm. And use of fpvs will make it as useless as any other tank on the battlefield(unless it's equipped with active protection capable of disabling drones). I think this thing will be a killer against Russian bmps whose autocanons will be useless against it, and it's 105 will turn them into shreds from any distance.

[@whiskey_tango_foxtrot__]

So...the end of the Stryker?

[@smokejumper3]

M1A1 Tank has a 120mm. Not a 105...

[@cavemanballistics6338]

The M-10 BOOKER the new WOAK LIGHT TANK!

[@Sagart999]

Let's see... Compared to the M1 Abrams, it has a less capable main gun and less armor. So better be considerably faster and more nimble if it and its crew are to survive.

[@Hillsidedojo]

13mil booker vs 10k drone, who wins?

[@lawrencemay8671]

Since The Marines got rid of their Abrahms Tanks, these would be perfect for them in infantry support.

[@gamehengeful]

Yea, but they don't want something that has to be transported or recovered by other prime movers, that's why they got rid of their Abrams. Basically, they want everything to be completely amphibious and not in need of additional heavy vehicles for support.

[@snaker9er]

This thing would rely on the infantry more than they rely on it

[@EdReed-r8n]

Too bad it sucks

[@jessefarley4609]

Why do i foresee a pod of tow missiles just like on the Bradley that way if the gun doesn't do it the tow will

[@resolute123]

"A bridge between a Abrams and Bradley..." so it's a light tank?

[@DShortQoutes]

Then how will it withstand against drones?

[@coppertopv365]

I can see this being used in asian areas or mountain areas where a 50++ Ton MBT tank cant really go to be used. Might also be more usable in some urban type areas as well, where an Abrams cant get in an move well. .

[@nickl5658]

I see it being stuck the mud of most Asian region due to its weight and narrow tracks. And going into mountains, it will collapse bridges from it weight. As for urban areas, this tanks is too wide and too long and I see the streets being turn into concrete slot canyons where the tank can only go straight. It might be more usable than the Abram but it is simply too big.

[@anonnimoose7987]

Pretty sure a light tank is still a tank, doesn't have to be a main battle tank like the Abrams

[@TK199999]

I always thought of the Booker as a Heavy Assault Vehicle.

[@GuapoJhimi]

I always thought it was somebody who left really fast.

[@EdReed-r8n]

But it's not

[@valois5]

Booker... ain't that a prize?

[@davidmercado6951]

M10 GMC got upgrades I see 😂

[@madkabal]

This is not a "contender" to the Abrams tank. This is another weapon thst will be used by Infantry Combat Brigade Teams.

[@Americaisarefugeecamp]

Send it see if it's the Wonder weapon Can't know til it comes home with battle scars and video

[@BulbBunny]

Send it to ukraine

[@JamesChavez-h8h]

We had a light tank called a Sheridan

[@Lamboghini76]

I would consider the M10 Booker as a medium tank by that I mean it's in between the Abrams and I like tanks

[@coppertopv365]

ww2 through Vietnam America had more then one "Tank".. USA needs more then one Tank, and US Military needs more then one kind of IFV.

[@arcailecorp]

Philippines need this

[@ThroatSore]

The modern Adrams has a 105?

[@raymondhollingsworth3643]

Only time will tell if this system is worth it. Also the tactics mut support its use or it will fail.

[@GuapoJhimi]

They are already working on its replacement. AOC wants a beach house tool

[@marcushaynes843]

The M10 Booker is the M1 Abrams' little brother.

[@timothygermann780]

Ukraine has demonstrated very limited tank on tank combat. Tanks are being used almost exclusively against infantry. This is much more feasable solution for this role.

[@flavius5722]

How is feasable when is more expensive than a Abrams? You already has a Stryker SPG with the same gun but at least was faster and cheaper

[@timothygermann780]

@@flavius5722 Booker cost $12.9m, Abrams sep v3 cost $24 million. The large gun variant of Stryker was cancelled.

