Thread 63955317

Is it the right decision to cancel this?

>>63955317 (OP)
Yes. It was stupid and way too heavy
>but that wasn't a requirement
Fuck off it should've been, we have a need for a lightweight gun platform

>>63955317 (OP)
no

>>63955317 (OP)
Maybe.

Yes, it was a failed light tank.

>>63955317 (OP)
No. Infantry divisions now lack organic firepower. A necessity that was recognized before WW2.

>>63955322
The Bradley was stupid and way too heavy but that didn't stop it from kicking ass.

Unfortunately for the M10, it is not an IFV, APC, or artillery. It's a light tank. Which have been obsolete for like half a fucking century now.

>>63955338
Assault guns are artillery.

>>63955317 (OP)
Replace that tiny 105 with 155 and make it a true infantry support vehicle

>>63955322
>Fuck off it should've been
only a single airborne division was getting it, so there was never any need for an airborne requirement
they also needed a minimum of 14.5mm all-around protection so that it would not be vulnerable to artillery
the latter precludes the former if you also want it to have good ergonomics, and that was just a necessary tradeoff to achieve necessary protection

> we have a need for a lightweight gun platform
it was lighter than an M1 abrams, which was mattetered

>>63955352
>only a single airborne division was getting it
Since when? It was always supposed to be part of the light divisions as well.

>>63955338
>It's a light tank
the M3 is a light tank, or fills the light tank role despite not being one itself

>Which have been obsolete for like half a fucking century now.
the M3 works just fine

the M10 is not a light tank, its a direct fire armored vehicle
under normal circumstances, the M1 abram would fill this role, which it did in the 1980s
but the M1 is both heavy and logistically demanding and has been optimized for combatting enemy armor
so the M10 is a design optimized for supporting infantry instead, it is lighter and smaller
the loss of capability against MBTs is not a big deal since it will rarely fight them in this role

>the "not a light tank" also "not a tank" thing that weighs the same as a jumbo sherman
Why aren't people arrested for this corruption and incompetent use of funding?

>>63955356
>It was always supposed to be part of the light divisions as well.
and it was going to be in 9 light divisions and a single airborne division
light divisions are incapable of air-dropped operations, and can only move about a single company by helicopter at a time

so requiring the M10 to be airdroppable is stupid when only 1/10th of their users would actually need it
and airborne are not primarily supplied via parachuted drops anyways, they capture airfields and have supplies offloaded, so even for the airborne the M10 would not be overly hampered by this anyways

>>63955317 (OP)
Yes cause they had really no clue what to use it for outside of mountains in Korea and even then it wasn't optimal for that.

>>63955368
>Yes cause they had really no clue what to use it for outside of mountains in Korea
it would have been used to give infantry a longer ranged weapon with a high ammo capacity that could move under armor

the use cases for this are fairly generic, its a middle-ground weapon between using AT4s and artillery

>>63955366
Oh yeah, I misunderstood.

>>63955340
>>63955360
You are both hopelessly retarded. May God have mercy on your wretched souls.

>>63955317 (OP)
Are they going to replace it with anything or are they just gonna ignore concept of lighter-than-MBT-gun-platform? And what will happen to the already produced M10?

>>63955544
>Are they going to replace it with anything or are they just gonna ignore concept of lighter-than-MBT-gun-platform?
they will probably silently revisit the concept 10 years later with more buzzwords like "optionally manned"

>And what will happen to the already produced M10?
they have 96 already produced, which is enough to equip a single division instead of the 10 planned

>>63955544
they will put recoilless rifles on jeeps or some stupid bullshit

>>63955370
Problem is they can still use an Abrams for that.

Why the fuck are infantry divisions a thing?
>Oh the infantry need mobile protected firepower
Give them a fucking tank
>Stryker brigades need a cannon vehicle that can roll with the Stryker
>Maybe even roll off the same transports
Shut the fuck up if you cared you wouldn't have cancelled the M8, my beloved. Give them tanks.

Decades of doctrinal research and still no idea on how to give the infantry organic fire support? We had a solution to that it's called a tank. Every military formation must contain a tank battalion. Give me my medal.

>>63955317 (OP)
no
it looks cool

>>63955317 (OP)
Warriortard fucked up his sleep schedule again?

>>63955356
>Army 2030
is this a good thing? why the change?

>>63955317 (OP)
T-55 for $20,000,000+......

that hasn't been proven even in exercises?

Whats not to like?

BTW, these days a Jr HS kid from Korea can strap a $25 Walmart smart phone to breech of a tank's gun and have full Drone Control targeting.

just fix this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1128_mobile_gun_system

maybe give it the M10 low recoil instead of same gun as M-60 mbt.

maybe give Styker a 90mm

>>63955795
>is this a good thing?
conventional warfare
independent brigades are fine for asymmetric warfare where you need maximum flexibility and you will always outnumber the enemy tactically

but in a conventional battle in europe, you want more centralization
so the brigades are grouped back up into divisions with their heavy artillery and engineering units concentrated within the division HQ rather than under each brigade
divisions being in-theatre also means divisional assets will always be present
brigade-level maneuver is also necessary when fighting enemies with equal number to you, the amount of space that needs to be controlled is suddenly much bigger

>>63955888
even if the stryker MGS was reliable and functional, it would not be what they are looking for
they wanted high combat endurance of at least 28 rounds and with a preferred 44 round, the stryker has only 18 rounds
the stryker is also wheeled, when they wanted a tracked vehicle to be able to follow infantry off-road and to provide better arty protection

>>63955841
Hi warriortard! Did you forget to take your meds this week?

>>63955317 (OP)
I don't look the way it looks so yes.

>>63955544
They can put M3 Bradley as light tank into infatry brigades. Its already exist and bought by Army/

>>63955317 (OP)
It was a worse version of something our allies already fielded, but I am still miffed we STILL don't have a lightweight direct fire platform to replace the Sheridan.
I would even take the tracked Stryker.

>>63957239
Man the BUSK goes so fucking hard

OP probably doesn't understand why his grammar gives himself away as a thirdie.

>>63955338
The Bradley was neither a stupid idea or too heavy.

>>63955888
The M68A2 on an M1128 is a low recoil variant.

>>63957239
They could also just up gun the Bradley for less and get a lighter assault gun.

>>63955337
>No. Infantry divisions now lack organic firepower.

Huh?

>>63955588
THANK YOU. My man. The fact that the Army felt a need for this POS at all is an indicator that their organization is totally fucked. It's literally a skill issue.

They won't accept the compromises needed to get to their goal, and don't know how to manage proper procurement anymore


>>63955588
the Abrams is a horrendously dated vehicle at this point

>>63955345
Stop. I can only get so erect.

