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

[@_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!

[@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.

[@ledrune]

Let's figure out basic load and how many types of ammo they have in bustle. Missions and tasks might be different from both vehicles. M10's M35 gun might have more HEAT-MP, HEP-T, and APERS-T rounds for the purpose of supporting infantry units rather than APFSDS-T, while CV90-120's 120mm smoothbore gun (is it rhinemetall's LLR/47 or RUAG's???) could fire a few types of ammo better for penetrating vehile armor.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@richardtisdale3245]

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

[@Kalergiplansupporter]

I'm an American and I would take the book or any day of the week because I know given time we could bring it up to the CV 90s level. In my opinion America should try and have 100% of its military systems designedand built in America unfortunately that's not

[@eriklarsson3188]

@@Kalergiplansupporter The CV 90 is a much better vehicle. Quote. "I know given time we could bring it up to the CV 90s level" Funny, as if the Swedes wouldn't keep developing their platform. Added (and this is not to insult you) You Americans are great at spending money without actually getting much for money spent. IF the Swedes had the same budget they (not to mention the Germans) would be running circles around you, it would be NO competition at all. None.

[@obt-cinder]

@@eriklarsson3188 the cv90 and m10 has different purpose the cv90 is meant to deal with tanks the m10 is meant to deal with fortifications like bunkers enemy's in buildings mg nest and other. these are vehicles are different just because the cv90 is better at killing tanks and bigger gun doesn't matter because the us has javilns at4's and tow's the us doesn't need more at if it did it'd ask for that

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@yamahass66]

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

[@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.

[@bennuredjedi]

Honestly both of them are good at what's asked if them,offering advantages and disadvantages as all systems do. The M10 was not the better choice overall, the M8 was better because it met the requirements originally asked for by the Army (Airborne) which mysteriously became a non-factor in the competition, also the M8 had a version with the 120mm called the Thunderbolt. In an ideal world a moder version of the RDF light tank will be a better procurement, armed with a 50 or 60mm cannon and atgm's, ut provides speed, enhanced maneuverability, and deployability which would benefit both Infantry and Calvary units.

[@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.

[@cjthebeesknees]

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]

​@@cjthebeeskneesno 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]

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

[@cjthebeesknees]

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

[@Optimusprime56241]

@@cjthebeesknees keep coping buddy

[@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.

[@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.

[@DonVetto-vx9dd]

They won't choose CV90 even if it has twice the capability of the M10. Why? CV90 is not American made.

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@jjoseph-uf2m]

@@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@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

[@carlpolen7437]

So… a couple of points. The cv90 120mm light tank was developed in the nineties and never produced other than the prototype(s). BAE has claimed to make upgrades but as of 2023 there has never been any orders. This has a couple of ramifications. First, the US isn’t going to spend the money to start up an entire production line for a 30ish year old design from a foreign country. That’s a non starter. There are many good reason why they won’t do this. To start, NONE of the engines, transmissions, tracks, electronics etc of the cv90 is anything in use by the US military. It would be the height of idiocy to create a completely new logistics bottleneck for such parts. Furthermore, what many don’t realize is that the 120mm cv90 doesn’t use the regular cv90 chassis, it has to be extensively modified, which, again, would add significant cost because there’s actually less compatibility with regular, production cv90s. I think Matsimus perhaps misspoke when he highlighted how easy it would be to reconfigure the 120mm cv90 into other variants. Second: the Swedish government. To be blunt, the Swedes make excellent weapons of war, for all that they drone on about being peace-loving. However, the US military doesn’t trust the Swedish government when it comes to deals for military tech. Too often in the past, the Swedish government, not their massive private sector arms manufacturers, have, after agreeing to sell arms to the US, Tried to back out, limit, slow etc. Thus, the US military doesn’t trust the Swedish government when it comes to large arms deals. You can see this with the Carl Gustav recoilless rifle snafu. And it isn’t just the US, Sweden as a whole has sold very few Gripen jets despite their excellent qualities, because foreign governments are uncertain if the Swedish gov will block arms deals after the planes themselves have been sold, for things like maintenance, ammunition, missiles, electronic upgrades. To sum up, the US will likely never buy any significant military tech from Sweden because of their politicians. Third, the 120mm cv90 was designed to go up against other tanks. That was its stated design philosophy. A light tank with the armament to go up against other tanks. That isn’t what the booker is designed to do. The booker is designed to attack buildings in an urban environment. Why? Because that’s what the US needed in the Middle East. In this regard, the 105mm projectile is superior to the 120. Why? Collateral damage. The 120mm IS significantly more powerful… and that’s a bad thing when firing in urban warfare. It makes it vastly more likely to hurt/kill your own soldiers. It’s funny to me that the main criticism Matsimus had for the m10 is its weak firepower, when, in fact, that’s a feature, not a bug. I think perhaps that’s his artillery background coming into play. The M10 isn’t meant to go against tanks, it isn’t meant to lob large rounds down range, it is, in fact much more akin to the WW2 assault gun/sturmgeshewts of the Nazis. Protected, close infantry support meant to fire into buildings in urban/complicated terrain warfare.

