Swedish CV90 VS American M10 Booker - Which one is better
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 жов 2024
- The CV90 versus M10 Booker - The CV90, also known as Stridsfordon 90, represents a strategically designed armored combat vehicle family developed from 1984 to the early 1990s to fulfill the operational needs of the Swedish Army. This project was a collaborative effort between Saab Bofors Dynamics and Hagglunds. The CV90 made its debut in Swedish military service in 1993. In contrast, the M10 Booker is a new tracked combat vehicle currently under development by General Dynamics Land Systems for the US Army. It is derived from the GDLS Griffin II armored fighting vehicle and was selected as the winner of the Mobile Protected Firepower program in June 2022. The US Army plans to establish M10 battalions and incorporate them into its light infantry brigade combat teams. Both vehicles have the capability to be adapted into light tanks, essentially offering greater versatility in their use.
Subscribe Now :
/ @military-tv
![[UA] NAVI vs MOUZ | BO5 | IEM Rio 2024](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CMBYk0cbGoA/mqdefault.jpg)
CV 90 is ordered by Slovakia as well. And was in service in places like Afghanistan. Proven design and continuously updated with respect to technology as well as variants adapted to the needs of customers. Now, it is in use in Ukraine which will get further feed-back in the ongoing development or the mark V model.
Ukraine is trying to place an order aswell, so i guess they like the vechicle
Apples to pears. Cv90 is primarily an IFV that carries a 7 man infantry squad in the back. It can be fitted with a 105/120mm cannon turret.
M10 is a light tank/tank destroyer.
Agree, so if we buy or make cv90’s were slightly outgunned but nato countries use them and can easy upgrade them. Use the rest of the cash to buy more destroyers were ok then?
@@ericvonp Um, no, the Bradley is the other vehicle you compare the CV90 to and the CV90 has a far more powerful autocannon, better armour, better performance all around and can go through more types of terrain.
You can compare the M10 to an actual tank because that is what it is, a light tank. We gave up on those a long time ago with StrV S.
What is a "light tank destoyer" these days?
Hell yes. I was a commander in the predecessor, IKV91 during my Swedish conscription (18 months). This CV90 looks like a great step up.
M10 has a great looking design. It will be a nice addition for infantry support. The CV90 is already a great ifv.
They are both obsolete but at least the cv90 isnt 13 million dollars for a vehicle a ten thousand dollar russian drone will destroy. The US has thousands of resverve M1A1 tanks with better armor and the exact same gun sitting in the desert, already paid for. Its another product of the US WHORE defense industry. Parasiting off the US people for inadequate obsolete overpriced weapon systems. The US needs to crack down hard passing new laws and severe criminal charges against defense execs. As it is right now they have proven to China and even the Russians with their inability to keep up with Russian production and cost effective innovation that the US is a paper tiger and their ability to stay in the fight is equivalent to a old man with Asthma going toe to toe with Mike Tyson in the ring. The US has blatantly allowed our enemies to see they are weak and vulnerable. That creates a power vacuum. China and eventually Russia will fill it as the world realigns into a new power paradigm with the end of the US as a super power. It isnt anymore sad truth.
CV90 is the best IFV in the world, bar none.
Not really the case.
Among a serie which are the best.
- the M2 Bradley in its most modern variants is also good
- the ASCOD 2 is a good platform
- the Puma (unlike what German says) is an amazing platform
The CV90 is awesome, great platform, and the price is rather good. But it's not the only.
It would be more cost efficiant to spend the money on the CV90 family. It's alredy used amongst several NATO allied countries, and could easily be a NATO standard IFV (whatever you like) vehicle. It can anything you want, IFC, CFV, engineer vehicle, AGS (light tank type use), a mortar carrier, command vehicle etc etc. And since the Nordic countries seems to trust it, it is very capable in extreme winter conditions. It is the system the US should go for, and not waste money trying to develop something that is already offered.
