The Army's New M10 Booker: Deploy Fast and Carry a Big Gun

[@texoutlaw1732]

Traverses like a light tank, shoots like a light tank, doesn’t haul soldiers like a light tank. It is a light tank!

[@Moonless6491]

Better add missiles and troop carrying requirements just in case.

[@oglordbrandon]

Except it's not light like a light tank. It weighs as much as 3 Sheridans.

[@Verhagenvictor]

105mm main gun, ~40 tons, 4 crew, 800bhp MTU diesel, sure sounds like a leopard 1 :P (joking aside, this brings home how a tank like the leopard 1 with modernized firecontrol and an APDS is still extremely relevant, and valuable on battlefields, and why sending modernized Leo 1s to ukraine is still very much a good idea)

[@warpdriveby]

My impression here (granted my expertise is in Carolingian period technology, metallurgy (alchemy compared to modern understanding), and reproductions of accurate testing replicas, so I hope those with modern expertise will help me out) is that the only major reason to patently refuse to call this a tank is organizational/systems intended employment and NOT a crazy denial that the M10 doesn't fit the colloquial definition of a "tank" between 1939-2024. In form it absolutely does, but as a kid I thought things like the Paladin were types of tanks too, which in use and abilities they most definitely aren't. A hull, turret, artillery tube, armor and tracks are not the ONLY criteria though, and the class isn't merely "tank" and all else "not-tank". MBT would be a primary unit to deploy forward into enemy or contested and relatively open territory along side infantry expected to encounter and match or better opposing infantry to armored units. Ok so far? A light tank would be one that is air lift-able (for the US) and/or more easily floatable with smaller vessels. They're also used on soft/wet ground and support faster units farther from major logistics support for scouting, raiding, and where less enemy air or artillery units are expected/known? I know the definitions are and should be fluid over time, and get separated differently by different manufacturers and militaries or sub-branches, I'm not trying to fix anything here, just make sure I understand what I think I do. I'm sure there are a bunch of other useful ways to break armored direct fire guns into sub groups, and I'm interested if anyone has some? All that out of the way, from the outside it feels like a more political distinction, and a way to dodge a bit of push back from politicians who might say "we have a BIGGER tank! This makes no sense!" but don't comprehend the problems big tanks create? It's hard to dissect a lot of these things if you haven't had a solid introduction to all the nuances, but I very much would like to be informed as to what our troops need but don't have (...and I'm already seething over Veterans care not matching their sacrifice)

[@Panzermeister36]

It's classified as an Assault Gun. Read on the role it is to perform. It replaces the void that was previously filled by the Stryker MGS.

[@jamesnichols7507]

My father-in-law was the driver on a Tank Destroyer during WWII. It had a big gun with thin skins but with it being light it was very fast. He said their instructions were not to get into a shooting contest with the German Panzers but get off a shot and use their superior speed to escape before the Panzer could get off a round.

[@thewarzone]

I would imagine the same exact tactics would be in use for this if it encounters heavy armor. Amazing how time changes but also not. Your father in law was a brave guy!

[@garystrittmater8258]

While I believe the Booker is more stout than the Stryker with a bigger gun and heavier armor, the Stryker was far more mobile, approaching 60 mph but only had a 105 mm gun! I understand the weight problem with logistics but isn't the Booker only 10 tons lighter than the Abrams? Can you get two on a C-17? Army intellectuals are really lightweights, just look how they've pissed away billions of dollars and keep changing tactics and logistics?

[@anathemaish]

Dude this just looks like a modernized M18 hellcat awesome.

[@thomasrush5417]

We still fight this way when applicable. H-MINUS

[@josephgonzales4802]

Yes, it does sound like he was a crew member of a M-18 Hell Cat T.D. A very much underrated vehicle. 🤔

[@thewarzone]

Hey guys, I know the drone threat to armored vehicles (all of them and really anything on the ground in many scenarios) keeps coming up in the comments and rightfully so. We brought this up in a section at around 19:30 in the video. It's hugely relevant, no site has done more on this topic dating back many years than TWZ, but it impacts much more than Booker. We also float the question of if this thing is right or not for future conflicts. I am going to save a dive into that for a future piece. This was a profile on Booker, so we didn't want to get too deep into any one aspect. Expect a piece coming on this in the not so distant future.

[@MostlyPennyCat]

I think the CROWS stations on today's AFVs are a solution, have them automatically target incoming drones by using visual sensors dotted around the vehicle.

[@ab5olut3zero95]

@@MostlyPennyCatmaybe a modified CROWS with an underslung auto-shotgun or something similar? Reportedly, Ukrainians with shotguns as a last resort weapon are proving at least somewhat effective.

[@LA-ep2nr]

Future survival of armored vehicles would require a 180 degree protection system for drones, rockets and APFSDS attacks.

[@logtothebase2]

I think it will need everything, separate tactical threat specific assets, some sort of mounted auto gun with fragmenting rounds, local and batlfeild electronic jamming, possibly with directed energy systems with hard kill potential and passive threat specific turtle tank style modifications to the vehicle, Likely these things (FPV) will evolve so direct remote control is not needed, that is some sort of AI last mile targeting.

