Traverses like a light tank, shoots like a light tank, doesn’t haul soldiers like a light tank. It is a light tank!
@Moonless6491
2 ай бұрын
Better add missiles and troop carrying requirements just in case.
@oglordbrandon
2 ай бұрын
Except it's not light like a light tank. It weighs as much as 3 Sheridans.
@Verhagenvictor
Ай бұрын
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
Ай бұрын
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
Ай бұрын
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.
@robbudden
3 ай бұрын
That is a professional presentation. Excellent work.
@thewarzone
3 ай бұрын
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it!
@tonyromano6220
2 ай бұрын
CIA operative is my guess….😂😂🙄🙄
@thewarzone
3 ай бұрын
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
3 ай бұрын
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
3 ай бұрын
@@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
3 ай бұрын
Future survival of armored vehicles would require a 180 degree protection system for drones, rockets and APFSDS attacks.
@logtothebase2
3 ай бұрын
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
3 ай бұрын
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.
@Dogmeat1950
3 ай бұрын
Its a modern day Assault Gun basically
@thewarzone
3 ай бұрын
Pretty much exactly how it is intended to be used.
@gooldii1
3 ай бұрын
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
2 ай бұрын
ikr? They could have just bought and upgraded those
@NovaScotiaNewfie
2 ай бұрын
It was also used in Afghanistan by Canada for direct fire support. Leo C2. Eventually replaced by the Leo II.
@afcgeo882
2 ай бұрын
Very different capabilities though.
@1moderntalking1
3 ай бұрын
This is a well written presentation! Thanks 😊
@thewarzone
3 ай бұрын
Glad you enjoyed it!
@richdurbin6146
3 ай бұрын
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
3 ай бұрын
YES! Exactly. But ofcourse it is right?
@sheldoncoffelt1891
3 ай бұрын
And yet the Bradley is still lighter, better equipped, and can even transport infantry too unlike this thing that makes no sense.
@JeffGordon-ph4vz
3 ай бұрын
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
3 ай бұрын
@@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
3 ай бұрын
@@cardinalpawn6467 why not make that new one with the 50mm and problem solved
@memyself637
3 ай бұрын
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
3 ай бұрын
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
3 ай бұрын
Quality vs Quantity , again?
@josephahner3031
3 ай бұрын
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
2 ай бұрын
@@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
2 ай бұрын
@@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
Ай бұрын
Series hybrid drives, specifically diesel-electric, have been used for decades in trains.
@Joe_Friday
3 ай бұрын
I wonder why the Stingray tanks were not considered since other older tanks were brought in for competition.
@thewarzone
3 ай бұрын
This had some pretty defined requirements, but we really should do something on that thing, great pull Joe!
@necronlord52
3 ай бұрын
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
3 ай бұрын
No army has ever won a war from inside a trench.
@jgw9990
2 ай бұрын
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
2 ай бұрын
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
Ай бұрын
That movie is pretty much BS that is thoroughly disproven.
@kolinmartz
2 ай бұрын
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.
@lukedogwalker
3 ай бұрын
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
3 ай бұрын
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
3 ай бұрын
M1 commonality was a huge deal.
@lukedogwalker
3 ай бұрын
@@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.
@michaeltosser7363
2 ай бұрын
Good to see that DA has recognized the need for lightweight, mobile firepower that we'd largely abandoned.
@hallmobility
2 ай бұрын
Same name and similar function to the M10 Tank Destroyer of WW2. Something readily available to the American general playing PanzerGeneral2.
@blackberrymw
Ай бұрын
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?
@cristmh
2 ай бұрын
I still don't see what an M10 gets you vs an up-gunned M2 (i.e. with the new Bushmaster 50mm chain gun).
@edl653
3 ай бұрын
AP will be added to the Booker soon. Also, they will be accompanied by M- SHORAD, Sgt. Stout.
@thewarzone
3 ай бұрын
I think VERY soon, but only one slice of the pie here.
@patrickchase5614
3 ай бұрын
@@thewarzone I think that the tendency of APS to kill nearby infantry is of particular concern for a vehicle like this. We've seen plenty of videos of Merkavas being hit in Gaza with their APS apparently turned off while accompanying infantry, and I suspect that's why. That's why the US is focusing on that nonexplosive "steel ball" design.
