So you want to know why we ditched the Booker

[panzergator]

Take a look at Youtube vid "Why the Army Killed Their $17 billion M10 Booker Light Tank Program.

Now, I have problems with even the TITLE of this video, and THEN it's narrated by a MARINE! The guy does not speak Armor the way Army tankers do - context, perspective, terms, concepts. But there is interesting info here. I just had to grit my teeth a bit to listen. It's worth the trouble. The M10 WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE A LIGHT TANK! Keep that in mind. The narrator just doesn't speak or think in Armor. Because he's a MARINE INFANTRYMAN!

In an environment in which the M1 is vulnerable, we have to accept that a light armored gun vehicle, whether it's an infantry support vehicle or a light tank for cavalry, is just going to be vulnerable, as well. The crews of WWII cavalry units were quite happy with the M24 and tank destroyer crews knew how to make the lightly-armored M18 very effective (post-war evaluation board reports). Effective use of armor of any thickness ALWAYS is predicated on effective TACTICS.

Let me add a side note here. As pleased as I was to see Chobham armor on M1 tanks, I have never been in the camp that expected the M1 or any other tank to be invulnerable. I know tankers get killed in battle just like infantrymen. So my expectations aren't those of journalists or laymen, that our armored vehicles will stand against any assault. I was not surprised to see M1s destroyed in Ukraine, although I disagree with the decision to give M1s to ANYBODY but US troops. It doesn't surprise me to see drones take out M1s, either. We must adapt.

[StarCruiser]

We all know that active countermeasures are better than the Russian's "cope cages". Spot and take out the threat before it reaches the tank.

The M10 could have worked with such systems, in theory...

[Hoth_902]

Panzer,

Thanks for the info. I am sad to see it cancelled.....even if my opinion is not based on reap world experiences. With that said, I am glad GHQ released the sculp before the program was cancelled. I plan to buy at least a company or two more.

[panzergator]

Starcruiser, it wasn't just vulnerability to kamikaze drones that caused the cancellation. Attaching drone defenses to the exterior or assigning drone defense vehicles to defend M10 units would just have thrown more money after a bad concept. Just for starters, for its 42-ton weight, you could have real tank with a more effective gun. But 42 tons is just too heavy for the vehicle's mission, which is to accompany STRYKERS.

Hoth, remember that, in execution, you would likely see one company of 14 M10s attached to each STRYKER brigade. I have grouped a battalion of Marine LAVs, a battalion of V150s, and a STRYKER battalion into an infantry brigade, with one M10 company in support. That's it for M10s for me.

You could, I suppose, turn the M10 into a cavalry vehicle - replace the 105mm with a 40mm or 57mm and add a Javelin launcher, better optics, and additional sensors. That might make it a bit lighter and faster. I'm not inclined to work on modifying mine. As it stands, it's too much for some missions and not enough for others. M10 was just a tracked FUBAR sucking up resources.

In the end, a smaller, lighter wheeled vehicle designed to CARRY MORE of the tools the infantry ALREADY HAS for the things it supposedly wanted M10 for would have been a better investment. For that matter, just add an extra STRYKER or two to each company to carry the stuff - AT4s LAWs, Javelins, etc. Would've been cheaper.

Now, if you REALLY want a gun vehicle, take the GAU8s out of damaged A10s and mount 'em on a tracked, protected chassis!

[chrisswim]

I like the idea of utilizing the GAU-8 on a ground vehicle.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

The GAU-8 would be unbelievably good in the ground support role.

[chrisswim]

Not sure of the effectiveness against front (turret or hull) of the armor of an MBT.
If it would go through, provide the same rounds to the Dragoons, and all other 30mm armed vehicles.
Roof: Yes.
Sides: maybe….?

What are your thoughts.

[panzergator]

On an A10, it is effective against tanks. It will be the same on the ground.

[chrisswim]

The A-10 is coming down at a 30-60 degree angle. That is the comparative tactical advantage of an A-10. Thus expecting many of the depleted uranium rounds to go through the roof of the turret and/or the engine deck. Armor is thinner there.

[madman]

Panzer. It is great to see you back on line. I didn't know where to post this so being a long time gamer I rolled the dice. Take care my friend.

[Hoth_902]

Panzer,
So you have one Company for the LAVS, one for the strykers and one for the V150s, is that correct? At the very least, I need one company in All green and one in Desert Colors. After that, I might order a 3rd and maybe a 4th.. just cus. LOL. The reality is, I probably just need one company in each of the two paint schemes. However, I am becoming a micro armor hoarder, so I am compelled to buy more.. LOL.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

If you've seen what an M242 Bushmaster did to a T-90 here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrrso5JDR5I

then you can imagine what a GAU-8 would do at 4k rounds/minute speed bursts hitting the target.

[panzergator]

I have only one company of M10s. Each battalion COULD get one platoon in support, should circumstances dictate. TBD by the brigade commander. Not sending good money after bad. If you've read my previous comments on the M10 FUBAR...

A short burst by the GAU8 at any angle should do what needs to be done. Likely the weight of round impact in that volume will dislodge the turret, explosive effects to quickly follow.

[panzergator]

Thanks, Madman. I'm always hanging around, check in usually daily. I'm always interested in what folks have to say and I like the pics. I've already contributed most of what I've got to say.