[@dominuslogik484]

you made some very good points I wish more people would understand this perspective. Especially the problems with trusting Swedish arms exports. since this is the same nation that randomly on a whim would condemn the US dealing with North Korea, Vietnam and Cuba with them offering direct support for the North Vietnamese.

[@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.

[@Cravendale98]

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.

[@CharliMorganMusic]

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.

[@Dimetropteryx]

So apparently the M10 isn't supposed to be used in the anti-armor role, the units to be equipped with it are using the Javelin for that purpose, and it's the Javelin that has, until now, been shoehorned into additional roles that rightfully belongs to a vehicle like the M10.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@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

[@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.

[@Bluefoxfluffer]

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.

[@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

[@djsturm685]

Cv90120 is best choice. I love the cv90 famíly.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@Chewie260]

i'm going to be honest, the armour is why i am thinking they went with the booker, lets not kid ourselves, cv is a IFV through and through. No matter what gun you stick on it. While booker is heavier with a 105mm. It weighs quite litterly as much as the type 10 main battle tank while having a 105. Would not be surprising to me if its armor was better than it. Sound like a modern infantry tank more than a light tank.

[@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.

[@mandtgrant]

the L7 105 rifled gun makes HESH rounds possible for the Booker. Can't beat it for bunker busting

[@svensvensson627]

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

[@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.

[@jebadiahkerman7846]

For the US Army... I think the choice is pretty clear. They chose one, and didn't choose the other, which fits their specific requirements and use case.

[@gareththompson2708]

One advantage with going with a domestically produced vehicle over the CV90120 though is that the American defense industry will reap the benefits of producing the M10 Booker. If the US had gone with the CV90120 then it would have just been money out for vehicles in, with no boost to domestic industry. Other then that I think I agree that the CV90120 is probably slightly better than the M10 Booker overall. I think the M10 is probably the better choice for the US overall (the inability to effectively engage modern MBTs shouldn't be too much of an issue, given its role). But if I was in charge of a military that didn't have any significant defense industry to support, then I would probably go with the CV90120 over the M10.

[@TheEngwall]

Why not just buy the license to produce the CV90 then? Sweden is entering Nato sooner or later (when Turkey stops acting like a-holes), and Nato wants standardization to be more flexible, so I don't see a problem with that.

[@Arthion]

License is a possibility, or if the order was large enough even the option of opening a Hägglunds factory in the US if such a partnership was desired.

[@samoldfield5220]

I actually disagree with this and think US parochialism is one of the biggest things holding US defence production capability back. Particularly when you're talking about IFVs which don't require the massive economy of the United States to stay at the bleeding edge of technology (as with air and naval power), the United States could get a lot more bang for it's buck if it selected some weapons systems to import in exchange for an equivalent value of weapons exported. ie. The US could spend the same amount of money it's spending on the M10 or it's next gen IFV on German/Swedish/Korean IFVs in exchange for the countries it's buying from buying F-35s and Burke destroyers. That would allow for the expansion of production of F-35s and heavy warships that other countries can't build while at the same time leading to a larger number of cheaper IFVs in US inventory while also boosting an ally's defense capabilities. Trade makes everyone better off.

