The potential of the M10 Booker fire support combat vehicle (USA)

80
The potential of the M10 Booker fire support combat vehicle (USA)
Experienced machine MPF from GDLS, 2020


The US Army Mobile Protected Firepower program successfully solves the tasks. The development of the new armored vehicle, recently designated the M10 Booker, has been completed and mass production is about to begin. The resulting sample is similar in appearance to a light tank, but the MPF program was based on a different concept. The new vehicle will be used as a mobile fire support vehicle.



Interim results


The MPF program started in 2015 with the involvement of leading American armored vehicle developers. In the second half of the tenth years, two participating companies worked out their projects, and then built and handed over to the customer experimental batches of equipment. Joint and comparative tests began in 2020 and ended in 2022.

The winner of the competition was the MPF project from the American branch of General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS). In June 2022, she received a contract for the first batch of new equipment. By the end of 2024, 26 armored vehicles, V.T., are to be handed over to the customer. 8 products of an experimental batch after completion. There is also an option for the next 70 units. new building.

By the summer of 2025, the US Army will receive the first battalion set of new Bookers (42 units). According to current plans, the production of M10 machines will continue until the mid-thirties. In total, more than 500 products will be purchased.


The operation of the M10 will be entrusted to specially formed or re-equipped separate battalions. Each will include two or three companies with 14 vehicles each. If necessary, companies will be attached to infantry brigades such as Infantry Brigade Combat Teams to enhance their firepower.

Technical features


The MPF combat vehicle project from GDLS was developed on the basis of a light tank- Griffin I / II technology demonstrator, created and presented in the early tenth years. This approach accelerated the preparation of a new project, and also made it possible to get by with available components and simplify production and subsequent operation.

The resulting product M10 Booker is an armored combat vehicle on a tracked chassis with a full-rotation turret carrying the entire set of weapons. At the development stage, measures were taken to increase the level of protection and firepower with a limited combat weight. It was also required to reduce the dimensions in accordance with the requirements of the military transport aviation.

The light tank M10 received a welded armored hull of a front-engine layout with a central location of the fighting compartment. The type and parameters of the reservation have not yet been disclosed. At the same time, it is reported that it is possible to install overhead booking and an active protection complex. In full configuration, the frontal projection of the hull and turret should probably withstand at least small-caliber projectiles.


M10 Booker at naming ceremony, June 2023

The chassis is equipped with an MTU 800 hp diesel engine. Through an Allison automatic transmission, power is sent to the front drive wheels. The undercarriage has six road wheels on board with a controlled hydropneumatic suspension. The maximum speed on the highway reaches 65 km / h, the cruising range is 300 km. Due to the sufficiently high specific power, the machine can overcome various obstacles. Reservoirs are crossed only by fords.

The turret and fighting compartment for the M10 were built using the solutions of the M1A2C tank (M1A2 SEP v.3). Main weapons is a 105mm M35 rifled gun. It uses a wide range of unitary shots with different types of projectiles. The supply of ammunition is carried out by the loader from the stacks in the rear of the tower and the hull. Additional armament includes a 7,62 mm coaxial machine gun and a large-caliber anti-aircraft M2.

The fire control system was borrowed from the M1A2C MBT almost unchanged. The tank received electronic optical sights for the gunner and commander (panoramic), as well as digital systems for processing information and calculating data for firing. Network-centric capabilities are provided.

The crew includes four people. In the hull, on the left side, there is a driver. Three other crew members work in the tower. The placement of their places is typical for American tanks. The gunner and commander are to the right of the gun, one after the other. The loader is given the left side of the tower.

Fire support


Despite the characteristic technical appearance, the US Army does not consider the M10 Booker a light tank. This technique is considered as a mobile means of infantry fire support. It must work in the same order with armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles or dismounted fighters and hit targets that pose a danger to infantry. The machine will be able to participate in defense and offensive.


The chosen role on the battlefield determined the appearance of the weapons complex used. So, the SLA for it is almost completely borrowed from the serial Abrams MBT and corresponds to the Hunter-killer concept. It is assumed that it will allow the crew in any conditions to notice and hit various targets in a timely manner, ensuring the safety of the infantry.

A 105 mm rifled gun is used as the main caliber. It is assumed that its characteristics and compatible ammunition will allow the Booker to hit a wide range of targets dangerous to infantry. The M35 gun is capable of effectively dealing with light armored vehicles, destroying some buildings, etc. Under certain conditions, it will allow even tanks and fortifications to be hit.

The new M10 machine differs from the current MBTs in its smaller size and weight. As a result, it is easier to transfer it by land or transport it by military transport aircraft. The infantry and the fire support unit will be able to arrive in the combat zone almost simultaneously. At the same time, in terms of mobility and driving performance, Booker differs little from armored infantry vehicles, which will also simplify collaboration.

