what the fuck were they thinking?
>>65174900Heavy armor is useless in a world of $500 guided munitions that can selectively penetrate any point of a tank. Large caliber direct fire cannons, on the other hand, are still useful. However, it was worth scrapping the program since we still have huge number of Abrams and the Booker isn't significantly lighter.
oh yeah baby, M8 AGS
The booker was a perfectly sound idea, it was just poorly explained to both the public and policymakers. If they had just put together a clear flow chart which explained that the people getting the booker don't have tanks or IFVs or any organic way beyond .50 and 40mm of engaging hardpoints that doesn't involve dismounting to use launchers (and thereby halting inertia for every little contact), then it would probably still be here. But they didnt, so the dialog constantly got bogged down in "why dont dey juss use duh M1s?" (which they dont have) or "why dont dey juss use duh stryker MGS?" (which they dont have, stryker brigades are a completely separate asset within the BCT) and so it was killed. Personally I've always maintain the smarter option was to have a drop-in MGS hull for the Oshkosh logistical vehicles the IBCTs already use (in the same way that the French Griffon MRAP and Jaguar AFV use the same chassis), meaning significant parts commonality with an existing vehicle; but the Booker was okay.
>>65174900>what the fuck were they thinking?this is gonna drive warriortard so mad, he'll make 200 threads and more about it? maybeanyways they were right
>>65174900It's an IFV that's armored against the guns of every other IFV in the world and has a gun that could pen any IFV and most tanks. What's not to like?
They forgot the Bradley already exists.
>>65174968>armored against the guns of every other IFVsure it is sweetie
>>65174900i like the way they've got the plastic bucket at the front to collect the leaking oil.
>>65174968>loses to every ATGM and RPG made since the 1980sinb4>NOOO YOU CANT SHOOT ATGMS AT MY (NOT) TANK! NOT FAIR! YOU CHEATED! WAAAAAAAAA
>>65175400All modern tanks lose to ATGMs, so trying to armor against that achieves nothing while making the vehicle worse at its job of being airmobile.
>>65175411>All modern tanks lose to ATGMPoint to me a single T-14 Armata that has been destroy by ATGM. Go on, I wait.
>>65174900The Leopard 1 was a good idea.
>>65174931>"why dont dey juss use duh stryker MGS?"That is a fair question. Kind of like dropping a gun truck package on an Oshkosh (which would be cooler) but why not just make more of what we have and allocate them better?
>>65174931I'm confused, why complain units don't have something when discussing whether or not to add something new?Abrams or Stryker MGS seem like perfectly reasonable alternatives compared to procuring a new vehicle, with the inherent advantages of them already existing and being mature vehicles.
>>65175439>OshkoshIt still blows my mind every time I see this. I live 20 minutes from the factory
>>65175448By'gosh!
>>65175439Wait a second...
>brand new vehicle>needs a drip bucketgod fucking dammit
>>65174913>t.
>>65175400It was specifically designed for compatibility with Trophy APS. >>65175420They were apparently destroyed by a field, I wouldn't expect them to do much better against an actual weapon.
why not just create an ATGM lobber that is in the 20-30 ton range and stop messing with 105s>You mean like a BradleySure, like a bradley except just the ATGM launcher.Is the military still sore from the Sheridan fuck up?
>>65175630That would be the M1253A1. What does it have to do with the M10?
>>65175441When fielding something, a tank isn't just a tank. You now have to stock all the parts for it, as well as significant additional fuel because the M1 gets less than a mile per gallon, as well as potentially M88s to move it if it goes down; and your mobility of your quick reaction element now kneecapped by a tank that takes up a whole globemaster by itself, has a max ungoverned speed of 40 mph, an operational range of maybe 200 miles and requires a 2 hours of maintenance for every hour of operation. The Stryker is just a shit MGS, it was retired because it was a bad execution of the concept; and by using that you're adopting something so shit that your stryker-driving counterparts already ditched it, except it requires you carry parts you don't normally carry and you lack any institutional knowledge on the vehicle; so problems that the SBCT motorpool could have pre-empted before they because major issues are going to blindside you. The whole reason it was adopted in spite of being evidentially shit even in the trials was that it put no extra pressure on the logistical train, which is no longer true if used by IBCTs, so they just end up with something already deemed not fit for purpose but even more of a burden. Obviously you have to carry parts for the booker, but it has twice the range of an M1, twice as many can be carried in a globemaster, is (allegedly) much more fuel efficient, isn't a jet engine so doesnt require as regular teardowns, is light enough that it can be moved long distances on an LET and could plausibly be recovered by a pair of Hemtt winches; so carrying some extra tracks and a transmission is less of a punch in the face.
