US New COMBAT Vehicle Will Change Battlefield FOREVER!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 тра 2024
- The M10 Booker is not the future of armored vehicles but the present. After years of development, this light tank has been designed in a category of vehicle all on its own. It’s an exciting offering courtesy of the US Army and as it becomes introduced into service, it threatens to become ever-present on the battlefield. There’s a reason why the Booker won the Army’s mobile-protected firepower program. Let’s find out why.
For copyright matters please contact us at: ytproductionvideo@gmail.com
Video and image credit: General Dynamics Land Systems; The Wall Street Journal.
I am a 69 year old retired U.S. Army Master Sergeant (E8/1972-1993) and former Defense Contractor (2005-2010). In my opinion this is a total waste of money! Although tracked, this is similar to the M1128 wheeled Mobile Gun System and will probably end up going the same way in the end. They can tell you what is isn't, but have a hard time articulating what it is. While they deny it, this is nothing more or less than a light tank and much more vulnerable because of that. When heavy tanks are having a tough time on the battlefields of Ukraine, how do you think this vehicle will do against drones and anti-armor weapons? What is really needed in my opinion are assault guns and flame thrower tanks for urban environments. We haven't had something like an assault gun since we retired the M728 Combat Engineer Vehicle. It's replacement, the M1150 Assault Breacher Vehicle, got rid of the gun which in my opinion was a silly decision. The 165mm M135 short-barreled demolition gun which fired HEP (high explosive, plastic) squash head ammunition was perfect for dealing with structures and fortifications of all types in an urban environment. I know since I was a mechanized combat engineer squad leader in an Armored Cav Regiment from 1980-1984, and we had these vehicles. Flame thrower tanks should also be brought back as well. They have an extreme psychological and intimidation effect on the battlefield and are great for clearing people out of structures and fortifications. Getting rid of flamethrowers of all types was one of the biggest mistakes the army made years ago when the decision was made to eliminate them.
Sadly the government signed a ban agreement on the use of flame throwers.
I hope the US Army listens to the wisdom of this Master Sergeant. IMHO, this light tank will be used as Medium/Heavy tank when those heavier vehicles have been rendered inoperative/down for maintenance. They will then be slaughtered because they were not designed for the main attack. Don't misunderstand me, the Booker has a place in the lineup, just not the front of the line. The problem in not the vehicle, training, troops or doctrine; it will be the generals that insist that brigade and battalion commanders continue their mission with inadequate resources. This has always been the case. Oh, I also retired from the US Army, ATGM platoon leader, but issued 106 mm Recoilless Rifles (see my point), M 60A1 Tank platoon leader facing T-72 and beyond, Flight School then AeroScout platoon leader with OH-58 A Kiowa when the RAH-66 Comanche was a dream come true. So, I think I have an informed opinion.
Yes, I think you are right
Considering the reason why tanks are struggling in Ukraine is that armor doesn't really matter anymore against anti tank missiles and suicide drones currently I don't see the armor level being that big of a handicap. Last time I checked the lighter vehicles don't get stuck in mud as easy as heavy vehicles like what happened with the tigers for Nazi Germany
@@danielsnook7362 Yes, it does matter. Its all about crew survivability. While the NATO heavy tanks have been knocked out in Ukraine, most or all of the crew survived in most of those incidents thanks to all that armor and protection. Tanks are easier to replace then comeptent well trained crews. Just ask the Russians about this. Most of the time their crews do NOT survive as crew survivability seems to be a much lower priority to them.
Nine minutes of vague claims and generalities. This was more like a marketing pitch than an informative review.
The marketing is over. It's in production.
MrDino1953 is talking about the video, not marketing@@tommygun5038
true i agree
Agreed. This is a total waste of money and dangerous to its crew members
@@kevinblackburn3198 i think tanks are now becoming support platforms, not nearly as useful where in ukraine you can see people disabling tanks with a 300 buck cheap drone and explosives. look at israel they lost a good number to drones with hand grenades just dropping them into groups of sleeping or resting soldiers.
The angled armor exposing the turret ring seem to be a glaring flaw.
Absolutely. A horribly bad idea. Drones will nest there.
@@jerseyjeeper1575 Well if it uses a evolution of Trophy it may not matter.
