I think I like it in green, too!
1 Like
Sounds a bit like the requirements for the infantry tank in the 30’ies:
1 Like
Yes, but how many ways can you say “tank”? This whole description is the job spec of a… TANK.
2 Likes
Yes but they said it like this 
and not like 
so it’s not a tank, the machine at its finest. 
2 Likes
So the M10 Booker will be doing a tank-less job according to doctrine?
7 Likes
It does, but I see sharp differences:
- Mobility and speed: the Matilda II was a fighting tank, but agonizingly slow! I understand the Churchill was a remarkable mountain climber
- Firepower: guns such as the 2pdr were developed for trench warfare. Oddly, solid 2pdr was effective in 1934. The later Infantry tanks continued with larger bores and more HE. Not AP, etc. Even the Sherman has this fault.
- Survivability: here, the old infantry tank seems to have an advantage. But we’ve not seen the full-up modular armor on the M10, so there’s that.
I think the best thing to say of that all these were developed for support of light infantry in their fight for the last 100 meters. Let’s not name them (notice I didn’t call the M10 an Infantry tank!)
Or am I about to be hoist by me own Petard?!
1 Like
Only in OZ can you get away with this mate! Lookout, he’s got a knife!
Seriously, the mission of the MBT (or universal tank) envelopes all that the M10 Booker can do. ALL. So, here’s my Petard- they’re all tanks of a sort.
And @Tank_1812
But to say that the Abrams has the strategic mobility required to support the Ready Brigade of the 82d Airborne (we’ll be there tonight!) is hogwash. It cannot do that.
And, the M10 cannot fight the close fights in typical maneuver warfare characterized by mechanized (not light) formations. The Abrams and Bradley specialize in a very lethal dance of deep striking combat, culminating in seizing and holding terrain during the Close Fight.
It is a tank by any definition. But don’t call it what it isn’t. Hell, greasy paratroopers call all such things tanks, for Pete’s sake
2 Likes
Your observations are totally correct.
Engine technology, armour, weapons et.c. were all different back then.
The purpose remains, the infantry tank was supposed to stay with the grunts and take out
difficult targets instead of galloping around the countryside chasing other tanks.
2 Likes
You really should be DRUMMED OUT OF THE CORPS!!! LOLZ
2 Likes
Some of us here can occasionally display a very low and very childish sense of humour.
We think we are funny as h-ll and we won’t back down, ever 
You’ll just have to get used to our antics 
2 Likes
US budgeting gets weird. Not calling the Booker a tank puts it in a different bucket of money, just like we only build destroyers and not cruisers anymore. Of course, Japan has different naval rules since they can’t have aircraft carriers, only helicopter destroyers. Same deal, different reasons.
2 Likes
Didn’t the interwar US cavalry call their tanks “combat cars” to get round a similar prohibition on tanks that were the sole province of the infantry?
1 Like
Indeed they did
" To allow U.S. Army cavalry units to be equipped with armored fighting vehicles, the tanks developed for the cavalry were designated “combat cars”.[note 1]"
1 Like
Or the M551 Sheridan which the Army didn’t want to call a light tank but rather referred to it as an Armored Reconnaissance/Airborne Assault Vehicle.
Edro
So for me his is another drivey shooty thing used in the modern us military so it is a must build for me.
2 Likes
The real question: Does it work well enough to hinder the enemy more than the user? If so, say Yes.
2 Likes
If it’s stoopid and it works, it isn’t stoopid.
(Murphy’s Rules of Combat)
2 Likes
Export Abrams do not have the same armor packages as the US version the DU thats on US M1 is replaced with tungsten
1 Like
As per the IKV 91 “discussion” on here
Correct: a composite that does not the DU base.
The M10 Booker does not use DU. It does have an (unspecified) armor package.