US Army's New M10 Booker (MPF)

Wow, those look cool!
Ken

1 Like

So - I have a question on the M10 - who’s gonna get to operate this thing? Is it gonna be the Mech Infantry grunts or Armor guys? Who’s asset is the M10 going to be?

If it follows the same as the M551 Sheridan did, it will be armor guys operating them. The Bn will be assigned to the Airborne and Light Divisions and used as the Division Commander sees fit.

3 Likes

the stingray was not the other contender to the M10
the other contender to the M10 was the BAE MPF was was basically a upgrade of the old M8 moble gun system

see attached pic downladed from google images


not sure who took the pic

1 Like

Yes, the Stingray II wasn’t in the competition because it didn’t make the cut between the GDLS M10 and the BAE M8 Armored Gun System (AGS). I assume it’s because Stingray II light tank is a much older design and lacks commander’s independent thermal viewer and bolt-on armor to increase its armor protection. The armor rating of the Textron Stingray II is unclassified public information.

However, the Stingray II was a contender when this “Light tank competition” all started with the M8 AGS and many other tracked light tanks and wheeled light tank destroyers/ The M8 AGS won the testing, but the US Army instead went to buy the loser, the 105mm Stryker Mobile Gun System back in the 1990s. The M10 “Booker” didn’t even exist back then. Had the US Army’s Airborne and Light Forces gone with the M8 AGS winner, then the light tank history of the US Army (and maybe the US Marines) would have been different and the BAE M8 AGS would be in service since the 1990s (and modelers would have been building BAE M8 AGS kits for decades). Instead, the US Army went with the loser, the 105mm MGS, and those are being decommissioned as being under-armored, cramped, no double V-hull against IEDs, and unpopular.

The US Army wanted more armor and the M10 “Booker” weighs in at around 40 tons, more than the canceled Future Combat System tank that never got past the concept stage.

Also, I just wanted to mention that the 105mm Stingray II existed for a long time if the US Army ever wanted a light tank, but the Army wasn’t interested because the Stingray II never improved on its design.

1 Like

As I recall, the Stingray and the Stingray II were originally intended for the export market. They were built relatively inexpensively, using proven components, to keep the tank’s overall price down, to make them more appealing to foreign customers who were looking for a modern tank without breaking the bank. Cadillac Gage didn’t initially plan on marketing the Stingray to the U.S Military until later when the Army initiated the Armored Gun System program.

I do remember reading about the (first) Stingray back when I was a young Marine, in the mid 80s. And I do recall that it was being marketed for export. Of course, I’m sure CG wouldn’t have turned down a contract with the military, but the Stingray was simply not advanced or cutting edge enough, and it wouldn’t have been any better or perhaps a bit worse than the Sheridan it would have replaced.

Edro

2 Likes

It will be organic to several of the LIGHT Divisions.

1 Like

Armor crew

1 Like

One of Murphy’s Laws of Combat Operations: Your weapon is made by the lowest bidder. Pleasant thought…

1 Like

By some mad inversion of aesthetics perhaps, it looks so much better in green than sand; I could almost be tempted!

1 Like

I think the Stingray was so light skinned that no one wanted it. Armies were afraid that if it was hit by an RPG, heavy machine gun fire, or ATGM, the whole tank and crew would be lost in combat and the tank would go up like a Roman Candle. If I recall, the original Stingray had armor that resisted 7.62mm AP (and maybe 14.5mm) in the frontal arc and 7.62mm ball elsewhere. That is very low armor protection for a light tank. For the price and complexity of a light tracked tank, one can buy a wheeled tank destroyer with a 90-105mm cannon instead for a lot cheaper with that armor rating.

The Stingray II remedied these worries by increasing armor protection to 23mm frontal arc and 14.5mm all around by adding side skirts and tougher steel. Nonetheless, the Stingray II is around 25 tons, making it still very light for its cannon class.

I am sure that there are other worries and concerns about the Stingrays, but the armor class rating was one of them, and the fact that there are no bolts for add-on armor. It was no secret that the Stingray I and II’s armor rating was published…Cadillac Gage made no effort to hide the armor rating.

1 Like

Trisaw, honestly, I don’t know if the reason no one wanted the Stingray was because of it’s light skin. But I did do a bit of digging to compare the Stingray to other American light tanks. The Stingray (first model) had a weight of about 22 tons. The WW2 era M24 Chaffee was a little lighter at 20 tons, while the M41 Walker Bulldog was slightly heavier at about 25 tons. So weight wise it wasn’t anything really different than other U.S light tanks. Otoh, the M551 Sheridan was significantly lighter at 15 tons. The Army wanted a light tank that could be carried by heavy lift helicopter and the only way to accomplish this was to use aluminum armor.