[@flavius5722]

@@timothygermann780 M1A1 cost 11 milions I know it was cancelled , but they something worse ? ( the booker )

[@timothygermann780]

@@flavius5722 ​ @flavius5722 As I said, Ukraine has had very limited tank on tank combat. The booker is optimized as infantry support tank which is what Ukraine needs. And the US is not putting an older version of Abrams back into production when its outclassed by most modern tanks in an anti armor roll and too slow and inefficient as infantry support armor. Its just not happening. And the Stryker M1128 was cancelled because it was plagued with problems.

[@flavius5722]

@@timothygermann780 Read my "lips " The booker is usless on the battelfield în absolute any purpose, it has all the dezatvanteges of a tank but with less firepower and armour but somehow is more expensive The french are already replacing their AMX 10 with a vehicle with autocanon the US is going backword The pure concept of M5 Ripjaw is making the Booker look like a piece of garbage

[@IamrealX]

Its a modernised leopard 1, just say that. Largeish, with a good 105 gun, maneuverable with armor that you would rather not test in combat. I just saved someone 8 minutes.

[@r.a.dalton8807]

I am a 68 year old retired U.S. Army Master Sergeant (E8/1972-1993) and former Defense Contractor (2005-2010). In my opinion this is a total waste of money! Although tracked, this is similar to the M1128 wheeled Mobile Gun System and will probably end up going the same way in the end. They can tell you what is isn't, but have a hard time articulating what it is. While they deny it, this is nothing more or less than a light tank and much more vulnerable because of that. When heavy tanks are having a tough time on the battlefields of Ukraine, how do you think this vehicle will do against drones and anti-armor weapons? What is really needed in my opinion are assault guns and flame thrower tanks for urban environments. We haven't had something like an assault gun since we retired the M728 Combat Engineer Vehicle. It's replacement, the M1150 Assault Breacher Vehicle, got rid of the gun which in my opinion was a silly decision. The 165mm M135 short-barreled demolition gun which fired HEP (high explosive, plastic) squash head ammunition was perfect for dealing with structures and fortifications of all types in an urban environment. I know since I was a mechanized combat engineer squad leader in an Armored Cav Regiment from 1980-1984, and we had these vehicles. Flame thrower tanks should also be brought back as well. They have an extreme psychological and intimidation effect on the battlefield and are great for clearing people out of structures and fortifications. Getting rid of flamethrowers of all types was one of the biggest mistakes the army made years ago when the decision was made to eliminate them.

[@tonyangelias6808]

Maybe it’ll make a difference in today’s battles, especially in or against North Korea, Russia or China…?

[@Toastontheground]

Exactly

[@nilsd3608]

You need to look up the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, protocol III, that the US signed. Answers all your questions

[@EdReed-r8n]

"They can tell you what is isn't, but have a hard time articulating what it is." Lol so true. And yes they should have built a real assault gun if that's what they wanted. This vehicle is criminal

[@inwedavid6919]

Diesel, yes, the main default of the M1, sadly it is a 105 mm a very old gun from 1950; 70 years old. Going to CTCA should have been far better. For the same size sweden put a 120 mm gun, it demands less logistics then.

[@garywheble4534]

Maybe the M10 was given the 105 gun to stop higher ranks from thinking about using it agenst tanks with a 125 gun . Upgrades yes a new turret with an autoloader is the way ahead and maybe among the wish list add ons is a couple of drones to spot the targets quickly whilst you are on the way to the position and or a link so Drone footage can be sent to the TC so he and the crew can see what the situation is before they get there . And the infantry can feed information to the M10 so if they spot a Cornet being set up the tank sees it at the same time as to who would be keeping an eye on this I volunteer the driver as he would have the tank in reverse anyway as most tanks now pop up and shoot then drop back if he's showen the Cornet he does not have to Rely on the tc to tell him to reverse or move get the he'll out of here lol

[@vojtechpribyl7386]

The decision was partially driven by that, but also economics (less wear, already available ammo) and the ability to carry more ammo per vehicle.