Don't worry, it doesn't have any armor so no need to aim for any specific weak spot.
Really? Change the battlefield for ever? Watching events in Ukraine really does not make me think this no doubt wonderful vehicle is going to change anything. Was waiting to hear details of how it was going to be designed to deal with dense mine fields and drone swarms. The chain gun on the Bradly is currently looking at one of the most effective weapons you can have! Active defence systems like Trophy? Did I miss something?
Thinking about this swarms of drones are mainly a result of a static line able to build up lines with drones ,artillery etc... With a thunder run of some type will be a different battle field so they will still need tanks etc..
I think this tank only good for Hollywood movie
Exactly my own thoughts. The Change the battlefield forever part I had to laugh off.
Agreed. I was a 19 kilo. I would never want to serve in this piece of crap
Floating tank like in Star Wars is the only way to overcome mine fields unfortunarely. Centuries away from such technology .
In WWII, the Sturmgeschütz was defined as an Assault vehicle. It was used a defacto tank by Field command despite 'orders' from above..
But it didnt have a turret.
@@AnthonyEvelyn
Exactly. This is even more likely to be used as a tank.
Come on, it's a light tank. Not tank-like, it's a tank.
lol
It's not a main battle tank. That's all.
I Think it more as the old stile Infantry support tank but some people will think it more like a M10 tank Destroyer the problem is it is not going up agenst a Tiger or Panther where the normal Gunner could not do what Michael Wisemans Gunner could in 007 he could fire on the move and his hit rate was three out of five all tanks of that time had to stop to get a final lay to fire even the M10
@@garywheble4534it’s not a tank destroyer because it cannot destroy MBTs. It’s gun is too small. It more like an APC destroyer.
@TheBooban the M10 had a 75mm gun not ideal to go up ageist Tigers or Panthers but it did . It used two methods attack from ambushe to the sides or the rear the other more dangerous but it worked they would aproch the Tiger Panther fron the side and circa around it getting closer on each rotation this took great skill from the driver commander and gunner .at the time most tanks turrets were hand cranked so they would lead the Tigers turret so they were just ahead of the gun when they got close enough for a kill shot they weighted until the Tiges barrel was towards the front speed up to the Tigers rear the M10 would then turn so there barrel was point blank on the Tigers engine come to a stop and fire then full reverse deply smoke turn then speed off the M10 had a fixed gun with limited traverse like the Stug 111
I can't believe they're still designing manned tanks
After WWII the US had the M41 Walker Bulldog and made it for Korea, then before Vietnam the Sheridan M551 which was a light recon vehicle for the cavalry regiments in Europe, Vietnam, and the 82nd Airborne Division. I can see a full circle going back for a light tank to support light infantry and to equip cavalry squadrons and troops with additional light armor capabilities. Old ideas become new again I ever wonder?
lol.. but it's not a light tank, it's mobile-protected firepower. See completely different. Just make sure you pay 10% for the big guy.
@@Nikolay_Grigoryev Basically infantry support firepower as in concept during the 1920s and what the British had during WWII. I agree on the 10% for the Big Guy...
at 40 tons it's about double the weight of the M1128 Stryker* though meant to protect the guys inside against more than just a ma deuce
*I know everybody hated the M1128 Stryker, but because they made it two hours away from where I live, it may be a piece of shit that everybody hated, but it's our piece of shit that everybody hated
I can't speak for the Bulldog. But the Sheridan armor was too thin to be truly effective. Especially for this modern battle space. I did like that main gun. The largest in the 82d Airborne.
Pretty sure they’re still using the Sheridan at fort Irwin in California
Looks like an updated FV101 Scorpion.
I was just going to post that it is a Scorpion on steroids 😅
It does.
@@jonathantalbot6513 There was talk of fitting the Scorpion with a 90mm cockerill gun last year - dunno it if ever got any further than talk though.
Scorpion was 8 tons. Booker is 40 tons.
@@williaminnes6635like I said on steroids 😂
I welded the Hull on the prototype of this tank back in 2014ish.
This is actually a tank from the 80s that has been cancelled 3 times Sue the 80s
They need an anti air version. Thales has a turret available that uses a 40 mm Rapidfire anti air cannon combined with Martlet missiles. Just pop one of them on every tenth Booker hull.