>>63957996
Not every infantry unit has tanks. Especially not 25th ID who are currently a light infantry division. The whole point of the booker was to be an assault gun for light infantry divisions.

I get why they cancelled it, but it also does make sense why it was ordered too. I think upgunning light infantry is a worthwhile idea, and old Petey boy got spooked by drones. It's stupid because light infantry are always gonna attacked by drones. Now they'll just get attacked by drones, but without gun support.

>>63958330
tech bros reminding us how little they know about military equipment

>>63958402
What the Army wanted made sense, what they ended up with because BAE blew the selection did not.

>>63958330
>the Abrams is a horrendously dated vehicle at this point
Then stop beating around the bush and make a better tank. The fucking Croats are somehow more forward-thinking than the US Army in that regard, they already have their next MBT half-baked for when they're ready for dinner.

>>63958431
You are talking to a Germanophile.

>>63955352
>they also needed a minimum of 14.5mm all-around protection so that it would not be vulnerable to artillery
That's fine, you can get that without being as heavy as the booker, the issue is the booker was required to stop 30mm apfsds frontally.

>>63958520
I can't fault that honestly, the Leo 2 and the Lynx are both great. Though that doesn't make the M10 any less of an ass-backwards solution to something that should be a non-issue.

Honestly the Leo 2 might straight-up be better than the Abrams with all the crazy shit the Krauts have been doing with it.

>>63958412
Did you see what the issues were with the BAE system offered?

the M8 based design was just too dated to result in an acceptable vehicle.

>>63955317 (OP)
I'd say so. I haven't researched it that deeply but it looked like it was too expensive and too heavy for the capabilities it provided.

>>63955317 (OP)
Why don’t they just buy a license to manufacture cv90-120s or buy them? Or also why not just fix the flaws with Stryker MGS and bring them back into service?

>>63958600
What was wrong with the M8 exactly? It's over a decade younger than the Bradley, Abrams, and even the LAV the Stryker is based off of.

>>63958779
its simply too small to meet the armies requirements adequately as laid out in the MPF program.

to get a working vehicle on the M8 base, the coax MG has to be reloaded by traversing the turret over the right side, and the driver to then grab ammo boxes on the side of the autoloader, and pass them internally to the gunner to reload.
The TCs main screen is literally over his right shoulder.
The Chieftain actually did an inside the hatch video on it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apVtDqn5734
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsKVr7woLwI

>>63955337

> Oh no! Tanks, AFV, Artillery, mortars, ATGM, tactical missiles, Recoiless Rifles and drones don't exist.

Wait. Don't think that's correct.

>>63957996
Not organic to that division.

>>63958771
>Available on the export market for 27 years
>Units sold worldwide: 0
There's probably a reason

>>63959858
>Tanks, AFV, tactical missiles
I'll take things US infantry divisions don't have for 600, LeVar.

>>63959867

> Y-y-you can't have tanks! You're an Infantry division!

So unfortunate there no possible way to attach anything they want.

> But that's not Organic!

Then ask for the Gluten Free Infantry Division.

>>63955360

> M10 no fatty! Him good boy!

Because of it's fat tank ass, the M10 required the same logistics tail as the M1. Same airlift, same bridges and separate maintenance units.

>>63957293
They already had the stryker bro, an IFV with a big gun has it's own problems

>>63955338
>It's a light tank

It has the same gun, speed and tonnage as a Leopard I MBT.

>>63959922

Sure doesn't have the armor of a Leopard. And the Booger costs more.

>>63955322
you could fit two in a c130, thats "lightweight" regardless of what it actually weighs when its has good ground pressure and its intended for asia

>>63959963

Are you talking about the M10 or something else? Because you can't fit one M10 on a C130, let alone two.

>>63959980
the entire point of the design is to be air mobile for when china shuts down the water ways?

>>63959999

Again, a C130 can't lift even one M10. Are you saying it can?

>>63960034
you can fit 400 people in the cargo hold and lift off if you pack them tight enough. are you saying that you cant fit a tank in there?

Ontos my niggas. Possibly with a revolver upgrade. 13 tons. To slow to out run infantry because some general thought he could restage Custars Charge of the Light Brigade. Kills bunkers and tanks and just about anything man can make. Runs on Gods Gatorade: diesel. Air deployable. Don't over think this shit.

>>63959999
No.

>>63960369

Okay. You're just a loony:

Lockheed C-130 Hercules
Capacity: 42,000 lb (19,000 kg) payload

>>63960369
The C-17 can carry two M10's, not the C-130.

>>63959999
Waste of quads much like the M10 is a waste of money.

>>63955317 (OP)
The right decision was apparently never to start developing it.
What's with the US Army and/or Congress always wanting and always failing to deliver a functional light tank?
>inb4 assault gun
>inb4 mobile gun carriage
>outb5 used a cannon from 1982

>>63960574

C17 can carry one M10. Porky is too fat to ride twinsie.

>>63959896
>the M10 required the same logistics tail as the M1
its literally half the size

>Same airlift, same bridges and separate maintenance units.
its 38 tons, not 70 tons
which was the point

>>63960596
>and always failing to deliver a functional light tank?
they already have a functional light tank, the M3 bradley

>inb4 assault gun
>inb4 mobile gun carriage
distinct from the light tank role

>outb5 used a cannon from 1982
the only practical difference between the 105mm and 120mm is APFSDS rounds for use against enemy MBTs, which was not a priority
despite the larger caliber, the 120mm and 105mm have similar HE rounds
so the more compact size of the 105mm is a larger priority than the better AP rounds of the 120mm in this case

Why don't they just slap a 105 on a Bradley or AMPV hull?

>>63960809
simplicity, manufacturability, parts commonality, economies of scale are all forgotten concepts in american procurement post WW2

>>63960787
>its literally half the size

It's taller and nearly 2/3 the weight, one of the big points of MPF was getting more than one per C-17 which isn't happening with the Booker.

>>63958600
>>63958779
BAE was disqualified because they couldn't deliver a bid sample for testing in time, their vehicle was what the Army wanted.

Yes the MPF procurement was so retarded that it let an arbitrary date ruin the program.

>>63960574
>The C-17 can carry two M10's, not the C-130.

Was supposed to, can't with the actual end result.

>>63957293
>lets start another program and cancel it eventually without any results
M3 Bradley already already exist.
Just put em into infantry brigades. Simple as.

>>63961339
A vehicle that has the cons of the Booker with none of the pros.

>>63955593
The rejected BAE design looks cooler though.

>>63961297
Not true.
>GDLS delivered all of its prototypes (based on the Griffin II) by December 2020. BAE's final prototypes were delivered in February 2021. The assessment phase began in January 2021 at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, with testing scheduled to run through June 2021. In March 2022, BAE was reportedly disqualified from the competition due to "noncompliance issues", leaving GDLS as the only remaining option.
The BAE design was rejected because it failed to meet the design requirements.

