What was this thing supposed to do that couldn't just be done by some kind of shoulder-fired missile?
>>64674102That question has a lot to do with it getting cancelled
>>64674102kek didnt it destroy a bunch of pontoon bridges because it was far too heavy?
>>64674102It was really good at being a very fucking heavy light tank.
>>64674102Fire on the move.
>>64674166why didn't they lighten it? are they stupid?
>>64674102Cheaper brown people blown up to cost ratio in the long run.
>>64674102What's crazy is pic related would fill the exact same role, yet would be lighter and already be in the logistics train
>>64674166Can you stick propellers to it, so it becomes lighter while it crosses?
>>64674225Mike Sparks go home you're drunk.
>>64674102You can fill a tank to the brim with ammo for the cost of a single man portable ATGM. Being able to shell trenchlines and buildings on demand using a protected direct fire platform is a valuable capability, and missiles can't take over that role when they cost a non-trivial fraction of a tank's total cost per trigger pull.The real question when it comes to the Booker is if it is really worth having an entire second type of tank instead of just using the M1 Abrams in the same role and putting up with the somewhat higher logistics burden of lugging around an MBT.
>>64674102The eternally unsolved question of what makes an AFV "good" for a particular situation
>>64674164No
>>64674195>36 tons and worse protectionBarely lighter, and worse off in the role the booker was meant to perform i.e. working directly with infantry
>>64674448>better anti-fortification>better anti-light armor>farther gun range>further operational range Its just a better solution, and complaining about armor won't work, Army already said armor doesn't matter when people pointed out how the M10 had subpar protection