Obvious disadvantages


In general, the US Army believes that the M10 machine has a number of important advantages that will effectively solve all the intended tasks on the battlefield. At the same time, the new "light tank" has significant drawbacks. They can impede combat work or lead to additional risks.


First of all, you need to pay attention to the level of protection, which turned out to be low due to the need to reduce the mass of the structure. Even a frontal projection with a full set of additional means will not be able to protect against modern tank and artillery shells or anti-tank missiles. Accordingly, on the battlefield, the M10 is at increased risk, and its survivability may be insufficient.

The requirements for the MPF program stipulated the use of 105 or 120 mm caliber guns. GDLS used a smaller caliber M35 system, which also affected the achievable combat performance and qualities. Such a weapon is really capable of hitting a wide range of targets, from infantry to some fortifications. However, for confident work on tanks and / or on targets at long ranges, the characteristics of the M35 are insufficient.

With all this, the Booker armored vehicle is not cheap. In accordance with current contracts for the first batches, the cost of one such product reaches $ 11,9 million. It is planned to spend $ 500 billion for the purchase and subsequent operation of a fleet of more than 17 vehicles over several decades - approximately $ 33 million for each.

specific result


The MPF program was given specific tasks. It was necessary to develop a lightweight combat vehicle with improved mobility, capable of operating at the forefront and firing at various targets. In fact, it was about some analogue of the modern MBT, but lighter, simpler, etc. The GDLS company successfully solved the set technical tasks, and its combat vehicle reached the point of being put into service.

However, such a success of the project speaks only about its compliance with the requirements of the customer. The real potential of such a machine in the conditions of modern armed conflict is still in question. Moreover, there is every reason to doubt the very need for such a "light tank". Obviously, only the experience of real combat use of equipment will give answers to all these questions. How soon the M10 Booker will be able to participate in battles and what results it will show is unknown.
80 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -2
    23 June 2023 02: 07
    The defense is weak. Our terminators hardly survive on the front line, but this one will immediately die if the enemy runs through the desert with not only one Kalash.
    1. +3
      23 June 2023 02: 21
      He is not for frontal attacks, he is for ambushes and support. The basic concept is the same as our Octopus. Only ours with more powerful weapons can swim and land. Truth and armor "cardboard".
      1. +3
        23 June 2023 21: 53
        Quote: NOMADE
        He is not for frontal attacks, he is for ambushes and support.

        Not for ambush. But it's more like a medium tank - fighting light armor, fire support.

        Quote: NOMADE
        The basic concept is the same as our Octopus. Only ours with more powerful weapons can swim and land. Truth and armor "cardboard".

        The Sprut's concept is still different - namely, the fight against heavy armored vehicles: a tank gun on an expensive and complex chassis + very light armor. IMHO, the octopus is a dead end.
        1. +2
          24 June 2023 06: 34
          Quote: Blackgrifon
          IMHO, the octopus is a dead end.

          An absolute dead end, and also expensive, and now occupying a production line at Kurganskmashzavod, which could produce the much-needed BMP-3M in the SVO.
          But if the Sprut turret (reinforced nevertheless) were put on the BMP-3M hull with the front placement of the MTO and the side screens of the Kurganets, then we could get an excellent light tank weighing 25 tons, capable of holding 30 mm. a projectile both in the forehead and on the sides, with the firepower of the MBT, and perhaps that it could also swim (but this is in question). Such a tank for the Airborne Forces, and for the MPs of the Navy, and for the avant-garde units of tank and motorized rifle divisions would be in great demand. At the same time, two such tanks could be easily loaded into one Il-76MD90A at once. Or one tank and a vehicle with ammunition, spare parts, expeditionary equipment and fuel.
          But the "landing lobby" pushed through an eccentric tin with an MBT gun and a parachute in the back.
          And the Americans ordered and receive for themselves an expeditionary "light" tank, which is much more convenient to transport both by transport aircraft and in landing ships.
          Therefore, this tank will still serve, but the Sprut-SDM is unlikely.
          1. +1
            25 June 2023 13: 04
            Quote: bayard
            now occupying the production line

            Fortunately not. Doesn't take. Nobody buys it.
            Quote: bayard
            But if the "Octopus" tower (reinforced nevertheless) was put on the body of the BMP-3M

            The same as the octopus. The best way to deal with a tank is an ATGM.

            Quote: bayard
            expeditionary "light" tank

            We already have one - called the BMP-3 and BMD-4M.
      2. +2
        24 June 2023 16: 22
        The basic concept is the same as our Octopus.

        There is no "concept like Octopus."

        Octopus - PT assault vehicle.