>>63961526
We never got to see the BAE prototype with the applique armor on and if was anything like the M8 it was based on, the end product wasn't going to be pretty.

>>63961441
Not in the minds of Reformers

Should probably cancel all tanks. Just a big target for AI drones which will always find the weak spot. Better to use your limited anti drone systems on APCs.

>>63955317 (OP)
Literally just sell everything aside from rifles, grenades, jeeps, drones, and silo-based nukes. You’ll be superpower.

>>63955317 (OP)
America, with the intelligent guidance of very Russia friendly TV man decided to kill all army projects.
Funny man hasn't proven you sane, but his follower wants to tells you that a war on the pacific will require massive army assets.

>>63962411
Ask Russian asset Tucker, where are these ARMY vs NAVAL
assets deployed and you'll hear crickets.

>>63955317 (OP)
Hegseth has consistently been retarded, so I'll call it the wrong decision

>>63962415
Absolutely shocked.

>>63955317 (OP)
m10 booker was the least useless thing you guys axes in 1990s, rah-66 was the low flight recon / assault bird that should've lived. no silenthawk is not her daughter.

>>63955317 (OP)
Literally sell everything and max out on M27 rifles, humvees, drones, and silo-based nukes. Invest in cyberwar/security and you’ll be untouchable.

>>63958771
Because the CV90-120 isn't good. Same with the Type 10 and all the other trash they "just" should have gotten instead.

>>63962489
i've heard nothing but <3's from UA frontline. So I think we need to send more cv90s especially with AGM-114s.

>>63962446
You could've just said nukes. Russia is a nation of absolutely gutless cowards.

>>63962618
Let's see how many nukes you have functioning Centre? Surely you can test EVEN ONE?

>>63961286
as mentioned, it cuts 30 tons off the abrams which makes it a lot easier to handle using the engineering unit of the infantry division
which was its main goal, to deliver a smaller vehicle that was suitable for supporting infantry

>>63961441
>with none of the pros.
It exists.

>>63955317 (OP)
This tank would've been really impressive like 50 years ago

>>63962611
>CV90120
>Ukraine
Bruh

>>63955317 (OP)
Bradley was the more versatile platform, no I didn't see you do BS PLAY WARS IN sandbox 1 or 2. Real wars are very fucking different.

>>63963509
Yeah, UA loves those CV90S, because guess what they can do with the top down hitting drones

Jos sä haluat tappaa russakan miehistönkuljetusta, meidän itseasiassa pitäisi antaa niiden keskittää joukkojaan.

>>63959948
>A tank made in the 2020s costs more than a tank made in the 1960-80s
No! Surely not!

>>63963564
>Doesn't know that a CV90120T and CV90C aren't the same thing
Tourists go home.

>>63962660
>which makes it a lot easier to handle using the engineering unit of the infantry division

Except it doesn't because they do not organically have the equipment to deal with 40 ton vehicles.

>>63961286
>>63961311
It can and it has. There's doubts about whether it can continue to because the Air Force says that it may have to derate the C-17 by up to 9% as a result of global warming. It wouldn't make sense to procure hundreds of M10s on the basis of being able to fit two per C-17 if there's a chance they'll lose that capability before they ever see combat.

>>63963855
That is the gayest shit imaginable.
>We'd LOVE to win wars n stuff but we have to pander to college "educated" women

>>63963577

The LRIP Boogers cost $14 million per. Plus tip.

Does the Leopard cost less than that in current dollars or more?

>>63962489
what's wrong with type 10?

>>63955588
>M8, my beloved
I cry everytime

>>63963806
>Except it doesn't because they do not organically have the equipment to deal with 40 ton vehicles.
its easier to move a 40-ton vehicle than a 70 ton one, which means that divisional engineering can handle most of its needs

>>63964083
A lot more.

>>63964524
It is just as hard to move a 40 ton vehicle as it is to move a 70 ton vehicle when your recovery equipment is meant for 25 ton vehicles.

>>63955317 (OP)
>europoor hull
>manned turret
>no auto loader
>current year
It was a fucking embarrassment. The fact that they had the audacity to roll out this tracked shame after the chinksects made an indigenous clean sheet design with an autoloader. Everyone involved in the creation of that abomination should be executed without trial.

>>63964536
no, its literally twice as easy to move it as it is an M1 abrams since it is physically half the size

>>63964541
>europoor hull
it was what GLD presented and it mechanically worked and met their criteria

>manned turret
they asked for it so that it would share ergos with the M1A2 so they could train the same crew

>>63964541
implessive

>>63964549
Executed. Without. Trial.

>>63964536

You're wasting your breath. He literally can't wrap his brain around the limitations of existing engineering and transport equipment.

>>63964576
>He literally can't wrap his brain around the limitations of existing engineering and transport equipment.
and he cant wrap their head around the fact that a lighter vehicle can more easily be handled with their existing engineering assets

>>63964533

May we see the number?

>>63964545
Oh yes, all that infrastructure that exists for a 40 ton vehicle we have just sitting here.

>>63964549
If the requirements are retarded, then the vehicle is still retarded.

>>63964541

> design with an autoloader

Anon, the pill box is the most dangerous of prey. Wiley, fast moving, ready to flee at the first sign of danger. To hunt them, you need a crewed turrent, sophisticated fire control -- and a bit of luck.

>>63964605
>Oh yes, all that infrastructure that exists for a 40 ton vehicle we have just sitting here.
yeah, its easier to move a lighter vehicle than a heavy one
its easier for an infantry division to handle something that literally weights less

>If the requirements are retarded, then the vehicle is still retarded.
commonality with the M1A2 makes it easier to train crew on it
it also makes it simpler to ensure crew safety because known safety measures like bustle storage can be implemented
the requirements were not simply created out of thin air but were a result of having to juggle priorities

>>63964728

You have to use the same equipment, the same number of people. Effort is not proportional to mass.

>>63964577
When it is nearly double the weight that your organic recovery assets can handle it doesn't matter that it is easier to move than something even heavier.

>>63955317 (OP)
tanks obselete mogged by drone

>>63955362
>if it wasn't made to my specificstions to fit my criterea it's corruption
I'm not saying the requirements made the most sense but they were set and the booker filled them

>>63955554
Can't even do that, hegseth put the kibash on the humvees and it's replacement, the jltv

>>63964846
The Booker was selected because BAE's vehicle was disqualified on a technicality, not because it met what the Army wanted.

>>63955841
>T55
This is like calling a vulcan v8 the same as a modern ford coyote

>>63964872
No anon Hegseth did not retire the Humvee or cancel the JLTV.

