M10 Booker Combat Vehicle / Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF)

[Scott Kenny]

In current form? Perhaps. I've never actually seen it or M10's insides.

I posted the videos of the XM1302 "Chieftain's Hatch".

But both were built for 3 crewmen which is no longer a necessity in 2025.
Through tech developed as part of the larger NGCV (family of vehicles), particularly for OMFV (Bradley replacement), 2 crew operation is permitted. Something demonstrated a long time ago.
You don't have to go for 2 crewmen if you don't want to in a 50 ton vehicle (Abrams replacement), but if you're low on volume and GVW budget then you hardly have a choice. And as with all 2 crew formats I've seen, that 3rd person gets shifted to maintenance work so you're not losing out on field maintenance.

WIth this added space, you could probably fit 2 crewmen quite comfortably in an M8.

Good luck doing tracked vehicle maintenance with only 2 dudes.

Or standing all the protective watches while laagered.

Or the army just says fuck it and hopes that the 60t M1E3 can do the job and won't be an overweight burden for infantry formations.

Infantry formations would require a whole lot more engineering support, bridging gear, etc. But they do have all the engineering support for ~40 ton vehicles, like HEMTTs.

The last option would just be not doing anything and in any future wars the government would send the sons and daughters of Americans towards fortified enemy positions in humvees and M113s.

Infantry Divisions are generally not used for taking positions. They hold them.

 

[Ainen]

Infantry Divisions are generally not used for taking positions. They hold them.

Even if that's the case (which is rarely so binary), holding position involves counterattacking.
Static defense is glass.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Even if that's the case (which is rarely so binary), holding position involves counterattacking.
Static defense is glass.

Yes. And for those moments they will need a mobile big gun. Ideally something within the logistical support limits that they already have, so ~40 tons so they don't need all the support that an Abrams does.

 

[Big_Zukini]

Good luck doing tracked vehicle maintenance with only 2 dudes.

The base crew is 2, not the maintenance crew. As I said, you just specialize the 3rd dude in maintenance. The main result is you're keeping pretty much the same manpower but shifting some of it away from the combat edge.

We're on our way to field UGVs pretty much the size of an APC/MBT. Should we put 3 guys inside just in case they throw a track?
Manned APCs with similar maintenance requirements also frequently have a 2 person crew if a gunner is not necessary.

Regarding fatigue, you'll still need most of the crew active at all times. You'll need to rotate them frequently either way.

 

[Kat Tsun]

The RQ-180 is more so a HALE type UAV and as far as we know lacks the strike capability.

That's what the CPS hypersonic programs like Long Range Hypersonic Weapon are for. B-21 provides an additional strike method when paired with something like P-ISR. Until we know what DAF and DON are cutting to hit that 8% goal, though, the safe assumption is anything DA is cutting is to free up money for those two. The Army is a non-factor for the INDOPACCOM fight until it drags out a year or more and only if it involves major ground combat that isn't already addressed by Joint elements and allies like USMC, ROKA or JGSDF.

 

[Pioneer]

And the U.S. Army has done it yet again:

US army axes M10 tanks, may send high-tech AMPVs to Ukraine

bulgarianmilitary.com

The Army cancels the M10 Booker, a 'light tank' that was too heavy

The M10 Booker was meant to be a light tank — if it was a "tank" at all — but Army officials admitted they "got the Booker wrong."

taskandpurpose.com

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Dragonlady]

Might as well dissolve the Army in it's entirety then if they want to utterly gut it like that. Who do they think will fight their wars in the future? The US Moron Corps with their overly expensive but underwhelming toys?

First ERCA, then FARA, now this. Why would any contractor still want to do business with the US military at this point when the simply change their opinions every 4 years because of partisan politics that are symptomatic for their terrible political system.

"To build a leaner, more lethal force, the Army must transform at an accelerated pace by divesting outdated, redundant, and inefficient programs, as well as restructuring headquarters and acquisition systems [...]"

Has someone told him that the "leaner force" gets ground up and annihilated in every war? Imagine questioning such fundamental things like genuine infantry support while your Navy's Army has an Air Force for whatever reason. This is such a clown world lmao.

“We wanted to develop a small tank that was agile and could be dropped into places our regular tanks can’t. We got a heavy tank.”

It's literally 20 to 30 TONS lighter than the freaking Abrams while bringing comparable firepower to infantry units in order to provide effective direct fire support.

I'm not even American but I cannot fathom the sheer stupidity and incompetence.

Hagsad probably thinks he can hold and suppress positions with M113s with .50 cals

Eh, FARA being cancelled isn’t terrible. IIRC most of it’s functions would’ve been done by the ALEs anyway which begs the question of why not just strap said ALEs to an Apache.