        Booker closes the need for units in fire support, where 25/30 mm infantry fighting vehicles are already not enough ("urban war", "war among the walls" - targets are in shelters and you need to hit the walls of houses, 2 bricks or a concrete slab), and the Abrams take a long time or not possible at all. Protection is adequate to the means of attack - RPGs, anti-tank systems and riflemen, up to light guns. For those "who are in the tank" and are looking for a light tank everywhere: The M10 Booker is an armored vehicle designed to support infantry brigade combat teams by suppression and destruction of fortifications, artillery systems and trench routes, and then, secondarily, to protect against enemy armored vehicles.
        - Major General Glenn Dean, Executive Director, Army Ground Combat Systems Program



        It is strange, by the way, that they abandoned the automatic loader. For 105 mm, this would be correct, IMHO, and they saved money on loaders. And then, as they say, in the USA "It was a difficult year: taxes, disasters, prostitution, banditry and a shortage in the army. It was impossible to put up with the latter .." (c) DMB.
        There is really a shortage in the US Army, even drill sergeants were forbidden to yell at tender recruits so as not to scatter ...

        In fact, IMHO, the Booker will occupy the niche of the unfortunate MGS-Stryker, which is being withdrawn from service.
    2. +2
      23 June 2023 19: 31
      Quote from Pilot
      The defense is weak.
      Protection also does not guarantee survival for tanks.
  2. +1
    23 June 2023 02: 10
    Hmm, a strange car with a 105mm cannon, low protection and the mass of almost our MBT.
    1. +7
      23 June 2023 04: 43
      strange car with 105mm gun, low defense

      Everyone repeats the same stupidity about low protection, without even bothering to look at the patient's mass. 40 tons

      Booker security is low only in comparison with 60 ton Abrams and Leopards

      The booker corresponds in terms of protection to the T-72 of the first series. And probably the new t-72b3

      Arguments:

      - close mass indicators ~ 38-42 tons. The first T-72s have 41 tons. T-72b3 - 46 tons

      Wherein:

      - Booker has no design frills, in terms of weapons. On the contrary, a much lighter gun 105 mm instead of 125 mm, so what is the freed up weight spent on?

      - a half-century age difference with the t-72, all units and parts of the Booker design are more efficient and lighter, the engine, the transmission. The difference in the mass of units and weapons - everything is spent on strengthening protection

      And everyone keeps talking about low security ...

      A full-fledged tank to reinforce the Stryker brigades and mobile units, having better transportability than the Abrams. And many times better security than wheeled tanks with a 105 mm gun based on the Stryker
      1. +2
        23 June 2023 05: 18
        Quote: Santa Fe
        Everyone repeats the same stupidity about low protection, without even bothering to look at the patient's mass. 40 tons

        There is such a thing - armored volume, and when worthless air is booked and carried, this does not add protection. So stupidity is to tie the mass to the protection without taking into account the size!
        1. +3
          23 June 2023 05: 44
          So stupidity is to tie the mass to the protection without taking into account the size!


          There are no official performance characteristics of the M10 tank yet. But your assumption about Booker's vulnerability due to "worthless air" does not find visual confirmation.

          Is the layout and dimensions of the Booker somehow too different from the dimensions of the Soviet-style MBT?

          1. -2
            23 June 2023 06: 02
            Quote: Santa Fe
            Is the layout and dimensions of the Booker somehow too different from the dimensions of the Soviet-style MBT?

            Well, not at all. (hand face)

            I do not like growth, there is a head.
            1. +7
              23 June 2023 08: 59
              I do not like growth, there is a head.
              the woman in the left picture is clearly not 180 cm tall. On the left photo, the men stand behind the tank, on the right in front of it. Do you think the proportions in the photo will depend on the angle? And from the height of the camera during the picture? Favorite focus of aliexpress, take a small person, put the product in the foreground, and the person in the background
              1. The comment was deleted.
            2. The comment was deleted.
              1. -1
                25 June 2023 16: 12
                Quote: BORMAN82
                In photographs taken from +/- the same angle, there is no particular difference in dimensions.

                A person who does not distinguish between 0/4 and 2/4 angles and also determines the dimensions. No way...
                1. -1
                  26 June 2023 03: 29
                  This scow is even taller than Abrams, well, or the men (amers for a minute) near Booker are no taller than 150 cm. Undersized, in short, well, at least not intellectual ...
                  1. 0
                    26 June 2023 11: 08
                    This scow is even taller than Abrams, well, or the men (amers for a minute) near Booker are no taller than 150 cm. Undersized, in short, well, at least not intellectual ...
                    1. The lower part of the Booker's body is at the level of the upper part of the road wheels, the hinged armor is also pulled up, which indicates a high ground clearance.
                    2. Booker is taller than Abrams, but its mass is less, as it were, in itself this should indicate that there is no direct dependence on the height of the tank and its mass.
                    1. -1
                      26 June 2023 11: 48
                      Quote: -Igor-
                      1. The lower part of the Booker's body is at the level of the upper part of the road wheels, the hinged armor is also pulled up, which indicates a high ground clearance.