>>63957239
>Bushmaster for fire support
Doesn't really fit the bill. A bradley 901 would be better for that honestly, but somewhere in between would be that 50mm bushmaster. More rounds carried, less HE but still pretty effective against fortifications owing to programmable fuses

>>63959948
It's better armored than the leo 1 thougheverbeit

Why exactly does /k/ hate a 40 ton IFV with the same HE charge and fire control system as the best MBT in the world but doesn't complain about 40 ton IFVs with popgun autocannons like the Ajax, ASCOD 2, Lynx, etc?

>>63964947
Be specific, which IFV.

>>63964541
>autoloader
Why would you want one of those in a 105mm

>>63964728
>commonality with the M1A2 makes it easier to train crew on it
Let's sacrifice an autoloader and crew protection so we can spend a couple less hours training. Big Army is fucking retarded, this is not a valid argument.

I wish the Army would of stayed on the 10 –20 ton limit for the Tank, and but a turreted field gun on the tank, like a 76 mm to destroy fortifications
The Army overhypes their tanks cause that is their culture
The 105 mm or 90 mm gun would be best for handling fortifications in comparative to weight cost and logistics
The Army won't do that cause AMERICA FIRST

The light ten – 20 to tank with a small field gun, that would be air droppable, that is out fitted with Tow missiles, would fill the Airborne's needs
But, that is common sence talking and Big Army, what's Big uniformity, hooah

>>63965009
The IFV in question is the M10 (yes, I'm aware that it is technically classified as an assault gun, but it's built on an IFV hull and it's intended primarily for supporting infantry so I don't see how it greatly differs other than maybe the fact that infantry don't have to ride inside of it) and the MBT I referenced is the M1A2 SEPv3, was that not clear enough?

>>63964885
The humvee was already planned for retirement, but he made changes to the JLTV program and said we wouldn't buy any more

>>63965130
I appreciate that you acknowledge the Booker is not an IFV but I have to correct you, it uses components of the ASCOD but not the hull. It isn't like the CV90-120 where they just stuck a turret on a CV90.

>>63964878
No, it was selected because it met the army's requirements AND the bae selection was disqualified

>>63965048
>sacrifice and autoloader
Not a sacrifice qhen one is niether required nor desired
>a couple hours
It's many hundreds you know nothing faggot

>>63964898
>Doesn't really fit the bill.
It has massively more firepower and range than M4 and AT4.
It has medium armor.

Sure you can do better but in current US procurement meta probability of executing and finishing major program is about zero. So its choice between getting Bradley and getting nothing.

>>63965119
Holy esl this is the caliber of person we're dealing with

>>63955841
T-55 has twice better armor so it no fair compassion.

>>63965119
>The light ten – 20 to tank with a small field gun,
How about 8 tons?

>>63965390
Thank you for acknowledging that the Booker was selected because BAE's vehicle was disqualified on a technicality that was not related to the vehicle.

>>63965428
>no protection against IED let alone underbody blasts

>>63965402
No, it really isn't. And it's not more enough to make it worthwhile

>>63965458
>wheeled
>next to no armor
Not what they wanted

>>63964083
Use both your braincells warriortard, and try to think of any reason why a tank from 2025 might cost more than a tank from the transistor era.
I know you can('t) do it you really try!

>>63965119
>The 105 mm or 90 mm gun would be best for handling fortifications in comparative to weight cost and logistics
>The Army won't do that cause AMERICA FIRST
The Booker has a 105

>>63964536
Oh, man. If only you could make a recovery vehicle using the same chassis as the tank it's meant to recover.

>>63965501
Modern electronics is much cheaper than analog?
iPhone 16 16 CPU has 100 billions transistors. That would be $800 billions in 1960 (in 2025 dollars)

>>63965398
>the difference between training for autoloader turret and non autoloader turret is hundreds of hours
how does it feel to be retarded?

>>63965518
>if you had thing that doesn't exist

whew you are a clever one anon

>>63965428
>M10 Booker
>Gets penetrated by any modern tank gun or ATGM
>T-55
>"Has twice better armor"
>Gets penetrated by any modern tank gun or ATGM
>Has objectively worse protection against mines, drones, IEDs, RPGs, etc.

Also
>Has twice better armor
Learn English

>>63965278
Sure, but what exactly is the difference in combat? They're both moderately armored vehicles designed for direct fire support of infantry. In combat, troops will be out fighting and not riding in the IFV. The only practical difference I see between a Booker and a Puma in a firefight is that the Booker is far more effective at demolishing buildings and emplacements and can even pose a credible threat to lighter MBTs like the T-90 and Leo 1, even though that's not its intended use. Meanwhile the advantages of the Lynx are... what, exactly? It saves you from needing to buy an additional pickup to taxi a squad of troops around?

>>63965501
Modern electronics are cheaper than ever you retard

>>63965542
It's not just about autoloading and non autoloading, although that is a major factor. It's also the fire control and sensors. And yes, it's 15 weeks just to train up and then regular practice afterwards to improve proficiency

>>63965549
A Booker is substantially better protected than a Puma.

>>63965550
And most of those electronic systems didn't exist on tanks back then, even basic shitty night vision was black magic during Desert Storm.

>>63965544
Yes, anon. The divisions which haven't been reorganized yet, whose MPF battalions hadn't been formed yet, which would consist of M10 Bookers that hadn't been built yet, didn't currently have recovery vehicles to handle them.

>>63965539
>>63965550
What about all the categories of electronics which the Leopard 1 didn't have because they didn't fucking exist yet?

>>63965568
Warriortard has insisted in the past that there is no system in the M1 Abrams that couldn't be replaced by an iphone.

>>63965573
>you see anon because such a heavy vehicle was selected you have to additionally buy new recovery vehicles instead of using your existing assets

M 10 Booker was great

>>63965563
Sorry, I meant to say Lynx. Still, I don't see what advantage a Lynx could possibly offer over a Booker.

>>63965605
Yes?

>>63965614
That isn't the strong argument you think it is.

>>63965545
Booker has frontal protection vs 30mm APFSDS that is 100mm RHA, and side protection vs 14.5mm, that is 40 mm RHA.
T-55 has 200mm front and 80mm sides.
Everything else burger cope.

>>63965573

Does the Army have any Medium Weight Recovery Vehicles?

> Well no...

Does the Army have any Medium Weight Recovery Vehicles on order?

> Not as such.

Is GD even making the Medium Weight Recovery Vehicle?

> Honestly, no.

Then for what possible reason would you post that thing doesn't exist?