>>65175625>They were apparently destroyed by a fieldBut not by ATGM! Therefore, there is no rpoof that Armata is of weak to decadent HATO missile of anti-tank!
>>65174900That infantry divisions could really use some large caliber, direct fire assault guns. The M10 is perfectly fine at that. The program was on time, on budget, and did everything the Army wanted. It was killed because the Army has dozens of other funding priorities and programs, but nowhere near enough budget to fund all of them. When the M10 program was running, there were something like 30 other major programs of record. It's very easy to argue that the Army needs new artillery, to replace the Bradley, a whole fuck load of SHORAD/C-UAS, and upgrade the M1 than it does a new assault gun for light infantry divisions. That's not to mention the DoDs focus on China, which requires really, really expensive shipyards, ships, rebuilding the tanker fleet, new stealth fighters, and a ton of drones.The M10 was squeezed out by internal and external budget competition. It was a luxury item that kept on through bureaucratic inertia, because why the hell would you kill the one program that is working?
>>65174931>The booker was a perfectly sound ideaBooker was GWOT relic.Boomer tank to shoot mudhuts from outside RPG-7 range.
>>65174968>It's an IFV that's armored against the guns of every other IFV in the world*Citation needed*
>>65174968>INFANTRY Fighting Vehicle>armor penetration being significant
>>65174931>which explained that the people getting the booker don't have tanks or IFVs Everyone knew this, and most were all for it.. the issue was when people started noticing this "not a tank" was going to need the exact same logistics and support as a regular tank, with such means not organically available to infantry regiments. When asked HOW they were going to be successfully utilized in the field with such a glaring issue, Army acquisitions essentially shrugged their shoulders and tried to push it through so they could secure their retirement. Luckily they got their peepees smacked, and the whole thing was shut down
>>65176633As we all know, infantry never get into a fight anywhere near enemy armor. Oh wait...
>>65174913drones>men or vehicles with men in them aircraft>everything that isn't an aircraft tanks are not worth the cost of procurement, logistics, and maintenance
>>65176643Is that Erika Kirk in an ukie uniform? Wtf?Anyway, the boomer ... I mean the booker was almost as heavy as a proper tank while having inferior armor and arnament compared to a real tank. IMHO if you have to make it airmobile and still have it to be survivable you will have to make some unconventional design choice trade offs that no one was capable of doing. This thing has the same arnament, armor level and weight as a Leopard 1 from the 1950s. And it is just as survivable.
just put 240mm mortar on a bradley chassis and call it a day
>>65174900>weigh as much as an M60A3>same firepower as an M60A3>infinitely more expensive than an M60A3 (because they don't need to be built)>Less protection than an M60A3This thing existed to make a select few in the MIC some money and that is it.
>>65176944Just a funny AI edit I guess of this podcast where she tried very hard to be serious.
>>65175565They do this for every vehicle
>>65176626Pure ignorance
>>65176944It's significantly lighter than any tank and far and away better outfitted than a 1950's leo 1, while also having provisions for an aps. Gorilla niggers have problems differentiating units and are otherwise incapable of determining context
>>65177064>weighs as much as an m60a3Nigga what? Those weigh close to 60 tons
>>65177130M60A3 weighs 51,000kg while the M10 Booker weights 42,000kg. M60 is still heavier but not by much.
>>65177145Where did you pull that number? It weighs 57 tons base
>>65177145>>65177188Or if you wish to use metric, 52 metric tons to the booker's 38
>>65177188>Where did you pull that number? It weighs 57 tons baseThe M48 was 45 000 kg, the M60 series about 50 000 kg.
>>65177145>>65177193The lightest configuration of the M10 weighs 38 short tons.
>>65177198Again, please cite your sources, because the actual MIL-STD engineering drawing states 114000lbs or 57 US tons
>>65177200No, it's 38 metric tons or about 42 short tons
>>65174900Light tank/AGS/SPG brainrot constantly resurfaces because tacticians are in love with the idea of a mobile 105/120mm gun for direct fire.They always forget that a tank shaped vehicle is going to attract anti-tank weapons. Thus needs armour, thus is no longer a light tank.