@phil20_20
2 ай бұрын
It's a Medium Assault Tank.
@Wizarthunder1
2 ай бұрын
Cant wait to see this at top tier for warthunder usa
@giannileegalvan2669
3 ай бұрын
With the Army adopting the M10 Booker, should the Marines adopt the M8 Buford since it can be transported by C-130? An aircraft which the USMC has a significant fleet of.
@thewarzone
3 ай бұрын
The C-130 requirement was really a strong one for me, sad it didn't make it.
@Razor773_YT
3 ай бұрын
I like the way you think
@kolinmartz
2 ай бұрын
@@thewarzonebecause even just the 2nd level of armor protection would require you to either give up one M8 or have another flight fly them in depending on what airframe you’re using.
@louisbabycos106
2 ай бұрын
"RESTO MODDED" Sheridans sporting 40 mm bushmaster and spike missile launchers .
@jeffi854
28 күн бұрын
I still think this tank should come standard with the toe missile system on it just like our Bradly .
@jarviskelly7008
3 ай бұрын
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.
@Wannes_
3 ай бұрын
The "light" tank ... It's as heavy as a Leopard I
@exharkhun5605
3 ай бұрын
Classification is based on doctrine. Weight has nothing to do with it. There was a time when the US classification was based solely on gun caliber with 75mm being a light tank, 90mm being a medium and 105mm being a heavy tank. And yeah. This was around the time of the leopard 1, so where would that put the Leo?
@FBI-eq4wn
3 ай бұрын
@exharkhun5605 i Never knew that the caliber of tanks back then clasified what type of tank they were
@psychobeam99
2 ай бұрын
I love how almost a full century later the United States military is like "Hey. Remember that Panzer IV/ STUG idea the Germans had in WW2 of an infantry support tank to sling HE into bunkers and shit? What if we did something like that, but without the ability to take on a tank?"
@Omegawerewolfx
2 ай бұрын
They need to redo the drone defense systems if they want this thing to work.
@christianguzman8228
3 ай бұрын
20:55 Looking at the M10 Booker head on, you can see exactly the three major vulnerabilities it has. I won't specify my thoughts on that though. I'm not a supporter of the M10. Obvious enough, the Booker is just too big, heavy, and expensive to achieve it's goal of adequately supporting infantry. This thing serves no purpose if it can't get off the airfield, follow infantry across bridges, or even hope to be concealed from observers. The M10 Booker requires the same logistical support as the Abrams to move, details be damned. I would hope that the M10 lives it's life only as a stop gap until something more refined comes along. Lastly, this is indeed a light tank.
@railfansteam7716
2 ай бұрын
Shows the name Pvt Stevon Booker, wearing Coporal stripes and narrarated as Staff Seageant. Yep, looks liek somone did their homework here. Also there is not such medal as the "Congressional" Medal of Honor, there is however the Medal of Honor. I was a Tanker 1977 to 1981, served on the M48, M60, M60A1, M60A3, and the earliest M1. The Booker looks like an easy kill. JMHO.
@kweeks10045
3 ай бұрын
I wonder if the performance of the Bradley in Ukraine has upper brass wondering if they made a tactical error by developing the Booker. Let's face it, the Booker is about the same weight as a T-80BV, but slower. Yes, it will have far superior optics and fire control systems, but one has to wonder about about the armor effectiveness. Maybe it's ability to network and share data will make it more survivable than the T-80 and T-90.
@thewarzone
3 ай бұрын
Nothing is set in stone this thing could be cancelled.
@pantherowow77
3 ай бұрын
13:33 realistic depiction of being in the Army
@thewarzone
3 ай бұрын
We strive for realism here at TWZ....
@couespursuit7350
3 ай бұрын
Am I the only one that thinks this pretty much revives the WWII style Tank Destroyers much like the M-18 Hellcat?
@josephbicknell6522
3 ай бұрын
I think it acts more like the M-5 and Chaffee. Infantry support and scouting, not tank hunting.
@couespursuit7350
3 ай бұрын
@@josephbicknell6522 The M-18 ended up getting used more often for direct fire support for infantry, much like the current vision for the Booker.