The US designed the Sgt York AA tank but dropped it because it cost too much and man pads could do the job cheaper, as usual it was a gold plated design as opposed to something that does the job without costing the earth, the Gepard is about the same vintage but it worked, and cost much less.
One word will destroy your marketing pitch like a drone on a tank: DRONE. Boomm......
4:40 it even integrates a hydration system for the soldiers to the right and back of the vehicle!!! Smart Water?
Surely it would have been better to have a 120mm gun for ammunition commonality. You could have had the cv90/120 .
The Army ditched that thought to save weight. Thus it is essentially a light, possibly an air droppable tank to replace the Sheridan. Why don't we call it that?
The US Army will do everything in it's power to make its own stuff. You're right, CV-120 would have probably been a cheaper and faster solution. From my understanding, the armor wasn't heavy enough for the army.
The army is still saddled with tons of 105mm tank rounds from when the Abrams got up gunned to 120mm.
They need to develop an automatic anti drone defense unit. (with both Jammers and activate hard kill systems) To mount on vehicles, and small remote operated vehicles.
Without such protection a vehicle like this is a waste of money.
I also think it would be better armed with a 50 mm chain gun, independent 40 mm GL, and auto reload ATGMs.
Or develop a 105 that can fire 50 rounds a minute.
A fully automatic system would be nice, but for now I think perhaps issuing tank crews with a fully automatic shotgun would be one hell of a lot better than nothing.
105 at 50 rounds a minute ? In a game perhaps 🤣
One of the best ways to take out drones is actually with drones and that's what they're working on
What they need is claymore like charges with ball bearings surrounding the turret of a tank that can be triggered manually, or by sensor. When a drone approaches, the anti drone charge detonates, spraying the drone with the ball bearings at high speed up and out.
Sounds like the M551 Sheridan, a metal coffin!
I concur but we should send all of our thousands of old tanks to Ukraine instead of our Best!
Any Weapons will do for a country that's been invaded by Russia. They need our help.
We just needed a lighter tank to travel over bridges and roads in European and Far Eastern countries, plus it helps getting them over there being lighter. Upgrading them with anti drone capabilities help too. Our MBT in WW2 was an M4 Sherman medium tank.
This is cute.
Even a fictional modernized Leopard 1 would offer comparable capabilities at a fraction of the system costs.
It never fails, every new piece of American equipment. They all come out. Yet, everyone wants American tech. Why is that?
@@SeanP7195 Because the US government subsidises the purchase price and turns a blind eye to corruption by US manufacturers of military equipment. Very few nations *want* most US equipment. French, German, and British equipment is often far better, but it's also often even more expensive and slower to deliver.
The Greeks are looking at an updated Leo1 right now trying to decide if they will buy them. It would make sense as it pretty much is a remanufacture from the ground up, but with upgrades in EVERY area.
@@iatsd Ummm, lol, what? You have any idea how many nations the US turns down for offers of their equipment. Everyone wants their ships, missiles, helicopters and jets. Not to mention Patriots and HIMARS. Even things like jeeps are highly desired. What a joke you are. And what blind eye to corruption are we talking about here? That’s Russia. The military gives strict guidelines for weapons systems. Few even bid on such contracts because of how difficult they are to get to specifications.
So it's a Sherman.
Awesome!😊
A roughly 40 to 42 tonne tank with a 105mm gun? High mobility with reasonable protection. The Leopard 1 was a great balance back in the day
Exactly. Even a fictional modernized Leopard 1 would offer comparable capabilities at a fraction of the system costs.
Amx 13 was same
@@kevinspooner4001 was the AMX13 not significantly lighter?
As in the name refers to 13 tonne initial production weight?
The French AMX30 was even better. Only slightly heavier than the Leo 1, but much better protection and a better all around tank. A modernised AMX30 with the Swiss low recoil 120mm, full stabilisation and modern FCS, with add on modular armour sets and an APS system that actually worked would be far cheaper and far more effective overall.
We something like the Gepard. Proven against drones, anti-air. Twin 54mm bushmaster canons.
It's basically the same as an AMX-13 105, a Kurassier, or the Textron Stingray. You are simply paying $12.9 million a piece for an old idea.