>>63965625
I think you think "has less logistical and sustainment requirements than a 70-ton Abrams" means "is supposed to have no logistical or sustainment requirements whatsoever"

>>63965651
I know you have trouble with the concept of linear time, warriortard, but "don't put the horse before the cart" is a common English idiom. "Don't buy a recovery vehicle before a vehicle" would be a variant on it.

>>63965639
>still get's penetrated by any modern AT weapon
>burger cope
200mm of plain ass rha might as well be a big lead weight

>>63965678
Just reminder that Booker has less. 100mm of armor.

>>63965692
so? T55 might as well too for all the good it will do

>>63965672

Your imaginary vehicle doesn't exist. Because it's based on a canceled vehicle, it can never exist. Yet you think -- whatever it is you're thinking.

>>63965639
>Booker has frontal protection vs 30mm APFSDS that is 100mm RHA, and side protection vs 14.5mm, that is 40 mm RHA.

You don't know what the Booker is protected against.

>>63965701
>so?
So let this sink in. burgers 70 years after made tank that has twice less armor than T-55 but weightts couple tons more.
Total degradation of engineering capability.

>>63965678
B-but number bigger!

>>63965716
>has twice less armor
I'll say it again: learn English

>>63965716
It's also far more capable than a T55. I don't know why you're conparing it to a vehicle it has absolutely nothing in common with and wasn't even considered a capable tank at it's inception

>>63965752
You can put thermal camera in everything today.
Remember how Leopard 2, and Abrams tanks were shot like fish in the barrel by KA-52s during counter offense?
>we own the nigh...ACK!

>>63965816
Are you saying ka-52's are ancient pieces of shit or something

>>63965716
A T-55 can penetrate an M10. An M10 can also penetrate a T-55, even if they don't bother to give it APFSDS. The M10 will be able to acquire a more accurate targeting solution faster and under a much wider range of conditions. Hell, assuming the M10 is armed with a handful of ancient M900 rounds and the Russians still haven't managed to get ERA production up to the necessary level, an M10 probably has better than even odds against any of the T-series tanks.

>>63965831
KA-50 predates Desert Storm. Surely Russians didn't have thermals then.

>>63965458
>Flips itself over when trying to fire the cannon any direction but front and rear

>>63965716
again my ESL friend, you have no idea what the Booker's armor is

>>63965840
The Soviet Union had thermals, but they were rare and not standard equipment on every single tank like with the Abrams.

This is still the case with Russian vehicles in the Ukraine war.

>>63965518
>the main gimmick of an infantry division is its ability to deploy quickly
>yeah let's load them with 40t """not a tank"""
>and while we're at it let's add another 40t recovery vehicle for our 40t """not a tank"""
>and don't forget about the fuel trucks!
do bookertards really

>>63965991
Now justify the existence of the Ajax, ASCOD 2, and Lynx.

>>63966033
None of those are used by light infantry divisions.

>>63955317 (OP)

What the army is planning for is an engagement with China. What they would need for it and actually wanted was:
- highly mobile, air dropable
- long range
- (heavy) firesupport for troops
- tractor for equipment and people hauling

If anything this thing should have had:
- An autoloader
- 3 man crew
- APS and Anti-drone system
- Unmanned turret
- (Internal) storage space
- Maybe amphibious capabilities

All to massively reduce armor and therefore the weight of the thing. It makes it much better logistically since it would require less fuel and be easier to move around.

What the army got was:
- MBT from 40 years ago weight-wise
- Outdated in terms of protection
- Cramped interior/ergonomics for 4 people
- No drone or HEAT protection

Worst of all is probably the 105mm cannon. 105mm is a bad choice in 2025. It will not give you the firepower in quantity that 30/40/50mm gun would have without sufficient logistics and it is also arguably not as good as a soldier with a Javelin.

I love mini tanks but this thing is just bloated, weird middle ground full of compromise.

>>63966036
Light and heavy have different meanings for the US than lesser countries.

>>63966065
>Outdated in terms of protection
What penetrates an M10 but not an MBT from 40 years ago?

warriortard thread

the army tried this thing out recently. seems like a much better option for a light infantry fire support vehicle.

>>63966172
>36 long tons
The AMPV is exactly the same weight as the Booker, it just has a 30mm gun and passenger space instead of the 105.

>>63966362
use your imagination and put that turret on a lighter chassis

>>63965501
I know this is just a trick of perspective, but I can't unsee it...

>>63966384
I don't get it. Which turret on which chassis? The AMPV mortar turret on the Booker chassis to save the weight of the 105? How does that solve the problem of a lack of organic direct fire support?

>>63966103

The booker is ASSCOD which is STANAG 4569 Level 5. Since the booker is slightly heavier and newer I'd wager it is Level 6. Still that only means it saves you from 30mm apfsds and artillery shrapnel.

Anything with a HEAT charge even an RPG-7 penetrate the booker. There were plenty MBTs 40 years ago that could withstand RPG-7 hits.

Without additional ERA the m10 is a sitting duck. But if they slap those on, two of them won't fit in a c-17 which defeats their whole point.

>>63966514
>The booker is ASSCOD

The Booker is not an ASCOD with a turret added.

>>63966525
The m10 Booker resulted out of the Griffin which is in turn based on the ASCOD (2). The hull was designed by GDELS who are responsible for the ASCOD and all its derivatives.

https://www.sandboxx.us/news/the-m10-booker-and-how-the-army-flubbed-a-tank/

>>63966593
>based on

The Griffin was based on the ASCOD, the Booker was heavily modified.

>>63966514
>Without additional ERA the m10 is a sitting duck. But if they slap those on, two of them won't fit in a c-17 which defeats their whole point.
Wouldn't you be able to remove the ERA blocks and/or mountings themselves for transit?

>>63966690
A C-17 can't carry two Bookers anyway so the anon is being dishonest.

>>63965561
>It's also the fire control and sensors
You can use the exact same ones in an autoloader turret

>>63966445
Nemo can do direct fire.

>>63964055
What did you expect when we live in the gayest timeline? Here's the article (a practically unsourced hit piece written by a woman) that every other article about the cancellation of the Booker is based on:
https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2025/04/army-made-tank-it-doesnt-need-and-cant-use-now-its-figuring-out-what-do-it/404877/
And here's the relevant quote about the C-17:
>The sour cherry on top, he added, arrived when the Air Force changed its load restrictions so that the Army could only put one M10 on a C-17, rather than the two the service had counted on.
If you look up the "change" to the C-17s load rating, you'll find this paper:
https://web.archive.org/web/20231013185604/https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/ASOR/Journals/Volume-2_Number-2/Benton_Leslie.pdf
What it says is that the official max takeoff weight rating of an aircraft is calculated using a standardized set of environmental conditions, and the "real" weight rating changes based on temperature, pressure, etc. The authors' finding was that in a worst case scenario, using their preferred climate model (they decided to ignore the most recently published climate model because it's not as catastrophic), that by 2039, aircraft would essentially never be able to fly with their official rated load across most of the world. Most of the time they'd be able to carry around 9% less weight, maybe a couple of days a year they'd be able to carry the full amount. So the load rating of the C-17 was never changed and there was never an official Air Force statement, there's just speculation from a master's student:
https://science.gmu.edu/events/thesis-defense-kaitlyn-benton-geoinformatics-and-geospatial-intelligence-ms
I tried to look up more about her but there's not much to find since I don't have socials. There's the name and she recently graduated from GMU in Virginia, maybe someone cares enough to find her.