In terms of Armor protection, the M24, M41 and Stingray (one) all had frontal armor of 25mm. The gun mantlet on the M24 and M41 were 38mm thick. I didn’t find the gun mantlet thickness for the Stingray.

It is said that the Stingray’s frontal armor could resist up to 14.5mm AP whereas the aluminum armor of the M551 Sheridan could only resist up to 12.5mm HMG. Stingray II had armor protection resistant up to 23mm AP and applique armor was possible for Stingray I and II.

So in general, the Stingray was comparable in weight and armor protection as previous light tanks employed by the U.S. and they had a catchy name for their armor, which they called “Cadaloy armor”

Compared to the previous U.S light tanks, the Stingray’s only real advantages was that it had a better fire control system and a low recoil version of the British 105mm cannon. The M24 and M41 were using WW2 era cannons and ammunition which were ineffective against 60s era Soviet MBTs, while the M551s gun/launcher was a failure. The Stingray would have been the only light tank capable of taking on MBTs.

Now the M10 Booker is intriguing to me. At present I don’t know much about it, but I do know it’s much heavier then any light tank previously in service. It’s about 40 tons heavy, which means it must carry more armor. It’s weight would have put it into the Medium tank class at one time. The M48 was just about 50 tons and M60 was about 55 tons. I suspect that armor protection maybe similar in terms of thickness, but then again. I have no clue as to the nature of the armor. Is it spaced armor, Composite, Chobbam, or something else like silica or rubber/steel similar to British Stillbrew?

We know that it’s powered by a diesel and armed with a 105mm with a modern digital fire control system. It would probably be ideal for use by Marines, if tanks were reintroduced back into the Corps.

Edro

2 Likes

Yes, the US Army is keeping the M10 “Booker’s” ammo count, capabilities, armor, interior, etc. “Classified Secret” and won’t publicly release the information.

Many Marines are through with tanks, even the M10 Booker. However, in urban combat, nothing beats the firepower of a 105-120mm cannon firing HEAT, HESH, or HEDP tank shells, said a USMC general. Some Marines want tanks back, but those in charge of all of this are in conflict as to if Marine tanks are needed again or not and no one wants to make that decision. It’s a debate of rank and file (a USMC general said this at an Expo and a USMC major said that online) and comes down to the Commandant of the Marine Corps to make that determination.

2 Likes

Yeah, I’m familiar with the Marine Corps tank debate and I’ll refrain from rehashing it here. However, for those interested, I’ve added a link to an article with a differing point of view, which some of you may find interesting;

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2024/february/rethinking-marine-corps-tank-debate

As for my comment and opinion, that the M10 Booker might be ideal for Marine Corps use, -if tanks were reintegrated back into the Marines. One of the main arguments that resulted in the divesting of USMC tanks to begin with had to do with concerns that the M1 was putting on a lot of weight with each subsequent armor upgrade. The Marines had to be weight conscious because USMC tanks are often kept aboard assault ships which have certain load requirement, and transported to shore via US Navy LCACs. The latest M1s were rapidly reaching the weight limits of the LCACs, and there were no plans to upgrade or introduce a heavier capacity LCAC. This was compounded by the fact that as the M1 got heavier, it drank more fuel. This became a serious problem during an amphibious assault, because the only source of fuel available for these vehicles would be aboard a supply ship parked a very long way off shore.

There were other BS reasons I won’t buy as to why the Marines lost their tanks, and I won’t go into here, but if the USMC got tanks back, I personally think the M10 Booker resolves many of the excuses given for divesting. It’s lighter weight makes transporting it easier, it’s more fuel efficient and the 105mm still offers a wide range of ammunition to deal with a variety of threats.

Edro

5 Likes

I think it may be a long time before the Marines get a tracked tank again, they currently seem to be fully invested in wheeled armor right now. So, I don’t think the M10 is something they need right now, instead they need to continue the research they did in the 1980-1990s and produce an eight wheeled gun system or look into buying one that is already out there and established, the Italian Centauro immediately coming to mind. One of these current gun systems, modified with a LAV-25 compatible drive system, could fit right in with how the Marines are going now.

That said, with what I’ve seen going on in the Ukraine, the M10 may be the future for tanks, I say that because it seems that heavy armor and tanks slugging it out with tanks are not as common as thought and that the drone is now the most dangerous weapon on the battlefield. So, I’m thinking that you are going to see a change from the more passive protection of heavy armor to more active systems to protect tanks from drones, missiles and even kinetic rounds. We may in the future see more light armor carrying main guns, especially low pressure guns that can fire good high explosive rounds and fire guided rounds to protect against tanks, on the battlefield with very effective active protection systems instead of heavy armor.