@SirenHead00
2 ай бұрын
shit weighs as much as a t 72 and got less armor as-well dam i wanna see how useful this is in combat
@robertcooper6853
2 ай бұрын
Meanwhile, the Argentinians had this in the 1970s. Called the TAM. Then it was made by European countries in the form of the ASCOD and CV40/120. Yet we come up with the M10 and are supposed to be impressed?
@seanmurphy7011
3 ай бұрын
Is the 82nd Airborne not already activated? Seems like an active duty division to me.
@WilliamMorales-kg2io
2 ай бұрын
It's like they NAMED it after the "white guy" but someone during that meeting said, "uh, wait.....that's not inclusive!"😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@T.R.75
2 ай бұрын
ah the new light tank which appears to have been designed to be deployed easily to the far east (China), where heavy tanks will have a difficult time being deployed.
@ninefox344
3 ай бұрын
The AGS sounded a lot better IMO. I wonder how that went down.
@terranempire2
3 ай бұрын
The M8 derivative also had an awful fighting compartment. BAE had tried to modernize it but those had been mostly bolt on modifications that created poor ergonomics.
@thewarzone
3 ай бұрын
We want to do a thing just on it in the future. Very interesting story there.
@anpan6282
3 ай бұрын
The chieftain did a video on it
@AirRider44
3 ай бұрын
Until they get era, active protection system, or integrated jammers to deal with ATGMs or drones… it’s a death trap.
@richardtardo5170
2 ай бұрын
You repeated the properties around three times, why.
@PHARAOH-ZODIAC
13 күн бұрын
👏👏👏👏👏👏 Infantry support 👏👏👏👏👏👏 🥰M10🥰
@merrillblair-tl1rt
3 ай бұрын
Personally, I love the booker
@thewarzone
3 ай бұрын
It's an interesting weapon and a very transitional time. We'll see how they adapt it.
@kylelytle4251
3 ай бұрын
And they'll all be available in a short decade and a half let's all just cross your fingers and nothing happens till then
@terranempire2
3 ай бұрын
On the face of it the M10 sounds bad but really the vehicle that got the select was better. Don’t take my word for it. The Chieftain did two videos on it going through BAE’s bid and he was less than impressed. kzitem.info/news/bejne/1amBvKZtsKF9qn4si=JjGwR_uaZ4W3xRyb kzitem.info/news/bejne/wqaM2ninp2doZmksi=HpZeW6SWO1mtR80I
@eb-pe8xg
2 ай бұрын
Medal of Honor, NOT Congressional Medal of Honor. The Medal of Honor is awarded by the President of the U.S., not congress.
@brylledeuda544
2 ай бұрын
the doctrine is same as m3-m5 stuart tank :)
@CynthiaAnderson-p4t
6 күн бұрын
Tremblay Ramp
@MilitaryPlayer141
Ай бұрын
The M10 Booker is pretty much a tank, not an IFV, the gun is TOO big for it to be a little IFV…
@robertbates6057
2 ай бұрын
Exciting for the Airborne units. They need to EXPEDITE it!
@toddfallon179
2 ай бұрын
...the Medal of Honor is not a 'congressional' medal... The medal is purely a military award and after approving it's creation, congress has had nothing to do with it The soldiers who earned it deserve to have it named properly 😉
@dustinandrews3223
Ай бұрын
But is it drone-proof? I think not.
@jayspik6498
2 ай бұрын
Drones will make short work of this weapon system.. Better keep it for fight farmers with head scarfs in sandals in the Middle East cause it won’t fare well elsewhere..
@jamesnichols7507
3 ай бұрын
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
3 ай бұрын
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
3 ай бұрын
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
2 ай бұрын
Dude this just looks like a modernized M18 hellcat awesome.
@thomasrush5417
2 ай бұрын
We still fight this way when applicable. H-MINUS
@josephgonzales4802
2 ай бұрын
Yes, it does sound like he was a crew member of a M-18 Hell Cat T.D. A very much underrated vehicle. 🤔
@alexanderleach3365
3 ай бұрын
This little tank is badass. Named after two honored fallen heroes of the US Army.
@thewarzone
3 ай бұрын
It does look cool, probably the last non 'rule of cool' looking piece of significant armor we will get.
@CrazyDee279
3 ай бұрын
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
3 ай бұрын
It's not a tank.
@crazestyle83
2 ай бұрын
@@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
Ай бұрын
Yeah, probably about as bad ass as the Sheridan was.