>>63966909

> That was written by a woman! *heavy breathing*

Incel seething continues. She direct quotes. She's got her reporting act together. Sorry if that conflicts with your imaged world where the MPF was never supposed to be airdropped, C130 transported, two to a C17 transported, or all the other things you refuse to believe.

Bookertard on an endless journey to publicly humiliate ximself and see just how many Ls a man can hold.
Meanwhile, CHADleys stay winning for the next hundred years.

>>63966909
Why can't you stupid faggot nigger understand one(1) thing
Even if Braper had managed to get to the theater, infantry divisions would STILL have had to find heavier vehicles, since the M984 is limited to 27,240 kg.
This bitch is simple too heavy at his 40 tones
NIGGER

>>63959948
The Leopard never had any armor.

>>63967271
The article literally states that two M10s can ride on one C-17, retard. Which was the actual program requirement, riding on a C-130 never was.

>>63955317 (OP)
Why didn't they just make a CV90120/105 type tank? Or just buy them? It's the same shit but lighter, faster and autoloaded.

>>63955338
Bradley is and was always cheating with its aura. It has an 80's synth theme song.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqDgn-qXr0E

>>63968042
Modern CV90s aren't lighter, and they'd be even heavier once they were updated to match the Booker. Plus the Army didn't want a vehicle that you have to get out to reload every dozen rounds.

Just strap a turret on top of an m113 and call it a day.

For the weight of the M10 mclardass, we can fit 8 Wiesel 2s or 3 Stormers. Do we really need the M35?
If I was planting asses in seats on Taiwan that 105mm gun is overkill. The 30mm RMK autocannon will fuck anything that floats, flies, or also fucks

>>63968101
This guy gets it

>>63955317 (OP)
Should have just bit the bullet and made a new tank chassis, then we could finally get the tank we've needed for a decade while simply stripping it down to provide for the mobile firepower requirement. If you're going to make something so big it might as well be part of a larger family of systems to reduce cost and logistical footprints since at last some of the parts will be interchangable. And actually do it faggots, not pretend liike with the F-35. Also way easier than the F-35 since variants would just be the stripped down tank. This was the plan since the 90s but they can never follow through with it.

Also since its ass will be hanging out there you should probably optimize any armor it has against small EFPs and anything up to 12.5mm while simply ignoring everything else. Your primary threat is going to be assholes flying a robot with munitions duct taped to it or some asshole on a hill with the dshk.

>>63966065
105 probably has a roll as something you'd stick on a hypothetical automated jeep. Point it at want you want smashed in line of sight, let the computer do the hard work, pull the trigger, dead. And if it gets shot up nobody was riding in it, just dismounted or in and M3 nearby. You loose a second rate computer, an old gun, and effectively a jeep.

If they want cheap shit there are ways to make shit cheap by still effective and not a death trap. Ruskies and Chinks make cheap shit, but that doesn't mean cheap(relatively) platforms have to be shit. Look at all the aging UAVs the US uses, relatively cheap, effective, and expendible.

>>63968903

I don't think the hassle of having a heavy launch device is worth the hassle. Especially since nlos weapons like the javelin excel at almost aspect compared to the 105.

The 105 looks like a good compromise between size and firepower on paper. Imo it just falls short on both parts since an nlos will give you more portability, less signature, better mobility, better logistics and a greater tactical advantage.

I'd wager the shots fired Vs targets destroyed is much greater on a javelin compared to your 105mm cannon. And the javelin needed 1 guy to operate and can be fired from a truck or a balcony. While the 105 will need a multi ton vehicle to operate, be less accurate and paint a huge target on its back if it fires.
Meanwhile a 120 substantially increases the firepower while having almost the same footprint.

>>63968903
The thing is China and Russia don't really do "cheap shit", they mass produce the best technology they have.
It's not the actual cost of labor and materials that make NATO weapons so expensive, it's the constant churnover of R&D.
Think about it like McDonaldas burgers vs your local burger shop. Meat is meat, the price of beef is relatively stable, yur fry cooks get paid minimum wage, but one business wants to make fifteen billion burgers to satisfy the unwashed masses, and the other needs to bend to whatever trend is taking over the industry at the moment, lest they go under.

>>63969192
>Meanwhile a 120 substantially increases the firepower while having almost the same footprint.
The 120 just exists to shoot sabots faster. It doesn't shoot larger HE charges.

>>63955337
Autocannons and LAWs are all the organic firepower an infantry division needs for dealing with emplacements. If you need to be taking on armor, you should be calling in CAS or actual fucking tanks.

>>63969294
The M10 isn't intended to take on tanks, so clearly there are reasons to want increased firepower that doesn't involve enemy armor.

>>63969294
If they figured something out by now its that autocannons and light portable anti tank weapons are piss poor at dealing with structures and dug in infantry.

>>63969286
>It doesn't shoot larger HE charges.

120mm have substantially more HE filler

>>63969192
I was thinking more along the lines of shelling treelines and ditches than anti-armor duties. There seems to be more than enough organic anti-armor in western armies.

>>63969286
>people rlly go online and post lies
105mm HE round = 1.1kg filler
120mm AMP round = 3.2kg filler

>>63969377
Yeah it's one of the thousand little details which every soldier who sees combat innately learns but only filters into the civilian (and sometimes even peacetime military) world through a few obscure articles a generation later.

>>63969458
Perhaps at 250mm mortar might be a better option, archaic as it would seem airburst would keep heads down and impact could blow apart trenches.

>>63958771
>Why don’t they just buy a license to manufacture cv90-120s
Because they wanted a 105mm gun to use up otherwise useless ammo following the retirement of the Stryker MGS

>>63959963
>you could fit two in a c130
C-17*

>>63969560
Probably should just turn the 105mm into artilley for Taiwan an sell them off at half price. Never going to use it up otherwise, we've been sitting on that surplus since 1989.

>>63969795
>Probably should just turn the 105mm into artilley for Taiwan
I think that was the entire point behind developing an airliftable assault gun with a 105mm cannon, anon.