MPF is a valid concept but poor execution IMO. Being lighter than Abrams doesn’t mean much when you can still only carry one per C-17. Weighing the same as a T-64 yet having far worse armor is not exactly a rousing success.

The other stuff they wanna do is absolutely pants on head retarded tho.

 

[EmoBirb]

Weighing the same as a T-64 yet having far worse armor is not exactly a rousing success.

Except that the T-64 has worse ergonomics and subsystems like fire control, laser range finders, optics etc.

The only ways to make the Booker significantly lighter would have been a smaller crew via the introduction of an auto loader or by building a bespoke vehicle rather than using a pre-existing AFV as a basis. The latter was most likely not deemed economically viable.

The issue remains, giving the Booker the axe without any alternative being explored is just pure, distilled, crystal clear stupidity and short term thinking. If they instead said for example "Axing the Booker in favor of the M8 after a reevaluation" it would be different. Or "dropping the Booker in favor an option based on an existing platform (something Bradley based for example, or bought abroad like Centauro/Boxer).

But what do I even expect from people who call AFVs "tracked boxes"? Expecting competence from said people was my mistake.

Side: note, the M1 weighs more than a Tiger II, but I know which one I'd prefer to sit in. Comparing two AFVs solely based on their weight doesn't make sense. Especially when both are at large vulnerable to the exact same things in the real world.

 

[EmoBirb]

Anyway, now that the M10 is most likely killed off I wonder what alternatives exist to fill the role the Booker was meant to fill. Even with a restructuring (or how some call it transformation) of the Army and it's units, a need for organic direct fire support for Infantry (and airborne units...sigh) persists.

I looked for some offerings that currently exist within the western MIC ecosystem that also use 105/120mm guns on light/medium chassis:





The Boxer would weigh in somewhere between 37-39t given that the RCH155 weighs 39t the 105mm module would probably weigh slightly less. The CV90120 also weighs in the 35-40t region. The K21 105 on the other hand allegedly is somewhere around 25t. So is the B1 Centauro which would even in an uparmored configuration only reach around 30t. I also think the US Army once tested them a good while back. The Kf41 with the Hitfact MK2 turret weighs around 38t. Most of these off-the-shelf alternatives aren't much lighter than Booker was, the B1 and K21 being exceptions here.

Obviously another alternative could be to pick up the BAE XM1302 MPF again, despite whatever flaws it might have had compared to the Booker, it was developed under the same programme for US army needs and they can throw it into aircraft easily (possibly could even throw it out of one, for the people still stuck in the 1940s).

 

[Dilandu]

Anyway, now that the M10 is most likely killed off I wonder what alternatives exist to fill the role the Booker was meant to fill. Even with a restructuring (or how some call it transformation) of the Army and it's units, a need for organic direct fire support for Infantry (and airborne units...sigh) persists.

To drop the outdated idea of air transportation demand and just to produce a cheap infantry support tank?

Seriously, any tank that could be fitted in pairs into cargo plane would likely be too vulnerable to modern battlefield. This demand should be dropped.

 

[Forest Green]

Air-droppable UGVs may be the way forward these days anyway.

 

[Big_Zukini]

I don't understand the airdrop requirement debate.
Probably neither did the army because they dropped it.

I still think they need a bespoke design, or combine efforts with RCV-H for a common chassis. And can't do it with a crew above 2.

 

[EmoBirb]

Air-droppable UGVs may be the way forward these days anyway.

I don't really see any UGV that's somewhere close to maturity being armed with more than an autocannon at best. I also really call the air-droppable requirement into question.

The Army is allegedly all about current threat analysis and looking ahead towards the future. Then they should be keenly aware that the chance of dropping anything but dead bodies and a wrecked air lifter over hostile territory is essentially zero. We have Houthis which swat Reapers like it's nothing, I think they downed Saudi-led coalition F-16s too, on top of taking pot shots at F-15s. On top of that we have speed boats roaming around yeeting R-73s into the sky. Add to that the fact that any peer or near peer adversary has a vast network of air defenses (in case of China a good portion of that being shipborne as well) and the picture isn't rosy.

Can I see the benefit in trying to cram as many vehicles into an airlifter as possible? Yes.


Can I see the benefit in trying to cram a vehicle into an airlifter that can take off and land on a dirt strip (C-130)? Also yes.

However I cannot see any scenario where WW2 style airborne assaults are possible against anything close to a peer adversary these days. Unless there's a stealth C-17 I simply don't know about. Maybe the Army wants their next vehicle to fit inside the weapons bay of a B-2 or B-21 lol.

