I served with Booker. He was in my platoon at Ft. Stewart. A co 1/64 armor battalion. Hooah!!!! Your name lives on brother!

@eio1971

Жыл бұрын

Rock of the Marne!

@carlosnuckols8470

Жыл бұрын

Fucking cool bro!

@MajorLeagueTenacity

Жыл бұрын

@@eio1971Tip of the co…I mean top of the rock.

@tpayne115

Жыл бұрын

Thank you for your service!

@carlosnuckols8470

Жыл бұрын

@@tpayne115 thank you and I appreciate you!

I am happy to see the M-10 name live on, my father served in one in the Pacific theater during World War II, landing on several Japanese held islands. I hope they can protect the service men and women assigned to them

@handsomeman-pm9vy

Жыл бұрын

The original M-10 was a Tank Destroyer in WW2. It was replaced by the M-18 Tank Destroyer.

OK it's an armored fighting vehicle. It is not designed to put a squad of infantry inside. It's a light tank configured for infantry support. It's not an APC.

@LA-ep2nr

Жыл бұрын

I agree. It’s a, “Tank.”

@stunick1573

Жыл бұрын

The Army doesn't like the "term" light tank. US Doctrine say a tank must be armored, have tracks and a turreted medium to large gun. Soldier pointing at the M10 it has armor, a turret with a large gun no troop compartment, its a light tank!

Me and Booker served in 3rd ACR together ! He was only a few tankers that I knew would get down for his guys! When it was reported he was lost in Iraq , I could not believe what i heard and still think and miss my Tanker Brother to this day! 🤬 Glad they actually did this, now payback will be had with his name on it!

Much needed support and protection for our infantry. 🇺🇸💪

@derricklockett9965

Жыл бұрын

Respectfully, I'm former artillery so I really don't know. What's the point of replacing the Bradley? Kinda seems redundant right? Especially since they also have a new Abrams tank on the horizon.🤔

I’m so happy that mobile light Regiments and Brigades like the 82, 101, 10th and Rangers have much needed light mobile fire support vehicle for protection. They really haven’t had one since the famous Sherman. I love two can fit in the C17; I’d love a company to develop a VTOL cargo play that’s a cross between a Osprey and the CH54 that can carry one of these into extreme situations. This would add much needed logistics to support our troops

@josephhaack5711

Жыл бұрын

Sheridan not Sherman

I only have 56 days left in the U.S. Army IRR.

It's a light tank.

If you served, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.

It will go *BOOM* just as easily as every other combat vehicle ever manufactured.

Its pretty simple why theyre stressing its designation as "not a tank" so hard. A similar vehicle would be the Russian 252S Sprut, which is meant to be air transportable via a heavy cargo plane just like the M10 Booker here. Both countries refuse to identify these vehicles as "light tanks" because theyre not used for recon, which light tanks are. So these two vehicles, the Booker and Sprut, are used as mobile guns, like the Stryker Mobile Gun System, which is a full size cannon mounted on the Stryker armored infantry transports hull. All of these vehicles are meant to shell dug in infantry positions, trench lines, bunkers, sniper/machine gun nests. and buildings housing enemies. Theyre not meant for direct battle against another armored vehicles - which they can due because they have a gun capable of penetration, but shouldnt do on account of their weak armor, which is kept light to keep them air transportable (the Booker and Sprut, the Stryker MGS is not air trans.)

@ironwolfF1

Жыл бұрын

Just imagine the StuG checking off the box...'upgrade - turret'. It remains to be seen if it can match the StuG's rep for killing tanks.

@Slayer119988

Жыл бұрын

@@ironwolfF1 The Stug during its heyday could take a hit from its peers better than the above mentioned "not-tanks" could.

@recoveringnewyorker2243

Жыл бұрын

I’m thinking of the classic line from “The Pentagon Wars” - “Do you want me to put a sign on it in 50 languages? - ‘ I’m not a tank! Please don’t shoot me! ‘ “

@vonSchwartzwolfe

Жыл бұрын

Most tanks and most American tanks in WWII were not designed or intended to fight other tanks, they were intended to do all the things you listed for the m10 Booker, but they were still tanks. They had tank destroyers that were not tanks designed and intended to fight tanks. Being designed to fight other armored vehicles is not necessary to be classified as a tank.. On a side note, All Stryker vehicles are armored cars no matter their job modification. The whole claim its not a tank has no historical foundation to back it up.

