M10 Booker Combat Vehicle / Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF)

Considering that Campbell was home to multiple Armor DIVISIONs in the past which including the M60 till the 80s in natguard role and didn't become home of the Airborne til the mid 1970s...

Something smelly.
 
Firefinder said:
Considering that Campbell was home to multiple Armor DIVISIONs in the past which including the M60 till the 80s in natguard role and didn't become home of the Airborne til the mid 1970s...

Something smelly.
Click to expand...
It isn't at all smelly when you recall that this was totally predicted by the LCEA in 2021.

But sure, call the Army Senior Advisor for S&T a liar without basis.

Also, being limited to one per C-17 really encapsulates how much of a faceplant this program has been.
 
totallyaverage said:
It isn't at all smelly when you recall that this was totally predicted by the LCEA in 2021.

But sure, call the Army Senior Advisor for S&T a liar without basis.

Also, being limited to one per C-17 really encapsulates how much of a faceplant this program has been.
Click to expand...
Considering he is focusing on the weirdest stuff?

Like SINCGARS? The primary standard issued radio in the US Army that EVERYONE uses? With no replacement on record for several years now?

Or the Airdrop and C130 ability despite tge knew issues it causes for the vehicles designers?

Or the Unmanned ability which we still BARELY know what we need to make it actually work?

And the fact idiots in his type of role have out right lie, to fucking Congress let alone the press before?

I have multiple salt blocks.

Edit: The Bradley!

Thats what this reminds me of. Those hit articles that age so badly.
 
Last edited:
Anyone calling it a tank, or even a light tank, doesn't understand its role and is asking it to do things it isn't designed for. Is the problem specifications, or expectations?
 
I think the only area or problem I see is if they have indeed been limited to one vehicle per C-17. That would be a fairly significant setback. Other points made in the article don’t really concern the program. If they want a big gun to do what they want the big to do (MPF) then this is a significantly better solution for its intended users than a M1 whatever the Abram’s is upgraded with.

The timing of this though makes me think it might be on the chopping block as part of the 8% budget realignment drill happening inside each service ahead of the 26 budget request that will drop in May.
 
Given that it was intended as an airdroppable light tank or fire support vehicle for Airborne forces and ended up as neither a tank (or arguably, viable fire support) or airdroppable (or even particularly airmobile), it would seem to be a case of being low hanging fruit.
 
Firefinder said:
Considering he is focusing on the weirdest stuff?

Like SINCGARS? The primary standard issued radio in the US Army that EVERYONE uses? With no replacement on record for several years now?

Or the Airdrop and C130 ability despite tge knew issues it causes for the vehicles designers?

Or the Unmanned ability which we still BARELY know what we need to make it actually work?

And the fact idiots in his type of role have out right lie, to fucking Congress let alone the press before?

I have multiple salt blocks.

Edit: The Bradley!

Thats what this reminds me of. Those hit articles that age so badly.
Click to expand...

Fielding the MPF to sites not currently hosting tracked vehicles may necessitate construction of maintenance facilities and other infrastructure such as hardened bridges to facilitate general vehicle operation, operation of heavy support equipment and vehicles, and storage at the home station. In these cases, construction will be evaluated in site-specific NEPA documents.
Click to expand...

Some IBCT home stations either currently or have recently operated tracked vehicles, while others have not. Where tracked vehicles have recently operated, existing infrastructure is likely sufficient to support MPF; however, at many locations infrastructure upgrades or new construction will be required to operate and support the MPF system effectively. Improvements may include hardening bridges, upgrading training areas or tank trails, and/or upgrading storage and maintenance facilities. Site improvements, if required, will also result in corresponding revisions to site specific permits and environmental protection plans.
Click to expand...

As previously discussed, some fielding locations may not have sufficient infrastructure for system training, operation and storage. Additional maneuver areas, tank trails, hard stand/parking areas, hardened bridges, hardened stream crossings, and/or maintenance facilities may need to be constructed at these installations.
Click to expand...

Land use and soil impacts due to testing, training, and operations are expected to be minimal. Potential impacts would result from vehicle operation, live fire testing and training, and vehicle fluid spills/leaks. Indirect land use and soil impacts may result from infrastructure improvements, including maneuver area upgrades, tank trail improvements, hardening of roads and bridges, hardening of stream crossings, or addition of hard stand/parking areas, depending on site-specific needs.
Click to expand...