BTW, speaking of Ukraine, what I see as one of Russia’s big failures in the Ukraine is their inability to control the air, I think the war would have been over by now if the Russians had been able to dominate the air like the USAF did during the Gulf War. As I remember Iraq had a bigger Air Force than Ukraine did at the beginning of each of those conflicts, so I see the lack of air superiority to be Russia’s main problem in that war.

3 Likes

I for one hope that it’s not a long time. If you read the article I posted above, as stated, -there is no substitute for tanks, and if Marines are sent to fight abroad without tanks, we risk greater casualties.

Wheeled armored vehicles do have advantages over tracks, and the Marines have invested in them for certain roles, but wheeled “tanks” like the Italian Centauro or S. African Rooikat aren’t substitutes for a tank. These vehicles would fall into the light tank category in terms of weight and armor protection. Sure they do have cannons large enough to take on MBTs but none of them have the armor protection to resist main gun ammo, no less modern auto cannons…Or for that matter, they may not survive anti-tank mines.

I don’t see the war in Ukraine as the war of the future. Sure there are new threats to armored vehicles, but that’s been the reality since the tank was invented. Theres always been a back and forth struggle between protection and firepower. Yes! Drones are the latest armored threat and it’s greatly feared, but this advantage won’t last long, because as history testifies, someone will improve on protection and render the drone useless, until the next threat to protection is invented. Currently on the Ukrainian battlefield, tank on tank battles aren’t common. It’s not foretelling a trend, rather it’s the result of the way the combatants are prosecuting this particular war. The U.S has had similar experiences in Korea and Vietnam. In both conflicts the opponents fielded very few of their own tanks, thus tank vs tank during those conflicts were somewhat rare. Fortunately we didn’t go forward with that limited viewpoint for the next war. No one can tell the future.

I agree, that one of the big failures for Russia was it didn’t take control of the air. But, I just can’t see a victory for Ukraine either. While Russia can’t secure air superiority, they still have the numerical advantage in men and material. Sure, they are taking heavy casualties but they can afford it more than the Ukrainians. Sure Ukraine has received the backing of the U.S and Europe but the help has done little other than delay the inevitable. At least in my opinion.

Which brings up a sore spot for me. So we went ahead and sent the Ukrainians a few of our M1 Abrams to help turn the tide of the war, and instead, a number of them get destroyed and captured! Yeah, so they were older versions lacking the top secret Chobbem armor, but IMO, they should have never been sent at all. I don’t care if they were older versions of the M1, we don’t need to share all our secrets and let the Russians learn everything there is to know about them. In fact, I would prefer that we do not sell tanks after we retire them. We should be saving all of them in the event we have to fight a major war. But that’s just me…

Edro

1 Like

Russia is rapidly working their way through all their (poorly and incorrectly) mothballed tanks. T-55 tanks have appeared in Ukraine.
This highlights the need for large reserves.

4 Likes

Look at the weight of the M1A2 SEPv4 I crawled yesterday. This is PV09 (prototype vehicle), and it now resides at the US Army Armor & Cavalry Collection on Fort Moore, GA.

3 Likes

16, out of 10,000 built. 8 destroyed, and the rest damaged. One of those was captured.

Their tech is not really a secret any longer. Losses are inevitable. Losing that few in a single Brigade in over a year of combat is a rather low rate, and speaks to the overall robust design. The Russians probably knew as much about them as the Australians and Ukrainians, LONG before any deal was struck.

4 Likes

“Secrets” of the M1 series have long been out of the bag. Iraq and Taliban have also “sold” several vehicles left behind to Russia. Not really a secret. Nothing sent to Ukraine is a surprise. I hate seeing them not being used as they should, in maneuver warfare, but the M2 Bradley has been an overachiever, doing what it was designed to do. If the US went into Ukraine as a actual Army to take all Ukrainian territory back, I am sure it would be a much different fight: We are not short on manpower, we would have air superiority shortly, and we would maneuver around obstacles more easily. We just have all the stuff for a war ready to go, and the trained personell to do it. M1’s, for example, would not be in singletons shooting at individual soldiers and attracting drones. Drones would be far less useful because their operators would constantly be in fear of being overrun. Drones are just another new tool.

The M10 is going to fill a good niche; a quickly deployable useful piece of armor to support infantry as an assault gun, not a tank. I could see the Marines getting help from US Army units with M10’s instead of M1’s. Lighter weight, good mobility and armor, decent gun. As pointed out, the M1 at 81T is a huge headache for mobility (you start losing a lot of bridges that can take them, some ground conditions are beyond them, etc…).

The Russians have their 2S25 Sprut-D. It is stated to be 18T and uses a 2A75 125mm main gun. I am not sure I would want to be in that thing firing that gun…talk about stressing the chassis and rocking the crew!

3 Likes