>>65177217no it comes up because the Abrams is too fucking expensive to operate, burns too much gas, and is a 50 year old tank
>>65177217Tanks attract anti tank weapons AND have armor but that doesn't help much anymore
>>65174900What were YOU thinking, OP?I bet your parents are ashamed of your behavior!
>>65175420First point me to a single T-14 Armata that has left the parade grounds, lmao
>>65174900Bring us the girl, and we'll wipe away the debt
Look, we can't afford $500 million a year for that. We need to be spending that money on greatest ally. They only get $13 billion a year.
No.65174900because abrams doesn;t work in himayers or the pacifictoo big and too heavybut with no anti drone protection for ether it might as well be a dogs breakast
>>65177217The Bradley in the Gulf showed the concept is workable, and for that role deleting the troop compartment to replace with additional provisions for direct fire would theoretically lead to a net improvement in performance.
>>65177101There is a reason for that
>>65178134Yes, because you're supposed to. You probably don't even know how to pop your hood
>>65174900T-55 for $20,000,000 a copy, but without the proven reliability.Traditionally, new American armored vehicles take about a decade to "work the bugs out" of the basic drive train.
>>65178984It's based on the ascod 2/griffin 2 chassis , which has been around for awhile and is known to be quite reliable>T-55Lmao no>New american armored vehicles take about a decade to work out the bugs of the basic drivetrainNew armored vehicles such as?
>>65174913A $500 drone isn't busting through any armor. Those are for the $50k+ drones.
>>65174900Their procurement planners booked it.
>>65177206>Again, please cite your sources, because the actual MIL-STD engineering drawing states 114000lbs or 57 US tonsIt was an old janes fighting vehicles. All M60 variants were about 50 - 51 000 kg. 114 000 lbs from your source is 51 756 kg so I would say that they were correct. A pound is about 0.454 kilogram.
>>65179096Booker is 38k kilos according to gdls. Seems significantly lighter
>>65179009The HMPT-500 Failures (Historical & Field Variants)High Failure Rates: Early and ODS variants of the Bradley utilized the hydromechanical transmission (HMPT-500). In the 1980s and 1990s, these were plagued by reliability issues that caused the vehicle to suddenly drop to significantly lower speeds (10-12 mph) or fail completely.The M1 Abrams’ AGT1500 gas turbine engine gulps massive volumes of air, making fine Iraqi sand and dust its greatest mechanical enemy. Clogged air filters choked airflow, reducing engine power. If filters weren’t cleaned every 12 hours, sand ingestion caused catastrophic engine damage requiring costly replacements.
>>65179124>Booker is 38k kilos according to gdls. Seems significantly lighterStill too much considering that it is a glass cannon. I would have designed this vehicle different. I would have taken a smaller gun, a 2 man crew and invested the weight savings in armor optimized against shaped charges and a strong V-shaped bottom hull. Airmobile means that you have to make serious design trade offs to save weight. And if you make these in the wrong place, you end up with a glass cannon that looks nice on parade but wont survive a day at the front line because it will be holed and set on fire from just about anything. The formations that Booker was to be attached to have vehicles equipped with 40 mm AGLs and .50 cal machine guns. Any kind of autocannon would have been a major upgrade and so would armor good enough to handle ATGM shaped charges, even if it just from the front. M-10 Booker is a proof of the decline of the american officer corps as well as the american engineer.
>>65179254It has a v shaped hull bottom already. It's protection is alao not disclosed, but at least protection from 30mm in the frontal arc is known from public statements, with provisions for an APS to be fitted later. I personally don't think trying to armor against HEAT is a worthwhile weight investment because you aren't stopping modern ATGM's and you aren't armoring against man portable launchers all around, which is what you would need to do to defeat most drones. APS is a must A smaller gun is a good idea I think, mostly because 105mm is in an awkward middle ground between full bore tank guns and smaller caliber autocannons where you kind of get the worst of both worlds. The 50mm XM913 would have been great for it.>decline of the american officer corps and engineersLol no. You aren't getting what you described without being heavier still than a booker, I'll tell you that much. armoring against a modern missile is not the play without some pretty exotic leaps forward in material science and armor schemes
>>65174900>what the fuck were they thinking?that it was still 1990 desertstorm.webm and the US would always have "le air superiority" and we would be tap-dancing over the top of 'thirdie browns' foreverinstead FPV drones and fiber cable
Not even reading the thread but once again>Designed to support INFANTRY groups without requiring assets from Mech units>B-b-b-but just take a Stryker then....>Had to be cheaper than a MBT (it is)>Had to have firepower better than an IFV (it does)>Had to be lighter than an MBT (it is)>Had to have better protection than an IFV (it does, up to 30mm)And thus it was fine, but then a new admin came in and went>WAIT THIS THING CAN'T BE AIR DROPPED? IT'S USELESS! CANCEL IT!And nobody provided the vehicle that the army has wanted for years to support their infantry BTG and now they have to cuck and kneel to Mech chads for dealing with bunkers, fortifications and light vehicles.
