US Army officially announces its new light tank: The M10 Booker

[MH.Yang]

The U.S. army seems to simply refuse to spend their budget on near-peer equipment.


Wasting money on things that are only useful against enemies that can't fight back, like Arabs.


Making sure that it has a 105mm so that it cannot penetrate any modern MBT's armor.


It's an overpriced T-54 equivalent.

1, The 59x 105mm wire-bore gun using tungsten-core armor-piercing ammunition is already capable of penetrating 550mm armor from 2km away.

2, This type of light tank needs to have the assistance of digital command system, it is mainly used in the more severe warfare environment (plateau, swamp, complex mountainous area, low temperature, etc.).

3, These light tanks are the front-end highly mobile combat units of the nodes of the digital battlefield network, with good firepower and certain protection capabilities, using their mobility to perform forward reconnaissance and flanking cover missions in complex environments, providing ground information support for platforms such as long-range precision firepower, air drones, and even helicopter gunships in the rear.

4, This type of tank does not need to engage the enemy's main battle tank head-on.

 

[Communism]

1, The 59x 105mm wire-bore gun using tungsten-core armor-piercing ammunition is already capable of penetrating 550mm armor from 2km away.

2, This type of light tank needs to have the assistance of digital command system, it is mainly used in the more severe warfare environment (plateau, swamp, complex mountainous area, low temperature, etc.).

3, These light tanks are the front-end highly mobile combat units of the nodes of the digital battlefield network, with good firepower and certain protection capabilities, using their mobility to perform forward reconnaissance and flanking cover missions in complex environments, providing ground information support for platforms such as long-range precision firepower, air drones, and even helicopter gunships in the rear.

4, This type of tank does not need to engage the enemy's main battle tank head-on.


View attachment 935695

The U.S. is incapable of making cheap weapons.


This means the U.S. is required to make their weapons systems as capable as is realistically feasible.


The U.S. does not really have the choice of making a compromised design, as it doesn't actually save any money doing that.


The current cost of the M10 Booker is ~12 Million USD each.


The current cost of the latest model of the Abrams is ~24 million USD each.


There is no room for any compromises in performance when the cost is that high.

 

[MH.Yang]

The U.S. army seems to simply refuse to spend their budget on near-peer equipment.


Wasting money on things that are only useful against enemies that can't fight back, like Arabs.


Making sure that it has a 105mm so that it cannot penetrate any modern MBT's armor.


It's an overpriced T-54 equivalent.

China is the first country to equip light tanks on a large scale. China already has over 400 Type 15 in service and will have at least 2,000 Type 15 in service. the Type 15 has also been involved in several Sino-Indian border conflicts.

Do you think the Chinese army's imaginary enemy is also guerrillas without heavy weapons?


The future is the era of digital warfare, and light tanks are an important member of digital warfare.

 

[Communism]

China is the first country to equip light tanks on a large scale. China already has over 400 Type 15 in service and will have at least 2,000 Type 15 in service. the Type 15 has also been involved in several Sino-Indian border conflicts.

Do you think the Chinese army's imaginary enemy is also guerrillas without heavy weapons?


View attachment 935696

I'm sure the Type 15 is capable of being worth it's cost.


I'm also sure the M10 Booker is not capable of being worth it's cost in its current iteration.


Budgets are not infinite.

 

[MH.Yang]

The U.S. is incapable of making cheap weapons.


This means the U.S. is required to make their weapons systems as capable as is realistically feasible.


The U.S. does not really have the choice of making a compromised design, as it doesn't actually save any money doing that.


The current cost of the M10 Booker is ~12 Million USD each.


The current cost of the latest model of the Abrams is ~24 million USD each.


There is no room for any compromises in performance when the cost is that high.

The US has the ability to make cheap weapons, they just can't do that.

Because of the effects of de-industrialization, the U.S. manufacturing sector has fallen substantially behind that of China. There is no possibility for the US to win the quantitative race.