>>63969458
>M393A3 HEP-T 105mm: 3.25kg

>>63969549
You now need a roof mounted crane just to load the shells and you ammunition capacity is 4

>>63969560

> The US Army had initially planned to spend over $17 billion on the M10 Booker (formerly Mobile Protected Firepower or MPF) program, including the acquisition of roughly 500 vehicles and associated support.

So, the Army was going to spend $17 billion to use ammo that was a sunk cost and they couldn't unbuy.

Sure. Guess that happened.

>>63970185
>the Army was going to spend $17 billion
Don't worry, anon. We made sure to spend as much money as possible for minimal benefit by letting the program run to completion then cancelling it after we already started taking delivery of the vehicles but well before we had enough for them to be operationally useful.

>>63970259

Speaking of which, The Army(tm) officially cancelled the M10 production contracts. Kept the EMD contract for 96. 26 units have been completed and accepted from that contract. The remaining parts in wip will be used to complete some undetermined quantity of the remaining contract, but not all.

Like most cancelled programs, it will take years to untangle that one, but expect the contractor to come out fine, because generals want nice retirement jobs.

>>63955322
FPBP

The problem with this vehicle is that it weighed the same as a fucking early series T-72 with significantly less firepower and armour as well.

But this anon is correct, >>63955337 infantry divisions need organic firepower in the form of an assault gun or light tank (or whatever the fuck you want to call it). Ideally a vehicle like a CV90120 would fit the role perfectly but the USA instead is going to fuck around with infantry carried rocket launchers and ATGMs to fill that roll instead.

>>63964349
Nothing, he is just coping the Japanese have the best MBT in service currently next to the Koreans.

>>63970568

> Need

US seems to do okay without them. And when the Army has them, doesn't use them much in their intended role.

>>63970590
>US seems to do okay without them
When was the last time US engaged in a peer war?

>>63970590
>US seems to do okay without them.
The US does not do okay without them because the US goes out of its way to either send mechanized units or reinforce light units with armored vehicles whenever they to war.

>>63970568
Look up what a CV90 Mk.IV weighs, anon.

>>63970715

> You're winning the wrong way! *cries*

Okay.

>>63970809
Learn to read, retard.

>>63970730
The M10 still weighed like ten tons more.

>>63970058
>comparing hep to amp
bad faith redditor

>>63970874
The 105mm AMP round will never exist because there won't be anything to fire it. Maybe you should go back through the 40 years of 120mm ammo development and find an apples to apples comparison.

>>63970818
Look up what an M10 weighs. It's 3-5 tons more.

HEP has no PFF, it's going to have more of its weight dedicated to HE filler.

>>63970568
I love the anons who keep talking about Bookers as though they were lightly armored.

>>63965639
When incoming fire either penetrates 100mm of armor or it goes through 1200mm of armor there is no point to putting 200mm of armor on something anon. It's not going to block the lower end stuff better and it'll do fuck all against the big boys

>>63968060
The CV90120 and 105 are lighter and faster. They're built to a different configuration than their IFV counterparts. Even if they didn't want to buy them, it doesn't really answer the question why they couldn't just make a vehicle like that instead of the M10.

>>63970730
The CV90 variants he mentioned are 10 tons lighter than the Mk.IV

>>63970590
>US seems to do okay without them.
Holy fuck how do you not know the difference of abilities from arab goat f(uckers)armers and china. Do you think they are going to be using ac 130 gunships and a10s when that war starts as well?

>>63971195
>They're built to a different configuration than their IFV counterparts.

Yeah they have paper armor.

>>63971339
It's enough to stop all small arms fire and shrapnel. Any gun bigger than that would swiss cheese the M10 too so it's not like it matters.

>>63969801
The problem with an airliftable assault gun that large is that it's not airliftable.
Taiwan would be better served with something like the 5 ton Wiesel II using multiple MANPADS or the 30mm autocannon they were developing for it.

>>63971546
>it's not airliftable
It is, provided they don't choose to de-rate the C-17

>>63971044
>as though they were lightly armored.

I didn't say that but compared to a T-72 (or a lighter T-62) it has dogshit protection as a T-72 could frontally resist a 105mm shell compared to only 30mm for a Booker.

Plus the fucking thing is huge as well.

>>63968042

Or they could have went with something like the SK-105 Kürassier which is really a proper light tank

>>63971669
>it has dogshit protection as a T-72 could frontally resist a 105mm shell
No it can't. The Soviet Union developed Kontakt-5 ERA because T-72s were vulnerable to 105mm APFSDS, Russia is out of modernized T-72s and they can't even maintain enough ERA production for their T-90s.

tank nomenclature autism is the most irritating of all topics
they are ALL tanks
> spg
it's a tank
> assault gun
that's a tank
> tank destroyer
tank
> armored personnel carrier
> put a tank gun on it
neat, a tank

do not EVER fucking reply to me

>>63955373
do other sorts of shoulder fired launchers have this problem of scrambling people's brains or is it just recoilless rifles?

>>63970568
>The problem with this vehicle is that it weighed the same as a fucking early series T-72 with significantly less firepower and armour as well.
its because the requirement has minimum ergonomic requirements which necessitates a minimum interna volume
there are also safety requirements like having a majority of ammo in the turret to take advantage of safe stowage and more efficient blow out panels, the T-72 keeps
if the T-72 was built to the same necessary standards it would also require a significant reduction in armor to keep the same weight and have an expanded turret for additional ammo and an expanded hull for greater internal volume

the M10 is still ultimately lighter than the M1A2 while still packing similiar firepower against its intended target of buildings, which was all it really had to do

>>63971866
>the M10 is still ultimately lighter than the M1A2 while still packing similiar firepower against its intended target of buildings, which was all it really had to do
But isn't the m1a2 much better armored? I think the US will need to come to the conclusion in a war against near peer militaries more of our people are just going to die and the cost of safety is too much for us to afford now. It was one thing when we were fighting little nations and we had a strong economy with higher quality people but we are now poor with much lower quality people.

>>63971866

> It's hard to hit buildings!

Not really. They just sort of stand there. And they can be dealt with by everything from a grenade to air power.

NB4 "But that's not Organic!"

>>63971557
If the shit goes down it's going down quick. We're not air-dropping bookers in Taiwan past zero hour. Best we can hope for is something that can land with a parachute.

>>63971993
>If the shit goes down it's going down quick
There will be a massive buildup of forces long beforehand that will 100% be noticed and give Taiwan and the US plenty of forewarning.
You can't just launch an operation on that scale overnight.

Heres your organic fire support, bro. And its fully airborne. Don't tell me, you NEED more? Nut up, buttercup.

>>63971220

> The mighty M10 will stand there, proudly, defeating the endless Red Chinese hoards streaming up the beaches of our beloved Taiwanese allies. *music plays*

>>63971220
What are (You) trying to say, little man? You think you know better than the experts who literally do this shit for a living? Well?