[@vs5031]

I don't think big guns firing big bullets have gone out of style yet. The need for it in light infantry units is there. Drones are threat that needs to be countered with or without the Booker, and since the Booker is needed regardless of drones, doesn't seem like a question about the Booker's utitility but more about coutnering drones. Whole other topic.

[@alexanderleach3365]

This little tank is badass. Named after two honored fallen heroes of the US Army.

[@thewarzone]

It does look cool, probably the last non 'rule of cool' looking piece of significant armor we will get.

[@CrazyDee279]

One was SSG Shevon Booker, 2nd BCT, 3ID going into BIAP. Miss you my Brother. TIL Valhalla Dog Face Soldier. Rock of the Marne

[@zaco-km3su]

It's not a tank.

[@crazestyle83]

​@@zaco-km3suTechnically, you're right. they love to say that, but the design and expected function are almost identical except the Booker was also intended for troop support.

[@11C1P]

Yeah, probably about as bad ass as the Sheridan was.

[@dustinfrey3067]

My goodness, this brings back memories. I was an Airborne Combat Engineer w/ 20th ENBD @Ft. Bragg from 08-11. We always had at least one company on rotation attachment to the 82nd for GRF. I spent 1 year & 3 months having to be ready to deploy in 18-24 hrs. In prep for GRF, we would pallatize much of our equipment for heavy drop, and it would remain stored that way at Green Ramp on Pope AFB for the duration of the mission. That way there were very few, if any pieces of equipment that had to be rigged for heavy drop within that 18-24hr window after the call up.

[@thewarzone]

We are going to be doing a larger deal on the GRF. Great color here thank you.

[@dustinfrey3067]

@@thewarzone That is awesome, I look forward to checking that out. If I can help in anyway, I would absolutely be up for it. Just let me know how to get in personal contact.

[@mikehutchinson2191]

I remember doing the same thing when the 7th ID was postured for deployment. My battalion, 5/21, was first on the list out of Ord for Just Cause, othan than the 3/27th, which was already in country. We had taken a large amount of our shit and had it pre-positioned at Travis AFB prior.

[@DB-yj3qc]

Oh the fun of DRB,1,2,3 and the time setting at ramp with all of your gear. Waiting for the call to go wheels up. 12, 24, 36 hour response to be on the ground, for non military experience.

[@dustinfrey3067]

@@DB-yj3qc Exactly, I was on GRF when the Hati earthquake happened. So we went through everything for real. It was a nightmare. I've never done more hurry up and waiting than we did then.

[@Gillymonster18]

Here’s what I predict: because it will be attacked with much the same weaponry as most armies use to engage main battle tanks, army will go “Oops, time for an armor upgrade package.” Then the engine will prove to be underpowered for the additional weight. Then the army goes “oops, time for an engine upgrade package.” Then because of the weight from the armor and engine, the road wheels and suspension will wear out faster: “Oops, time for a suspension upgrade.” Basically, it’ll wind up exactly where the Abrams was when it was first produced in weight and armor and it’s initial purpose will be overgrown by mission creep…unless active protection suddenly becomes much more viable.

[@thewarzone]

There will be a major config change I think very soon.

[@PrograError]

Booker SEPKontakt-1 lets go !💪💪💪💪

[@josephahner3031]

Given that these weapons can already deal with true MBTs they are not uniquely threatening to the Booker. I doubt the Booker will see the same degree of weight gain as the Abrams.

[@Appletank8]

I mean, we haven't put 50 tons of armor on a Humvee or a Bradley yet. Not every enemy group is going to have 2 dozen ATGMs ready to take out every light tank on the way. The use case isn't going to be much more different than the M10 Wolverine or M18 Hellcat used almost a century ago, where the motto is, mobility is safety. You approach, attack, and get out. Vehicles aren't supposed to be invincible to be considered successful. It's whether or not it can do it's job of carrying the gun around to places it's needed. Heck, the dudes carrying rifles aren't invincible either, but infantry has always existed because you need something to hold a rifle.

[@jamesklee]

I really hope they'll consider a tactics change before slapping on upgrades that this thing wasn't fundamentally designed for.

[@robbudden]

That is a professional presentation. Excellent work.

[@Dogmeat1950]

Its a modern day Assault Gun basically

[@thewarzone]

Pretty much exactly how it is intended to be used.

[@josephahner3031]

This is perhaps the best video on the M10 on KZbin. You guys have earned my subscription.

[@thewarzone]

Thanks, happy to have you along for the ride

[@DaveD-y5g]

Was a tanker from 1980 - 1997; retired in 2007; I would give anything to go back and serve on one of these!!!!

[@thewarzone]

It always sucks seeing all the cool toys the new kids get to play with, doesn't it? Kind of an interesting contrast to our last video where they're upgrading B-52s to fly for decades more.

[@Orinslayer]

​@@thewarzonefeast and famine in the richest military ever 😂

[@1moderntalking1]

This is a well written presentation! Thanks 😊

[@thewarzone]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@LazyLifeIFreak]

The Booker kind of reminds me of the Stug assault gun during the early period of WW2, the Stug operated organically with the infantry instead of being a dedicated unit on its own.

[@thewarzone]

yeah there is precedent for this.

[@wayneabbott652]

The Stug was mid to late war.