Poland has a similar system with a 120mm gun. Same with South Korea. Turkey can put a 105mm on their Otokar Arma for about $2 million. Japanese Type 10 MBT is $11.3 million or you could get the Type 16 fire support vehicle for $6.2 million.
The only thing revolutionary about the M10 Booker is how quickly it is ripping off the American taxpayer.
Ahhh there they are, the experts. Yeah, I’m sure it has no improvement’s whatsoever. Every new American weapon systems we have people like you.
@@SeanP7195 note the word "basically" that does not mean there are zero differences. Simply that the function is the same. Again, it is basically the same as those other systems and serves basically the same function. But you, assuming you are an American tax payer, are paying $12.9 million per for an old idea. Some estimates have the total going over $14 million each.
Frankly, I do believe the U.S. military needs light tanks and fire support vehicles. But, there are cheaper ways of achieving the same ends because cheaper systems do basically the same thing.
Reason and context Sean.
@@now0530 An old idea doesn’t mean an old system. The STOVL feature in an F-35 was originally designed for a jet (can’t remember its name) in the 70s. This gave LM a huge advantage when creating the F-35 over Boeing as they already had experience with this complex design. Now, that doesn’t mean we can just dust off the blueprints from that jet in the 70s. You are comparing apples to oranges here. The .50 caliber has been around since the 19th century for instance.
@@SeanP7195 Only the first few I mentioned were old systems. There are cheaper contemporary systems from Turkey, South Korea, Poland, Japan etc...
Even the contemporary systems are based off the old idea and serve the same ends.
@@now0530 Every war we find out why these systems are cheaper. I remember in the 80s people screaming about how much more expensive the F-15 was over the MiG-29 “which basically did the same thing”. Well, 40 years later one is an icon and the other is a discount fighter to developing nations.
If you don't plan for anti-drone defense you're pissing in the wind these days
this astounding machine enables the crew to apply their makeup on the run..............
*Derived from the Austrian-Spanish ASCOD infantry fighting vehicle-platform, the GDLS Griffin II was offered under Army's Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF). In accordance with the program's caliber requirements, it incorporated a 105 mm M35 tank gun and a redesigned chassis.*
DRONES CHANGED THE BATTLE FIELD FOREVER... THAT LIGHT TANK WILL EASY PREY AGAINST ENEMY DRONES...
Actually Its been a really smooth and fast development for a US armored vehicle. I like it, they did the procurement right with all the basics done well and nothing more. The suspension is a big deal. The UK has used this kind of suspension great effect in the Challenger 2
Looks similar with the AMX 10 RC: a significant amount of of fire on a light and fast platform.
Super ergonomics
It’s great
I like the vechicle, but it has the wrong gun. For pretty much any mission, the 105 is either too big or not big enough. I'd have gone with a vehicle with the same chassis, but with the entire crew down in the hull for better protection. The crew capsule would be armored to STANAG level 6. The turret would be an unmanned remote weapons systems, with either the French 40mm CTA gun, ore the 50mm Bushmster from the Griffin II demonstrator. The gun would have a high level of elevation for urbar or AA warfare. Of course there's be a coax 7.62mm MG. In addition, the RWS would have modular bolt on armored box launchers for a mumber of missiles (Hellfire, Javelin, Stinger, 70mm Hydra, and any other necessary. The vehicle would have a acive protection system to defeat ATGMs. This vehicle would be lighter, better protected. more versatile. and cheaper to operate (only 3 man crew) than the M19 as it currently exists.
😂 do you know how many experts design these things.😂😂😂
@@tclanjtopsom4846 Do you know they don't think outside the box, fixed into the bigger is better trap.
It would be more effective with a 50mm auto cannon, independent 40mm GL, and auto reload ATGMs. The big main gun is slow and limited use. Unless they build one that can fire 50 rounds a minute its just a mini me tank with the same fire power shortages, the MBTs have. Check out the fixes with multiple MGs and weapons added on
@vonSchwartzwolfe they now have modular construction designed by Ai. Pretty sure the box isnt even in the picture.