Yep, it's weird especially as they can easily make a deal to license produce them. Cv90 factories are at full capacity and Ukraine is getting a deal to produce their own so it is very much on the table.
The US will never outsource any kind of major IFV for their military, since military industry is pretty much the only industry they still have. Everything else has the factories moved abroad.
@@Oddball_E8 If the US licenses to produce its own CV90 chassis/platform to produce domestically you can't call that outsourcing right, if you are not a Swede that is xD
Usa is probably to full of themself , to be able to buy foreign tech from Sweden lol. , from what i seen of the booker, it looks to me that that vechicle is a complete waste of money and time to developed lol. Americans being Americans i guess , with the mentality " usa is the best in the world"
@@jimmiekarlsson4458The CV90 literally uses Bradley road wheels. What are you on about?
Give us the CV90120, now that was a beast of an idea.
CV90 has a very interesting “hiding cloak” option, leaving it undetectable from laser, radar and IR searching. It’s an intelligent paneling system that is computer controlled automatically. There are clips of it on UA-cam.
well that option looks best on its Advertizment. No country has ordered this.. now go figure
@@Battlenude That you know of. This is a feature you don't advertise that you have. All the clips found online are of old prototype systems, isn't that curious.
@@emileriksson76 IR reduction is simply by letting exaust went out under the vihicle. pls stop with the fancy snancy stuff.. looks like the Advertizment got to you.
@@emileriksson76 maintaining an stealth coating on CV-90 sounds like a very expensive ordeal... Imagine going thru the Woods, scrating the coating all the time. Hense, why no one bother with it
@@Battlenude could u link?
Well, the CV90 series is a IFV that is capable of carrying Troops, while the M10 Booker is a cannon only vehicle designed to do infantry support and a lighter anti tank role. So they are not the same class of vehicle. Only if comparing the 105mm or 120mm CV90 they are comparable as the CV90 then loses it's infantry carrying capacity, Then i would give the M10 the edge due to being a newer designed platform with better room for improvement on the current chassis, especialy when it comes to suspension to support any additional weight it might gain over the years from putting on new or additional modules.
100%. This is an apples-to-oranges comparison.
Sadly for the Booker, the CV90 beats it even as a light tank, and it's constructed to be more modular from the very start. Whereas the Booker is not. So even in future proofing the CV90 concept is better, since it's literally made for it.
@@Zathaghil Modularity doesn’t necessarily make the CV90 better than the M10.
Sweden came up with the CV90 modular model due to budget constraints.
The Booker is a product without a proper use case. The role “light tank” isn’t viable except if the ground does not support the weight of an MBT, in which case you don’t need anything larger than an IFV anyways
The other use case for a light tank is for projecting power and transporting the light tank to places where it is harder, less economical, and slower to transport MBTs. That is, you can transport more of them in smaller planes and quicker, as they are lighter.
The thing is, if you need to transport MBTs anywhere, it is because you are gearing up for a massive conflict far away from your borders. These tend to be flagged quite extensively in advance, which gives you the time to do the transportation anyways by ship or similar.
The ONLY use case viable is Taiwan. And it would be much better served by MBTs already now, and IFVs to support whenever needed.
Also, the CV90 is famously excellent in one particular area, surface negotiability (heritage from being developed for Swedish marshes), which in something like an IFV and light tank would be among the most crucial capabilities. And the US made stuff is notoriously bad at this. Throw 2 feet of snow or a swamp in the way, and they are stuck. The CV90 just plows through.
The US should get the memo and just order CV90s instead…
The M10 is meant to be used alongside light infantry such as Airborne infantry.
@@Gridlocked that and to break enemy fortifications like bunkers mg nest building basically m10 is a wrecking ball the cv90 is a tank destroyer/light tank
CV90 was primarily conceived to operate in cold conditions and various upgrades have made one of the best existing vehicles of the category.
Now it will be combat proven and it seems that Ukrainians prefer CV90, the German Marder is older not at the same level.
