AI says this about Booker protection…no idea how accurate or inaccurate it is…
…sounds like Booker’s protection can be adjusted to expected threat level.
1 Like
@Armor_Buff The question would be…is Level II armor really optional for the M10 Booker?
If you look at the M10 Booker, the plates are already bolted on compared to the UK’s Ajax chassis which the M10 Booker is based on. The M10’s bolts are all secured onto plates. I don’t see any extended bolt heads.
The BAE M8 AGS supposedly has Level 1-3 armor whereas the GDLSs M10 Booker has Level 1-2 armor. M8 AGS uses large blocks of “Passive armor” on Level 3. M10 Booker does not have “Passive armor” blocks and there is currently no mention of ERA blocks being added as an option.
I forget where I read the article, but I think there is an article that stated that the M10 Booker design has weak spots but the US Army is keeping those weaker armored spots a closely guarded secret. After all, the M10 Booker already weighs around 40 tons, more weight than the M8 AGS at Level 1-2 armor.
M8 AGS with Level 3 “Passive armor” blocks.
UK Ajax chassis AFV
2 Likes
I understand there is another level (it’s already STANAG Level 5: 25mm KE at <500m, and 155mm HE at 25m), sometimes called Beast Mode in the hallways. I’v not seen it; I’ve only heard it discussed on Fort Moore in coffee-breaks at the Armor Center TSF.
Theoretically, this sounds like the Ti with some form of ERA akin to the material being provided by Deisenroth in Germany. That is AMAP (advanced modular armor protection) now. The latest tech says the system is only 38% of the mass of RHA, but twice as protective as the RHA it replaces. Mass efficiency (Em) increased 33% over MEXAS. AMAP-B claims additional protection against 120mm and 125mm MBT rounds (I suspect HEAT, not APFSDS).
Deisenroth/Rheinmetall have produced a variant called AMAPS-SC, with an Em of between 8 and 10.
3 Likes
A reminder: let’s make sure we name the armor protection basis:
STANAG 4569 L2 is ONLY proof against 7.62x39, smaller mines, and 155mm HE at >80m. That is not the design bases used for the MPF, and the BAE system seems significantly improved around L5/L6 STANAG 4569.
2 Likes
The use of crew in the M10’s turret is puzzling considering that the Future Combat System (FCS) had the entire two-soldier (or three-soldier) crew in the hull, but the US Army never developed the FCS tank variant beyond the drawing boards. If the M10 Booker’s crew sat in the hull, then perhaps the armored crew hull module would be better protected and the turret would be uncrewed and use an autoloader. However, the US Army has a semi-phobia regarding using autoloaders due to functionality, mechanics, ammo storage, reliability, and overall purpose.
But the M10 is based on the Griffin I concept demonstrator, that huge light tank that was a kitbash of systems to prove a point at Defense shows that a light tank demonstrator can be hashed together. The crew didn’t sit in the hull of the Griffin I and the turret was a lightweight copycat of the M1 Abrams.
2 Likes
My brother Bud worked on the FCS while at Northrop- Grumman. Those were interesting times.
The US experience drives the choice of more than just tech. The MBT-70/XM803 had an autoloader module in which the Germans paced great faith. You see where that led. Subsequently, the US SRV and TTB (both Abrams derivatives) demonstrated the autoloader in the unmanned turret.
The T-14 Armata bears an uncanny resemblance, wouldn’t you say?
Here’s that autoloader:
The Cold War peace dividend killed the TTB along with the FMBT.
Tell me the T-14 didn’t borrow from the FMBT
The TTB autoloader made its way into the MGS Stryker, and was not popular. Interestingly, the FMBT used a similar design.
And the Army experimented with more conventional revolvers for the M1A1, and beyond:
I am confident the Link-Belt design has met design criteria for MTBF/malfunction rates. The tactical implications of the three-person crew still have many worried. But then, go look at the AbramsX, which is strictly a tech demonstrator: Link-Belt it is.
2 Likes
The reason they did that is the M10 Booker is similar to the M1 turret and makes training easier. Why reinvent the wheel when you already have a working system and more importantly an existing training program to train the troops…its much like why the new M7 rifle is similar to the M4/16/AR rifles-the amount of training will be easier/cheaper since the touchpoints are similar.
5 Likes
From Next Generation Combat Vehicles Cross Functional Team, US Army, via LinkedIn.
4 Likes