                      Where are you coming from? Are you not able to see the photo from the article ?! All modern gus. BBM bottom in the middle of the rink +/-

                      Quote: -Igor-
                      2. Booker is taller than Abrams, but its mass is less, as it were, in itself this should indicate that there is no direct dependence on the height of the tank and its mass.
                      Where are you climbing from? What doesn’t let you understand that there is a direct relationship between size, weight and security?
                      But why am I asking? The fact that you are not able to cope with the scale already speaks of your level. I'm sorry that you are, but before you - you have not grown up ...
                      1. -1
                        27 June 2023 04: 35
                        Where are you climbing from? What doesn’t let you understand that there is a direct relationship between size, weight and security?
                        But why am I asking? The fact that you are not able to cope with the scale already speaks of your level. I'm sorry that you are, but before you - you have not grown up ...
                        you're the only one slacking off in this thread. All that they tried to convey to you was that your guesses in size have a very large adjustment of the conditions to the result. Comparison with Abrams and at all as an example of the fact that size (in this case, height) does not always indicate weak security and a large mass. But for you, your opinion is the ultimate truth, and instead of arguments, you turn to rudeness.
                      2. 0
                        27 June 2023 06: 50
                        Quote: -Igor-
                        Comparison with Abrams and at all as an example of the fact that size (in this case, height) does not always indicate weak security and a large mass.

                        Well, you are so stupid that you do not understand your own words ...
                      3. -1
                        27 June 2023 05: 30
                        What doesn’t let you understand that there is a direct relationship between size, weight and security?
                        what doesn’t make it clear to you that modern combined armor is quite large in size with a lower specific gravity compared to homogeneous and the first generations of combined armor? What prevents you from understanding that the front-engine layout allows you to reduce the mass of frontal armor? There is no absolute dependence of size, weight and security, you always need to look at the additional conditions.
                      4. 0
                        27 June 2023 06: 55
                        Quote: -Igor-
                        There is no absolute dependence of size, weight and security, you always need to look at the additional conditions.

                        What other additional parameters, if you can’t hold more than two ...
                        Quote: -Igor-
                        that modern combined armor is quite large in size with a lower specific gravity compared to homogeneous and the first generations of combined
                        Well, here is the confirmation of your inability to operate with more than two parameters. Because in addition to size and specific gravity, there is also an absolute mass in the case. Apart from the fact that this armor is not against BOPS.
                        Oh yes, any type of armor gives protection with thickness, not height. And for tank-like protection, the Booker had to be flat, not tall.

                        Well, squalor, by definition, remains ...
                2. 0
                  26 June 2023 13: 55
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  Quote: BORMAN82
                  In photographs taken from +/- the same angle, there is no particular difference in dimensions.

                  A person who does not distinguish between 0/4 and 2/4 angles and also determines the dimensions. No way...

                  This is told by the person who posted the frontal photo and the photo in 3/4 for comparison. Volodya - don't be ridiculous.
                  1. -1
                    26 June 2023 17: 32
                    Quote: BORMAN82
                    This is told by the person who posted the frontal photo and the photo in 3/4 for comparison. Volodya - don't be ridiculous.

                    At the same time, I didn’t play smart about the angles, like someone else.
          2. -4
            23 June 2023 17: 28
            "- a half-century age difference with the t-72, all units and parts of the Booker design are more efficient and lighter."
            Your assertion can be called into question. The efficiency of components and assemblies can be revealed only after long-term operation in critical modes. Until this is verified.
            1. +7
              23 June 2023 20: 33
              can be detected only after long-term operation in critical conditions.

              Another fan of denying the obvious, technological progress in half a century

              T-72 engine model 1973. Volume 38 liters, 780 hp

              BMP Puma (early 00s). MTU engine working volume 11 liters power 1000 hp

              What further clarification is needed here?

              With the same mass of combat vehicles, this huge difference in the weight of all units now goes to additional layers of protection
              1. -4
                24 June 2023 01: 03
                T 72/3-4 million dollars.
                Puma /9 million dollars.
                BMP by weight as t 72.
                The 30 mm gun is frankly weak.
                You distort with power, for some reason you forgot to say that there are several engines with specific power on the puma. Or didn't know?
                More precisely with different power. And all because the puma has 2 mass options. With a different category of armor. A/S.
                It is incorrect to compare combat units created in different eras and having different purposes. The tank still differs from the BMP in its philosophy and performance characteristics.
                And most importantly, why didn’t you compare a 73-year-old tank with a German infantry fighting vehicle from about the same years? For example with Kunitsa? It would be fair. And how many horses does Marten give out? That's right, 600.
                1. +3
                  24 June 2023 01: 44
                  And most importantly, why didn’t you compare a 73-year-old tank with a German infantry fighting vehicle from about the same years?

                  Because you didn't understand what was being said.