@smgdfcmfah

Жыл бұрын

The designation issues are so that they don't fall under someone else's command jurisdiction. You design machine to do a job, but if your machine gets the wrong designation then it's job has already been decided. It's quirk of C&C but also of funding. A good example is when the navy SEALS wanted a mini-sub to deliver them covertly to beaches and up rivers, but they had to sit on the outside of any design the came up with because if it was enclosed (or at least if it was pressurized) then it fell under Submarine Command and the SEALs couldn't even use them with authorization. It can all get pretty goofy.

Makes happy they are naming their stuff after combat vets. The CVN-81 Doris Miller has yet to be built but it is coming.

@johnmartin6420

Жыл бұрын

Let's be realistic, the reason the Trump administration named the CVN 81, after Doris Miller, was for political reasons. Yes, Petty Officer 2nd class actions were heroic, garnered him the Navy Cross. But NC and MOH recipients have Destroyers or cruisers named after them. But if there had been no riots and inserections in 2020, do any of us believe that an Air Craft Carrier would be named after Doris Miller.

Its essentially a nod to the M10 from WWII👍

This would be great start to revive armor in the Marine Corps.

Tracked vehicle, with a turret, main gun, direct fire. It’s a tank - former tanker here.

@TROOPERfarcry

Жыл бұрын

You could be describing a Bradley.

@LA-ep2nr

Жыл бұрын

💯. It’s a light Tank. It’s not a troop carrier therefore, it can’t be compared to a Bradley.

@notreallyme425

Жыл бұрын

@@TROOPERfarcry ok, add not a personnel carrier, which is a Bradley’s main job is, and just happens to have a small direct fire chain gun. But it’s main purpose is an infantry taxi. Also, the original M1 Abrams had a 105MM gun, same as this. The Abrams was upgraded to a 120mm with the M1A1.

@smgdfcmfah

Жыл бұрын

Of course it's a tank by the books, but if they give it that designation then it'll get tasked the same way you did in you MBT and they have other plans for the deployment and use in combat.

@handsomeman-pm9vy

Жыл бұрын

They were called "Tank Destroyers" in WW2.

Literally brand new and there's a drip pan under it at 2:10.

Looks like a juicy target for cheap drones. Hope it's got something to defend against top attack.

@phxdubr

Жыл бұрын

So said the Marine Corps and ditched its tanks. Will see how that plays out long term but interesting forward thinking....

We were legit one letter away from greatness. BONKER.

"Can you dig it, sucka!"

With modern warfare evolving so quickly it'll be interesting to see how this thing does. Might be the best thing since sliced bread or a death trap. As long as nobody mistakes it for a tank and it might be okay.

@lorenzozampighi3646

Жыл бұрын

It's based on the Ajax, the worst platform possible. Already having reports of issues with vibration and noise. They're so many better choices (k2, lynx, cv90120) not sure why they would go with a flawed design. I bet we see many delays and lots of money wasted on it. A better path would of been to choose the ifv to replace the Bradley and built it based on that platform.

Would've been nice ro see a cutaway view. Abrams turret on a Bradley?

Good to hear of a system named after an enlisted man.

Who are you kidding? The interior of the turret is a copy of the m1 tank. It’s a frickin light tank!

So Basically an upgraded MGS with track

Looks like a tank. Acts like a tank. Until it meets heavy tanks on the battlefield and then that extra speed will come in handy for getting the heck out of the way!

@stunick1573

Жыл бұрын

Not air droppable either so must have Airborne and Rangers get there and secure that all important airstrip. Army Not intended to fight other 'real tanks'. First combat deployment, we ran up on a bunch of those "not supposed to be here tanks" and we smoked them.

@handsomeman-pm9vy

Жыл бұрын

That is what was called a "Tank Destroyer" during WW2.