[@Necromancer_88]

lol

[@ElkaPME]

@@wayneabbott652 no, stugs were in fact made to support infantry on the offensive during the early stages of the war, hence the term for assault gun. When more powerful anti tank assets were needed later on, that's where the g variant came in, thus becoming a tank destroyer.

[@patrickchase5614]

Very good video, well presented. I particularly appreciate the focus on deployability, force structure, and doctrine. Those are what fundamentally drive this program, and IMO it makes a lot of sense in that context.

[@thewarzone]

Thank you! We could have kept going but wanted a general overview. More to come though on future use cases and issues.

[@gooldii1]

Leopard ONE!!! had a 105mm Gun, and was nearly same in Weight. I was ooooold. Now, the Booker is here, 105mm, 45 tons and its the newest ever! Funny!

[@MaticTheProto]

ikr? They could have just bought and upgraded those

[@NovaScotiaNewfie]

It was also used in Afghanistan by Canada for direct fire support. Leo C2. Eventually replaced by the Leo II.

[@afcgeo882]

Very different capabilities though.

[@memyself637]

Light tanks were used at the outer edges of larger units for recon and screening. The M10 Booker is used at the center of a larger unit to provide direct fire support. Very different roles.

[@KawaTony1964]

Holy cow. Expanding from my previous comment: the Booker weighs MORE than a Leopard 1 tank. Also to bring clarity to my previous comment: 1 Booker weighs as much as 2.7 Sheridans. I hope all this weight has gone into very effective armor to protect the crew from mines and drones.

[@snuffle2269]

Kornet ATGMs , not so much.

[@kolinmartz]

@@snuffle2269even main battle tanks that weigh almost twice as much as a Booker will still have trouble against a Kornet. So your point is kinda moot.

[@solarissv777]

​@@snuffle2269you use APS for that. Oh, wait, booker doesn't have any.

[@KawaTony1964]

@@kolinmartz I don't think you understood my point. Ukraine has shown us that even tanks as heavy as the T-90 can't survive a Javelin or TOW or NLAW. So, why bother trying to make a lighter tank do it? Maybe, though, although they can't make the Booker survive an ATGM, they could have done something to make it survive "mines and drones". Hell, Russian garbage like the T-90 and T-72 can't even do that. It would be hilarious if the Booker turns out to be more survivable than Russian turret tossers.

[@tclanjtopsom4846]

The Sheridan's were a failure in Vietnam. Not a valid comparison.

[@196cupcake]

Great overview of M10 Booker!

[@thewarzone]

Thanks! It was a fun piece to put together and we're happy to see folks find it informative!

[@jasonbose3507]

Wow 😲. Just imagine the Booker fighting WITH the Abrams to take over a city, now that would be an impressive sight indeed. Or, a Bradley, Booker, AND ABRAMS fighting together to complete a mission. That would be visually impressive! This is a cool essential unit. Great video 📸. Thanks.

[@richdurbin6146]

This comments section reminds me of the Pentagon Wars scene with the generals wanting to add everything and the kitchen sink to the Bradley.

[@thewarzone]

YES! Exactly. But ofcourse it is right?

[@sheldoncoffelt1891]

And yet the Bradley is still lighter, better equipped, and can even transport infantry too unlike this thing that makes no sense.

[@JeffGordon-ph4vz]

Yeah they shouldn’t have made it in the first place. Its purpose can be accomplished by other vehicles you dont have to be a veteran or soldier to understand that.

[@cardinalpawn6467]

​@@sheldoncoffelt1891the bradley can't deal with fortification bigger than a sandbag bunker without using its very limited TOW missiles. Im sure that the M10 is superior than the bradley in that regard

[@sheldoncoffelt1891]

@@cardinalpawn6467 why not make that new one with the 50mm and problem solved

[@phil20_20]

It's a medium assault tank. Light Tanks don't weigh 40+ tons.

[@mlc4495]

Hell the Abrams is so big now it may as well be a Heavy Tank.

[@SirenHead00]

it could be a mbt since it weighs more then a t 72

[@ad_astra5]

@@SirenHead00tank classes relative to weight seems to be getting less feasible

[@TonyChan-eh3nz]

This kinda reminds me of a battlecrusier. A less armored battleship(mbt), that kinda can go head to head against battleships(mbts), but mostly designed to bully anything lighter.

[@thewarzone]

That's a really ideal comparison.

[@Gillymonster18]

Yep…unfortunately most armies don’t have specific anti-cruiser weaponry but skip straight to anti-battleship weapons. This thing will be tin can to weapons that can rip open main battle tanks…cue army subsequent armor upgrade package, then an engine upgrade because of the armor, then a suspension upgrade because of all that extra weight. I predict this thing’s air Mobile purpose will be rendered impractical and it will be comparable in weight and performance to the early production M1A1s.

[@josephahner3031]

​@@Gillymonster18I disagree. The only thing the M10 will be seriously threatened by is 125mm APFSDS. Which doctrinally the Army has taken great pains to avoid it having to deal with. Chemical Energy threats(HEAT rounds of various sorts) are not the same as Kinetic Energy threats. I suspect that the M10 is highly optimized against CE type threats and this is a tradeoff the Army has accepted. If the M10 proves not survivable to an unacceptable degree I would expect it to simply be replaced with Abrams or pulled entirely.