So the US has to make sure their weapons have a generational difference. This is why the US frequently uses immature technology and radical designs in new weapons. equipment like Zumwalt, Ford, M247, Comanche, XM2001, OICW, XB47, etc. are all victims of this armament mindset.

It's like tackling the T34 with the Panzer VIII Maus.


On the contrary, this M10 with data similar to type 15 is likely to be successful.

 

[Communism]

The US has the ability to make cheap weapons, they just can't do that.

Because of the effects of de-industrialization, the U.S. manufacturing sector has fallen substantially behind that of China. There is no possibility for the US to win the quantitative race.

So the US has to make sure their weapons have a generational difference. This is why the US frequently uses immature technology and radical designs in new weapons. equipment like Zumwalt, Ford, etc. are all victims of this armament mindset.

The required technologies for what I proposed are absolutely mature enough to be used on a weapons system like the Mobile Protected Firepower.


They were already tested in 2006 for the Future Combat Systems program.


The U.S. Army's procurement process is simply totally incompetent.

 

[MH.Yang]

The required technologies for what I proposed are absolutely mature enough to be used on a weapons system like the Mobile Protected Firepower.


They were already tested in 2006 for the Future Combat Systems program.


The U.S. Army's procurement process is simply totally incompetent.

This was also the case in the late Ming Dynasty. The Donglin Party and the Eunuch Party engaged in bitter party disputes (DNC and GOP party disputes); the Donglin Party kidnapped the country with political correctness (DNC political correctness); the Guanning Army military spending took up a lot of finances (US military spending and US debt) leading to national financial strain and huge debt; military groups like the Guanning Army kidnapped the government to profit from huge military spending (US military-industrial complex); internal social fragmentation and the bottom people's lives deteriorated; increasing concentration of wealth and corruption; united efforts and increasing strength of the enemies outside of Great Wall.

 

[jhungary]

China is the first country to equip light tanks on a large scale. China already has over 400 Type 15 in service and will have at least 2,000 Type 15 in service. the Type 15 has also been involved in several Sino-Indian border conflicts.

Do you think the Chinese army's imaginary enemy is also guerrillas without heavy weapons?


The future is the era of digital warfare, and light tanks are an important member of digital warfare.


View attachment 935696

World War 2 call.

"am I a joke to you?"

M3 Stuart - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Cromwell tank - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

M24 Chaffee - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Panzer I - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Type 95 Ha-Go light tank - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As a tanker myself, I don't see light tank as the future of digital battlefield. If used right, they can be good recce platform, but with the man portable AT threat, you probably need to operate them in a highly sanitize environment, which making them moot.

 

[MH.Yang]

World War 2 call.

"am I a joke to you?"

M3 Stuart - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Cromwell tank - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

M24 Chaffee - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Panzer I - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Type 95 Ha-Go light tank - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As a tanker myself, I don't see light tank as the future of digital battlefield. If used right, they can be good recce platform, but with the man portable AT threat, you probably need to operate them in a highly sanitize environment, which making them moot.

I mean a modern light tank that meets the conditions of digital warfare.

 

[jhungary]

I mean a modern light tank that meets the conditions of digital warfare.

Well, I would say British Scorpion tank probably were the first mass equipped modern light tank with network centric warfare feature.

Then I would argue platform like M1128 MGS, AMX-10C and LAV-600 are sort of a light tank, they are wheel based not thread base, but I don't think tank were ever defined by the mobility system.

 

[MH.Yang]

Well, I would say British Scorpion tank probably were the first mass equipped modern light tank with network centric warfare feature.

Then I would argue platform like M1128 MGS, AMX-10C and LAV-600 are sort of a light tank, they are wheel based not thread base, but I don't think tank were ever defined by the mobility system.

The Scorpion tank was in service in the 1960s, and it did enter mass service, but it was not a modern tank in line with digital warfare.

I thought you were going to bring up Sprut SDM1.

To be honest, the battlefield positioning of all those so-called tanks you mentioned is different from Type 15. Type 15 is the real modern light tank.