@bigbake132

Жыл бұрын

Its an Assault Gun, not a tank.

it's about time we got a light tank in the inventory again

Sir Idol Please offer this M10 Booker Light Tank into our Mother Land Philippines, this is very fit to our Armed Forces&as Allies of the USA as well.

@lorenzozampighi3646

Жыл бұрын

Much better and cheaper alternatives like the k2.

Lancet food . Heh heh .string some chicken wire cages . Catch some birds

Definitely an answer to PLA Type 15..

Made with 5830 aluminum it won't take very much to destroy this they can use it for bombardment but why couldn't you put heavier armor on this thing man

So it would appear this is replacing the Sheridan platforms we had in airborne units back in my day.

They can claim its not a tank all they want but its still a tank. it fits into every slot used to be classified as a tank and not an IFV, APC, AC, or SPG.😎

@josephhaack5711

Жыл бұрын

Amen

@smgdfcmfah

Жыл бұрын

Yes, they just don't want it being commanded or tasked by the same people that decide what the other tanks do. In WW2 when the US came up with the Tank Destroyer designation, they had a very specific job for those vehicles to do and wanted them used in a very specific way. In order to do this, they had to make sure they didn't get designated as "tanks", so they left all the turrets open on top.

@josephhaack5711

Жыл бұрын

@@smgdfcmfah TD was a disastrous concept

@smgdfcmfah

Жыл бұрын

@@josephhaack5711 Completely beside the point. Also the Tank Destroyer concept was completely different depending on what nation you're referring to, so the blanket statement is stupid. Also, you're completely wrong.

@josephhaack5711

Жыл бұрын

@@smgdfcmfah is Army TD concerto and branch was a disaster.! M10’and M36 Were effective tank killers, after the army figured out towed TD guns were not effective in offensive operations. They have better guns to TDs and better armor to tanks ( with lower velocity guns for better HE effect in breakthrough operations. The army eliminated the TD branch and gave tanks the better gun and armor, IE the Pershing tank with a 90mm. As for my qualifications, 25 years in tanks, M48A5x M60A1, M60A3, M1A1 and M551A1; combat tours and a degree in military history, awarded the George Patton Award for military history by the IS Army Armor Center, holder ofnthebOrder ifnSt Heorge

It’s a more expensive stryker but get rid of Bradley’s and Strykers and it might cost the same? I like bigger guns on a battlefield so?

This will go where the Bradley won't.

@gone547

Жыл бұрын

And blow-up just as easily.

Looks like it could use an AMS system at the very least, but we will see in future updates.

looks like a TAM

Will quickly evolve into an export product......and will be used as a TANK by foreign buyers

@danjohnston9037

Жыл бұрын

⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆

@Desstrik

Жыл бұрын

Yep

I hope its engine performs well at high altitudes like the new Chinese light tank. Maybe, we can sell these to India.

@rg20322

Жыл бұрын

And tell us how this Chinese light tank performs in combat?

@quotelightrandomness9894

Жыл бұрын

@@rg20322 I don't know. I just saw the video on it on youtube and they claimed one requirement was to be able to perform at higher altitudes. Likely for any fights with India. Hopefully, the Booker also is designed to perform at higher altitudes incase our military ever has to fight the Chinese one. Also, it would open up a market for selling to India.

I hope this vehicle honors the soldiers it is named after better than the M247 Sergeant York DIVAD did.

This a light tank.🤷🏼‍♂️

In World War Two such a vehicle was called a "Tank Destroyer." There were two versions; the original M10 and the M18.

@josephhaack5711

Жыл бұрын

M8, M36…

@handsomeman-pm9vy

Жыл бұрын

@@josephhaack5711 And before all of these vehicles, there was a 75mm gun mounted on the rear of the standard half track truck. I don't know the Army designation.

@josephhaack5711

Жыл бұрын

@@handsomeman-pm9vy correct , M7 or 8 ? Used in North Africa campaign

Why not a .50 or 7.62 RWS with 40mm

Wow-the Army finally fielded an Armored Gun System or AGS as it was known back in the day.

