• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Army Names First Combat Vehicle for Post-9/11 Soldier

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
110,171
Reaction score
100,415
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

860x394.png

6.10.23
The Army’s new assault gun will be the first combat vehicle named for a post-9/11 soldier, Army leaders said Thursday, adding that they’d fixed problems such as toxic gun exhaust filling the turret. The vehicle produced by the Mobile Protected Firepower program will now be known as the M10 Booker Combat Vehicle. The name honors Staff Sgt. Stevon Booker, a tank commander who was killed in action during the U.S. Army’s 2003 surprise strike on Baghdad, later dubbed the “thunder run.” It also honors Pvt. Robert Booker, who was killed in World War II while attacking a German machine-gun post, for which he posthumously received the Medal of Honor. The designation also echoes the M10 tank destroyer used in WWII.

The $18 million Booker is an armored, tracked vehicle designed to support infantry during assaults by destroying enemy bunkers and lightly armored vehicles with its 105mm gun. The 38-ton vehicle can be transported by air. A recent GAO report called the Booker a “bright spot” in Army acquisition and noted its successful use of rapid prototyping. The Army plans to buy 377 Bookers. The first production models will be delivered in November, with enough to equip a first battalion by late 2024 or early 2025. That unit, which he did not identify, would handle operational testing of the new vehicles. The Booker’s design has not been shaped by lessons from Ukraine, a war that is “too young for drawing the sorts of conclusions that would change requirements” for a combat vehicle. General Dynamics Land Systems is building the Bookers in Lima, Ohio and Michigan, with vehicle assembly being done in Anniston, Alabama.


M-10 Booker Combat Vehicle - Welcome to the US military.
 
At this point, the Army should just buy either Type 16 MCV's from Japan or EBRC Jaguars from France and call it done.
 
Named after a sergeant....most US tanks were named after generals.
 
“Toxic gun exhaust filling the turret?”
 
“Toxic gun exhaust filling the turret?”

That should be easily fixed with a bore evacuator, and I'm surprised one wasn't fitted initially.
 
Looks like multiple issues doomed the M10 Booker. Everything from cost, to weight, to performance.

(apologies for the link, found on a Google search but matches 3-4 others)
 
They fixed that.
The gun is supposed to be a rather massive upgrade and uses fancy pants new rounds.



Pretty much anything is an improvement over the Rarden and it’s 6-round clips that have to be manually fed.
 
There's more than that. It as a concept has been overtaken by drones.

It hasn’t though. Even in Ukraine, both sides are using armored vehicles for infantry support.

Drones don’t “supplant”, they operate alongside.
 
The M10 Booker is now cancelled due to the fact that it can't be airdropped. (https://taskandpurpose.com/news/m10-booker-tank-cancelled/)

The M10 was never designed to be airdropped. But where it failed was that it was designed to be rapidly airlanded, with one fitting into a C-130 and 3 in a C-17.

The problem is that in classic US Army systems bloat, by the time it was accepted, the weight had ballooned until it could no longer fit in a C-130 and only 1 could be carried by a C-17.

Well, 1 Abrams can also be carried by a C-17. If you are going to be using a C-17 to carry a single tank to a battle zone to support light forces, why would you waste a sortie on a M10 when you can carry an Abrams?
 
The M10 was never designed to be airdropped. But where it failed was that it was designed to be rapidly airlanded, with one fitting into a C-130 and 3 in a C-17.

The problem is that in classic US Army systems bloat, by the time it was accepted, the weight had ballooned until it could no longer fit in a C-130 and only 1 could be carried by a C-17.

Well, 1 Abrams can also be carried by a C-17. If you are going to be using a C-17 to carry a single tank to a battle zone to support light forces, why would you waste a sortie on a M10 when you can carry an Abrams?

Bridges and roads that can't support the weight of an Abrams?
 
Then they likely won’t support the weight of a Booker either.

It's about 12 tons less than an M60A3TTS. Almost 30 tons less than an M1A1. Only weighs a few tons more than a Bradley.
 
It's about 12 tons less than an M60A3TTS. Almost 30 tons less than an M1A1. Only weighs a few tons more than a Bradley.

And the Bradley has a problem with a lot of bridges. Civilian bridges designed to take the weight of armored tracked vehicles aren’t exactly common in the developing world.
 
And the Bradley has a problem with a lot of bridges. Civilian bridges designed to take the weight of armored tracked vehicles aren’t exactly common in the developing world.

Point being that bridges and roads that can support an Abrams are in even shorter supply.
 
Point being that bridges and roads that can support an Abrams are in even shorter supply.

And the Booker would have the same problem. Either way you are going to need engineer support, so it would be better to have the superior tank.
 
Back
Top Bottom