                  Here we are discussing an American tank of 2015 having a mass like an MBT T-72

                  A half-century difference in age will make itself felt, a new tank of the same mass has an advantage in security, because. with the same mass, its mechanisms weigh several times less. The difference is spent on increasing protection

                  The Puma example (an early 00 machine with known performance characteristics) was cited as evidence of the impact of technological progress. Only 11 liters working volume. Half a century ago, for such power, a 38-liter unit was required

                  More questions?
      2. -3
        23 June 2023 13: 38
        As for the new booker transmissions, this is more of a drawback than an efficiency. They will treat their illnesses for another 30 years. Especially where they saved on weight))
        1. +4
          23 June 2023 20: 38
          Especially where they saved on weight))

          Reliability has nothing to do with it, with each new generation of technology it only increases

          Weight is saved due to technical progress, the growth of all specific indicators
          1. -3
            24 June 2023 09: 25
            Enough of the clichéd arguments. For 100 years, the mass of vehicles has increased, not decreased due to technological progress. Tell Musk about the reliability of the new generation, in which the spaceport on new materials shattered from the good old jet stream.
            1. +3
              24 June 2023 09: 56
              Quote from Beaver.
              which the spaceport on new materials scattered from the good old jet stream.

              I am forced to note that astronautics has not yet seen such jets.
        2. +3
          23 June 2023 23: 58
          The reality is that Ford or Toyota is developing a new unit, whether it be a dviglo or transmission, sticks several tons / pieces from the conveyor to the consumer into the new model. What for they are 30 years old for fine-tuning, when everything is debugged?
  3. -2
    23 June 2023 02: 39
    It turns out that the Americans have revived the analogue of the T-54, only with modern control systems. So, it's too early to write off the T-54. Although, the Terminator, he is also the Terminator in Africa. Of course, this is the next stage in the development of armored vehicles.
    1. +7
      23 June 2023 05: 12
      It turns out that the Americans revived the analogue of the T-54

      No, not revived

      In 1946, the engine, all drives and mechanisms of the tank weighed differently than in 2015

      Progress in booking schemes, the emergence of combined protection

      In our time. With the same mass, you get a better armed and especially - many times more protected car

      And you are all burning with the idea of ​​​​ditching more people on the T-54
      1. -1
        23 June 2023 15: 35
        Making the engine lighter than the B-2 series is almost impossible. Everything is squeezed in there. Now 1000 liters. With. per ton. Aviation roots.
        And they didn’t object to anything about the booked volume. Some fender niches are worth it.
        Of course, the weak point of the T-54 is motion control. That is, the transmission needs to be changed, besides, the standard gearbox is more than 620 hp. With. does not hold (T-62).
        The energy intensity of the suspension is low.
        But each armored hull is a huge value. And there are very few restrictions on modernization.
    2. +3
      23 June 2023 08: 23
      Quote from Eugene Zaboy
      It turns out that the Americans have revived the analogue of the T-54, only with modern control systems.

      They have their "T-54 analogues" at least eat.
    3. 0
      23 June 2023 19: 36
      Quote from Eugene Zaboy
      It turns out that the Americans revived the analogue of the T-54
      Not a T-54, but a medium tank. It’s in vain that they didn’t put a 120-mm cannon: its projectile power is noticeably higher, plus it would be possible to “eat” with “large” tanks. The idea would be good: for the first time in many years, the United States would have a tank, and not a self-propelled gun against the T-72 (Abrams), if not for the insane price.
  4. -3
    23 June 2023 04: 17
    Everything without AZ sucks. If you remove the charging product, it will be even easier.
    As Comrade said. Morozov: "Why carry armored air?"
  5. IVZ
    -2
    23 June 2023 05: 52
    It must work in the same order with armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles or dismounted fighters and hit targets that pose a danger to infantry.
    . Those. M10 + Bradley with a total weight of approx. 70 tons = BMP-3? Some nonsense.
    1. +2
      23 June 2023 07: 19
      The US infantry brigades do not have infantry fighting vehicles, they move on armored vehicles such as Humvee, Oshkosh.
      BTR Stryker - in medium striker brigades, MBT Abrams and BMP Bradley in heavy brigades.
  6. +6
    23 June 2023 06: 14
    Americans: creating a lighter vehicle than MBT, a tracked analogue of the M1128
    Meanwhile Ryabov:
    attention should be paid to the level of protection, which turned out to be low