[@TonyChan-eh3nz]

@@josephahner3031 If we go back to the battle cruiser analogy, our battle cruiser is armored against cruiser grade and below(infantry, machine guns, autocannons). And if you get into a fight with a tank/battleship, step 1: don't. But at least you aren't completely helpless. The wild card in this case though is the RPG and the like. Anything heavier is either too heavy(leave that to the regular non airborne army), or would just kill an abrams anyway(planes, drones, helis). If the booker can tank those infantry anti tank weapons well enough, then I could see it operating pretty well in that specific niche.

[@scottsauritch3216]

Yea so the "top secret survivability issues" the Army brought up have nothing to do with adding more conventional armor... No, the "FRP/Battle-ready" version of the M10 Booker that we likely won't see until around 2027 to 2028, will feature APS likely Iron Fist. Had the Army required the APS designed into the production floor model, it would have delayed the acquisition by at least a year probably 2. This way, Army can get the m10 through all of its testing and all of the stuff the Army has to do for every brand new vehicle class like this, and the aps can be add it to the top of the turret like the M2A4 later...

[@necronlord52]

Just watched "The Pentagon Wars", so I quite understand the "issues". I'm also happen to be a QA engineer, so I'm pretty sure, that at least 3/4 of those, including the critical ones, could be solved before the first "Booker" was produced. The main question here is "Why the hell do we need M-10 type?" Tanks like this one always were a weapon of agressive war, of the offensive.

[@josephahner3031]

No army has ever won a war from inside a trench.

[@jgw9990]

Pentagon wars was nonsense though. The Bradley is an excellent vehicle, and the military always intended to make it like that. Wars is the ramblings of an air force colonel who was incompetent

[@pieter-bashoogsteen2283]

The Pentagon Wars is hardly a good source, inspired by a man called Burton who was angry his proposal for a bare bones treetop gunfighter was rejected. The main question you’re asking is answered in the video itself.

[@dronessential]

That movie is pretty much BS that is thoroughly disproven.

[@LoanwordEggcorn]

There are many military channels. The writing in particular and narration on this one are excellent. Many others are not.

[@johnofnz]

This is top notch content

[@thewarzone]

Appreciate the feedback! Glad you enjoyed it!

[@coltwright6252]

Been a F/A alum and TWZ fanboy for decades. These videos are great to see. The content is as original as the public domain can allow and the visuals are solid and also original the one key piece that’s missing is Character. Just misses that punch ya know? Like T&P or sandboxx/Alex Hollings.

[@thewarzone]

That's a bit of a conscious decision, as we're looking to do more documentary style content as opposed to the presenter/influencer style you're talking about. May change in the future, though.

[@KawaTony1964]

I'm not trying to be over-critical, but the Booker is way heavier than they're making it seem. The narrator keeps talking about how much lighter and more agile it is than an M1. At approx. 45 tons, it weighs 62% as much as an M1. It's only 8 tons lighter than a T-90. The M551 Sheridan which it basically replaces weighed only approx. 17 tons. So, by weight: 1 Abrams = 4 Sheridans = 1.6 Bookers.

[@johnking6252]

Quality vs Quantity , again?

[@josephahner3031]

It's just light enough to fit in a C-17 in combat configuration. It also has a silly, heavy, redundant hybrid electric drive system that could easily be jettisoned if it needs to be lightened. To put on my tin foil hat for a moment, I have zero evidence to support this, but I suspect the Army is playing chess with the M10 program, using the electric drive system as a political shield to get the Booker into service. I suspect that this system serves as dead weight that can be cut if it needs to be after the Army has its tank in favor of various upgrades they know it will need.

[@KawaTony1964]

@@josephahner3031 I saw that it is much smaller than an M1, so 2 Bookers will fit into a C-17 while only 1 M1 does.

[@solarissv777]

​​@@josephahner3031have you seen how complex the modern tank transmission is? And how small modern high power electric motors can be? Most likely that hybrid electric transmission weights less than an equivalent mechanical one. The problem is the loader: it takes too much space and also needs armor. The fact that this thing uses dearmored abrams turret does not help either.

[@counterfit5]

Series hybrid drives, specifically diesel-electric, have been used for decades in trains.

[@maxmeh2342]

14:32 HHC is not Higher Headquarters Company. HHC is Headquarters and Headquarters Company. The more you know.

[@ripurhrtout]

loved the part at 13:34 when you said highly trained crews and homie was STRUGGLING to take the gun off XD

[@Joe_Friday]

I wonder why the Stingray tanks were not considered since other older tanks were brought in for competition.

[@thewarzone]

This had some pretty defined requirements, but we really should do something on that thing, great pull Joe!

[@kolinmartz]

People forget that this is going to be in units where the main mode of transport is your feet and it’s gotta be able to go where foot soldiers on foot can go. That’s why it’s tracked. The MGS was fine in the mobility sector because it went to units where everyone was mounted on wheeled vehicles anyways. The issue that did get it canceled is the fast that the gun had an overly complicated auto loading system that took up way too much space and only left you with room for 18 rounds. The gun would literally snap the axles of those 1st gen Strykers after certain amount of rounds or firing on the move too much.

[@ArgosySpecOps]

We should've just bought the Type 10 tank from Japan. Same weight class, but with an actual MBT cannon.