But Ukrainians will take everything...
Well cv90 has been in afrika. So i think it works in hotter weather.
CV90 is a modular platform while the booker is a light tank. Therse is no comparison
The modular word is used randomly by too many people.
The Boxer and the KF-41 are truly modular. You change a module, and you have a completely different role.
The M10 Booker is based on an ASCOD 2 platform.
The ASCOD platform and CV90 platform both have the same kind of design and existing variants. They are as modular as each other. They are of the same period in time, same weight category evolution for both platforms.
Your comment should have been "it's a light tank", the CV90 is mostly an IFV.
His video is stupid, and his comparison is absurd. But your comment is not very good either.
@@fabr5747 i guess i should said modular design instead of platform. There is no other chassi that is available in so many configurations as the CV90, now latest with the Mjölner mortar system.
@@andersmalmgren6528
Can you explain what you mean with modular in a none-generic term?
It is being commercially overused...
Every variant is fully redesigned. There is nothing modular in that.
And yes, there are platforms that have as many variants...
- Mowag Piranha
- Boxer
- ASCOD
What those vehicles are:
- a box with a more are less standard size.
- an engine box
- every client can change their engine / transmission, but sometimes modifications are needed
- depending on the desired electronic supplier / turret, the full electronic and electric circuit has to be redesigned.
What is modular in the CV90?
Maybe the E30 turret with different canons, NOW THAT IT HAS BEEN DESIGNED.
@@fabr5747 everything with the CV90 have been designed for easy adoption of new roles. No other chassi have seen the same amount of configurations.
@@andersmalmgren6528
The Boxer... The Piranha
You say very generic stuff without any real modular element.
The CV90 is a great platform. But NOTHING that you're saying shows any modularity.
And the number of configurations is just an indication of commercial success, not of modularity.
So tell me facts.
CV90 is better and has many variant a well already tested battle vehicle while M10 booker is just a prototype without any proof of it's reliability in battle field
They are both obsolete but at least the cv90 isnt 13 million dollars for a vehicle a ten thousand dollar russian drone will destroy. The US has thousands of resverve M1A1 tanks with better armor and the exact same gun sitting in the desert, already paid for.
The Booker is special purpose built for a specific role.
@@ruhtraeregelThen I guess ever Russian BTR and BMP are also obsolete lol. Guess everyone should just fight on foot according to your logic.
@@ruhtraeregelyou should fly to Ukraine to let them and the Russians know that their vehicles are obsolete.
@@ruhtraeregel but the cv90 is more modern with its new mk4 and mk5 variants that already are designed to protect against drones. It has TROPHY defence system and other things such as proxy rounds to shoot at drones...
CV is an IFV
Booker is a light tank
-having said that the booker, being a light TANK should have better armor and a big sabot firing gun. Then attached to infantry units as support; compared to MBTs which have their own separate units separate from the infantry and cant be relied upon by the latter if a squad or playoon gets stuck somewhere.
-Main Battle Tank units are the horse cavalry of past times and separate from the infantry. The infantry squad, platoon and company needs a vehicle under their direct ownership..
@HikerBikerMoter MBt:s without support from infantry is a bad idea, especialy in modern warfare. Many battle take place in citys or Village and MBT:s are vulnerable to hade heald anti tank weapons. The support from infantry in some form is crusial. That's where the CV90 comes in.
The m10 is for light infantry like airborne. Those units are light weight and fast moving and needed a vehicle that could provide on the spot direct fire support so they didn't half to wait on indirect to set up.The infantry that serve along side American M1 tanks are known as heavy mech infantry. Heavy because they use the Bradley fighting vehicle to fight. The Bradley is also a capable platform with heavy Calibre weapons as well as Abrams support should they need it. They won't be getting the new m10 booker because they simply don't need it but the army is also getting a new infantry fighting vehicle that will go to the heavy infantry in place of the Bradley.