@phil20_20
3 ай бұрын
It's a medium assault tank. Light Tanks don't weigh 40+ tons.
@mlc4495
3 ай бұрын
Hell the Abrams is so big now it may as well be a Heavy Tank.
@SirenHead00
2 ай бұрын
it could be a mbt since it weighs more then a t 72
@ad_astra5
2 ай бұрын
@@SirenHead00tank classes relative to weight seems to be getting less feasible
@Gillymonster18
3 ай бұрын
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
3 ай бұрын
There will be a major config change I think very soon.
@PrograError
3 ай бұрын
Booker SEPKontakt-1 lets go !💪💪💪💪
@josephahner3031
3 ай бұрын
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
2 ай бұрын
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
2 ай бұрын
I really hope they'll consider a tactics change before slapping on upgrades that this thing wasn't fundamentally designed for.
@dustinfrey3067
3 ай бұрын
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
3 ай бұрын
We are going to be doing a larger deal on the GRF. Great color here thank you.
@dustinfrey3067
3 ай бұрын
@@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
2 ай бұрын
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
Ай бұрын
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
Ай бұрын
@@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.
@LazyLifeIFreak
3 ай бұрын
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
3 ай бұрын
yeah there is precedent for this.
@wayneabbott652
3 ай бұрын
The Stug was mid to late war.
@Necromancer_88
3 ай бұрын
lol
@ElkaPME
3 ай бұрын
@@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.
@scottsauritch3216
2 ай бұрын
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...
@jdogdarkness
3 ай бұрын
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
2 ай бұрын
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.
@196cupcake
3 ай бұрын
Great overview of M10 Booker!
@thewarzone
3 ай бұрын
Thanks! It was a fun piece to put together and we're happy to see folks find it informative!
@r-saint
3 ай бұрын
WTF is 14.7mm ammo? You're confusing 12.7 and 14.5 into one.
@rdr8147
3 ай бұрын
It's TRANS ammo 🤣
@GM-fh5jp
3 ай бұрын
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
3 ай бұрын
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
3 ай бұрын
@@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
3 ай бұрын
@@thewarzonehas the Marine Corps fielded a cannon armed swimmer since the LVT-4?
@The_ZeroLine
3 ай бұрын
Instead of spending billions to procure these would be using that $ to give the Bradley platinum plated APS systems for not just ATGMS and SPGs, but obviously drones too, which means multiple types of defensive munitions. Any conflict with China is going to feature zero to minimal amounts of land warfare. So, what is the justification for burning cash on this with thousands of M2s that have never even had their wrapper taken off?
@thewarzone
3 ай бұрын
Mainly it fits directly in with very rapidly deploying light infantry doctrine, but yes its all debatable.
@11C1P
Ай бұрын
Hmmmm. I remember the Sheridan. I guess Sheridan 2.0 wouldn't have been too popular for a few reasons.
@KawaTony1964
3 ай бұрын
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
3 ай бұрын
Kornet ATGMs , not so much.
@kolinmartz
2 ай бұрын
@@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
2 ай бұрын
@@snuffle2269you use APS for that. Oh, wait, booker doesn't have any.
@KawaTony1964
2 ай бұрын
@@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
11 күн бұрын
The Sheridan's were a failure in Vietnam. Not a valid comparison.
@hubertcumberdale8175
3 ай бұрын
Seems like you wanted the m8 derivative to succeed. By your presentation i was surprised they selected the griffin from GD
@thewarzone
3 ай бұрын
Plusses and minuses, M1 commonality was a big deal. We could do a huge thing on that alone one day
@Shaun_Jones
Ай бұрын
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.
@juanzulu1318
3 ай бұрын
What is the advantage of the Booker to an AFV/inf support platforms?
@thewarzone
3 ай бұрын
More large-caliber gunfire, for one.
@solarissv777
2 ай бұрын
@@thewarzoneand if compared with NEMO?
@BOGOWA22
2 ай бұрын
Why not just import an existing design (CV90120) at a fraction of the cost? M10 is arguably another mediocre design with an unclear/questionable tactical role imho.
@duncanidaho2097
2 ай бұрын
The Booker supplies more effective fire support against enemy positions, fortifications and any vehicles this side of a modern battle tank and quicker to transport and deploy. Easier to negotiate narrow streets and roads(compared to the Abrams) Not ferry troops.