[@GM-fh5jp]

Like Imperial Storm troopers being deployed with their Imperial Walkers, the M10s must go in with the first wave. The Marines deserve to have some heavy mobile firepower on the ground, advancing with the assault units and, protecting the drop zones and beach heads.

[@thewarzone]

They got rid of their M1s with haste under the new doctrine, but I could see the M10 as a fit there. Still obsessed with going over the beach though, you will hear a lot of 'can't swim' remarks about this.

[@GM-fh5jp]

@@thewarzone The Abrams is just too damn heavy for a rapid response group, especially if airborne. With twice as many C17 flights to land the same number of tanks it is much more suited to ship-borne transport and pier unloading rather than makeshift beach heads.So I guess the M10s do make sense.

[@josephahner3031]

​@@thewarzonehas the Marine Corps fielded a cannon armed swimmer since the LVT-4?

[@Av-vd3wk]

Absolutely fantastic, top-notch presentation. It’s obvious the creator loves and has passion for what they do. Although I’m not a fan of the Booker and strongly feel it needs to be cancelled, I still appreciated the work put into this piece. Keep it up! TWZ is lucky to have you.

[@thewarzone]

Thanks so much! It's a joy to bring the same great stuff you'll see on our website to life in video form.

[@mlc4495]

A useful reminder for the "is it a tank or is it an assault gun" - in other countries this would be their Main Battle Tank.

[@thewarzone]

And would probably be fielded in much smaller numbers than the Booker is slated to, also.

[@MaticTheProto]

no

[@BobDacat-py6so]

A simple test to determine is it a tank. Can it take a round from a MBT to the face. If so then it's a tank. If not well then it isn't.

[@MaticTheProto]

@@BobDacat-py6so and that’s why clowns like you have no say in the arms industry

[@thelordofcringe]

​@@BobDacat-py6soLOL. Lmao. The Abrams apfsds can go through any tank on the planet, including itself. So therefore. There are no tanks.

[@The_ZeroLine]

People saying “oh, IFVs are antiquated because of drones” haven’t paid close attention to Ukraine. Bradleys have been taken out, but the crew and dismounts have survived. Meanwhile, it’s become their favorite and most effective armored vehicle. And they don’t even have APS. Soon advanced APS systems will protect from drones and ATGMs.

[@thewarzone]

For sure. Small FPV drones are a threat now that everyone is scrambling to catch up with, but if history is any indication, a counter will come to the battlefield in short order. It may be as easy as tweaking APS settings to counter drones, it may be a whole new solution.

[@janed5077]

Considering how successful tank destroyers were in: High kills & kill ratios, lower cost, low profile hide (hull down), lower weight, & lower maintenance during WW II. And the high praises given the revolutionary Swedish (Strv 103) "S" tank. I'd think something more along the: Same light weight (40 ton), no turret, thicker armor, bigger gun, floatable, true full tank, designed to better able survive a 5 kiloton tactical nuclear explosion, might be a better Airborne back up.

[@chrismair8161]

The Teddy Bear Roosevelt said it the best. Walk Softly but Carry a really Big Stick when negotiating.

[@hubertcumberdale8175]

Seems like you wanted the m8 derivative to succeed. By your presentation i was surprised they selected the griffin from GD

[@thewarzone]

Plusses and minuses, M1 commonality was a big deal. We could do a huge thing on that alone one day

[@Shaun_Jones]

The Chieftain got to poke around inside the M8-derived competitor and his opinion was that the crew ergonomics were at least a full generation behind the M10.

[@HAL--ov4qu]

I like the new Booker, it is well built, quick to deploy and easier to do maintenance than the Abrams and gets good MPG on diesel. Its a great light tank to add to the infantry.

[@kevinmccarthy8670]

The Marines need some of these. This is especially true now that they've given up their Abrahms.

[@texasranger24]

It is not a light tank. It's not supposed to do tank things, plus it's a bit chunky to be called light. It's way closer in doctrine to the german ww2 StuG. Sturmgeschütze were used as infantry support, an armored thing that shoots other infantry and bunkers. Not to fight other tanks.

[@thewarzone]

There are a lot of people out there referring to it as an "Assault Gun," to support infantry but also to engage tanks in a light infantry units' first thrust into a forward area.

[@texasranger24]

@@thewarzone yup, they re-invented the German StuG

[@mlc4495]

The Abram's was literally used in this infantry support role in Iraq during the insurgency.

[@louisbabycos106]

​@@mlc4495 Our logistics build up with Abrams was only permissible in a logistics friendly environment. With a full blown war with the CCP and or Russia we might not have that luxury.

[@tommcclelland119]

Great video.

[@furmanmackey5479]

Excellent video on a tank that would be great for an Armored Cavalry Troop, Squadron, or Regimental deployment where the Cavs TRUE purpose is to sneak, peak, report, flank, and just worry the living piss out of enemy formations.

[@mho...]

i like it! and i dont get why "lighttank" isnt liked... i always saw these smaller ones more in an infantry support role anyways, rather then small main battle tanks 🤷‍♂ reminds me of a shermans role in ww2 more then a tiger's!

[@thewarzone]

We sort of touch on that, it has to do with many things, from procurement/funding to organization etc.

