Thread 64169873

>The 82nd Airborne Division became the first unit equipped when 33 M10s entered the Fort Bragg motor pools in late FY2025, while other M10s were distributed to Fort Campbell with the 101st Airborne Division (where the M10 cracked eight of 11 bridges it crossed due to its weight).

Do the people that make these insanely terrible decisions to push shit like this through ever get fired or demoted or do the get promoted then wind up at some contractor as a consultant earning lots of money?

>>64169873 (OP)
Its obviously retarded abrams tankers demanding one of them to drive the tank, and because of that, keep blocking the any proposal until demanded protection is met and become a total dead weight to the infantry.

>>64170010
>say retarded shit in order to generate discussion

fine OP here is your obligatory response

just give them bradleys. use the extra room thatd be used as troop transport to store a couple eastern european prostitutes.

>>64169873 (OP)
Thank god we spent all that money to develop a Leopard 1, but heavier.

>>64170040
Seriously though, why didn't they just stick a 105 in a new Bradley turret and call it a day?

>>64169873 (OP)
https://desuarchive.org/k/search/filename/M10_Booker_at_its_unveiling_June_2023_-_7.jpg/
kill yourself

>>64170064
they didnt do it because theyre retarded

>>64170074
What's the problem?

>>64170084
Does this really need to be discussed 10 times? What new is there to say?

>>64170064
IIRC they’re saying the Bradley hull is pretty maxed out in terms of available space and power generation, with the current set of upgrades being made ostensibly being the last before it’s replaced with whatever wins XM30. The modifications it would take to make it accommodate everything they wanted to pack in probably would’ve made it less a Bradley and more a not quite clean sheet design with a lot of Bradley baggage

>>64170064
Or maybe like the Begleitpanzer 57 and arm it with the biggest autocannon possible

>>64169873 (OP)
>another "look mom, i posted it again" thread by warriortard
If anyone wonders why he keeps making them, schizos literally cant things let go, once something peaked their interest it lives rent free in their head untik they find something to replace it with.

>>64170087
As many times as he likes. You have the option of filtering it if you don't like it.

>>64170108
>he

>>64170074
Dunno what is worse, that he has changed the file size 5 times already so it is harder to find in the archive or that this long search result is just a tiny fraction of the ever same threads he made about it.

>>64170110
Women don't post on 4chan.

>>64170108
Maybe your threads are just shit and no amount of repeatedly posting them, filling them with fake conversations and bait, or bumping them every time they are about to die makes them any better. It just makes them worse.

>>64170123
You have the option of filtering threads you don't like.

>>64170131
Fuck off warriortard

>>64170131
and you have the option of killing yourself

>>64170137
That's illegal in my country.

>>64170131
If your threads only stay up because people don't know who you are and don't know what malicious things you do to keep them alive then they are objectively bad threads and need to be purged. Its chemo to cancer.

>>64170031
Not op. Just how I feel after seeing so much light tank gets shutdown for very little reason and this piece of shit got in learning nothing from all the previous attempts.

>>64170095
That never made sense to me; like you can just bolt a D-30 to a BTR clone or pickup truck but you can't strip down a Bradly and add a 105? There are plenty of existing armored cars that have 105s, muggle just take off the Bradly turret and put on one of those.

>>64170214
its just jargon for they dont want to do it, so people stop asking

>>64170257
I know, there is probably some obscure national security law that allows defense contractors to literally throw employees out a window for saying things like 'let's use this half century old South American 105mm turret with a equally old naval rotary magazine and just reload after it fires a dozen times'

>>64170272
instead of wasting that money on m10 dev,couldve developed a better cannon for use with bradley but why use magic money wisely?

>>64169873 (OP)

Any hope that the Marines will ever get these?

>>64170095
It should be able to service a 105mm gun if an M4 Sherman can, given they're both built on similar a chassis of the same weight class. Granted, the Sherman had a bigger turret ring.

The US literally made what they needed in the 90s
105mm light recoil L7
20 tons
probably the same amount of protection as the Booker
they sold them to Thailand
(this thread is thanks to War Thunder, the premier pay to win skinner box trash game of the century)

>>64170040
If they want something lighter, they can probably up gun a JLTV and call it a day

>>64170568
Why is making a low pressure gun such a issue for some nations? I refuse to believe that a low pressure 122mm gun was no problem for the USSR but NATO can't manage a decent low pressure 105mm.

>>64170582
At some point decades into the future when Brads become universal surplus like M113s i am fully convinced someone will mount a D-30 turret onto one just to confuse people.