[@TheWizardGamez]

A. License production if they feel so bad about it(politicians will politic) B. Insane amounts of protectionism just encourage monopolistic pricing. There’s a reason the navy keeps getting more and more expensive ships every generation even though the majority of parts and construction methods literally don’t change. You’d think that given the amount of digitization and electrification that the ships would actually be getting cheaper adjusted for inflation but no. The sheer lack of a domestic shipbuilding industry means that the navy will get stuck with whatever timeline that Lockheed or BAE chooses

[@TheEngwall]

@aperpetualguardsmanwithafl2942 It's not hard for the US to approach BAE Hägglunds either.

[@apokalipsx25]

I would send both of them to Ukraine and watch wich one burns first. The surviver would be my choice.

[@timb4098]

CV90120 is a better option than M10 Booker, but US Defense Companies has to make money. Anyway, I would choose the 2S25 Sprut-SD.

[@JohnMiller-wf6cm]

I would choose the M10 Booker over the CV90120. This is why and it is my opinion. I think the armor package on the Booker is probably superior to that of the CV90. I do like the 120 0ver the 105, but I do agree with the thought process behind it. If you have a 120 that can compete with the main battle tanks then the crews would be more likely to go up against main battle tanks. Neither one are meant to stand against main battle tanks and, like you pointed out, would most likely loose. I think they both are well equipped for the roll they are to play. Since they both will most likely confront like vehicles both have adequate main guns to defeat their foes. But with 105 mm gun you should be able to carry more rounds compared to the 120 shells. And since it is in support of infantry the roll of the infantry I believe that more rounds would be advantages. Also, there really would be no need for SABOT rounds in either one. Since HEAT would be more than adequate to take care of anything they should be facing. Also if they develop the new smart all purpose round for the 105 then that would replace HE and HEAT rounds which I would think would be the normal load of these vehicles. Now you have one round to do more than the two rounds can. Also the Booker has a much shorter barrel than the CV90 does making it more attractive for urban and rural combat among buildings. These are my thoughts on it being an retired M1A2 tank commander and having to play the roll of infantry support while I was in the Army.

[@VitoDepho]

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

[@daveriddell3704]

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

[@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

[@MrCABman1972]

While I love the CV90 and think it is the best IFV and overall armoured vehicle out there today I think that assuming a 105mm gun is inappropriate is completely evaluating things without a context. No platform will fight completely on their own. The 105mm was selected after very longa and considerable contemplation for it's role. The US army also if very large and have very specific platforms is much less of an issue in the US army than in a much smaller country. The 105mm have allot if advantages such as logistics and supply depending on where they are suppose to operate and how. The M10 Booker is not going to operate with mechanized forces but is strictly an infantry support vehicle. The CV90 is mostly meant to operate with mechanized forces and would be more likely to engage other armoured vehicles where the Booker would rely on infantry to engage and destroy heavy armour if encountered. The 120mm canon is more important if you operate as part of a mechanized force where the number of infantry is a much smaller part of the formation and you also have access to heavy tanks as well. I think that Brazil have chosen the CV90120 as their "light tanks" as they need a vehicle that can traverse all of the very difficult terrain in that country where heavier tanks is a problem. They will replace the old Leopard 1 tanks there. For this I would not want to have the M10 Booker vehicle. If you have a fleet of CV90 you have a modular fleet what can be converted to many other roles down the line depending on what you need.

[@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.

[@sparty94]

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

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@redrum707monkey]

you make valid points im on board with your opinion

[@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).

[@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.

[@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.

[@janissaryone1906]

I think they made a mistake by using a direct fire gun on the M10 instead a mortar system. The role for infantry support could be better handled by a system like the AMOS dual 120mm automatic mortar system. It'll put much more firepower on target without risking the platform to direct counterfire. Any AFV, tank, antitank missile, or even RPGs would be a threat to the M10 if it was in line of sight to the enemy. A mortar vehicle could fire behind cover without risking itself so would be much more survivable and could be lighter due to less armor/defensive systems required.

[@dominuslogik484]

The whole point of the M10 is to be right next to the infantry, if they wanted a mortar system they would have asked for a mortar system.

[@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

[@kungsverige1886]

Cv90 120 T ghost🇸🇪

[@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!

[@luisalizondo4973]

CV90 forever!