    The vehicle is lightly armored only with respect to much heavier Western MBTs and was created for its niche - strengthening mechanized units on BMPs
    1. +2
      23 June 2023 07: 42
      "The M10 Booker is an armored vehicle that is intended to support our Infantry Brigade Combat Teams" (quoted) - there is not a word about mechanized brigades on BMPs, just like there is not a word about motorized brigades on Strikers. Here about light infantry brigades on MRAP.
  7. -4
    23 June 2023 06: 42
    Light machine, no to automate processes. They put the loader there again
    1. +5
      23 June 2023 07: 23
      Americans consider the loader an advantage, not a disadvantage. First of all, in terms of maintenance and operation of the machine. They also believe that the loader is more reliable than the automatic loader, in case of failure of which the tank loses its combat capability, and the loader who is out of order can be replaced, for example, by the commander
      1. 0
        23 June 2023 19: 38
        Quote: Cympak
        Americans consider the loader an advantage, not a disadvantage. First of all, in terms of maintenance and operation of the machine.
        And why drag him under the armor? Let him sit at the base, safe, and not under fire.
        Quote: Cympak
        They also believe that the loader is more reliable than the automatic loader, if it fails, the tank loses its combat capability, and the loader who is out of order can be replaced, for example, by the commander
        A retired automatic loader can also be replaced by a commander. Only they do not like it, "swear words say."
  8. +1
    23 June 2023 07: 39
    They forgot a little that the ILC abandoned the M1. And ahead of the war in Taiwan and the Pacific in general. I think the American Marines will be the first to master the M10, then they will spin up advertising for the sale to all the grunts.
    1. +2
      23 June 2023 07: 50
      M10 goes to reinforce US light infantry brigades. Marines have nothing to do with it, at least at the moment.
    2. +2
      23 June 2023 20: 57
      The ILC is generally radically reformatted (about which there is a gnashing of teeth). It is based on Taiwan and the Pacific Ocean. Now it will not be a "second army", but "rocket-island troops".
  9. -1
    23 June 2023 07: 56
    Well, we also have the same Octopus car, a light tank, it also swims and has a tank caliber!
  10. +2
    23 June 2023 08: 29
    Looks like another pointless cut. Giving an infantry division a battalion of tanks is not God knows what a revolutionary idea (the first time she visited the Americans back in 45), no new equipment is required for this. Serious tasks here for the manufacturer - in connection with the possible replacement of Bradley and M109, they managed to shove their "medium-weight" platform in advance, this can be a serious plus.
    1. 0
      23 June 2023 19: 41
      Quote: Negro
      Looks like another pointless cut.
      The idea is good, but the price is insane. If you "cut the sturgeon" at least by half, then the decision will become correct and the states will again have a tank.
      1. +1
        23 June 2023 20: 16
        Quote: bk0010
        correct and the states will again have a tank.

        The state tanks did not go anywhere. For half the price and half the time, the same manufacturer can provide the same number of Abrams in the current series.

        The desire of the Pentagon to support GDLS with money looks too pale.
        1. -1
          24 June 2023 09: 46
          Quote: Negro
          The state tanks did not go anywhere. For half the price and half the time, the same manufacturer can provide the same number of Abrams in the current series.
          Abrams already exist. But Abrams is not a tank, but a heavy anti-tank self-propelled gun. To arrange something like a blitzkrieg of 1939-1941 on it is not that impossible, but extremely difficult: it will require a lot of "dancers" without any special advantages over an easier option.
          Quote: Negro
          The desire of the Pentagon to support GDLS with money looks too pale.
          Actually freaked out. For such grandmas you can buy a helicopter.
          1. +5
            24 June 2023 09: 54
            Quote: bk0010
            It is not impossible to arrange something like a blitzkrieg of 1939-1941 on it, but it is extremely difficult

            All "like blitzkriegs" over the past 50 years have been performed on abrams. Luckily, there were only two. And in the same place.
            Quote: bk0010
            without much advantage over the easier option.

            A tank always has an advantage over a cannon infantry fighting vehicle. Because he is a tank.
            Quote: bk0010
            Generally fucked up

            In principle, it may not be bad to support GDLS with money. But they produce a lot of useful things - why buy slag?
            1. -2
              24 June 2023 12: 07
              Quote: Negro
              All "like blitzkriegs" over the past 50 years have been performed on abrams. Luckily, there were only two. And in the same place.
              These were not blitzkriegs, it was just a quick offensive: there was no separation from their rear.
              Quote: Negro
              A tank always has an advantage over a cannon infantry fighting vehicle.
              Before the BMP - certainly. And in front of another tank - a question. A tank of 40 tons has the opportunity to provide a total advantage in mobility, both tactical and strategic. It's better to have thin armor on the LBS than thick armor on the base. No, it’s clear that thick armor on LBS is cooler, but this is only guaranteed if you attack yourself.
              1. +1
                24 June 2023 15: 41
                Quote: bk0010
                but this is only guaranteed if you attack yourself.

                I do not see the problem.
                Quote: bk0010
                it was just a quick offensive: there was no separation from their rear.