[@garywheble4534]

@@vojtechpribyl7386 it's said that there developing a multi purpose round for the M10 in 105 like the Abrahams has if so then the M10 may only need say six Sabot rounds the rest multi purpose that wiould be a great game changer I'd also swap out the M2 Browning for a M230 LF put the M2 in as a coe axel you could also mount a GPMG on the crows station alongside the M230 LF still keep the GPMG at the loaders hatch

[@pauljohnson1325]

Yes with the 105 gun

[@chrislabounty3046]

This video is a great example of saying 8 minutes worth of speech and about 30 seconds of anything worth speaking for.

[@vincentscott214]

I was just thinking that!😂😂😂 Boriiiinng😂

[@cctampa7473]

The war in the Ukraine should have taught us that drones are the new force in war. I would rather spend money on improving drone technologies and how to protect the drones from EMI and jamming devices. The Ukraine Army has decimated Russian armor divisions using drones, so why should we spend billions on a smaller version of the Abrams? As a Veteran, this doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

[@korana6308]

Booker price 13 mil. per unit Abrams price 33 mil. per unit Russian T90M price 3 mil. per unit ( Abrams competitor) Russian BMD 4 price 1 mil per unit ( Booker competitor) The US has no chance with it's over overpriced military tech and vehicles over Russia.

[@bigvaxmeanie925]

And Russia crews have no chance of surviving in their poorly armored trash vehicles.

[@Toastontheground]

⁠@@bigvaxmeanie925tanks are essentially consumables in a war. Abrams does not have a significant advantage when compared to the t90m while it is 11 times more expensive

[@bigvaxmeanie925]

@user-ve2pq1pl8t we have an advantage is numbers, logistics, and crew training over russian tanks in general. A tank is a piece of Equipment. It's useless if you don't know how to use it right and keep it in top shape

[@Toastontheground]

@@bigvaxmeanie925 of course you have better training, these Russians are at war right now

[@Toastontheground]

@@bigvaxmeanie925 i agree with the second sentence you said, but when both sides have the same amount of budget, the Russians can use the budget for more vehicles or spend it on training

[@coppertopv365]

Maybe the USA will offer the M10 to Taiwan instead of the Abrams its Contracted to provide. It would and really could complement Taiwan better.

[@jared4walsh]

so it's like a Armored combat support vehicles

[@Maxim_aka_Doka]

A strange attempt to create an analogue of a Russian tank (such as the T-64, T-72, T-80), which turned out to be less protected, with a weaker gun, but at the same time three times more expensive.

[@quazars236]

compensated

[@JAnx01]

If you think Russian tanks are "less protected", you probably don't know much about them.

[@socotroquito2007]

@@JAnx01 ….He refers that the Booker is less protected than the Russians…

[@MrTmax74]

Hopefully by the time machines like this are called upon again, we have drone defense technology that's up to the task. Otherwise they're sitting ducks.

[@xwing8029]

Price should drop when producing in large numbers like with f35 fighters. This looks like modern Sherman, great for transporting at overseas in larger numbers.

[@makegaminggreatagain3907]

Good lord the American defence industry has lost the plot and is more focused on money grubbing than producing useful kit. M10 is a cross between an M1128 MGS (Mobile Gun System), and an M1A1. With slightly more armour and tracks instead of wheels, it doesn't have as much armour as an M1A1 and a smaller gun, what is the point? U.S tanks haven't seen combat since 1991, over 20 years. If this was a drone or AI controlled, at best it would get a maybe, but not for 13 million a piece, if I had thirteen million dollars to spend on a tank I would go to U.S tank scrap yard, on the border of Nevada and California, buy and refurbish ten M60's, ten M60's V one M10, good bye 13mil. I think we are done here.