@patrickchase5614
3 ай бұрын
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
3 ай бұрын
Thank you! We could have kept going but wanted a general overview. More to come though on future use cases and issues.
@mobilegamersunite
3 ай бұрын
Awesome tank idea 💡 fast response with a big ass gun! 😂
@thewarzone
3 ай бұрын
That's the idea. Will be interesting to see the config in five years.
@mobilegamersunite
3 ай бұрын
@thewarzone this looks like a good Russian counter tank, that can strike first
@DaveD-y5g
3 ай бұрын
Was a tanker from 1980 - 1997; retired in 2007; I would give anything to go back and serve on one of these!!!!
@thewarzone
3 ай бұрын
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
2 ай бұрын
@@thewarzonefeast and famine in the richest military ever 😂
@mho...
3 ай бұрын
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
3 ай бұрын
We sort of touch on that, it has to do with many things, from procurement/funding to organization etc.
@texasranger24
3 ай бұрын
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
3 ай бұрын
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
3 ай бұрын
@@thewarzone yup, they re-invented the German StuG
@mlc4495
3 ай бұрын
The Abram's was literally used in this infantry support role in Iraq during the insurgency.
@louisbabycos106
2 ай бұрын
@@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.
@richardwarner3705
3 ай бұрын
Does "Joe Rogan" know you've AI'd his voice?⚖️
@johnofnz
3 ай бұрын
This is top notch content
@thewarzone
3 ай бұрын
Appreciate the feedback! Glad you enjoyed it!
@ScreamingSturmovik
3 ай бұрын
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
3 ай бұрын
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
3 ай бұрын
I still believe light infantry and airborne units still need a smaller tracked weapon platform, like the wiesel design.
@Algo_RL
2 ай бұрын
AI narrators really turn me off from a video
@thewarzone
2 ай бұрын
Well, you'd be happy to know a real live human narrates all of our videos!
@Algo_RL
2 ай бұрын
@@thewarzone oh hey! sorry for the assumption!
@janed5077
3 ай бұрын
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.
@TonyChan-eh3nz
3 ай бұрын
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
3 ай бұрын
That's a really ideal comparison.
@Gillymonster18
3 ай бұрын
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
3 ай бұрын
@@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
2 ай бұрын
@@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.
@beltfedfanatic
3 ай бұрын
like tactics weapons need to evolve with them. i ilke this.
@thewarzone
3 ай бұрын
That's the idea, but time moves faster than it did in terms of threats 10 years ago.
@daniellore2961
3 ай бұрын
replace the turret with one housing a semi auto morter system and an anti drone system
@mc0352
3 ай бұрын
The Marine Corps should've adopted this tanks instead of getting rid of all tanks.
@thewarzone
3 ай бұрын
I could see this having a place, but I don't see the will to do it.
@raywhitehead730
3 ай бұрын
The Marines were correct.
@knowahnosenothing4862
2 ай бұрын
@@raywhitehead730 How will the void be filled out of curiosity? IFV's and airpower?
@Shaun_Jones
Ай бұрын
@@knowahnosenothing4862 basically, yes. The Marines are trying to transition back to their intended role as a pathfinder force, establishing a foothold on enemy territory and relying on the Army to do the hard push. For that reason, they are trying to adopt a lot of affordable and easily transportable firepower (see the unmanned JLTV with a pair of anti-ship missiles or a Tomahawk cruise missile on the back).
@deusvult7559
22 сағат бұрын
So it's a infantry fighting vehicle that doesn't carry infantry...got it. At first I thought they were talking about a nice new replacement for the Bradley. Then came the news that it's really just a light tank for infantry support with no way of getting said infantry anywhere. Those are going to be some TIRED grunts is all I can say.
@josephahner3031
3 ай бұрын
This is perhaps the best video on the M10 on KZitem. You guys have earned my subscription.
@thewarzone
2 ай бұрын
Thanks, happy to have you along for the ride
@coltwright6252
3 ай бұрын
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
2 ай бұрын
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.
@dsan2910
2 ай бұрын
Kool. Can it,knock down drones?