                Compare any blitzkrieg (Polish, French) with the rapid advance of 2003.
  11. -4
    23 June 2023 08: 31
    For 10 million there is neither KAZ nor DZ, did I understand correctly ?!
    Protection at the level of Bradley, it turns out.
  12. +4
    23 June 2023 09: 10
    The tank was clearly made for the prospects of future US wars. And what might they look like? It’s right for the war with Japan, only other Asians will be here. And there were Ostrava, lagoons, jungles where just light tanks + air mobility will look good. It’s not for nothing that they did it, this is a reserve for the war with China hi
  13. BAI
    -5
    23 June 2023 09: 13
    As always - to fight against those who cannot fight back. In Ukraine, he will not reach the front line.
    1. -2
      23 June 2023 10: 00
      . In Ukraine, he will not reach the front line.
      . It will reach or not, it seems that just the same, we will soon find out. No wonder the weight of the car was initially limited by the terms of reference. But wasn’t it designed for Soviet-built bridges?
  14. +2
    23 June 2023 10: 23
    They are led by air mobility and counter-guerrilla warfare. We have landing and overcoming water obstacles. Hence their similarity to the M10 Booker and the Octopus and the difference in the general concept of a "light tank".
  15. +5
    23 June 2023 11: 32
    The vehicle meets the requirements of the customer, has been put into service, which means it is a good vehicle. The armament is suitable for supporting infantry and combating lightly armored vehicles. Booking for this type of cars is sufficient. If you do not use it on a tank, but use well-aligned aircraft against infantry, it will live for a long time
  16. -2
    23 June 2023 13: 21
    Quote: Santa Fe
    Everyone repeats the same stupidity about low protection, without even bothering to look at the patient's mass. 40 tons

    Booker security is low only in comparison with 60 ton Abrams and Leopards

    The booker corresponds in terms of protection to the T-72 of the first series. And probably the new t-72b3

    Arguments:

    - close mass indicators ~ 38-42 tons. The first T-72s have 41 tons. T-72b3 - 46 tons



    Since when is mass directly related to body armor? It is necessary to take into account the dimensions of the machine. And Booker has them clearly more than the T-72. If only because the crew is larger - 4 people instead of 3. And the size of the tower speaks for itself.
    I will not say that the passive protection of the early T-72s also does not meet modern requirements.

    Well, how the machine is planned to be used ... alas, in a clash with a technically equipped enemy, hazing situations are a common thing.
    Although even in battles with barmaley, who have plenty of ATGMs and RPGs, this sample may turn out to be too short-lived. Especially in urban combat.
    And the cost of "Booker" seems extremely overpriced. Another sawing of budget grandmas by the hairy hands of lobbyists.
    1. +4
      23 June 2023 15: 30
      This is an American machine and they will use it according to their doctrine. First, a bomb or "ax", then reconnaissance and offensive. If the ATGM barmaley has no particular difference between a tank and a fire support vehicle, they will burn both. And the use of armored vehicles in the city, this is from poverty, the FAB with correction is capable of destroying the center of resistance.
  17. -2
    23 June 2023 16: 08
    Hmm. The 64-year-old T-60A quietly chuckles on the sidelines - surpassing the new "light" tank in all respects with a lower mass. And the half-century 40-ton T-72 also twists its finger at the temple.
  18. -1
    23 June 2023 16: 23
    In fact, the Americans simply reinvented the medium tank. True, inferior, after a whole era, to the Soviet ST and MBT of the 60s and 70s, with the same mass. Even the engine, with modern capabilities, could not deliver a normal one, the specific power is at the same half-century level and is inferior to the same t72b3 / t90. The gun itself is no stronger than on the T-62, only the ammunition is more modern. Comparing reservations in absentia only on the basis of mass, as the commentators did above, is fierce nonsense. Soviet / Russian tanks with equal mass have a much smaller reserved volume. In general, a hand.
    Although the division into medium and heavy tanks is long overdue. And if the Americans reinvent the medium one, then it’s time for us to return the heavy ones (at one time hacked to death by Khrushchev) - just 60-70 tons and with a 152mm cannon (preferably rifled). For assault operations it will be the most. With the current static fronts, operational and strategic mobility no longer plays that role.
    1. -1
      23 June 2023 23: 21
      They did not just "invent" the medium tank - they specifically invented their own M60. Here we criticize all our own for "various sorting" in technology here and there ... and here you are! Same yayThe same 105-mm cannon in a unique case (not unified with other BMs, obviously not optimal, created for the transportation of infantry, it was possible to somehow tolerate this at the Bradley base, but to do such a new thing ...)! And for what? It was possible to reduce the weight by as much as 6 tons (it is not known how much stamina was dropped at the same time)! Well, if it was so directly critical to fit into 40 tons, the same effect could be achieved by developing a modern welded hull and turret for the M60 using combined barriers instead of homogeneous casting from the 70s. The internal volume for the front location of the MTO could also be rearranged. But the cannon from Abrams is also quite placed on him ... Yes, and why don't we see the AZ from Stryker here? Did they make Zamwalt instead of Burke again?
  19. 0
    23 June 2023 16: 56
    This M10 Booker has not caterpillars, but jewelry-made caterpillars, some narrow rubber bands, like on a model car. These rubberized narrow tracks look completely unreliable and somehow disproportionate to the hull. On such asphalt ride and smooth rocky ground.
  20. +3
    23 June 2023 18: 45
    I like how our people have already dubbed it as "unreliable", "weak" and "cardboard".
    And no one even paid attention that it was not created to replace Abrams, but to reinforce infantry units that had only Humvees before (more precisely, what replaced them) and some kind of M113. And now these units will have a full-fledged armored vehicle with a 100 mm gun and armor that will accurately protect against 30 and 40 mm. The guns of our armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles. And in theory, KAZ will obviously be written there later, which means that the ATGM will intercept
  21. -1
    23 June 2023 21: 13
    Drop dead. In a weight of 42 tons, they received a sort of miracle Yudo. Throw two more, and there will be a full-fledged modern Type 10 MBT. Moreover, the Japanese, due to one and a half times more powerful engine, is also faster than a "light tank".
  22. 0
    24 June 2023 08: 48
    Quote: Uncle_Misha
    This is an American machine and they will use it according to their doctrine. First, a bomb or "ax", then reconnaissance and offensive. If the ATGM barmaley has no particular difference between a tank and a fire support vehicle, they will burn both. And the use of armored vehicles in the city, this is from poverty, the FAB with correction is capable of destroying the center of resistance.