@josephhaack5711

Жыл бұрын

M8 AGS was rest in 1992…. And it was air droppable by parachute

Not sure if that is not already added, but do belive, especially light tank should (similar to some israeli tanks) have few seats in the back for footsoldiers - at least on the OUTSIDE, preferably of course inside. Another point - M 10 seem to me as kinda conservative design, very similar to those who came out in the end of cold war. That is not necesarily BAD, but it kinda determines it. For example, I can imagine some big&strong anti-tank missiles, because that gun is not necesarily screaming "tank killer". Having a VTOL drone directly included into the design, could be VERY helpfull. Place prepared for switchblade racks, granade launcher (included to louncher drones), etc.

@michaelray3865

Жыл бұрын

The more such crap you shoehorn into a hull, the less it does the job intended. NO. Resist mission creep!

And USA is naw serious with chai. 😂😂😂😂

How does this compare to the canceled Stryker mobile gun system? How does it avoid the issues that killed the Stryker MGS?

@airplanenut89

Жыл бұрын

Well possibly the Stryker MGS' biggest failing was the auto-loader for the gun. One of the Booker's 4 crew members is a loader.

@stunick1573

Жыл бұрын

Striker MSG has more then a few issues, for one and probably a Biggy is the Gun can not shoot the Ware houses full of old M60 and early model 105 high velocity ammo. The suspension system can't handle the recoil. The inside of the Strike MSG is very cramped like even skinny soldiers have to slide in side ways to enter top hatches.

@josephhaack5711

Жыл бұрын

Better armor on the turret and hull, tracked not wheeled, higher velocity 105mm main gun

Why don't the us look at the cv90 it's fast an has a lot to offer

@josephhaack5711

Жыл бұрын

Cheaper also, can transport infantry and have a 40mm gun up to 120mm

looks pretty cool

You can't just "go in", ya gotta "b lk ast your way in". The Booker combined with air speed rather damaging?

Does this combat tank check all the boxes?

@SlavicCelery

Жыл бұрын

It's not a tank. Just like an IFV isn't a tank, an APC isn't a tank, and an SPG isn't a tank. This is a SPDFG - Self propelled direct fire gun. It's field gun designed to serve close to front lines instead of relying on a 105mm howitzer to serve the same purpose.

@rbtsubs

Жыл бұрын

Yeah makes retirement a lot easier for a bunch of officers

Ok, now stay in service for 40 years

the reason why they won't is because we never had light tanks after korea and the booker falls under a light tank if it were to be redesignated as a tank

they shoudl have saved themselves a lot of time trouble and just go for the swedish CV90 120

@josephhaack5711

Жыл бұрын

Amen to that!

I Understand the concept of this tank. For infantry support and eas of transport by air. But Everyone is or are MBT, this light tank will incounter a MBT at some point on the battlefield and will be out gunned .

@papparocket

Жыл бұрын

Adding a TOW II pod on the turret would allow the M10 to have a fighting chance against an MBT. And if a deployable mast with sights to guide that TOW could be included, then the M10 could stay hull down and still be able to fire and control the TOW without being exposed to fire from the MBT.

Target for anti-armour missiles.

@raywhitehead730

Жыл бұрын

Which are cheaper, and have longer range, easier to transport, little maintenance, easy to train to use, easier to hide, faster to transport on the battlefield.

When are they going to name something after Audie Murphy?? Besides there have been plenty of other tanker crewmen that have died in combat!

If it's lightly armoured then it's too big, partly dictated by the large gun I suppose. It's a dated concept, a smaller lighter more mobile AFV with two ~40 mm auto cannons would be better, infantry need quick effective gun support which the Booker's big gun won't give.

I hate when terms like PDW are stamp on what is just a SMG this is not a "AFV" "MPF" This is front engine 42ton Medium Tank. M4/51/50 Sherman, T-72/PT-91, Leopard 1 etc give or take a few tons. loss of 20-ish tons hmmm pros or cone time will tell.

Def a 'tank', tho certainly not 'light', as it's just few tons lighter than a WW2 German Panther, with a gun just as lethal as that tank's long 75mm. That said, modern MBT's are generally as big as King Tigers.