[@mikehutchinson2191]

are the two Bookers related? I think they should have two versions. The long barrel AT, and get that 152 from the Sheridan back in action. Shaped charge is huge, and the internal volume of the shell gives many options. Sniper in a building? bring down the whole building. Large mass of personnel? 6 inch Flechette can carry lots of dats.

[@dustinfrey3067]

The M10 will have to feature an ECM system and a hard kill system on any modern battle field to have any level of effectiveness. Drones and anti-tank weapons are far to prevelent and effective for any armored vehicle to operate without sufficient counter measures. Hopefully they have designed the M10 to be able to use the current ECM systems already fielded by the Army. And hopefully the active protection/hard kill system that is in current development will be ready by the time M10 reaches operational status. I imagine the first few batches will be for training and familiarization and those systems won't be needed. Which gives time to finish their development.

[@thewarzone]

That's the hope, isn't it? Pretty sure the Army has taken notice of what's going on in Ukraine and has plenty of lessons learned they're incorporating with Booker.

[@dustinfrey3067]

@@thewarzone Absolutely, I just have concerns because it wouldn't be the first time the Army has failed to make proper adjustments to a known threat. And its the boots on the ground who pay the price. IED's come to mind during GWOT era, and I am sure there are others.

[@mikusoxlongius]

20 cheap drones will expend all the countermeasures and then POW.

[@dustinfrey3067]

@@mikusoxlongius For the most part, the cheap modified "off the shelf" drones are not capable being hardened to overcome electronic counter measure systems. Meaning you wouldn't being using the limited ammunition of your hard kill system for the threat you are talking about. An ECM suite doesn't run out of ammo. Many of it's capabilities like jamming, etc, aren't affected by the number of threats or targets. So, it would be just as effective after the 200th drone than it was after the first. Yes, of course, if the only means of protection was a hard kill/active protecton system it wouldn't take long to overwhelm it and or run it out of ammunition.

[@mikusoxlongius]

@@dustinfrey3067 who's to say? the first 15 drones are cheap and then 5 real ones come thru. It's already a tactic in use. A group of Shadeds drain off your anti air and then the Kalibres get thru.

[@michaeltosser7363]

Good to see that DA has recognized the need for lightweight, mobile firepower that we'd largely abandoned.

[@richwalter3107]

@TWZ; Pretty much got it. A few inaccuracies but , yeh. Miss the Sheridan concept, we should have kept that idea alive.

[@juanzulu1318]

What is the advantage of the Booker to an AFV/inf support platforms?

[@thewarzone]

More large-caliber gunfire, for one.

[@solarissv777]

​@@thewarzoneand if compared with NEMO?

[@jdogdarkness]

If ur set on this direct firepower role that CANT(or shouldnt) engage tanks, why not make it an IFV with a direct fire capable mortar? U can have high caliber & still. With all the ATGMs & drones out there & the fact at this time the "shield" is thoroughly" behind the "sword" why not cut down on armor weight & go full in on APS? (just thick enough armor to defeat artillery fragmentation)

[@richwalter3107]

Because it wasn't meant for that. In simplest terms, it's an assault gun. NOT A LIGHT TANK. Those who keep calling it that simply haven't been paying attention. That includes the current SGM of the Army who ran his mouth calling it a light tank. Again. It's not.

[@thesarcasticliberal]

On thing that you didn't mention is that General Dynamics basically shortcut the design process by copying the homework of the Sabrah, which is a light tank in service to the Philippians, developed by Israel (this is why both it and the Booker use the forward engine design). Basically, Elbit designed the system and General Dynamics Europe built it for the Philippine Army and then, miraculously, General Dynamics US released the Booker. I'm not complaining, as it's a very good design, but I do hope that GDLS didn't charge full price for the design phase, as much of their work was already done for them.

[@kolinmartz]

I can also see this as GD trying to test out some lighter weight and more advanced equipment that they’re gonna try to sell to the army to put on the Abrams. The M10 currently has the most advanced optics for armored vehicles in the US army.

[@r-saint]

WTF is 14.7mm ammo? You're confusing 12.7 and 14.5 into one.

[@rdr8147]

It's TRANS ammo 🤣

[@MelodicMethod]

love your vids

[@thewarzone]

Thank you. We are just getting started. What the channel is now will morph over time, like our site, always evolving..

[@hooks4638]

I definitely think this (or at least, something like it) is needed. The light infantry absolutely need some more firepower. However, we really need a serious air defense solution.

[@shot9702]

No mention of it being able to be air dropped. So I'm assuming it requires an airfield to be taken prior to deployment.

[@lukedogwalker]

Wait, what? I had to rewatch from 05:36 because we have a list of compelling reasons why BAE's M8 design had superior features that met the brief, compared to GD's design which did not... so of course GD got the contract! Okay... not dodgy, at all 🤔

[@lukedogwalker]

Another thought: the Abrams commonality cited as an advantage of the GD design might be less to do with logistics and training, and more that the same companies (who make Abrams) in the same constituencies can be given manufacturing contracts for Booker parts, as well... kaching! Which reminds me of the F15EX and the Arleigh Burke. Institutional inertia resisting the adoption of new equipment for logistics and training reasons, combined with industry lobbying to keep orders flowing to the same handful of suppliers (who don't want to compete or retool for building something new). Result: Japanese and Korean Arleigh Burke variants are more modern and superior, while the US ANG is re-equippimg with a warmed up 70's airframe at the same time the entire world and their cat are buying brand new clean sheet stealth designs. The Griffon/Booker is starting to feel like the Army's contribution to this mess.