>>65179324>would always have air superiorityLiterally the opposite, this was created to give organic fire support to units operating without guaranteed air support
>>65177064To be fair, the Abrams' best outings was when it had M60s supporting it for roles its fat ass couldn't be brought to bear.
>>65179343Centuaro exists. Booker is retarded. Simple as.
>>65179513>wheeled>Poor armor>designed as a tank destroyer>WheeledWhy even bring this up. Might as well say "M8 Scott" exists
>>65179530>>wheeledLike the Stykers is going to be supporting?>>Poor armor Booker is STANAG 5+ and the Centuaro is only 4, this is true. But you can up armor the Centuaro to 5. The tradeoff is weight, Booker comes in at 42t the Centauro at 30t - I write about this below. >>designed as a tank destroyerNo its not. Its a mobile gun.>>WheeledAgain, yes. Lets do some real thinking here, please don the hat of higher reasoning. Stated purpose of the M10 Booker >Give light infantry brigades their own armored direct-fire support vehicle without needing full Abrams tanks.IBCT's are primarily equipped with >Strykers (Wheeled), M-ATV's (Wheeled), JLTV's (Wheeled). Indirect fires from M119's and M777's (both have wheeled transports.)So,>mobility Since the units they are supporting are wheeled, you would actually want a wheeled and not a tracked vehicle. This because wheeled vehicles have greater inter and intra theater mobility. You can easily drive a wheeled vehicle from Germany to Poland because wheels get better MPG and can drive at higher speeds on hard surfaces. If you insert a tracked vehicle into the mix, it would either lag behind the formation or you would have to give it transports which adds more machinery (that needs logistics and staff) which consumes more fuel (which means either less mobility or you need to add more logistics). In terms of airlift, you can fit 2 Centuaro in a Globemaster to the 1 Booker and that scales to the Galaxy. You can also fit them in A400M's which means you can leverage allies.
>>65179290>personally don't think trying to armor against HEAT is a worthwhile weight investment because you aren't stopping modern ATGM's and you aren't armoring against man portable launchers all around, which is what you would need to do to defeat most drones. APS is a mustThat is because you are ignorant about how modern armor schemes work and how efficient they are. If you are trying to draw conclusions from Ukraine, you must remember that russians doesnt use modern armor schemes, their composite armor tech is from the 1960s and their weight budget is mostly invested in steel armor and the ukies are no better. You cant replace armor with APS and you cant even guarantee that your APS will be in working condition after a week in real battle conditions. That doesnt mean that APS isnt useful. I am not surprised that Booker turned out so wrong, remember that USN has lost the ability to design new ships and is surviving on upgraded 1980s designs and USAF has regressed from F-22s to F-15, the predecessor of F-22. It would be abnormal for the US army to not be affected by the rottening malaise that is everywhere else.
>>65179617The AGS Styker was retired partially because it couldn't keep up with the units it were attached to on its wheels. Centauro works well enough in the flat, open, solid fields of African savannas, but forget about the desert or the jungle.IMO, I don't necessarily think either design can't be made to fit the role by giving them an optional track system like was experimented with in the 30s and what General Dynamics was actually offering instead of going all-in designing a new vehicle.
>>65179617>>65179530Then You're also forgetting that the Centuaro has a 120mm which is not only vastly superior to the 105mm in the Booker, because you now get access to the M1147 Advanced Multi-Purpose shell but it also means more synergy with the Abrams. I also think that re-equipping it to have the same sub-systems wont be hard, which again would maximize logistics synergy. Pic unrelated
>>65179654>The AGS Styker was retired partially because it couldn't keep up with the unitsIt was mainly retired because it was a maintenance nightmare, the autoloader was broken more than it was working. >but forget about the desert or the jungle.As I said in my post, this doesnt matter because the units it will be supporting are almost 100% wheeled. Its important that we remember its designed to operate with light infantry brigades and not mechanized brigades.