M10s gun isnt really designed to go against tanks though, the sabot round if anything will be used on lighter armored vehicles like IFV. M10 is only designed for infantry support and giving them a mobile battering ram so to speak.
@@ashleygoggs5679sabot rounds are most effective on MBT's. They have little affect on ifv's. The penetrator is too hard and the armor is too soft on an ifv. Look up the battle of 73 easting. The one American serviceman that was killed in that battle was hit by an ifv that had been serviced with a sabot earlier that day. HEAT is the best thing for an ifv. FYI a NATO 105mm high pressure cannon is plenty of armament to deal with Soviet T series tanks if need be. It's the armor protection or lack of that makes the booker less than ideal for tank on tank warfare not the armament.
@tymt84 correct.. the Bradley IS decades old technology so if only for that is being replaced (personally though I've never been a fan of aluminum on an armored vehicle)
They seem to be pretty equal. With the exception of that Cv90 has been around for a while now. And worked out the problems you always have with a new construction. Great hopes for the M10. And as allies we will help each other from now. A koncept for great winnings 😊
you should look deeper into the CV90 variants then it's nowhere close.
M10 is a turret on tracks -
cv90 is aplatform that can be and IFV with a 35-50 mm cannon a double barrel mortar platform - or even 120 mm cannon and have room for infatery ....
the autocannon version of the cv90 mk5 is also heavily modeifed to deal with drones using air burst ammo that can even be networked for increased area detection and fire solutions
m10's need other platforms to cover that
@@beidorion Not to mention that the Swedish CV90 is armed with an old AA canon, and exists in an AA version. Meaning that if a strike aircraft decides to mess with a column of CV90's, the AA vehicle can acquire the target, whereafter the whole column becomes a AAA battery.
@@jakobholgersson4400 I've sometime seen the claim that the 30/35 mm version is better for AA. I think someone once wrote that there was no programmable ammunition for whatever I mentioned but I may have said 25 mm then. Seem like everyone else have chosen the 30 or 35 mm models. Also for the latest model they have made it with a 50 mm gun in the turret, plus Bofors do make a 57 mm gun with programmable ammunition which are used on the ships.
@@beidorion The finns autoloading mortar systems are cooler.
@ 40mm is better for AA use over the 30 and 35mm due too the 40 mm have access to proximity rounds. It also has longer range and higher rate of fire.
Which one is the best? My vote is on the one that has the 40mm meatball cannon!
CV90 can have either a 105mm or 120mm direct fire option. The 105mm is a less demanding option on the chassis/hull. The US could have saved itself billions by simply licence building the BAE CV90 -105.
I understand the desire to have a home grown solution but in the modern world BAE/US is little different to GM. A factory in the US building licenced versions of upgraded CV90 -105 would have major export sales potential and secure many american jobs. It would be a fantastic vehicle for Taiwan, Japan and even Australia.
There is also some level of NATO standardisation with CV90. Making it the preferred logistic option too.
The 105 mm one makes it a light tank.
A mere 40mm is basically an IFV
@HikerBikerMoter A light tank doesn't have the capability to transport and house infantry so no it's still an IFV.
@@gusgone4527
Home grown solution...OK.but, but, but... US Army has adopted the Stryker... and what is the Stryker ?
One of the many variations of the Swiss Piranha, nothing else.
It seems that US industry was unable to develop such a vehicle so they buy the Swiss company MOWAG in order to produce the vehicle where they want.
Business is Business and RD another thing...
In mine opinion, i would go for the CV90 with 40mm Bofors. Fitted with anti tank missiles, then you would have the capability to engage tanks and with the 40mm you more the enough firepower to take out infantry, armoured vehicles, planes, drones and buildings. With the programmeble ammunition of the 40 mm, you are able to give much support to the infantry, I think much more the the big bore cannon of the Booker. I think the way to engage tanks now, is more with missiles then with tanks. And the Booker is in mine eyes more a tank then an IFV. PS, maybe here and there i misspelled something, sorry for that !