@426superbee4
2 ай бұрын
Which lays down a nice fire cover for our troops... I seen some of our tanks had grenade launchers on them > THAT WAS JUNK. A WAIST OF AMMO AND TIME.. That what we need to get rid of > JUNK STUFF that don't deliver the punch > One day our military want have ammo any more > Every thing will be LASER > ITS THE 21st CENTURY! TIME FOR CHANGES > During these changes. THE TANK MY DIE OUT! Like the battle ship... Every thing is control by AIR > Things on the ground are? Clean up jobs
@unclerojelio6320
3 ай бұрын
I thought this was one of Simon Whistler's channels. Never mind.
@The_ZeroLine
3 ай бұрын
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
3 ай бұрын
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.
@LoanwordEggcorn
3 ай бұрын
There are many military channels. The writing in particular and narration on this one are excellent. Many others are not.
@arbelico2
2 ай бұрын
Greetings from Spain . There are some questions that are running through my head. - With a configuration like that of the STRIKER AGS / expeditionary tank, can the weight be reduced, have only 3 crew members, and use the 120 mm L44 of the M-1 Abrams? - Would adding ATGMs launched by the cannon, APS or reactive armor, and a shovel like on the Russian MBT be easy? kzitem.info/news/bejne/z2ipz4ujnHuqi44&ab_channel=Blacktail
@mlc4495
3 ай бұрын
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
3 ай бұрын
And would probably be fielded in much smaller numbers than the Booker is slated to, also.
@MaticTheProto
2 ай бұрын
no
@BobDacat-py6so
Ай бұрын
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
Ай бұрын
@@BobDacat-py6so and that’s why clowns like you have no say in the arms industry
@thelordofcringe
Ай бұрын
@@BobDacat-py6soLOL. Lmao. The Abrams apfsds can go through any tank on the planet, including itself. So therefore. There are no tanks.
@bobbays7815
3 ай бұрын
Please...the Sheridan was the M.five.five.one...it was NEVER a M.five.fifty one...jeez kid, I trained and commanded one of these in 1970/1971 in Vietnam...get it right. Allons! 11th ACR!
@jamesrjohanniii774
2 ай бұрын
I hope they wil.be able to add an automaimong autem armed with something like enlarged ahit guns shell. Works loke a C-RAM but deaigned for drones. Otherwuse this 13mil fast tank is goingnongey waated by a $600 drone atmed with a $1000 explosive hakf mad on a consumer quality 3-D printer. Also I hope this is hella fast and light when compared to the Abrhams. Those things stick in the mud and become stationary targets.. Hell even some leapards are getting stuck in Ukraine..Bradley seen to be the sweet spot. So j hope these work loke an up armored bradley with bihhwr guns minus the troop space.. but hey fck it right ? I'm sure a few guy's can ride on top for awhile. We know they Will 😂
@JudgeDillon
Ай бұрын
A modernized Begleitpanzer 57mm is what this vehicle should have been. Being able to target aircraft/helicopters/drones, while having more firepower for anti-material and anti-tank than a Bradley. Also, being faster and able to carry soldiers while weighing 7+ tons less. The 105mm doesn't make sense to me.
@waynearrington6727
2 ай бұрын
Really? The Army is going to send a stream of C17s across enemy held territory full of paratroops or light tanks? SEAD better be 100 percent effective. The Ukrainians are teaching the world about SAMbush tactics and the use of drones to hit even individual armored vehicles. I just can't picture a C17 crossing a line of contact.
@kevinmccarthy8670
2 ай бұрын
The Marines need some of these. This is especially true now that they've given up their Abrahms.
@jdogdarkness
3 ай бұрын
I'm sorry but in what world does it make sense to pay MORE for a LESS capable system? Yes it has a niche. But from my arm chair general position, seems to me this roll would have been better served by an IFV & if size of shell is the main selling point, fine slap a higher caliber Canon on it. The cost of western everything, buy especially tanks is out of control. Finally, historically the "not quite a tank" tank hasn't fared well over the past 50 years.
@branfordmonticello853
2 ай бұрын
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.
@necronlord52
3 ай бұрын
Drones are NOT a future battlefield, they are current new reality. In next war, we'll see an AI-powered swarms of drones, motherships dropping them above the battlefield, and who knows what else. Just think about the "Model 3" reality, but with flying reapers.
Пікірлер: 647