[@nationalsniper5413]

I think the M8 platform would have been the best. Available with 120mm and modular armor allowing parachuting, airlift and in theater armor.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

It had some advantages, but I found it to be an ergonomic nightmare.

[@roberttio2839]

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

[@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.

[@GoshkaPolska]

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

[@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

[@mjk9388]

I'd rather have a F350 Truck with 120 Anti-Tank Loitering Munitions stacked vertically in the bed along with a small assortment of anti-personnel loitering munitions. Put a 400 foot tethered quadcopter drone for ISR on top of the vehicle and stay at least 20 miles away from the enemy and pop them from a distance. That's just me though. I personally like the idea of killing 120 enemy vehicles for under $1.25M. Load 7-10 of those trucks in a C5 Galaxy and you can bring a lot of mobile firepower to the battlefield in a hurry.

[@gusgone4527]

What you suggest is the future my friend. But I'd pick a better platform and give the crew some form of armoured protection, 20 miles is not a great distance. Boxer for example or turn the rear of the CV90 into a flatbed. They should be capable of packing more than 120 loitering munitions of differing capabilities.

[@CharliMorganMusic]

No, there is definitely a place for a big gun on tracks. But what you've described is almost certainly going to be integrated.

[@mjk9388]

@@gusgone4527 I've thought about the same thing. It depends on what you're trying to optimize for. In the build I describe above, I'm optimizing for lethality, fast movement and easy air transport for the least amount of cost, so armor had to give. The theory being, in the survival onion, "Don't be there" and "Don't be detected" would be more important than "Don't be penetrated". Also, if the tactics and ISR capabilities are used correctly, this vehicle is sitting far enough back and has enough of a view of the battlefield (6 miles in all directions with the tethered drone) that one would hope that it would have a harder time of being detected, but still has a lot of speed to get out of dodge fast, if need be.

[@mjk9388]

By the way, I call this vehicle concept the Alpha Mike Foxtrot (A.M.F.). You can look up what that means.

[@gusgone4527]

@@CharliMorganMusic I agree that there will always be a need for a big gun. Few system, if any. Have the same versatility and cost effectiveness than a good HE, HEAT, APFSDS loadout.

[@Kingdoms_and_Kobolds]

The gun on the M10 isn't as large because they have no intent of fighting against another armored military force with it... think of it more as armed rebellion suppression and elimination, for use in the US as an anti-insurgency vehicle capable of destroying machine gun nests/barricaded homes or buildings and possibly in the Pacific theatre as an island deployed vehicle against China. Yes, I'm saying the quiet part out loud. The US govt has made it's priorities pretty clear and the M10 fits right in with them

[@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.

[@russowen9196]

Old m60 tanker, I disagree with your assessment of the cannon. The booker is not made to engage MBTs. The 120 is a superior round if you are engaging MBT in cannon range. However that isn't the Bookers role. Against every other target the 105 is a superior weapon. It is devastating against IFVs on down. You carry more rounds that are much easier to handle The accuracy of the 105 will shock you. It also already has several different rounds available. Open infrantry and beehives don't mix. b

[@Arthion]

I mean, the thing that is very funny to me about the Booker is that it weighs as much as the Japanese Type 10 MBT (it's light for an MBT sure, but that's still funny).

[@surgetsann]

not just the Type 10, basically every T tank as well.

[@axlfrhalo]

@@surgetsann I'd like a proper deep dive in the systems to try to find an explanation for that. It doesn't have nearly as much armor as the type 10 or any T-tank, it's a new vehicles and so all current systems are efficiently integrated instead of strapped on at a later date so there is weight reduction in lack of redundant wiring. It also uses a smaller main gun further pushing that weight down. It makes me wonder what is pushing that weight ceiling so high, because we all know it's gonna get armor upgrade packages in the future (it always seems to happen with every vehicle) which might push it past the weight of a t-72b3 or t-90a/s which would defeat a lot of it's purpose.

[@surgetsann]

​@@axlfrhalo frankly i think it just comes down to its physical size and stanag level. remember that its built off an ajax hull it's simply so much larger physically as an APC hull than a normal light tank would normally have, unlike the airdroppable M8 it went up against which weighed nearly half as much since it had a proper light tank hull and an autoloader.

