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.

 

[KevinB]

View attachment 93196

Got to crawl before you run

 

[Kirkhill]

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

I am reliably informed that bullets are cheaper than missiles.

I would also suggest, to ensure nobody gets confused on the role of a bunker buster and starts trying to use it on tanks, that it be assigned to the Pioneers and Engineers.

There is precedent.

The AVRE - Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers.

AVRE 230 mm petard mortar and its ammunition

Churchill AVRE was a Churchill III or IV armed with a 230 mm petard spigot mortar, officially designated; Mortar, Recoiling, Spigot, 290mm, Mk I or II The mount replaced the 6-pounder gun

Post-war, new FV3903 Churchill AVREs were created using the Churchill VII base vehicle re-armed with a short barrelled L9A1 165 mm demolition gun. This fired a 64 lb (29 kg) HESH round

Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

...

And there would be a role for a UGV

 

[KevinB]

I am reliably informed that bullets are cheaper than missiles.

I would also suggest, to ensure nobody gets confused on the role of a bunker buster and starts trying to use it on tanks, that it be assigned to the Pioneers and Engineers.

There is precedent.

The AVRE - Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers.

View attachment 93197 AVRE 230 mm petard mortar and its ammunition

Everyone took those out of service - as it was just as easy to use an actual Tank with the improvements to the gun and projectiles.

And there would be a role for a UGV

View attachment 93198

There are still plans for UGV systems. But the UAS threat has made a number of those decisions more difficult.
I posted the Robotic Platoon setups down here that where tested -- the smaller ones are still planned for the Light units, as well as looking into C-UAS options. The smaller ones are still planned for the ABCT's - but the larger ones for the ABCT's are getting a re-look to see what C-UAS can also be incorporated to either those vehicles, new vehicles, or manned systems to help protect the autonomous ones.

There have been some working groups down here as to automating some of the M1150 Assault Breacher tanks, to be able to do the task without exposing personnel (at least 2 M1150 where lost in Ukraine) as well as gaining room for a larger MICLIC charge system.

 

[PrairieFella]

I am reliably informed that bullets are cheaper than missiles.

I would also suggest, to ensure nobody gets confused on the role of a bunker buster and starts trying to use it on tanks, that it be assigned to the Pioneers and Engineers.

There is precedent.

The AVRE - Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers.

View attachment 93197 AVRE 230 mm petard mortar and its ammunition

Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

...

And there would be a role for a UGV

View attachment 93198

So instead of a 150k missile, let's take a 100k UGV which is vulnerable to attack on thr approach, strap 100k in FCS and gunnery and create a supply chain to support it. I think I'll listen to the infanteers who keep saying a missile is better haha.

 

[Maxman1]

Everyone took those out of service - as it was just as easy to use an actual Tank with the improvements to the gun and projectiles.

How about the 165mm used on the AVRE versions of the M60 and Centurion? It proved very useful in the Gulf War.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I suspect they would find the 165mm quite useful in Ukraine if they had it.

 

[KevinB]

How about the 165mm used on the AVRE versions of the M60 and Centurion? It proved very useful in the Gulf War.

Was used, and useful are two different things

From my understanding the Low MV on the Demo guns required them to get quite close - which in this day is decidedly what one does not want to do. Pretty much all the Demo guns platform where from before the age of ATGM's.

Now, for an assault UGV - it may be an option, but I tend to think that if given the choice of a 120mm and shooting something at 1k+ or a 165mm and shooting something inside 300m, the better option is the longer range one, as you don't want to needlessly expend platforms regardless if they are uncrewed.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Was used, and useful are two different things

From my understanding the Low MV on the Demo guns required them to get quite close - which in this day is decidedly what one does not want to do. Pretty much all the Demo guns platform where from before the age of ATGM's.

Now, for an assault UGV - it may be an option, but I tend to think that if given the choice of a 120mm and shooting something at 1k+ or a 165mm and shooting something inside 300m, the better option is the longer range one, as you don't want to needlessly expend platforms regardless if they are uncrewed.

The way those vehicles were to be used was in breeching and eventually your going to need to be up close and personal to finish the breech.