>>63972007
The m110 is too heavy and should be reworked but saying because we dont have this ability so we don't need it in the future is dumb.
>>63972019
>experts who literally do this shit for a living?
You mean corrupt government workers who haven't won a real war since the 40s?

>>63971989
Grenades don't do a great job of flattening obstacles and avoiding infantry needing to wait for an air strike is exactly why the M10 exists.

>>63955317 (OP)
The issue with vehicles like this is you get all the disadvantages of the IFV chassis it's built on and non of the advantages of a actual purpose built MBT. Wanting fire support on light divisions organically isn't bad but the starting point is poor. Using an IFV hull as the basis for an assault gun is retarded because the original hull was still designed to transport troops and as such has the additional height and volume necessary for it, it's wasted on the tank/assault gun. Just look at pictures of an M10 next to an Abrams and you'll see how fuck huge the thing is, not that with modern sensors silhouettes really matter as much, but this all factors into cost as well. Depending on your source it was costing the Army 13 million or more per M10 and that's with the existing stripped Abrams turret and optics.

The only advantage of the hull was maybe parts commonality with the XM30 if they pick the Griffin III but that's mostly irrelevant outside niche circumstance for light units. It's been mentioned already but at 42 tons recovery becomes an issue without a dedicated vehicle and at that point your organic fire support becomes additional organic recovery which adds men, cost, and logistical complications. If your 105mm support means your light unit is no longer light you fucked up somewhere. I will acknowledge they made a big deal about getting this into service quickly so compromises were likely made. Something like this role is unironically what drone tanks should be for IMO but they still could have designed a better vehicle for people too.

>>63972060
>flattening obstacles and avoiding infantry needing to wait for an air strike
Bradley already does this. All the organic firepower you need.
>the M10 exists.
Not anymore it doesnt. lol.

>>63972104
How many shots of 25mm does it take to level a house?

>>63972060

Blowing up the building isn't the objective. Killing or displacement of those inside is the goal.

And -- RPG, MLRS, mortars, Artillery and so on. The Army has plenty of pew pew to deal with targets that don't move.

>>63972190
>Blowing up the building isn't the objective
Yes it is.

>>63972192

Anon. Empty buildings can't hurt you.

>>63972200
The whole reason we're shooting anything at the building is because it isn't empty.

>>63972200
Feel free to send your team into the "empty building" that "cant hurt you" and watch them turn to dust

>>63972207

> We have to blow up every single building because it might be a potential threat!

Now, you know it doesn't work that way. Don't be a silly billy.

>>63972223
If there were enemies in a building how do you know they are all dead if the building isn't all ruble? It needs to be destroyed otherwise they have a huge defensive advantage and will kill more of ours.

>>63972006
Italy actually uses this kinda shit tho so it's valid

>>63971989
>And they can be dealt with by everything from a grenade to air power.
the infantry platoon only really has AT4s and the carl gustaf to deal with buildings
they could use artillery, which takes longer to call in and is subject to availability, it may take longer if there are higher priority missions'

the M10 is a middle-road option, with more range, power, and protection than trying to assault enemy positions with a rocket launcher
but more flexibility and reactivity than calling in an airstrike or artillery strike

>>63972101
>If your 105mm support means your light unit is no longer light you fucked up somewher
it is light, it is 30 tons lighter than the M1 which was their main goal
getting it down to 20 tons was never a serious requirement to begin with because airdropping was no longer important

>>63972101
I don't get why people think the M10 has to keep up with light infantry. There's not a whole lot of places it can't go, and if your infantry are just joyriding through the countryside they don't need fire support. The question isn't whether the Booker can keep up, it's whether it can be where its needed faster and more reliably than an artillery strike. Artillery is great, but calling in a fire mission takes time and they may have other priorities. On the other hand if there's something holding you up, you can just point it out to the guys in the Booker and then it won't be there anymore.
>But the Bradley can do that!
The Bradley isn't faster, can't go places the Booker can't, and 25 is a lot less than 105. If you're accepting that a Bradley is capable of supporting light infantry, you're accepting that the Booker can as well.

bring this thing back

>>63973306

We have Bradley at home. We don't have to spend $17 billion for M10.

>>63973306
Yeah uh why not just put a 105mm or 90mm turret on the Bradley then?
Why do we need a whole new vehicle for this bullshit?

>>63973464
>>63973697
the bradley would end up looking like the M10 if it was modified to fit the mission parameters
with all-around armor kits giving it 30mm auto-cannon protection, its already up to 30-tons
the M2A4 is up to 35 tons with modernized internals and electronics

replacing its small turret with a 105mm rated turret, and then making it large enough to fit the required 28 rounds of ammunition, it would easily meet or exceed the 38 ton weight of the M10
at that point, there wouldnt really be either a mechanical or logistical advantage over the M10

>>63966065
>- APS and Anti-drone system
It was designed to take the same systems as the M1 Abrams, including APS and EW

>>63955317 (OP)
>Is it the right decision to cancel this?
Yes, enjoy another three or four decades of upgraded Bradley's continuing to kick ass and take names. Just as god and the founding fathers intended.

And that's assuming it will ever be retired and not simply outfitted with plasma cannons a thousand years from now.

>>63974431
/thread

>>63974431
In 3 more years Booker will be uncancelled and in 30 you'll be fanboying for it instead.

>>63974626
>In 3 more years Booker will be uncancelled
Oh yeah 'sure' anon. Along with Littoral class ships having their reliablity issues solved so they don't have to have their speed capped at a snails space and barrel wear and tear issues of the XM7 being solved too right?
I highly doubt it, whenever we try to '''innovate''' it just turns into a money pit.

Anyway if we're gonna waste money on meme MIC tech I vote we build more Zumwalts because those look cool.

>>63974792
>Along with Littoral class ships having their reliablity issues solved so they don't have to have their speed capped at a snails space
Jesus FUCKING Christ
Its been years wumao, update your piece of shit script already.
>whenever we try to '''innovate'''
>we
kek
>I vote we build more Zumwalts because those look cool.
This I can agree with, though we should probably make a Block II or something as its been nearly 2 decades.

What time-sensitive targets aside from MBTs and heavy fortifications (if even) can't the M2's Bushmaster handle?

>>63975005
We could instead restart the OICW program for a fraction of the cost. Come you guys, it could have worked!

>>63975193
I'll be sure to do my part then.

>>63973812

> This again

No. Booger as built cannot take APS. Please stop with your FUDD.

>>63973801
Just pop on an unmanned 105mm turret.
Wont add more than idk like 5 tons to the weight considering you first remove the old turret.