[@thewarzone]

M1 commonality was a huge deal.

[@lukedogwalker]

@@thewarzone I got that. Commonality with existing systems always seems to come up across procurement projects. But is this really just the logistics and training benefits or is it the political/supply side benefits? Because if you always prioritize commonality with existing systems, how do you innovate? How do you upgrade? There's only so much you can do to rework a platform whose basic design is decades old.

[@erikbender1967]

What would be the MOS once the school is available. I know it will be a 19 series but I wonder what the letter designation would be?

[@itzygorilla6925]

I’m a little more interested on what kind of armor it has and to me it seems to have spaced armor on the turret and maybe the same hull armor profile on the lower front plate as the abrams.

[@11C1P]

Hmmmm. I remember the Sheridan. I guess Sheridan 2.0 wouldn't have been too popular for a few reasons.

[@scarlettuwu9582]

I think 40 mph is generally too low a target speed for what they want this to do / how they want this to integrate , getting it into the 65-68 mph range would actually allow it to keep up with the other vehicles of a formation. I know it’s a big design change looking at tracks vs wheels But you can get more speed out of wheels and to make them more robust in handling different terrain you just make the wheels big and chonky thick.

[@mobilegamersunite]

Awesome tank idea 💡 fast response with a big ass gun! 😂

[@thewarzone]

That's the idea. Will be interesting to see the config in five years.

[@mobilegamersunite]

@thewarzone this looks like a good Russian counter tank, that can strike first

[@crazestyle83]

It's for a new role. Bradley's are busy doing other things like transporting men and evacuating wounded. Fighting is second in that function. The Booker is more flexible.

[@blackberrymw]

It all sounds great on paper. To me it just looks like mobile semi-protected infantry firepower that's more protected than an m109 and more mobile than an m777... but with hopefully just enough punch to matter?

[@lodizle1]

8:00 Drones its always drones well and anti-tank mines not sure how they're going to fix that one though

[@lqr824]

I don't like having a separate ammo type from the Abrams. It should be able to use Abrams shells fine, even if it has a much lower muzzle velocity and shorter barrel. You could also make a lighter-weight specific munition for it, possibly even one that could be used in the Abrams in emergencies.

[@solarissv777]

There is one more widespread ammo type: 120mm mortar bomb. An AFV equipped with NEMO turret can do the same direct fire support but it can do indirect as well. And would weight much less.

[@thomastrinkle2294]

Only having a flex .50cal mount is a mistake. It needs a RWS with the option to mount up to a 30mm autocannon.

[@hallmobility]

Same name and similar function to the M10 Tank Destroyer of WW2. Something readily available to the American general playing PanzerGeneral2.

[@jarviskelly7008]

So the BAE system was lighter, less crew and autoloader, but they went with the lesser product. So they decided to go with something that didnt really meet the specs because it was a US company.

[@CO_Luke]

Love the nod to Teddy!

[@ScreamingSturmovik]

everything that suggests that Booker isn't meant for what amounts to direct combat simply shows that they would have been better off with some kind of lighter wheeled vehicle and could use a 120mm mortar with direct fire capabilities the French AMX-10 RC is doing the same job at less than half the weight and their practically 40 years old

[@thewarzone]

After the experience gained with the Stryker, the Army really wanted a tracked solution for the MPF program. It was actually part of the program requirements.

[@pacificrider08]

I still believe light infantry and airborne units still need a smaller tracked weapon platform, like the wiesel design.

[@QuillandVenom]

M10 Booker variant mounting the GAU-8 Avenger cannon would be an awesome armor assassin to compliment the M10 Booker 105mm gun platform.

[@TheJttv]

Every year the American truck becomes 2 inches longer and 200 pounds heavier. This cycle repeats until till the vehicle is so large it barely function as originally intended. At which point they bring in a new tiny light model and reset the cycle. That is what the Booker is...

[@wooohooo103]

I'm just wondering if simply stocking with Bradleys would work just as well or better...

[@thewarzone]

Probably has to do with the fact that the Bradley only carries 12 shots for the ATGM launcher, and once you fire the two in the box, it is not easy to reload in combat situations. The Army most likely envisions the Booker in engaging more than 12 targets in an engagement and the cannon means no cumbersome reload process. The Bradley is great at what it does, but the Booker allows for more concentrated large-caliber fire than the Bradley.

[@unclerojelio6320]

I thought this was one of Simon Whistler's channels. Never mind.

[@branfordmonticello853]

SSG Booker is obviously not a private. In your pic, he's a CPL. The only other mystery is why his sacrifice only warranted the Dist. Service Cross and not the CMH. Award description read the same as Pvt. Booker's.

[@daniellore2961]

replace the turret with one housing a semi auto morter system and an anti drone system

[@cptnemo20kl]

The tech isn’t there yet, but a light tank/medium-calibre armored vehicle like the M10 would better serve if it was a ground drone. Protecting flanks. Rapid response. Reconnaissance. Force augmentation. And in numbers to add more direct fire across all types of organization units: stryker brigades, airborne, armored cavalry. Without risking a crew. Been following TWZ back from the jalopnik days. Keep up the good work.