Couple things. It’s important to have an abundant shell. We’ve seen how important this is in Ukraine. It could have a new shell that is only applicable to it, which is an expensive logistical nightmare. Second, the 50mm Bushmaster will most probably be used on the soon to be developed IFV. They are creating a new system of support for light infantry troops. So many things to consider here that are being missed by online “experts”. For instance, its weight and silhouette are important as two can be transporter by plane at a time instead of only one Abrams. C-5s can spend over 100k worth of fuel on one long range flight to a war zone. It’s so much more than just “it should have a bigger this, smaller that, thicker this”.
It’s not a video game were you can slap on all the goodies that you want and they just appear. You’re advocating for 150k Hellfire missiles to be put on this. A highly sophisticated system that requires tremendous knowledge and maintenance to use. Not to mention those systems can take years to build. Some of our advanced systems can take two years to make which require large amounts of rare earth materials which are not in abundance (hence rare earth). The few companies that can manufacture these things are already years behind in production.
In a combat brigade this booker fits. Mated with a couple bradley a3 and a few abrams and some air support i see this as a good thing. The Abrams are still needed no mattter what but a booker with bradleys and a atgm squad yeah the would run over alot of forces.
The angled armor exposing the turret ring seem to be a glaring flaw.
Well, the Bradley is going away.
@@secondamendment8773 Yeah. A "cost saving" measure for sure. This looks like a major flaw in today's guided AT missiles.
Front-mounting the engine gave the designers a perfect opportunity to include a rear hatch, like the one on the Israeli Merkava, for ease of escape, and potential storage space for additional ammo. Looks like they didn't do that.
And how did it end for merks? Battle rating is lower than we thought
Not calling it a light tank is fine, but they’re manning it with soldiers with a tanker MOS. Tankers are naturally going to use it like a main battle tank.
I was Artillery British we had a Series of tracked vehicals called the 43 series one of which was the 433 this was an SPG it used the same hull engine trakes as the 432 APC when we moved forward to help the PBIs because of the sound of the 433 and 432 was the same the enemy did not know what was going on they thought it was a 432 with another load of infantry opps wrong with the 105 gun it make a mess of there strong house again because of its size and lightness it could move where no tank or 60 to 80 tones could go and be alot quite . Normaly two rounds did the job then pull out and back to our unit we also had our Owen infantry cover in there 432 to keep us safe we were not under the illusion that we were a tank so did not take any risks if someone told us there was a T 72 with a 125 gun I would tell them Politely where to go . And yes we did have tanks to travel with the tread heads but our goverment being tight fisted they thought giving us Centurion MK13s was OK not realising we stood out like a sore thumb among the Chieftains high Ivan guse what we do with a differant tank and more aerials than a Radio station it did not take them long to figger out what and who was who . But even useing tanks we did not have the tankers attitude of nothing can harm me let's get stuck in we would normaly be at the back in amoung the replacement tanks or reserve as my TC told me our job is to gather information and give fire support not sslug it out with ever trigger happy Ivan
Well I'm sure a 105 heat shell can kill a mbt if a 84mm carl gustov can
@@garywheble4534I think the average US Tankie would treat it as a tank just like the M1128 Mobile Gun System it’s not a Tank !
@jonathantalbot6513 The Booker is a tank period. The mistake they made with the MGS was putting 19Ks (tankers) as the crews instead of say 19D (Scouts) or even bringing back the 11H MOS (Infantry Anti Armor who were trained for the TOW system)
Ok I’ll concede it is a tank but a very light one or infantry tank and you would not want to get into a tank battle with any MBT in it.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry_tank
It's a nice little tank.
NO ES UN TANQUE ES UN VEHÍCULO DE APOYO DE INFANTERÍA , HAY TAMBIÉN UNO DE TRANSPORTE DE TROPAS CON CAÑON DE 30mm Y MISILES SPIKE Y OTRO CON UN MORTERO AUTOMÁTICO
The armor must be very strong...40 tons for a small tank. The T-72B3 is 46 tons. Only 6 tons more for a MBT.
just as easily destroyed as every other tank these days. I was a tanker in the 70's, at least we had a chance back then but not any more....
Nothing can replace the M1 Abrams
It’s DOA.
“Mister Booker, meet Mister FPV Suicide Drone.”
💥
You know what's going to be funny when a $200 drone takes out this 10 million tank the battlefield is changing and while they still may be effective in certain circumstances are ridiculously easy to take out with a drone
It appears that the nose of this vehicle extends in front of the tracks, a major flaw of the M114s that I served on in the seventies since it limits the vehicle's ability to get over a berm without digging the nose in.