[@axlfrhalo]

@@surgetsann to that, seems like a rather definitive design overlook

[@surgetsann]

@@axlfrhalo i don't think it was an overlook so much as probably just a typical flawed and outdated procurement process by the army failing at trying to save money

[@RR-us2kp]

We all know Mat has a crush on CV90❤❤

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@shovelhead2155]

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

[@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..

[@phil20_20]

Too Late! 😅 If it doesn't hold water, it's not a tank. If a T-90 breaks out of the woods, you will fight! How many rounds can you stow in the CV90? U.S. Brass hates asymmetry. Look at the A-10. They are bending over backwards to get rid of it. The gun isn't centered looking, and the front wheel is offset. Can't have that! The new 50mm AP is supposed to be able to take out a T-72, so I don't think there are many existing targets that the new 105mm ammo can't handle. Maybe they can have a guy on a motorcycle with a Javelin follow them around. 😅

[@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

[@bungalowjuice7225]

Mat. I give you an honorary Swedish citizenship! 🎉🎉🎉

[@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.

[@Dimich1993]

I believe the Americans chose to develop their own vehicle because they can customize every part of it, it's like in the software industry "buy vs. build". It just makes sense, especially as look for example at France and Germany squabbling about the joint projects.

[@Dimich1993]

It would be also so funny to see Sweden saying: OK, you can use this vehicle to fight the Islamic Republic of Iran or CCP's China, but not on their territory.

[@PeterMuskrat6968]

@@Dimich1993 Yeah man lol... We are not gonna be beholden to some fucking Oh Ja IKEA mfs.

[@einar8019]

@@PeterMuskrat6968 the us already uses a bunch of swedish stuff like the BV-206, 57mm bofors, AT-4 and M3 MAAWS and soon the boeing-saab t-7 and also the 155 BONUS

[@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.

[@maheshagharkar]

Hi, I am Mahesh from India and yes, i totally agree with you. Our own army is working on a light tank called 'zorawar' to counter chinese type 15 and they are also going with 105 mm gun. India has an option of using 120 mm gun or even better from Sprut-SD and that will give us an edge over chinese tank. dont you think??

[@Fenrir.Gleipnir]

Yes cv90 is the king of kings!

[@garywheble4534]

Hands down for me is the CV90 120 . As an ex gun bunny who has work all kinds o guns and tanks and IFV and APC Ill give you a glimps the 433 Abbot the 432 APC vertuly the same same chassis same running gear same engine so no problem with spairs you can even borrow stuff from the PBIs on a permanent basis . Now sneeking a Abbot into a position where your up agenst a fortifide house bunker they can hear you but its ok lads its only an APC bringing more infantry forus to kill . It even sounds the same on a ZB298 opp house dissappears in a cloud of smoke . A CV90 40 sounds the same as a CV90 120 and again universal parts compaterble appart from the gun . Thereis nothing in th US army that is compaterble to the A10 Booker not even there new infatry fighting vehical theres nothing in its home unit or another unit down the road that has a spair oil filter or even oil for it to use not even ammo they cant ask a passing Abrahams to give it some ammo for its main gun . The CV 90 system was way ahead of its time , a base we used in Norway we used had a company of the CV90 30 mk 2 and it made the warrior look like a dinky toy even though it was better than most of Europes AFVs but it still looked like the ugly step brothe compared to the CV90 30 although them not having a 120 gun I now think it was done on purpose to stop high ranking officers sending it agenst a 125 gunned tank if they did they can see there premonition disappearing over the horizon swiftly followed by an inquiry and demotion

[@PitchBlackYeti]

It is kind of strange that the US which usually goes for overmatch over anything it might face went with 105mm. But we have a saying in my country "If you don't know what it's about there's a high chance it's about money" and not in the saving sense but rather "shady-deals-with-taxpayer's-money" sense.

[@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

[@penskepc2374]

Unlikely. The CV90 is the best IFV of its generation, but the M10 Booker is a state of the art light tan.....mobile gun.

[@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.

[@Kalergiplansupporter]

Not to point out it isn't going to sound very nice to the majority of Americans hearing that we're buying military weapons from foreigners