Just like a tank only much less

can booker protect the infantry from rockets, missiles & UAV kamikaze attack loitering rockets like the German Gephard?

It looks like the engine is in the back, so it isn't going to have space for any dismounts. I suppose it might have capabilities that aren't associated with tanks. Like attachment options for MANPADS/SAMS or ATGMs, or being optionally unmanned. The most likely reason not to call it a "tank" is simply to represent the way it is intended to be used, and to help drill into its crew not to use this thing to pick fights with other tanks. This isn't an MBT in the modern sense, and should avoid getting into duels with other tanks that heave bigger guns and better armor. They can call it what they like, but this is a modern light tank.

@CraigMitchell44

Жыл бұрын

No, the engine is in the front, next to the driver. IIRC, it's supposed to be fire support for infantry, replace the M1128 Stryker MGS.

@n3v3rforgott3n9

Жыл бұрын

it isnt classified as a tank so leaders dont try to use it as a tank as it doesnt have the frontal armor to take tank caliber rounds like a tank is supposed to

@magnuslauglo5356

Жыл бұрын

@@CraigMitchell44 Oh!? So can it carry some guys in the back too? Is it comparable to the CV90105?

@Gridlocked

Жыл бұрын

@@magnuslauglo5356If it’s meant to be a replacement for the M1128 then I don’t believe that troop carrying capacity is of any focus.

Air Bone getting a Light Tank…. Rapid Deployment!? 👍

@raywhitehead730

Жыл бұрын

Specifically, the design was not required for air drop.

@armynurseboy

Жыл бұрын

@@raywhitehead730 True, but once the paratroopers secure an airfield, the C-17s can bring them in. I wonder if they are LAPES capable....?

@josephhaack5711

Жыл бұрын

@@armynurseboy no they are not and we don’t do LAPES drops anymore just heavy drops from 1250’ agl

When did the Army start using the Eisenhower jackets?

@josephhaack5711

Жыл бұрын

New pinks and greens, standard length class A jacket seen, no Ike jackets seen by me so far

Good machine

Can it withstand the Russian Lancet drone?

Yes finally firepower the army light units deserve.

@carlosnuckols8470

Жыл бұрын

@@hemmith4079 it’s better than nothing, I love it.

@armynurseboy

Жыл бұрын

@@hemmith4079 It's lighter than 70 tons dry....

@user-cq6km9vq2m

Жыл бұрын

@@armynurseboy So is the original M1 Abrams. What's your point

@armynurseboy

Жыл бұрын

@user-cq6km9vq2m the point is 42 tons is easier to transport than 70 tons. And when you're in the force projection business, that difference matters a lot.

@carlosnuckols8470

Жыл бұрын

@@armynurseboy I know and agree with you, you can fit two M10’s in a Globe Master

I guess it identifies as a secondary battle tank huh?

Sheridan, M551A1, NOT a sherman! 🇺🇸🫡

Very prestigious but the thing is gone with one hit from a missile. Who wins?

@josephhaack5711

Жыл бұрын

Then again everything kills infantry yet we still have them

If it cant be air dropped then how can it operate with airborne units?

@christopherwang4392

Жыл бұрын

The M10 Booker is meant to be air-landed by plane from an airfield after it has been secured by friendly airborne units. Sacrificing air-drop capability for better armor is probably for the best as it means that the Booker will have sufficient level of protection from enemy fire. The Russians learned that the hard way with their thinly-armored BMDs in Ukraine.

@SlavicCelery

Жыл бұрын

@@christopherwang4392 Bingo. The sacrifices that need to be made for a strictly airdropped vehicle are too much. But, I think a lot of people don't understand what the vehicle is attempting to accomplish. It's more of a SPG that's uparmored for direct fire capability. But some people don't understand the doctrine and insist it's just a light tank.

@danielsnook7362

Жыл бұрын

@@SlavicCelerywhat does SPG stand for?

@SlavicCelery

Жыл бұрын

@@danielsnook7362 Self Propelled Gun - M109 Paladin would be an example. Or the Pzh 2000. They're armored, tracked vehicles with a cannon attached. But they run indirect fire missions. They're not as armored as tanks, as the task is less direct. M10 Booker is one of those designed to do direct fire instead of indirect. So it's more armored. But it's basically a field gun - direct fire- that's been armored and mobilized. Not a tank. Different roles and doctrine.