The ultimate point here is the Booker isn't a vehicle that will change the battlefield FOREVER, that was the original WW1 tank, this will either be reasonably successful or totally useless like so many before it. Forget how great it is in testing the real test is actual battle, it will depend on how it can be used on the modern battlefield with, ATGW, Drones, Mines, LAWS,(various types), 30-50mm Hi- velocity Auto Cannon, all around, and how quickly it can be taken out. Can it "DO IT TO THEM BEFORE THEY DO IT TO IT"!!
The US Army does not want this vehicle called a "Light Tank" as they think that folks will expect it to take on other tanks. And we don't call them 12.7mm guns. We call them .50 caliber guns.
The name "M-10" made me think of the A-10 warthog 30MM gun on a light tank.
Last light tank we had was the Sheridan. They can call it whatever they want its still a tank and its a waste of money
Yeah, okay, you sold me! Can I get one in red with a white racing stripe and Crager wheels? Does it come with 8 track or cassette?
A key purpose of the Booker is to enable armored infantry support using the narrow roads and bridges of Europe. The Abrams cannot pass over most bridges and roads on mountainous terrain. It would be a prudent idea to add anti-tank rockets like the Javelin or TOW to the Booker to defend itself from enemy tanks.
I like the engine in the front like the Merkava, but I would put a hatch in the back for four to six infantry mounts. For a gun I would use the high speed 50mm chain gun. The 25mm has proven effective against tanks if you can put enough fire on the target close enough. A 50mm firing at the same rate would be devastating. On top of the 50mm I would have an independent remotely controlled 50cal both guns should be controlled by a joy stick with full automatic loading. Crew of three driver, main gunner, commander and 50 cal operator.
I hope some commander doesn’t make some decision to use this “tanks” in some inappropriate manner. Like happened with the Styker.
Yeah I hear criticism similar to the whining about the WWII Sherman which suffered but in the end worked for us. Experience with military equipment throughout the ages often doesn't jive with what we thought we got! That Roman legionnaire throwing a poorly made javelin probably thought, when it bent, nuts! Then he saw the crappy shield of his opponent tip down from the weight and stab! Just a story but the Romans and all militaries use what they think works and sometimes it works in a different way. My point is everyone usually does the best they can.
The Sherman worked because you built 40,000 of them.
50,000
For light infantry to be effective on future battlefields. They will need their own organic armor. The Booker appears to fulfill that role.
I have a news for you guys: Lancet 3.
@@andrzejzie7046 100%...
Ukraine shows that we need a different look at this waste of a tank!
Shhhh . . .
In essence we are looking at a souped up and tracked Centauro.
Even a fictional modernized Leopard 1 would offer comparable capabilities at a fraction of the system costs.
It needs more spaced armor especially on the whole turret. If they really want to have a capable light tank then it needs to protect its turret more because any peer enemy militaries will have heat shells which includes top attack munitions
It is the Argentine TAM
Which is a German marder
Another Master Gunner here, class of December 1978. Having also served as a Senior Customer Support Representative in the Bradley program, I know that vehicles’ such as this generally spend 15+ years in R&D. Back then, I doubt if much emphasis was placed on drone technology albeit it was in its infancy. As for the Booker, I fully expect this program to retrofit an anti-drone system, similar to what the Israelis have been working on. 🫡
Appears that land mines and drones are dominating the battlefield, not tanks.
Tasty target for smart munitions
but one which is 2/3s the mass of the Abrams, and potentially 2/3s the real-terms price to produce
@@williaminnes6635so that means only 2/3 of your ass is hanging in the wind? It needs some sort of ATM and drone defense. It would probably be alright in a low technology battlefield such as parts of Middle East and Africa, not so much in Europe or Taiwan/China conflict. It may be good for a Pacific Island style combat to supplement infantry before MBT could be moved in, but absent China, I don’t see a real threat there.
It's a deathtrap in the age of drones and man-portable anti-tank weapons.
Maybe a stat4ement of how, specifically, the tank would be used would have been helpful.
looks to me like a drone flying into the slot between the chassis and turret would make it look more like a t-72 Jack-in-the-box Russian tank.