CV90120 is a nice setup 👍🏻
CV90 is allready tested and works great. Can act as troop transport whit 40mm. OR act as a light tank whit 120mm cannon OR act a a indirect fire (Mjölner). It is superios in many ways.
Add in APC, 105mm gun, SPAA variants.
You can't really compare the Booker with a CV90 as they serve in very different roles. I guess you could take a CV90105 and compare that with the Booker and it would be a fair comparison in some sense. But the Booker is a very purpose built vehicle that is suppose to serve in one specific type of role. From the specification of a new MkIV CV90 the CV90 seem to have allot more technological advantages built into the chassis and turret and overal seem like a more advanced vehicle but the US probably are not telling about all the things the Booker can do. I would say they are likely comparable vehicles if deployed in a combat support role as the US intend to deploy the Booker.
There is no denying that having the same chassis as CV90 makes all the variants a lot cheaper for Sweden in general. But that is not the case for the US if they do not start to license produce them, but it is an option as the factories are at full capacity and a deal for Ukraine to do so is in the works.
@@benktlofgren4710 I've heard before that it wasn't likely much production would end up in Ukraine.
Regarding production volumes/effectiveness USA have/order so much gear by themselves.
@ The thing is in Sweden production lines are overfilled for the foreseeable future, so if you want a license and produce domestically it is your chance.
As much as I would like to root for the home team it seems to be the CV90 is the much more developed and much more mature platform.
New CV90MkIV D-series of turrets, including ATGM and Active protection system and Akeron 5th Gen Missile.
The cv90 offers also ADAPTIV protection and Mobile Camouflage System (MCS)
it makes little sense to compare the two. It's like asking which is best, a Buggati Veyron or a Toyota Hilux pickup? It depends on what purpose you intend to use it for.
Why show the BAE light tank? Not enough pics of the M10
I read in a swedish news paper that the CV90 survived a direct hit on the turret from artillary in Ukraine. That tells not just a little bit about its survivability capabilities. I would much rather sit in the proven CV90 in a combat zone.
And the Russians like to say it was defeated by an RPG-7. Though that CV90 also seemed to have a hole in its side not just on the turret.
the question is if M10 Booker can be matched with a cv90 not the other way around.
why is this even a comparison? One is an IFV, and the other is a light tank in all but name (AFV). Two different fighting doctrines. IFVs were the initial reason the world stopped producing light tanks because they could perform most of the duties almost as well AND carry troops, so it was cost effective. However, many nations realized that there is a capability gap in armor/firepower coverage between, IFVs and MBTs. The M1128 MGS (and similar systems) did attempt to fill that gap; however, they lacked the armor. Hence the U.S. and other nations (not in that order) started producing light tanks again. IFVs are more well-rounded in capabilities however, there are some capabilities that they're lacking in when compared to a light Tank.
well in Sweden we have the CV90120. the CV9030 IFV. the CV9035 IFV. CV90MJÖLNER-twin 120 mm mortar system. and the CV90 APC. and that's only 5 out of 15 variants to be honest I don't know the other 10 maybe State secrets or something if someone else know I would be happy to know because I'm a bit of a military geek. 😊
Well,I might be parisan since I'm Swedish and we sent 50 CV 90 to Ukraine with a promise to send more.Sweden is producing new CV 90 exclusively for Ukraine and stopped all orders to other nations.
It's Battle tested and been proven very effective,the American is not,so for the moment I need to go with Sweden😁🇸🇪
This is like comparing the cv90 to m88 recovery vehicles or paladin self propelled artillery vehicles. They are different vehicles with different roles.
"Wich one is better! AT what?. They are designed for diffrent climate AND tactical situations. I guess you can test them and compare wich one is better at solving the other vehicles combat duty but since they wasnt designrd for that itll still SUCK at deciding wich is better. Is a tank better than a battleship at flying?