@SlavicCelery

Жыл бұрын

Not to assume more or less knowledge - Direct vs Indirect fire is basically if you can directly see the target or if the target is hidden (like behind a hill). A mortar is a classic indirect fire weapon. It fires in a high arc to go above barriers and land directly on or around a target. Direct fire is shooting line of sight at the target. This is a LOS SPG. But not a tank. Tanks are designed to push into territory, flank enemies and exploit breakthroughs. This guy is next to infantry sending 105mm hunks of HE hate down range at trenches/buildings/bunkers. It's role is more similar to a STUG from WW2 OR, the infantry armor on the allied side. Infantry armor is very different than the Armor branch. Sort of like how Airforce fighters are really different than CAS from Apache helicopters. Calling it a tank just is a complete misunderstanding of the mission.

one drone and its toast.

uhhhh..did u test that with a kornet anti-tank???

Send them to Ukraine

@OBCBTTB

Жыл бұрын

If the new Combat Vehicle doesn't deliver, it'll be sent to Ukraine in a jiffy, as has several other below par weapon systems. This could be the replacement for the Bradley which has ended up in Ukraine. Not to mention the MaxPro Fighting Vehicle that was given to Ukaine. Ukraine is basically the dumping ground of older less effective weapon systems. The US military is cleaning out the cupboards. The Military Industrial Complex are making money hand over fist.

Too bad we didn't need a light tank

Its tracked, has a rotating turret with a canon. Its a TANK

Whatever, it's an armored vehicle. A tank is what you store water in. ⛲🐔🐣

YES !!

Need somewhere to test them in a live war surrounding? Why not send 50 to Ukraine for some in-field test purposes ;)

Lancet drones incoming 😂

Aren't M1 Abrams with a 105mm gun still in stock?

@josephhaack5711

Жыл бұрын

No, not since the mid 1980s when the M1A1 came out with the 120mm

@TerraRubicon

Жыл бұрын

@@josephhaack5711 I recall seeing a documentary about the Army's surplus vehicles and there where literally hundreds of old M1 tanks. I realize it will cost money to refurbish them but it's still a good armored tank, right?

@josephhaack5711

Жыл бұрын

@@TerraRubicon yes but the army isn’t interested. They will be refurbished and given Ukraine ( ones without Depleted Uranium up armor)

What happened to the Audie Murphy AFV. So much for the continued practice of naming tanks after well known Generals. M-10 General Powell or Schwarzkopf sounds good.

@Desstrik

Жыл бұрын

Wokeness has taken over

@kon8459

Жыл бұрын

Because the army specifically did not designate it as a tank.

@joeavent5554

Жыл бұрын

@@kon8459 Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

@alfredogarciajr40

Жыл бұрын

@@Desstrikgod forbid we name them after people who crew them.

Too bad it's not a 105mm ETC (Electrothermal Chemical) Cannon.

Is it going to replace the bradley?

@alfredogarciajr40

Жыл бұрын

It’s not an IFV

It's a tank

Seems stupid to me. In a mech/armor brigade, there is plenty of firepower for the Infantry. In an airborne/air assault brigade, this seems too big and logistically unwieldy. Not to mention unable to deploy as readily as the rest of the light force. But who am I to complain? These are the same great minds that brought you "Afghanistan - The Withdrawal."

@1SCme

Жыл бұрын

My reaction was the same - a 105mm self propelled tracked gun, too lightly armored to be used as a tank, too heavy for airdrop. Using C-17s, not sure 2 of these would have more utility than 1 Abrams. It feels like a program where they started with 1 spec to fill a need (light tracked SPG), and it got blown up as it progressed (light tank).

@RickySpanish12344

Жыл бұрын

Personally I think these are going to be sold on mass.... I can see a few years down the road we sell them by the thousands to nations bordering Russia. They can't afford to purchase larger numbers of main battle tanks, but this cheaper version will probably be easier for them to purchase. As this war has shown, Russian armor isn't that strong. These lighter, less expensive vehicles will be enough for eastern European's.