>>64170074
HOLY FUCK
HE'S USING THE PICTURE FROM WIKIPEDIA
SURELY THAT MEANS ITS THE SAME POSTER OVER AND OVER AND NOT A RESULT OF IT BEING THE FIRST RESULT FOR M10 BOOKER ON GOOGLE!

While on the subject, ignoring logistical, political and supply issues are there any 105mm equipped light armor (LAVs, Bookers, ect) that wouldn't be better served with a D-30 based gun?

>>64170608
>"""another""" very angry """bystander""" appears and gets irrationally mad when someone shows that there is something wrong with these threads and their uncanny frequency
It's like a trademark of these threads.

>>64170620
Aside from it being ancient two piece ammunition over weight dogshit? i dunno bro

>>64170636
its literally the first result you retarded faggot

>>64170646
What if i told you105mm was an even older piece of shit?

does /k/ have a name for this 'warriortard schizo' guy? He is in like 50% of threads calling random people "warrior tard" like that is some well known lolcow on /k/ even though he is the only guy that uses this forced cringe.

>>64169873 (OP)
>where the M10 cracked eight of 11 bridges it crossed due to its weight
That's a lie. What actually happened is that 8 of the 11 bridges in the area are only rated to carry 32 tons continuously and loads greather than that may cause accelerated wear. They're rated for periodic loads up to 42 tons, which is several tons more than the weight of the M10.

>>64170649
Oh, is this the reason why we had like fifty of those threads, which all get started with the same premise or railed to it within the first 5 posts?

That's the problem when you have a schizo that does the same thing on repeat until he finds the next thing he can obsess over: It becomes obvious rather quickly what he is doing and n9 screeching at anyone nothing it is going to change that.

>>64170665
>t. troll

>>64170646
Agreed, we need to get rid of all this ancient garbage. We should start by throwing out all those decrepit under powered M2 Brownings and replacing them with more powerful guns like the KPV which is an entire generation and a half (30 years lol) more modern than some Mormon idiots mistake.

>>64170665
Can you even link 3 other threads that are currently in the catalog where he does it? Inb4 you are quickly faking them now or the next few days.

Bonus: There was a time when warriortard himself angrily stomped to other threads and accused random poster to be him to get people to side with him, but anons figured that out rather quickly, then flipped it on its head and replied to him that warriortard is a nonce and real, which put an end to it.

>>64170707
.50 cals aren't two piece ammunition retard
modern cannons have way better metalurgy making them way lighter and able to have much higher chamber pressure at the same time.

>>64170568
>probably the same amount of protection as the Booker
you're retarded and shouldn't comment

>>64170829
t. warriortard

>>64170841
t. warriortard hiding his tracks

>>64170820
So ESL huh?

>>64170459
It’s less space and more that it would take a lot more electrical power to actually run the thing. It would probably need a stronger turret drive for the larger and heavier turret, they would want to shove in more computers, and presumably an aps as well. Meanwhile the A4 Bradley has already gotten a new powerpack and an apu to deal with current demands, and they need to move to XM30 to have room for future upgrades on an ifv platform. The 105mm Shermans really can’t be compared to the complexity of modern upgrade programs; and the Bradley would probably take so much work to make accommodate a 105mm at this point that it probably wouldn’t be any cheaper or faster, while you’d end up with a less capable final product.

>>64170977
I'd like to see Bradley with a hybrid power pack, band tracks, and an unmanned 50mm turret as our 'light" tank.

>>64171016
Isn’t that pretty much the XM30 pitch, outside it falling in a higher weight bracket?

>>64169873 (OP)
At 42 tons, they might as well have just done a STANAG lvl 6 version of the Type 10. Same shit with the Constellation, where they went about trying to integrate AEGIS and Mk41 on a design from a country that operates neither instead of just picking one of the nip DDs or FFM to make modifications on.

>>64169873 (OP)
Homer Simpson the tank.

>>64169873 (OP)
It bothers me greatly that they made this instead of using Textron's Stingray line and upgrading the snot out of it with a big fat check. The thing's already so light it'd make a great starting point.

>>64170977
I'd wager part of why it's "pretty maxed out" is the Bradley is still meant to carry troops which eats space. If you ditch that aspect entirely and get rid of the passengers suddenly a lot of potential space to play with for your light tank variant opens up. The biggest problem I see is you're basically remodeling half the hull AND probably slapping a new turret on it to accommodate the new gun and it's ammo in a safe way.

>>64170095
>>64170977
Why didn't they wait until the XM30 was finalized to benefit from parts sharing? IIRC it is the same hull largely as the GD entry for the program but if it doesn't win then there was no benefit, and if it does it'll probably have some design revisions by then that may make them incompatible. It's not really an urgent program either, just doesn't make sense to fast track it but drag feet on the XM30.