And you cannot convince me that in order to just drop something somewhere it's worth sacrificing a transport machine for. So the only option remains to simply unload the vehicle(s) regularly. Which means while weight should ideally be kept down, it doesn't have to be anemic in order to be dropped with parachutes. A reduction in weight should be accounted for in order to ease the overall logistics as well as providing a vehicle that can operate anywhere where an M1 or Bradley couldn't.

At least that's how I see it.

 

[EmoBirb]

Does someone know how much the ZTQ-15 weighs?

 

[collins355]

Does someone know how much the ZTQ-15 weighs?

28.5 metric tons (basic armor state) 32.5 metric tons (standard additional reactive armor state) 35 metric tons (street fighting suit, including explosive side skirts)

 

[EmoBirb]

28.5 metric tons (basic armor state) 32.5 metric tons (standard additional reactive armor state) 35 metric tons (street fighting suit, including explosive side skirts)

That's rather impressive tbh

 

[Ainen]

To drop the outdated idea of air transportation demand and just to produce a cheap infantry support tank?

Seriously, any tank that could be fitted in pairs into cargo plane would likely be too vulnerable to modern battlefield. This demand should be dropped.

It is absolutely not obvious, and frankly the very relationship is flawed.
Bradley(lighter than M10) does almost fine, twice as heavy Challenger performs outright badly.

M10 by itself was almost ideal for the role. If something made it outdated - it's the rather weird requirement, that let design team to do the exact half of C-17 payload without any growth margin.
As it turned out, didn't even need growth to not fit in anymore, but this would've happened anyway at the next turn (trophy? drone ew? anti air weapon station?).

M10 was meant to be IBCT "force multiplier". Infantry brigades(divisioins) are not the same as their cold war ancestors, they're rapidly deployable forces. M10 coe at 2/C-17 already adds a lot of sorties. At 1 per plane, tanks form majority of transport demand (despite being only small proportion of force), killing the whole point.

Quality of fire support delivered by 50-60-70t vehicle is any better. Logistics requirements and maneuverability on terrain are however much worse.

 

[Dragonlady]

Except that the T-64 has worse ergonomics and subsystems like fire control, laser range finders, optics etc.

The only ways to make the Booker significantly lighter would have been a smaller crew via the introduction of an auto loader or by building a bespoke vehicle rather than using a pre-existing AFV as a basis. The latter was most likely not deemed economically viable.

The issue remains, giving the Booker the axe without any alternative being explored is just pure, distilled, crystal clear stupidity and short term thinking. If they instead said for example "Axing the Booker in favor of the M8 after a reevaluation" it would be different. Or "dropping the Booker in favor an option based on an existing platform (something Bradley based for example, or bought abroad like Centauro/Boxer).

But what do I even expect from people who call AFVs "tracked boxes"? Expecting competence from said people was my mistake.

Side: note, the M1 weighs more than a Tiger II, but I know which one I'd prefer to sit in. Comparing two AFVs solely based on their weight doesn't make sense. Especially when both are at large vulnerable to the exact same things in the real world.

Point remains that the Soviets were able to design a vehicle using early 1960’s tech that has better protection & (arguably) firepower than the Booker. There’s no reason why (with 50+ years of technological advancement) we couldn’t do the same.

As far as alternatives, there’s the BFV/AMPV with 120mm NEMO, or perhaps the Stryker with NEMO. Alternatively, BAE can sacrifice C-130 compatibility & enlarge the XM1302’s hull length & width to provide more space (even with the increased weight it should still be far lighter than the M10). If C-130 transportability is absolutely critical, perhaps a variant of the LAV II-DVH with a 50mm bushmaster & either TOW or javelins for self-defense against armor.

 

[Josh_TN]

I suspect the real truth is that the current administration does not see the entire requirement as a need, since it neither serves a border purpose nor a Sino-American war purpose. If light an airborne infantry are for brush wars, one solution is to not car about those wars. Quite honestly I wonder if the U.S. Army will lose entire formations of units deemed redundant.

 

[EmoBirb]

I suspect the real truth is that the current administration does not see the entire requirement as a need, since it neither serves a border purpose nor a Sino-American war purpose. If light an airborne infantry are for brush wars, one solution is to not car about those wars. Quite honestly I wonder if the U.S. Army will lose entire formations of units deemed redundant.

While I could definitely see them thinking like that, do they really believe that the won't be involved anywhere else but a potential war with China and protecting the southern border for the next 50-60 years? I doubt it. I mean, it would probably be good, I think Americans are overall tired of overseas wars. But it's also that I don't really see that pivot. Gutting the Army doesn't make the Navy competent or get ships built quicker.