@rossbach451

Жыл бұрын

@@RickySpanish12344 that is not a bad thought, though I guess I don't have a great deal of experience with weapons systems we built mostly for export. Still seems like a big square peg in a round hole. Thanks for pointing out that idea.

Standard unguided 120mm mortars are able to achieve a CEP of around 75m at a range of 7 km. Towed 120mm mortars are still the most common heavy mortars, and so extensive setup and teardown time is required (though there are more mortar carriers coming into use). As such mortars were viewed as only suited to indirect fire missions where a large number of rounds from multiple mortars are required to complete most fire missions. However with the introduction of GPS precision guidance kits (PGK) like the XM395, it might be time to rethink what role heavy mortars can have. The XM395 can be fitted to any 120mm mortar round and give that round precision guidance capable of putting the first round and every subsequent round within 5 meters of the target at 9-10 km (if fired from a 3m barrel mortar). Field experience in Afghanistan shows that the actual CEP is closer to 3 m. Also 120mm mortar rounds like the Israeli Iron Sting, which incorporates both GPS and laser seeker, gives heavy mortars the never imagined ability to precisely hit a moving target with a CEP of less than a meter when the target is illuminated by a laser designator. This has the potential to make mortars into something completely different than the area bombardment weapon that mortars have always been. And then there are turreted breech loading mortars systems like the twin barreled Finish/Swedish Amos turret system, that can be integrated into wheeled and tracked vehicle chassis. A vehicle with the Amos system is able to fire its first round within 30 seconds of stopping. It can then fire up to 16 rounds a minute, including varying the trajectory and charge level so that up to 10 rounds can be programmed to impact simultaneously. As soon as the last round is launched, the system is ready to move within 10 seconds. Thus the vehicle will have already relocated by the time the rounds land. And again with PGK equipped shells all of those rounds can be aimed at different targets with high probability of impacting each target. Of course, if an area bombardment is appropriate (say a large staging area with vehicles, ammunition and personal), then unguided rounds can be fired. And it does this without exposing the crew hostile fire or the dangerous overpressure pulses from the muzzle blast. With the new found capabilities of heavy mortars to hit small targets with the first round, a better solution than a light "tank" for an infantry support vehicle might be a turreted breech-loading 120mm mortar version of the M10. Besides the ability to drop heavy explosive shells within meters of a target far beyond the line of sight, and thus give organic indirect fire support all the way down to the company level, a breech loading mortar has a direct fire capability as well. In direct fire situations, the velocity might not be far lower than the 105mm cannon of the M10, but a 120mm mortar round can pack up to 3 kg of explosive in HE rounds as compared to the 2 kg of the 105mm HE cannon round. As such, the 120mm mortar has the ability to do as much if not more damage to light and medium armoured vehicles, buildings, hardened bunkers and the like in a direct fire situation. In direct fire it is unlikely to be able to penetrate the front armor of a modern MBT even with a HEAT round. But then again, the 105mm gun of the M10 even firing discarding sabot penetrator rounds is likely to not able to penetrate a MBT frontal armor either. However, fired at a high trajectory and homing in on a laser designator, a HEAT mortar round would impact the much thinner top armor, and so could destroy even an MBT. And it could do this with indirect fire at twice the range of the 105mm assuming a drone or troop operated laser designator. In an urban environment with concrete high rise buildings the maximum +20 degree elevation of the 105mm gun will limit the ability to target upper floors of a building at shorter ranges.A turreted mortar has a maximum elevation of +85 degrees and so would be able to use direct fire to hit the upper floors of a building no matter how tall even from extremely close range. And if to also carry a computer controlled 40mm grenade launcher like the new Striker AGL on top of its turret it would also have the ability to accurately engage infantry and light armor with both direct and indirect fire out to 1.5-2 km with a more appropriate amount of firepower as opposed to only have its mighty 120mm hammer to kill ants if ants are the issue. The Striker will be able to fire programmable rounds being developed by Bofors that allow timed airburst. This could be used to fire through a window or door with a delay to burst inside. It could also be fired over a sheltered target like troops in a trench and airburst over the trench. With given GPS coordinates and computer fire control it could have the same or similar accuracy in both direct and indirect situations. It also can fire the programmable rounds from Bofors that can be programmed for timed burst rather than impact burst. This greatly increases the lethality radius against infantry and thin-skinned vehicles. So imagine that a combined arms company is about to advance over a ridge line into the narrow valley beyond. On the far side of the valley enemy troops are dug in with a trench system with 6 hardened bunkers with heavy machine guns. With little or no cover, infantry can't advance until the machine guns are eliminated and as many troops sheltered in the trench system as possible are neutralized. A single M10/Amos behind the protection of the ridgeline fires 6 PGK tipped 120mm mortar rounds targeting each of the bunkers with all rounds timed to land at the same time. While the mortars are in their high lazy arches, the 40mm grenade launcher is used fire a large number of airburst 40mm grenades across the length of the trench system timed to burst just as they cross above the trench and to arrive just as the mortars do. Picture the effectiveness of such a vehicle compared to a M10 with the 105mm gun, which would have to advance to the ridgeline, expose itself to target one of the bunkers, fire a round and then roll back below the ridge line, reload, advance again, fire, wash, rinse repeat. And if you get too predictable an ATGM crew in the trench could be waiting for you to poke your nose back above the ridge line and ruin your entire day. Or you could sit exposed and fire rounds into each of the bunkers and hope that you can finish and get hull down behind terrain before the AGTM crew is able to ruin your entire day. So what do you think, should the Army think about an armored mortar vehicle for infantry support rather than a light tank? Or maybe they should do some of each.