[@thewarzone]

Thanks, yeah it's probably 5-10 years to early for that to have been the focus of development, they needed this quick, but certainly is a part of the future for sure. Could be adapted.

[@cptnemo20kl]

@@thewarzone *slaps roof* This bad Booker can fit so much Skynet in it.

[@Aikibiker1]

Should be a good companion to the Bradley. Might want to add some Switchblade 600's with controls for same in the turret in case it runs into an enemy tank.

[@sheldoncoffelt1891]

I don't see anything it does that a Bradley can't already do better. It's lighter, more deadly to tanks with it's TOW missiles, more deadly against light targets with a repeating cannon, and it can even transport and protect infantrymen.

[@gardnert1]

The Booker is great, but could easily be better. Change the coax gun to at least a .50 cal, but more ideally a 20 or 25mm cannon. Make the commander's sight coax with a 20mm gun (the one from the Apache) which would be able to be set to auto to automatically detect and shoot drones or even missile (this would of course require a radar or thermal detector). And finally, give the loader his own remote turret with a sub-.50 cal machine gun (7.62 or .338 norma). If you have anti-personnel needs, you won't really need a loader as much. The loader and commander should also be able to launch and use drones for increased SA.

[@thewarzone]

Not a lot of room in there. A coaxial chain gun would be interesting but where do you put the ammo etc.

[@rdr8147]

@@thewarzone And I believe the Apache chain gun is 30mm not 20

[@lqr824]

How did you make this entire video, talking about Humvees, JTCM, Strykers, and Abrams, without saying the word Bradley? And why does the Bradley have anti-tank weapons while the Booker doesn't?

[@johnhines229]

So if it’s not a light tank what is it? A heavy infantry assault/fighting vehicle.

[@loundclear9279]

Needs 300 more hP and a hard kill drone system. Because once they add on re active armor its gonna be under powerd. the bradly sufferd , When we added the Tusk system my Abrams I could tell the differance , But no matter how you look at it the booker wont replace the Abrams no time soon

[@lumber-jackha5123]

It should have been named the M10 Audie Murphy hands down.

[@tonylittle8634]

How about the Drone component?

[@OzzieBenzC300]

Bradly drops infantry into battle, Booker fights along them!!!

[@jeffi854]

Exactly why the Booker still needs a toe missile system on it especially since it’s 105 is unable to destroy heavy armor.

[@seanmurphy7011]

Is the 82nd Airborne not already activated? Seems like an active duty division to me.

[@deltavee2]

Anti-drone widely distributed amongst much of the infantry could provide protection for the Booker. Not one or two per, but many. The trick is developing something light and reliable that an infantryman can carry as needed without being encumbered, along the principle of an underslung grenade launcher but with a smart kinetic round. Maybe talk to the Ukrainians, I'm sure they're working on something like it. Also maybe let them test a few M10s in the field for feedback. Just thinking out loud.....

[@thomasandersen5349]

If my memory serves me, SSGT Booker pulled ALL of his men out of a burning Bradley, before succumbing to his own wounds.

[@beltfedfanatic]

like tactics weapons need to evolve with them. i ilke this.

[@thewarzone]

That's the idea, but time moves faster than it did in terms of threats 10 years ago.

[@steveheighton5971]

Needs APS, an autoloader, and remote weapons station. Could stand to lose a couple tons of weight too.

[@MinionNumber3]

My only concern is that we're explicitly building it for near-peer engagements, not counter-insurgency. But it's also deploying with a comparable 105mm main cannon like the M1 had, which was supposed to be insufficient for targeting heavier near-peer vehicles, so we upgraded them to 120mm. I get that there's a weight requirement and a turret capable of housing a 120 is going to push the vehicle right over it, but is going with a gun we've known for 40 years to be insufficient for the role the best option here?

[@Shaun_Jones]

The idea is that the 105 is enough for 90% of targets (trenches, foxholes, snipers, IFVs, machine gun nests, etc.) and that missile vehicles will support them to handle MBTs. Even so, 105mm sabot is not nothing; flank shots will still go through.

[@cqde-e3o]

@@Shaun_Jones ​ Maybe, we should use a wanderful Unmanned turret . people can improve turret's space. so it can equip 120mm.

[@Shaun_Jones]

@@cqde-e3o why, when you can carry much more ammunition with the 105?

[@cqde-e3o]

@@Shaun_Jones ​ 120mmIt cannot have sufficient scale to provide funding for the development of new shells. This tank has a huge volume, I don't know why it can't carry 40+ 120mm. It is obvious that there are too many repetitive structures inside.

[@Dogmeat1950]

Update: to this video, im in a LBCT and we have ISV's for transportation, not humvees

[@veleriphon]

If the Abrams is a battleship, the Booker is a destroyer/frigate but with an overmatched weapon.

[@John_19k_doe]

It’s like a child between the abrams, TAM II and a Bradley

[@cristmh]

I still don't see what an M10 gets you vs an up-gunned M2 (i.e. with the new Bushmaster 50mm chain gun).

[@Kolljak]

booker just looks like an Abrams turret on a Bradlees body.

[@AmphiStuG]

Man this thing is going to weigh 60 tons by the end of the decade, can swear on it.