>>64171873
Only the heaviest configuration of the Type 10 has all around protection from 30mm. The 40 ton version is made of papier mache everywhere but the front.

>>64172023
Textron is the Jesus of the MIC. They do literally everything right but get fucked every single time.

>>64172800
The thing they do wrong is not competitively greasing congressional palms with freshly laundered taxpayer dollars.

>Hey MIC we want a vehicle
>OK, what kinda vehicle you want, f a m?
>Okay we want a vehicle that is lighter than a MBT
>OK
>We also want it to have more firepower than an IFV, so we want a 105mm on it
>OK
>We also want it to be tracked, not wheeled, so Strykers don't count (inb4 tracked Stryker variant)
>OK
>We also want it to be attached to infantry units NOT mechanised units
>OK, we'll get on that
>Thanks
>OK here you go, M10 Booker
>Cool thanks
>[Trump gets into office]
>IT'S TOO HEAVY IT NEEDS TO BE AIRDROPPABLE
>But it was never a requirement? It meets all the requirements requested at the start?
>NO IT'S SHIT USELESS CANCEL ALSO CANCEL ALL THE OTHER THINGS LIKE BRADLEY REPLACEMENTS AND FOCUS ON MISSILES AND SEA DRONES
This is why we are where we are, a sudden requirement popped up after the vehicle was delivered and everybody involved doesn't have the will or power to fight. Same shit as the M7 being picked despite its objective shitness (heavy, recoil heavy, breaks constantly - especially the attachments, lower ammo count, fire teams run out of ammo much quicker due to lower mag cap and ammo count). Welcome to the MIC folks. Where it isn't just who you know, it's who you blow.

>>64172900
And meanwhile you had fucking XM8, which iirc they threw out again because they didn't want to make the turret share components with the abrams (even though it was to be attached to infantry units), but otherwise did everything they wanted while having the ability to take protection modules on and off as duty and weight demands required.
While still being air-droppable, iirc.
God the people running the MIC are so retarded.

>>64172900
more like:

>Hey, Army here, we want a new vehicle, it has to be off the shelf, cheap, under 32 tons, low logistical footprint, at a cost of no more than 12.8 million per unit
>MIC/US Gov retards here, ok, we made you your tank, it's 10 tons over weight, has a logistical footprint as large as an Abrams, is a complete ground up design and costs 21 million per unit
>what do you mean you don't want this hot pile of shit?

>>64170087
Not everyone goes on /k/ every day. Some of us have jobs and families, newfag.

Now that China revealed their new MBT with an 105mm, will the US bring the M10 back?

>>64169873 (OP)
>where the M10 cracked eight of 11 bridges it crossed due to its weight
Source?

>>64173422
Its wikipedia link to a russian writer

>>64170568
anon are you even aware of what the Booker was competing against and why it was selected?

>>64173219
so the obsssssed autist making the same thread 100 times has a wife and kids, is that what you're saying?

>>64173161
Except there were like three different variants of the M10 and it was what was required. It was cheaper than a MBT, lighter than a MBT, tracked and had 105mm on it. That was it. If you wanted it to be able to take 30mm autocannon shots you needed to up the weight with the armor add-ons. That's the way it goes.

It is literally the case of
>We want a light fire support vehicle
>The Stryker?
>No, it has to be tracked
And so it's made and then
>But it needs to have X protection level or it SUCKS
The M10 was a assault gun, not a tank. It wasn't MEANT to be going up against anything heavy. Its job was to
>We are infantry units, we have light arms
>Oh no, a heavily fortified bunker
>Hmmm, do we call in air support and wait? Do we ask the mech heads to come and blow it up and they laugh at us?
>No, we want to deal with it ourselves, so put a 105mm HE shell through the slit, cheers
>*KABOOM*
>Okay move out
Rinse and repeat. It wasn't meant to engage heavy armor. If your infantry has met heavy armor, something has gone wrong. So the requirement of the M10 needing to have Lv.3 protection was retarded, which is why it got heavier.

It's the trinity of vehicle production.
>Lightweight
>Good firepower
>Good armor
You can have
>Good firepower
>Good armor
Or
>Good armor
>Lightweight
Or
>Lightweight
>Good firepower
You cannot have all three.

>>64173657
i want all three. cant you eggheads do anything?

>>64173161
32 tons was the FCS MGV. It was supposed to be able to fit in a C-130 and be amphibious and have all around 30mm protection and have capabilities meeting or exceeding those of existing vehicles. Obviously those requirements are incompatible and they would have ended up spending billions to make an equivalent to those VDV coffins that all got blown up in the first week of the Ukraine war. So the program was cancelled and instead of trying to make ultra lightweight tin cans, they refocused on building functional, survivable vehicles that are enough lighter to provide tangible logistical benefits, like being able to fit two Bookers in a C-17 compared to one Abrams, and greatly improving on the fuel efficiency. That's how we ended up with the MPF and AMPV programs; they were never at any point intended to be air droppable or any bullshit like that.