I like IT, Light Tanks or any tracked vehicle with a big gun is cool!! Not saying that the 25mm on my Bradley was a slouch but I would have liked something a little bigger…lol!
The tracks are way way too narrow for the deep mud and snow of Russia. Build tanks that can swap between extremely wide tracks, ordinary tracks, and running on its steel wheels in the dry season. If you build tanks that can't, you'll have to design and build a whole new set of tracked vehicles on new chassis after war breaks out. Which shows the true purpose of today's substandard vehicles: to profit military contractors.
Our Ajax has been nothin but a pain in the ass wasting junk too!
🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
Will the M10 be fielded in the ACRs or will Armor Calvary Regiments keep Abrams MBTs?
M10s are only for IBCTs
The Army may not call it a tank, but I can damn well guarantee you that the enemy will treat it as one.
Now we have another tank name after a person
Oh come on, the combat vehicle won't change the battlefield FOREVER but SHORT LIVE.
What advantage does it have over the M1tank? Dramatically cheaper? Dramatically more deployable? Is it air drop able? How many more can fit on an aircraft?
Needs at least four inch or more track width. Sooner or later it is going to run into a tank with 120 or 125 cannon. It's little 105 will be like throwing pebbles.
If they put these in light infantry battalions all you'll end up with is a less effective mechanized unit and a less effective light unit, as time spent maintaining the vehicle and learning how to maintain it will take away from time spent training in light infantry doctrine and developing new light infantry doctrine for the modern battlefield. Also, big Army has tried the "light tank" thing before, it's never worked out.
So the US Army finally came back around to the mission of the STG 3 and 4! How is that changing the battle field forever? A tank designed to support Infantry assigned to Infantry units. Man if only the German's had tried that in France in 1940. They might have created I don't know lets call it the Blitzkrieg. Man those Frenchie's wouldn't have never stood a chance I'm guess.
'Tank like vehicle'? Its a tank!
Any anti drone defense? Drone survivability?
This is even better than any Russian MBT because they are having problem fighting Bradley at the moment in Ukraine.
I'd like to know what that do-hickey is that's mounted on the main gun mantle??? It looks like an Angler Fish's lure, it's even moveable like one, lol.
fume extractor to reduce the amount of fumes going back into the turret when the gun is fired
I agree on flamethrowers. Also, where is the frontal protection for tank . Did they ever consider it to have a ant tank weapon on it? You never know the meets T72 in battle.
Seems quite expensive… more expensive than m1a2s??
Not anymore.
They better be able to deploy these in the thousands. A real war is fought with numbers and logistics, not who has the fanciest toy.
It can’t be as bad as the British Ajax!
What a balls up that is!
💯💯💯🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
It leaks all ready
All good, but would like to see a couple of anti tank missiles on that turret; missiles with a longer range than its anti tank rounds
I don't think it is nearly as good as the GTK Boxer. The Boxer is available wheeled or tracked and can be fitted for practically any job from ambulance or mobile hospital, engineering vehicle or armed with practically anything like 35mm anti-aircraft gun all the way up to 155mm howitzer (thus equipped it is the only SPH which can fire on the move) with a top road speed of 65mph (wheeled) and a range of 650 miles. It consists of a drive module and a mission module and thus can be turned into any variant within 30 minutes in the field.
Ukraine is teaching us that mech warfare is changing, and changing fast. This IMHO is the past, not the future.
not really, due to Armies not being able to protect thier tanks the front lines haven't moved, they are back to trench warfare. Armies still need tanks for maneuver warfare. The puzzle is how to clear the skies of enemy drones. which the US Army is currently working on. The US Army will still need tanks. and lots of them.
@@madkabal The advent of anti-armor missiles, mines, and artillery combined with drones. With the way this is set up with the turret rearward, this could have been a Gun/Howitzer and given the airborne force a more mobile light cannon.