As mentioned in the Air and Water Quality sections, the proposed action may result in upgrades to maneuver areas and tank trails, hardening of low water crossings and bridges, and construction of storage areas and maintenance facilities at some locations. These would be long-term changes to land use but would likely not be used exclusively for the MPF. Because each installation will have unique construction requirements and has a different environmental setting, it is not effective to programmatically evaluate the soil and land use impacts of that construction. Each site should assess the environmental impacts of its planned upgrades in a site-specific NEPA document.
Click to expand...

The MPF will be a new vehicle in the IBCT. As a result, some installations will require infrastructure improvements which may include hardened roads and bridges, hard stand for vehicle storage, improved/new maintenance facilities, improved/new maneuver areas equipped with appropriate low water crossings and tank trails. At these installations, environmental impacts will be evaluated in site-specific NEPA documents. As previously stated, impacts from infrastructure improvements will vary according to specific site requirements and the site's environmental, geographic, and cultural setting.
Click to expand...

If implemented, the proposed action would result in fielding the MPF to up to 32 IBCT garrisons – few of which currently have MPF-like tracked vehicles. As a result, some of these installations do not have sufficient infrastructure for system support, training, operation, storage, and maintenance. Some installations may need to construct maneuver areas, tank trails, or sufficient hard stand or other parking areas. These infrastructure upgrades will need to accommodate support vehicles such as the M88A2 recovery vehicle and others described in Section 4.2. Site-specific environmental impacts of construction will be evaluated in site-specific NEPA analyses.
Click to expand...

Add in the tens of millions in infrastructure contracts issues for Fort Campbell shortly after GDLS was selected...but I'm sure it's just a conspiracy.
 
Tbh i don't get such focus on unification in this particular case.
It's AFV, not a fusion reactor ffs.

Buy both for their respective communities.
 
totallyaverage said:






Add in the tens of millions in infrastructure contracts issues for Fort Campbell shortly after GDLS was selected...but I'm sure it's just a conspiracy.
Click to expand...
Eyeah heres the issue boss.

ANY OF THE CONTESTS WILL HAVE THE SAME ISSUES.

And have given less protection, more lead time, more training needs, and a host of other factors.

Throw in that Alot of posts begging for infrastructure updates? Like Campbell is notorious for its crappy barracks and poor roads...

It been the same no matter which been chosen.
 
Firefinder said:
Throw in that Alot of posts begging for infrastructure updates? Like Campbell is notorious for its crappy barracks and poor roads...
Click to expand...

I thought you just said the claim we needed to reinforce bridges was fake? Now you have always known the roads were bad and required work?

Which one is it?
 
totallyaverage said:
I thought you just said the claim we needed to reinforce bridges was fake? Now you have always known the roads were bad and required work?

Which one is it?
Click to expand...
I said it was smelly sdue to the post history and more to the fact that it only lightly touches on needing to upgrade the post and focus more on how we should just cut the M10.

You said I shouldn't call the Army ADVISER a liar without basis.

I listed the basis and you post the bases upgrade needs.

Like it was some type of smoking gun on how bad tge Booker is.

I merely point out that that been true anyways no matter what was picked. And Then I posted that it was bases do need upgrades anyways.

And I said roads, not hardballs not bridges not tanks trails. The actual street roads that the Booker will not see off of a trailer. Those roads need the upgrades, which is likely were most of the bridges are cause the Army avoids putting any bridges where military vehicles like to go. Cause they can suddenly jump up in weight from 1 to 10 tons like the Humvees and LMTVs did.

The Army does this type of trick all the time. They did similar in Carson when we switch to Stryker from Armor. There was a whole lot of work in areas that Strykers never saw.
 
Grey Havoc said:
Given that it was intended as an airdroppable light tank or fire support vehicle for Airborne forces and ended up as neither a tank (or arguably, viable fire support) or airdroppable (or even particularly airmobile), it would seem to be a case of being low hanging fruit.
Click to expand...
NO IT WAS NOT.

Airdroppable was NOT part of the design brief!

Mission was exactly what was written on the tin: Mobile Protected Firepower. A sturmgeshutz. An assault gun. For those units that do not regularly operate with Abrams support. Like leg infantry. Take over an airport, fly a quartet of C-17s in each with an M10 inside, drive the M10s out the back.