>>64173474
I cannot speak for OP, but the obsessed autist complaining that any given thread topic may have existed more than once likely does not.

>>64173412
No. The new chink tank is light years ahead with an unmanned turret, auto loader and APS. The Booker was an embarrassment and Bookertards should be beaten to death.

>>64173422
Never happened. A handful of articles from non-English news sources mention it, but they're all referencing the same original article that just says that the bridges aren't strong enough for them. Which is sort of true, but also sort of not. The standard Booker configuration is 38 tons, most of the bridges there are rated for up to 42 tons maximum load but only designed for typical loads of around 34 tons. So as long as there's only one at a time and the driver isn't doing anything stupid they'll be fine, but if they're driving over those bridges all the time they'll need inspections and maintenance more often, and possibly retrofitting to support greater loads in the near future.

Fortunately, the US Army has an entire Corps of Engineers that handles these exact sorts of situations.

>>64174086
An unmanned turret isn't desirable and the Booker turret is fully compatible with all Abrams upgrades and components including Trophy APS.

>>64173219
>>64173943
You know warriortard? It is one of his threads. If you are interested in the dead husk of thread filled with fake conversations by him, mostly aimed to force his narrative, then this one should be right up your ally, because that's what it is. Don't expect any real discussions or anything truely informative, you only will get a down diluted version with it mixed with his poison. There might have been some discussion in the first ten threads with the same topic, but no one in the right mind would effort post after OP made twenty and more threads, starts everyone with the same conclusion while ignoring everyone and everything that had corrected or debunked his claims or added important context in previous threads.

>>64174125
>An unmanned turret isn't desirable
Yes it is.
>Abrams
Is woefully utdated. Just look at this failure of an attempt to fit APS to it. It's a tower of shit piled on top of it. I demand better. How are they this incompetent? DO NOT LET OURSELVES GET CLOWNED ON BY CHINKS AND JEETS WITH SHIT LIKE THIS. Any new tank design in current year that has manned turret and no autoloader is an embarrassment. Don't make excuses for it.

>>64173657
Anon you could have simply said the Booker's role was that of a modern day Sherman.

>>64173657
>M10 was cheaper than a MBT,

Booger ended up being far far more . expensive than an Abrams.

>>64174125
Once again Booger was never APS capable as built. It lacks the mounts, data and power cabling and connectors, as well as that capability in its onboard control systems.

And before you start:

>“The initial M10 Booker design is complete and vehicles are in low-rate initial production now,” Gen Norman told us. “The M10 does not include an integrated Active Protection System."

>this thread again
The Booker was obsolete trash before the first one was ever built.
Armored Fighting Vehicles have gone the way of the Battleship. I have seen the future, and its Mechanized Drone Carriers.
>inb4 source

>>64169873 (OP)
the guy who authorised the M1161 Growler, the 1 million dollar per unit mini-Jeep the Marines bought because it was the only thing that could fit inside the V-22 and turned out to be a complete lemon, got a board member job at the contractor when he retired
>intended to be lighter
>cracks bridges
what happens when the train with Abrams or did they never do that and that's why the bridges weren't strong enough?

>>64175692
>$1 million*
>*includes $800,000 towed 120mm mortar

>>64170040
>>64170214
They already had thousands of these and retired them because it had issues, that's part of the reason the M10 program exists. The bradley hull wouldn't be any better than the LAV hull.

>>64174194
>DO NOT LET OURSELVES GET CLOWNED ON BY CHINKS AND JEETS WITH SHIT LIKE THIS. Any new tank design in current year that has manned turret and no autoloader is an embarrassment. Don't make excuses for it.
I agree with your sentiment, but the chinks and jeets are still just using the dangerously flawed T-72 autoloader

>>64179689
Stryker had issues that could be corrected by a newer platform, like an unstable platform and undersized turret ring.

I wonder if the USMC will put the MTU 8V199 in the ARV/ACV or if they will use one of those funny opposing piston Cummins engines. I find it kind of strange the M10 Booker uses a conventional V8 turbodiesel european engine when Cummins dumped hundreds of millions of dollars into their ACE program.

>>64179702
>Don't make excuses for it.
Nork 125mms are theoretically the most potentially powerful smoothbore in service due to lack of a autoloader and their newer tanks are already busy in terms of crew tasks, that is a great excuse.