@josephhaack5711

Жыл бұрын

Well thought out discussion, agree a tracked or wheeled 120mm ( dual barreled ) system is long overdue. Seen one in Slovakia, it was awesome. Mortar rounds are cheap, even wjth guided munitions, vs a missile ( expensive and long time to produce). 120mm mortars like Thai would complement the new ‘M10 nicely . Again, we could have it all, IFV, mortar support and a 120mm version with the Swedish Cv90

It looks like a tank to me.

@OrIoN1989

Жыл бұрын

its a tank, but not an mbt.

@quotelightrandomness9894

Жыл бұрын

new trend in our military. It is a tank, but doesn't identify as one.

@n3v3rforgott3n9

Жыл бұрын

it doesnt have the armor of a tank or the cannon to pierce other tanks they dont want to classify it as a tank so leaders dont try to use it as one

@quotelightrandomness9894

Жыл бұрын

@@n3v3rforgott3n9 With ATGMs, it could be more lethal, if it is faster and more maneuverable than the big main battle tanks. After watching the slaughter of the leopards, other tanks, and armor in Ukraine, I think the age of tank could be done. Unless they can come up with some way to defeat ATGMs and drones, it isn't looking good. Maybe, light and fast vehicles with limited armor to stop small arms and a big supply of Javelins and other anti-tank missiles is the future. Like in War Games, Maybe the only answer is not to go to war.

@OrIoN1989

Жыл бұрын

@@n3v3rforgott3n9 Just like the first tanks. Tanks is slang anyways. Does it have a cannon, track and armor? yes.

Booker? I hardly know her.

How do they name one vehicle after 2 people? That's odd.

@josephhaack5711

Жыл бұрын

This way the vehicle can self identify as it wants… either or. 😂

💪🇺🇸💪🇺🇸😎

just don't call it a tank

@josephhaack5711

Жыл бұрын

What is its preferred pronoun? 😂

Reminds me of a WW2 tank

We are doing light infantry again huh, I always though they were a good idea, that and jungle warfare (which is now a school)

They should introduce the thing in Ukraine.

Looks alot like kaplan from turkey

Looks like a leopard

Light tanks dont survive long. The M551 never worked out well. This is a marketing video, baloney.

They should have named this after one of the guys who used a Sherman tank to lure out a German Panther tank into a duel with the then new heavy tank in Cologne, Germany fighting in 1945!! The gunner had his leg blown off and crawled out of the tank and bleed to death!!

Mmmm,is it a tank?