It's hard to say . One thing for sure the CV90 has been around for quite a while and has been extensively tested .
and the cv90 it is better in every single way...
@@nikmub6023 no it isent
@@obt-cinder you can't even spell mate
@@nikmub6023 says the ghost that's probably 100's of years old when you were alive were you apart of the spelling police?
It's more like if Booker M10 can get even nearly as good as the CV90 is. CV90 is the best money can buy, though it ain't the most expensive. Rather have CV90 than over priced US junk.
Simmer down mikkorenvall428v. We are all friends here.
Föreställ dig att du är en vuxen, respektabel människa när du skriver så är du på rätt spår.
Jag skulle ha utelämna den sista meningen.
Det ända den åstadkommer Är att övertyga amerikaner att svenskar är dum-dryga, då meningen läses som en ren förolämpning.
För du vet ju vreden du känner när andra talar ned på ett sådan avfärdande vis om våra kära svenska skräcksmaskiner.😉
So the M10 can poison it's occupants which suggests it's been rushed through testing while the CV90 performs the same role, works well, is battle proven and is easier to maintain as multiple variations are available on the same platform. It's not exactly Sofie's Choice here is it.
O Booker parece ter uma arma de 105 mm pelas mesmas razões q os primeiros CV90 montaram a Bofors 40 mm. Há munição em abundância. E neste ponto faz sentido. Mas o CV90 é um IFV, tem múltiplas variantes, todas levam tropas, e entre as mais recentes há opções para melhor blindagem, e versão com arma de 120 mm, standard NATO. Mais potente e mais leve, no papel o CV90 parece melhor, até nos custos. Contudo, derradeiramente, um sistema é tão bom quanto a forma como é integrado e efetivamente utilizado. Devia comparar-se as versões mais próximas destes veículos, mas também a forma como serão incorporados nas forças que servirão.
The CV 90 is better and will always be better, using the NATO standard 120 is better than a 105. That aside, the Booker will be more expensive and sold in higher numbers because the US will "advise" potential buyers to buy the Booker, just as they did in any face off between the SAAB 37 and US fighter jets (the US even classified the civil JTD8 engine as sensitive military equipment to stop exports).
These are such different platforms, comparing them makes no sense.
not really. THe cv90 has variants serving the same role as the m10. But at the same time being better and with multiple other variants making it a more atractive vehicle
Not really the same but the lifespan of the Booker M10 could be very short and need a redesign.
The new Abrams M1E3 likely could outpace and outrange the Booker M10 making it a much less versatile.
The Ukraine has been a big wake up call to the US with the M1SEPV4 scrapped and M1SEPV3 reduced in numbers as the abrams ground pressure reduced its coverage to far too few chokepoints and its signature is huge.
The Booker was designed with the SepV3/SepV4 in mind and likely needs to go back to the drawing board also using hybrid drive with silent mode and the newer hi tech fabrication modes that have shaved off 25% of the M1E3 weight and extended range by 50%.
Newer tech such as 3d printing with newer materials likely means all tanks can reduce weight whilst offering similar or greater protection levels.
We might see a newer booker that becomes the MBT of choice where the Abrams is a heavy MBT for rear echelon support.
Modern technology is changing the battlefield and tank we have known post WWII where battlefield surveillance is forcing a new doctrine.
Booker is old even before it’s released
I hope the CV90 is built under a license agreement in Ukraine...... I hope the CV90 is adopted by other NATO members......
It will be, just the complete deal is not hammered out yet.
The deal for a Swedish factory in Ukraine didn't go through. But the Ukrainians will build their own factory to build CV90s. It's all but confirmed now. It will most likely take a couple of years to have the line up and running, but not much longer than that.
The CV-90 has been around forever, so of course, it's going to have more variants than the Booker. However, the Booker is a FRESH DESIGN. There is probably more technology being added to the Booker because it's brand new. Both are awesome vehicles, but, I'm going with the Booker model. It feels and looks like an emergence of the famous Sherman tanks, that was seen at the end of WWII. Good to see the Booker being used in the U.S. Army! Thanks for the video 📸.