As to the increased bridge capacity thing, a loaded HEMTT is just as heavy as the M10 is, if not heavier. The bridges out in the training areas should be adequate to handle the tracks. The places you might need to install newer bridges are where the M10s are going to be on the back of Heavy Equipment Transporters.
 
Scott Kenny said:
NO IT WAS NOT.

Airdroppable was NOT part of the design brief!

Mission was exactly what was written on the tin: Mobile Protected Firepower. A sturmgeshutz. An assault gun. For those units that do not regularly operate with Abrams support. Like leg infantry. Take over an airport, fly a quartet of C-17s in each with an M10 inside, drive the M10s out the back.

As to the increased bridge capacity thing, a loaded HEMTT is just as heavy as the M10 is, if not heavier. The bridges out in the training areas should be adequate to handle the tracks. The places you might need to install newer bridges are where the M10s are going to be on the back of Heavy Equipment Transporters.
Click to expand...
I just hope that the heavier combat weight of the M10 versus the designs it competed against translates out to significantly better armor protection. Otherwise, the level of capability that 40-ish tons are buying doesn't seem all that impressive. I don't know why they didn't specify an autoloader either considering one of the goals is decreased weight and logistics footprint compared to the M1 Abrams. An autoloader would help to further achieve that.

How much of the Army these days would qualify as straight-leg infantry in the sense that they typically only have trucks and HMMWVs to work with? Are the M10s going to be part of those units or just attached to them?

As for as airdroppable armor, the Army has clearly decided it's not needed, though I'm not sure what to think about that myself. There are plenty of possible situations like you describe where airborne/airmobile infantry could secure an airstrip and C-17s could fly in, but one can also think of potential scenarios where you'd want to bring in some light armor for that first wave.

Perhaps what is needed is less of a light tank for that, and more an updated tank on the German Wiesel weapons carrier concept. Light enough where you can even bring some in with some helicopters but armor protection against small arms and fragments. Some having autocannons, some missile launchers, and some with 81mm or 120mm mortars. These days you might want to have a variant dedicated just to being a mobile platform to send out small reconnaissance and kamikaze drones.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
I just hope that the heavier combat weight of the M10 versus the designs it competed against translates out to significantly better armor protection. Otherwise, the level of capability that 40-ish tons are buying doesn't seem all that impressive. I don't know why they didn't specify an autoloader either considering one of the goals is decreased weight and logistics footprint compared to the M1 Abrams. An autoloader would help to further achieve that.
Click to expand...
Probably because specifying an autoloader would grossly unfairly advantage the M8 team. BAE didn't have a working autoloader design, while whoever was behind the M8 did.

I'm not sure the heavier weight translates to "better protection" so much as "a bigger chassis with twice as much ammo (useful when you have 5x ammo types to store!) and more space inside for crew." In The Chieftain's videos on the M8 MPF, he notes that there was very little space for him to move around in the turret, and that was with pieces of gear removed/not installed.

I don't think that the MPF has all that much better armor than a Bradley.



Colonial-Marine said:
How much of the Army these days would qualify as straight-leg infantry in the sense that they typically only have trucks and HMMWVs to work with? Are the M10s going to be part of those units or just attached to them?
Click to expand...
A bit over half the US Army (including Guard/Reserves) is leg infantry. Most of that is Guard/Reserves, but there's still 82nd+101st, 10th Mountain, and IIRC half of 25th "Infantry" division (1x ABN, 1x leg, 1x Stryker, 1x Armor brigades). There's also Guard/Reserve Armor units, like my local 116th BCT.



Colonial-Marine said:
As for as airdroppable armor, the Army has clearly decided it's not needed, though I'm not sure what to think about that myself. There are plenty of possible situations like you describe where airborne/airmobile infantry could secure an airstrip and C-17s could fly in, but one can also think of potential scenarios where you'd want to bring in some light armor for that first wave.

Perhaps what is needed is less of a light tank for that, and more an updated tank on the German Wiesel weapons carrier concept. Light enough where you can even bring some in with some helicopters but armor protection against small arms and fragments. Some having autocannons, some missile launchers, and some with 81mm or 120mm mortars. These days you might want to have a variant dedicated just to being a mobile platform to send out small reconnaissance and kamikaze drones.
Click to expand...
I think the "airborne weapons carrier" role is getting taken up by UTVs and the occasional converted Humvee with a mortar or even 105mm arty in the back.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom