Canada's tanks

[Kirkhill]

Goodbye, M10 Booker: The US Army Still Needs a New Light Tank

The cancellation of the US Army's M10 Booker program, which became too heavy for its intended light infantry support role, leaves a significant capability gap.

www.19fortyfive.com

“We got the Booker wrong,” Army Secretary Dan Driscoll told reporters. “We wanted to develop a small tank that was agile and could do [airdrops] to the places our regular tanks can’t.”

Nonetheless, with the M10 Booker gone, the U.S. Army still needs a replacement

Does the army need a replacement? Does it need a "light" "tank" for its "light" troops in its Light-Mobile/Motorized Brigade Combat Teams?

Or can the effects that the Booker MPF was intended to deliver be delivered by other means? By a DF Arty Unit or an Assault Pioneer Unit or a UAV/LAM Aviation Unit?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

US Army light tank program, the perpetual motion machine. They will likley save money by building 500 and saying "We are done with the light tank program" and actually have something to show for it. Even if they sell/give them to their allies (assuming the US will have allies by the end of Trumps term....)

 

[KevinB]

Goodbye, M10 Booker: The US Army Still Needs a New Light Tank

The cancellation of the US Army's M10 Booker program, which became too heavy for its intended light infantry support role, leaves a significant capability gap.

www.19fortyfive.com

That has got to be a compilation of the stupidest people on the planet.

Does the army need a replacement? Does it need a "light" "tank" for its "light" troops in its Light-Mobile/Motorized Brigade Combat Teams?

No.

Or can the effects that the Booker MPF was intended to deliver be delivered by other means? By a DF Arty Unit or an Assault Pioneer Unit or a UAV/LAM Aviation Unit?

Nearly ever effect/solution the M10 Booker was suggested to offer was something that down here we doctrinally do not plan on using Light Infantry for.

I’m absolutely fine if folks wanted to stick it in Stryker Bde’s - I mean at least that wouldn’t be a doctrinal stretch to have a Mobile Protection Vehicle operate with a Mobile Protected Firepower (cough Light Tank) vehicle.

But doctrinally we don’t plan on using Light Infantry in areas where it makes good tank terrain.

 

[PrairieFella]

That has got to be a compilation of the stupidest people on the planet.

No.

Nearly ever effect/solution the M10 Booker was suggested to offer was something that down here we doctrinally do not plan on using Light Infantry for.

I’m absolutely fine if folks wanted to stick it in Stryker Bde’s - I mean at least that wouldn’t be a doctrinal stretch to have a Mobile Protection Vehicle operate with a Mobile Protected Firepower (cough Light Tank) vehicle.

But doctrinally we don’t plan on using Light Infantry in areas where it makes good tank terrain.

As I'm completely unfamiliar with US light infantry doctrine and TTPs, is there anytime some sort of glorified stug would actually be useful or desired? My first inclination is that that role can be filled by modern missile systems but is there anything I'm missing there?

 

[KevinB]

As I'm completely unfamiliar with US light infantry doctrine and TTPs, is there anytime some sort of glorified stug would actually be useful or desired? My first inclination is that that role can be filled by modern missile systems but is there anything I'm missing there?

Not really. All the Light units are focused on either Airborne, Air Mobile, Arctic, Jungle or Mountain.

Generally they have AH’s from their Combat Aviation or if the air situation is not permissible, M777’s, M119’s, 120mm and 81mm Mortars, Mk19’s and M2’s, Switchblades, plus Javelin and Hellfire ground launched missiles, and for closer AT-4’s and M4 Carl G’s.

I’m really missing what the M10 would fill that those don’t, and without the burden of a very heavy (for a Light entity) vehicle and resultant logistics and support.

Generally they are viewed as Rapid Deployment Forces, not designed for LSCO forces designed to stand alone against enemy armor. If you are envisioning the need for the M10, it’s probably a SBCT or ABCT you need not a IBCT

The 82nd had M113’s attached to them for Afghanistan at times, but that was simply TPE (theatre provided equipment).

 

[FJAG]

Notwithstanding the LAVs, much of the work in Afghanistan was dismounted infantry work. A lot of the weapon systems, including CarlG was not very effective at taking out defended positions. Even M777s we’re restricted at times. Predators helped, but it wasn’t until the tanks rolled in, even the C1s with their 105s that highly accurate and effective support was available. The Afghan government even liked them because collateral damage was low.

A very light vehicle, but with a good explosive punch is what’s needed.

 

[markppcli]

Notwithstanding the LAVs, much of the work in Afghanistan was dismounted infantry work. A lot of the weapon systems, including CarlG was not very effective at taking out defended positions. Even M777s we’re restricted at times. Predators helped, but it wasn’t until the tanks rolled in, even the C1s with their 105s that highly accurate and effective support was available. The Afghan government even liked them because collateral damage was low.

A very light vehicle, but with a good explosive punch is what’s needed.

Of course the Brits and Americans jus let used top attack Javelins to get the same effect so back to @KevinB

 

[Kirkhill]

Notwithstanding the LAVs, much of the work in Afghanistan was dismounted infantry work. A lot of the weapon systems, including CarlG was not very effective at taking out defended positions. Even M777s we’re restricted at times. Predators helped, but it wasn’t until the tanks rolled in, even the C1s with their 105s that highly accurate and effective support was available. The Afghan government even liked them because collateral damage was low.

A very light vehicle, but with a good explosive punch is what’s needed.

So back to a jeep with a 106 recoilless rifle? Or maybe a Wombat?

 

[PrairieFella]

So back to a jeep with a 106 recoilless rifle? Or maybe a Wombat?

Just stick with missiles. No need for old weapons. If we need a RR we already have the CG.

 

[KevinB]

So back to a jeep with a 106 recoilless rifle? Or maybe a Wombat?

ISV or MRZR with a stabilized Carl G with FCS would be a pretty decent option.

Notwithstanding the LAVs, much of the work in Afghanistan was dismounted infantry work. A lot of the weapon systems, including CarlG was not very effective at taking out defended positions. Even M777s were restricted at times. Predators helped, but it wasn’t until the tanks rolled in, even the C1s with their 105s that highly accurate and effective support was available. The Afghan government even liked them because collateral damage was low.

If you can get a tank somewhere easily, then that isn’t Light Infantry territory, that is CAB territory, with tanks and mech infantry integrated.

A very light vehicle, but with a good explosive punch is what’s needed.

As @markppcli pointed out it is usually more effective to top attack positions (or vehicles).

Anything one do with the M10 is better served by a different system.
Switchblade, Hero-120, Javelin, Hellfire, and the 120mm and 81mm mortars give options beyond straight direct fire.

84mm from CarlG and AT-4’s offer a pretty good punch for direct fire at a low cost as well with decent standoff from 7.62x39.
When you start looking at 7.62x54R and heavier weapons in opposition, then you need to have further standoff - and Switchblade or Hero offer that (along with Javelin and Hellfire etc)

 

[Halifax Tar]

I think we need to break the mold... R&D make us mechs.

 

[PrairieFella]

I think we need to break the mold... R&D make us mechs.