Terrible argument.
Also terrible comparison to talk about the Sherman tanks. They are nowhere close in terms of looks or use or armament, and the Sherman tank was notorius for being extremely shit and underwhelming in combat.
Idk where you were going with this hahahaha
@@AnonyMous-ql9nj "and the Sherman tank was notorius for being extremely shit and underwhelming in combat."
This is a terrible opinion. No one who knows absolutely anything has ever stated this, even the Russians during WWII loved their Sherman's.
"Idk where you were going with this hahahaha"
Yea and everyone wished you would lay off the crack pipe as your opinions are wild.
Booker is an Light Tank not an IFV, you should compare with CV90120 instead .
Your video shows 2 completely mismatched vehicles that are intended for 2 completely different roles as AFV’s.
And, the one version of the CV90 that would be remotely relevant, and used as a general comparison, would surely be the 120mm Gun armed CV90? This version wasn’t mentioned, even in passing comment, in the video🤷🏽♂️
I think the ‘M10 v CV90’ bit in the title of this video is very misleading…
The M10 Booker was created by modifying the Ascod IFV! The Ascod IFV is just as excellent a vehicle as the CV90.
The Bönker vs the Booker, so to say
The Ascood Sabrah Light Tank of the Philippine Army is Good Tank made in Israel and Spain❤
Two different types of light tanks with different functions and purposes. With military equipment it’s hard to compare like for like as designed for different purposes for different military doctrine
The M 10 hasn't even finished being developed. So, stoopid question
Yes it has, otherwise it wouldn’t be the “M10”.
@@GridlockedWrong. A YT channel can call it anything. Rent IQ
M10 is the official designation?
@@Marcus-p5i5s No you are wrong.
US vehicles are only given a designation when they are completed, if it was still being developed it would be the XM10.
@@aflyingcowboy31 So, show us a completed M 10. Or, admit they are not in production
That booker…. We smell a copy here, didnt know that americans are just as well ready to copying stuff as the chinese
Great video remember the rest of the world have no clue about miles per hour, gallons or inches😏😉🐶
These are meant for different jobs not the best comparison. The booker is meant for one job only
M-10 Booker isn’t real, it’s aspirational.
It’s on paper.
Oh? Why are there already M10s that have been produced then?
Cv90 the better by far!
Does the Booker have a "Ghost option" as well? Why even spend money on researching a new IVF ? When one can just buy one that exist.
CV90 is combat proven. US should buy it.
CV90 ftw!
My zaprojektowalismy andersa.. lekki czolg z wieza bezzalogowa i dzialem 120mm ale nie wszedl do produkcji z powodu wiecznego pokoju w europie nasi politycy porzucili projekt..
Two different types of vehicles, like comparing a van with a go-cart, both have wheels, someone that drives it and it runs on fuel.
Smh
Lets see one is an infantry carrier and the other is specialized light tank. They have different jobs. 🤷♂ If you had to move infantry the CV-90 is better. If you had to fight to the Death the Booker is likely better.
The US should just buy 1000 of the CV90… Why try to invent the wheel again… it would save a lot of money…❤
Essa comparação foi muito mal feita por que deveria ser comparado com o CV 90, 120 MM e não con
CV 90, 30 😠👎
even then the roles are very different and booker would be better for the role
Did they shoot that missile at an L3!? 😂
WHAT purpose is the new ' light tank' ? at near 40 tons, not easily transportable. and uses the same smallish 105 gun as the 18 ton Stryker.... waste of taxpayer funds. better spent on emergency war production of a version of the German Gepard, anti drone D'. say 500 for US , 500 for Ukr , several hundred for Taiwan etc. probably on the 'mine resistant armored trucks' of the Iraq era. thus already PAID for and produced.
CV90
Why not just upgrade a M4 Sherman instead?