    Not everything goes according to doctrine. In Afghanistan, it did not work out very well, as earlier in Somalia and Vietnam.

    Like, the Yankees did not introduce armored vehicles into the cities?
    Well, if in some parallel reality.

    Yes, if you don't care about "collateral victims". Only momentary success as a result of the bombing of residential areas can lead to undesirable consequences in the form of large-scale guerrilla actions on the part of the enemy.
    The Yankees have a lot of talent, it must be admitted. One of them is to turn against them those who were quite loyal to them before the "democratic intervention".
    1. +1
      24 June 2023 10: 56
      In Afghanistan, the Americans did not fight, the locals took the rap for them, look at the losses in 20 years, of both. Whoever wrote about the "accompanying victims" "human shields" with tears in their eyes. The commander has two tasks, to fulfill the order and at the same time preserve the personnel as much as possible, if he does not, he is a worthless commander. If you put on a military uniform and fall under the command of such an Arkharovian, I don’t envy you. You won’t be able to fight in white gloves.
  23. 0
    24 June 2023 08: 52
    Quote: spirit
    And there were Ostrava, lagoons, jungles where just light tanks + air mobility would look good. No wonder they did it, this was a reserve for the war with China


    The Yankees already had experience using light armored vehicles in the Vietnamese jungle. It is difficult to call it positive.
    Ground databases against the PLA for the United States would be a nightmare, given the numerical superiority of the Chinese army and its technical equipment. It is unlikely that this will come to pass.
  24. -1
    24 June 2023 13: 53
    Whatever they call it, but it’s a tank .... A leap not even to the side, but backwards due to a dead end in this type of weaponry due to the limited transportation by aircraft of existing models in service with tanks. The technology of the last century with the inherent disadvantages of the United States ... Against the real this machine has absolutely no chance of an enemy in any situation. With the destruction of the USSR in the United States, degradation occurs in all areas of the economy, including the defense industry.
  25. +1
    24 June 2023 14: 15
    Quote: Uncle_Misha
    In Afghanistan, the Americans did not fight, the locals took the rap for them, according to
    see losses over 20 years, both.


    Nevertheless, they fought and there were losses. It was not so much the locals who took the rap, but the PMCs. However, such tactics led to a change in public sentiment, an increase in the popularity of the Taliban and anti-Americanism with a completely natural ending.
    1. +1
      24 June 2023 15: 34
      Nobody argues, there were losses, only compared to ours, who really fought, they were small, but there is an increase in losses among Afghan PMCs and probably American ones. There is information on Afghan losses on the net, although it is vague. Well, the growth in the popularity of the Taliban is not connected with PMCs, I will not write about the reasons, the topic is still about weapons.
  26. 0
    24 June 2023 14: 18
    Quote: Igorash
    Whatever they call it, but it’s a tank .... A jump not even to the side, but back due to a deadlock in this type of weaponry due to the limited transportation of existing samples by aircraft in service with tanks.


    This move is not original. The South Koreans, creating the Black Panther K1, also took the Abrams as a basis, but put it on a diet, reducing armor and weight, making their tank more mobile and more passable.
    Well, after we received our T-80s, we decided that the automatic loader was a useful thing.
  27. The comment was deleted.
  28. 0
    24 July 2023 13: 12
    A huge barn with protection at the level of an infantry fighting vehicle, with a 105 mm gun. It's about nothing.
  29. 0
    4 August 2023 01: 26
    It is unlikely that this machine can compete with the Terminator. He will receive several 30 mm shells in the forehead, go blind and be finished off by anti-tank systems. As a means of supporting infantry, it is also not very suitable. Armor protection is rather weak, the rate of fire is low. The density of fire against infantry is more important than the power of a single shot. Most likely this is an export option for the poor.
  30. 0
    4 August 2023 19: 44
    A very good car, in fact, the BMP 3 occupies its niche, I think it would be nice for us to produce the BMP 3 in the steel version, because it is used to suppress infantry, armor could be inserted into the infantry squad