 

[EmoBirb]

Point remains that the Soviets were able to design a vehicle using early 1960’s tech that has better protection & (arguably) firepower than the Booker. There’s no reason why (with 50+ years of technological advancement) we couldn’t do the same.

As far as alternatives, there’s the BFV/AMPV with 120mm NEMO, or perhaps the Stryker with NEMO. Alternatively, BAE can sacrifice C-130 compatibility & enlarge the XM1302’s hull length & width to provide more space (even with the increased weight it should still be far lighter than the M10). If C-130 transportability is absolutely critical, perhaps a variant of the LAV II-DVH with a 50mm bushmaster & either TOW or javelins for self-defense against armor.

NEMO on something like the Stryker or AMPV may actually make sense or any off-the-shelf 6x6/8x8 really. Can it do direct fire?

 

[shin_getter]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrZYl9_DdiQ


Nemo is pretty cool. MRSI with top attack guided rounds will pwn any AFV that thinks APS will save them. Indirect fire on the move for combat at drone recon pace and direct fire too.

And none of the basic "guys on the roof beat your tank because gun elevation" as Russians learned in grozny.
----
However, nothing like organic firepower, and if the point is to save the life of the dude with the rocket launcher:

For the cost of a 10+ ton AFV you can load numerous 50kg robot and you can look up how much unitree is selling them for.

 

[Josh_TN]

While I could definitely see them thinking like that, do they really believe that the won't be involved anywhere else but a potential war with China and protecting the southern border for the next 50-60 years? I doubt it. I mean, it would probably be good, I think Americans are overall tired of overseas wars. But it's also that I don't really see that pivot. Gutting the Army doesn't make the Navy competent or get ships built quicker.

I would be a little surprised if Hegseth had a cohesive plan for 5-6 months from now that did not involve emojis in a public app.

 

[shin_getter]

However I cannot see any scenario where WW2 style airborne assaults are possible against anything close to a peer adversary these days. Unless there's a stealth C-17 I simply don't know about. Maybe the Army wants their next vehicle to fit inside the weapons bay of a B-2 or B-21 lol.

The future of air assaults is terminators out of a glide kit out of a B-21.

Before we get terminators, some kind of increasingly smart mine field would be the land denial option. First you have pressure/proximity mines, than top attack wide area bouncing mines, off route mines mixed with landed micro air vehicles, passive sensors and the whole bunch.

Sure it isn't "taking" land the tradition sense, but it is good persistent interdiction that can deny use of land to the enemy.

Oh, and you might send in a few dudes for command and control and general situation awareness, but no reason for them to do the shooting.

 

[shin_getter]

oh ....when was this again?

 

[Scott Kenny]

I looked for some offerings that currently exist within the western MIC ecosystem that also use 105/120mm guns on light/medium chassis:

Centauro is one that the US Army has worked with before, as the fill-in for Stryker MGS early on.

NEMO isn't a bad idea, either, but isn't it a muzzle-loading mortar? Just make a breech-loading mortar instead!

Seriously, any tank that could be fitted in pairs into cargo plane would likely be too vulnerable to modern battlefield. This demand should be dropped.

~30-35 tons base (to allow for 20% weight growth and still fit 2 into a C17) is enough versus IEDs, and you're going to use APS for most of the battlefield threats these days.

 

[Apophenia]

... NEMO isn't a bad idea, either, but isn't it a muzzle-loading mortar? Just make a breech-loading mortar instead!...

NEMO already has automatic breech-loading.

 

[yeetmahboi]

Alternative for Booker:
Field more drones at the unit level with multi shot explosive, may even equip them with throwing arms for satchels.
UGVs with RAVEN gun.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Alternative for Booker:
Field more drones at the unit level with multi shot explosive, may even equip them with throwing arms for satchels.
UGVs with RAVEN gun.

Remember that Bookers were probably carrying ~20 or more HE rounds between HEP and HEAT, and that's assuming 42 rounds as 2x Canister, 10x sabot, 10x WP Smoke, 10x HEP, and 10x HEAT.

Does anyone have the loadout % for M4 Shermans in WW2? Specifically 75mm? So usual numbers of Smoke, HE, and AP? Say, for Normandy or Sicily/Italy?

 

[yeetmahboi]

Remember that Bookers were probably carrying ~20 or more HE rounds between HEP and HEAT, and that's assuming 42 rounds as 2x Canister, 10x sabot, 10x WP Smoke, 10x HEP, and 10x HEAT.

Does anyone have the loadout % for M4 Shermans in WW2? Specifically 75mm? So usual numbers of Smoke, HE, and AP? Say, for Normandy or Sicily/Italy?