Cv90 is in Ukraine hands, next stop Crimea
nah you think they have like 2000 of them 😂
Ukraine is really kicking Russian butt. They will take Crimea any day now. Right?
@@asymptoticsingularity9281 yes most likely by the end of December
@@kevinkant6817 😂😂
@@asymptoticsingularity9281
Didn’t people say that like a year ago lol
That M10 doesn't do anything in the forests and snow of the north. A death trap
You'd know wouldn't ya
Cv-90 can carry 7-8 troops. I haven’t seen anything on the booker.
I would take cv90.
both are slower than the harimau tank.
M10 booker the joke of the century😂😅😂
Apples and pears....
The Rheinmetall Lynx 120 is better than both of them!
M10 has issues. A lot of issues. Just another defense dept dud in a long line of dud's....
🇸🇪
Well, the 🇺🇸 M-10 Booker...of course... 😁👍
no lmao cv90 solos. best in the world! :D
@@simonhultgren7778 👎
it aint even in service whilst the cv90 is combat proven? and the cv90 is more modern with its new mk4 and mk5 variants???
@@nikmub6023 Well, then you don't actually know, then...
@@dioghaltasfoirneartach7258 based on the fact that it has been in development for a long time and recently still had major issues like POISONING THE CREW. i'd confidentaly say the cv90 is better in almost all aspects
Just ask Ukraine 🇸🇪
cv90 victory
Both not worth aganist orcs
The Booker has far weaker armor than Leopard tanks or even Russian T72a. Both of which are vulnerable and obsolete compared to modern ATGM or cheap 20k$ drones. Thousands of T72s are scrap. Its got the same gun as the M1A1 of which there is THOUSANDS in reserve in US deserts. It still weighs 43 tons so not so mobile and it cant be air dropped. Its also 13 million dollars a piece and will not withstand 20k$ drones or cheap infantry based ATGMS like kornet or even RPG7s wielded by 12 year old tribesmen. Its absolutely useless and a waste of money. Its a deathtrap. US defense industry just keeps producing whatever they can put the biggest price tag on. Meanwhile much poorer Russia is outproducing and outdoing the entire western world in Military industrisl producing and far cheaper more effective weapons syste, Because their Military industrial complex is state owned therefore serves the state or else the industry leaders suddely come down with a unfortunate case of death. The monopoly of corporate entities in the US needs to be dealt with. The US has proven its incapable of winning a war vs china or even Russia, a conventional war.
It's not an MBT, the booker is a light tank that brings 105 mm firepower to infantry division that normally wouldn't have such capabilities.
No, leopards, t72s, Abrams , t90s etc. Are not obsolete. Sure, they are vulnerable to atgm, drones, artillery but there has never been a time in history when tanks weren't vulnerable to artillery or AT weapons. When it comes to drones, before to long, anti drone systems will be mass produced, making cheap drones significantly less effective or entirely obsolete.
If you think the US is incapable of winning a conventional war against Russia, you are clearly brain damaged.
Ok kid
@ruhtraeregel truth has been spoken
Well, actually, take the same first Mbt in the world with combined armor and a 125 mm t-64 cannon, it weighed 36 tons, and had anti-shell protection.This is for a moment about the characteristics as a reference, than now it is not a light tank, in the Western sense?
Because in the Russian understanding, a light tank is the level of a SPRUT tank, there are 18+ tons of weight and all the same 125 mm cannon.
And yes, for the state, the t-72 b3m costs a little more than $ 2 million, the t-90m is a little more expensive
CV90 is better.
Not rivals but best friends
🇸🇪❤🇺🇸
Comparing an IFV CV90 vs Light Tank M10. In short the M10 is a waste of money. You can buy a Japanese Type 10 MB Tank with same price and get more armor and fire power with the same weight.
A 12.7 mm is a .50 cal. He really hates the imperial system and I understand.
great. even the UK (it's pappy) have abandoned most imperial measurement scales for the generically known as "metric" system