@kevinstorm2167 mines artillery and infantry anti tank weapons have been around since Manuver Warfare was first realized. The drones have made the difference. Consider the last modern war before the heavy use of drones. The 1991 gulf War. Due to total supremacy achieved by the USAF the iraqs 4th largest army in the world was destroyed within weeks. Drones have set the conditional dilemma Iraq had in 1991, how can an army operate when over head are hundreds of enemy fighters blowing up your convoys, incampments, tank columns etc. In contrast during the 1991 war, the US Army having total air supremacy were able to push the Iraq Army out of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait within 100 hours. And battles such as 73 Eastings showed us that they were able to do that with aggressive tank blitzs. It's the drones man. Figure out how to shoot them down effectively and your Army can do its job. The US Army is right to continue to invest in more tanks.
@@madkabalAgreed, but smart and lingering munitions haven't, add drones to the mixture and now the complexity of the front line changes. Holding on to outdated forms of warfare doesn't help you either. How many drone launchers are mounted on this vehicle, or drone jammers? Not enough of either of them IMHO. I am not opposed to tanks, I think we could of revisited the Stryker Armored gun, fix its issues and moved forward from there. Tracked vehicles in general are hard to support, drop them from the sky, or sled them out the back of a C-130 or C-17. There was a reason the Airborne ditched the Sheridan. Those things go crunch if they land wrong.
@kevinstorm2167 the reason why this doesn't have any drone launchers or jammer is because it's more effective to design drone carrier vehicles and electronic warfare vehicles than to ad hoc a small amount of capacity that would also sacrifice ammunition space armor and might even require a 5th crew member to manage the different systems. And guess what the US Army is design drone carriers and Electronic Warfare Strykers as we speak. No one is hold on to out dated Warfare. That's just stupid. Simply throwing away combat power because it can be destroyed isn't a solution. Figuring out how to protect your force is.
I like the idea of the Booker. I don't get why they should cost as much as an Abrams.
I think it needs some sort of rapid fire mechanism like the Bradley. This one at a time thing is not effective
General Dynamics is the USA.
There are no other winners to these military “competitions”
I don't like Military World videos..I love them...
Booker better then the old Abrams!😊 This was before civilian drone used in the battle field. All tanks are now obsolete!😮
The turret left over. The base for the deployment of drones and guided missiles, with 360º anti-drone systems. Satellite communications and processors for AI and drone swarm. That would be scary.
This is not WWII. It will be easily destroyed by a drone.
Any ground vehicle that cannot defend itself from a drone attack is a waste of money.
Come on now u don’t think the USA has ways to destroy drones lol
@@MrTangolizard LOL
They should have put the Trophy system on it.
Is it not a kind of M4 Sherman tank? Light, easily transportable, yet mobile and easy to maintain (let's hope) an persistent?
For the price, we should have just developed the Abrams replacement and fielded those....now logistically we have to supply 2 different calibers for armored vehicle cannons...it's going to be another nightmare the Bradley was...until 25 years after it hit the Big Army that it finally became a useful vehicle and the Billions it took to get it there. And the prices never drop...they always go up.
Can this Booker take a direct hit because it looks light? Still need a mobile missile system that can be loaded from the inside to support the Booker from above and ort range.
the M10 is a schmexy beast.
tell that to the guys who had to live in their M10 during the winter of 1944!
How does it do against drones?
Should have went with the CV 90 120 or should have given this thing the 120 mm from the get go .
120mm means less ammo storage. 105mm heat shells can still kill a MBT with modern explosives
@@danielsnook7362 but your limiting your access to more modern and powerful ammunition.
@@ozzy7763 wow clearly one of those people that think bigger is better have you actually keep up with the program. They are making modern ammunition for it. the advanced multi-purpose round m1147 that's on the Abrams 120mm can easily be scaled down to fit in a 105 shell and since this is meant to be infantry support based and only really engage tanks if it has to having modern sabot ammo I don't think is really a priority for its mission
@@danielsnook7362 ok bud. Let’s just limit ourselves right out of the gate by not putting a larger weapon on the Mobile Protected Firepower vehicle, that’s supposed support Infantry by dealing with enemy fortifications and armored vehicles, including enemy MainBattle Tanks , that the 105 has not been effective against in Ukraine. Yeah Fuck it , just give ‘em a 105 cause we have a million 105 rounds laying around , who cares that’s it’s no longer effective against MBTs .
@@ozzy7763 do you know what ammunition they are using for the 105 in Ukraine 😆😆😆 the ac130 uses 105mm and I've seen that thing level buildings