Yep, and Booker would've been really high up in the chain of command. Per attachment, they will offer more kaboom at the ready, but satchel drones be distributed to every unit. Given how Musk is leading the military with an all drone motto, so...

Presumably an M5 could be equipped with a turret holding 20 rounds for a 90mm RAVENS gun spitting HEMPs with quick reload bustle extensions. T114 BAT held like 30rds for its 90mm so not implausible, though as a direct Booker replacement you'd want some armour on hand (not recommended!)

 

[Kat Tsun]

Eh, FARA being cancelled isn’t terrible. IIRC most of it’s functions would’ve been done by the ALEs anyway which begs the question of why not just strap said ALEs to an Apache.

MPF is a valid concept but poor execution IMO. Being lighter than Abrams doesn’t mean much when you can still only carry one per C-17. Weighing the same as a T-64 yet having far worse armor is not exactly a rousing success.

The other stuff they wanna do is absolutely pants on head retarded tho.

The Booker was doomed because it's a ASCOD with a field stripped M1 turret. Terrible cubic efficiency.

M8 did the same thing for 10-15 tons less mass.

 

[yeetmahboi]

M8 did the same thing for 10-15 tons less mass

Sure, but the Buford is also hella uncomfortable to drive in. See above, SK posted vids from The Chieftain that really shows how it sacrificed geometry to get to the mass requirements.

 

[Dragonlady]

Sure, but the Buford is also hella uncomfortable to drive in. See above, SK posted vids from The Chieftain that really shows how it sacrificed geometry to get to the mass requirements.

BAE should’ve not given a shit about C-130 compatibility and enlarged the hull about 0.5 meters in both length & width (making it dimensionally identical to Bradley). Even with the extra weight it still would’ve been far lighter than the GDLS entry.

The Booker was doomed because it's a ASCOD with a field stripped M1 turret. Terrible cubic efficiency.

M8 did the same thing for 10-15 tons less mass.

Ding ding ding.

IFV hull + steel construction = heavy pig.

 

[EmoBirb]

because it's a ASCOD with a field stripped M1 turret.

Lmao

 

[EmoBirb]

Sure, but the Buford is also hella uncomfortable to drive in. See above, SK posted vids from The Chieftain that really shows how it sacrificed geometry to get to the mass requirements.

They could probably modify it to make it more usable and it may still be significantly lighter. I'm for one very much into the idea of an AMPV/Bradley or (uparmored after unloaded) Stryker Stryker with the NEMO.

But as both AMPV and Stryker are also hit by the cuts, that's obviously less than ideal (I still cannot get over reading some official call the AMPV a 'box on tracks' in a negative way, lol).

Given that the XM30 is intended to get a 50mm autocannon, maybe there could be a diet M30 which is lighter than the behemoth meant to replace the Bradley.

 

[Ainen]

The Booker was doomed because it's a ASCOD with a field stripped M1 turret. Terrible cubic efficiency.

It isn't, hull was new(of course related) and it wasn't especially tall. Enough for comfortable placement of driver with required level of mine protection.
M10 is just an MBT without composite package(which isn't all that heavy) and with frontal engine.

M8 did the same thing for 10-15 tons less mass.

Same (both were alright for basic RFP).
But half the ammo count and overall very tightly packed.
To fit significant infantry support ammo load into 20t class chassis(Bufford), you have to either drop caliber, which didn't happen, or consider other compromises.

Unless airborne requirements were in mind, IBCTs had very little reason to choose XM1302.
Which is the irony - both should've been procured, period.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Sure, but the Buford is also hella uncomfortable to drive in.

Being comfortable is actively detrimental to strategic mobility, as demonstrated.

IBCTs should have just got a AMPV with a MGS turret (it can take the weight) and Airborne gets the 1302.

 

[yeetmahboi]

Being comfortable is actively detrimental to strategic mobility, as demonstrated.

Sure, but that's not how the military qualifies stuff, at least in the US. Ergonomics is in the top 3.

 

[Ainen]

Ampv with a turret would be all the same problems, just pointlessly bad. Also, by default unable to match the request, which for booker at the very least wasn't predetermined.

There are few things as useless as APC/IFV hulls with heavy gun turret. True demons of unification for the sake of unification.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Ampv with a turret would be all the same problems, just pointlessly bad. Also, by default unable to match the request, which for booker at the very least wasn't predetermined.

There are few things as useless as APC/IFV hulls with heavy gun turret. True demons of unification for the sake of unification.

The MGS turret was designed for an airborne application so it's hardly heavy. It would weigh less than the M10 did.

The only serious solution for IBCTs would be an M1 tank company since that's what the Army really wants anyway.