Interesting take….
Edro
2 Likes
It would be an interesting idea to at least field for a decade as a stop gap measure. Because it sounds mostly logical, I have hard believing we would do that.
If we do field them, there will be a comments from the head shed that Marines are using it too much like a tank or similar comments made about the Sheridan.
4 Likes
they also said the same of the SVN forces when they started using the M113 as an assault vehicle instead of just a battle taxi in Vietnam and told them they shouldn’t be fitting blast shields for the gunners.
3 Likes
I wonder whether the concept of turning the existing M10s over to the Marines has considered the fact that, with the entire project being canceled, so has the pipeline for spares. Barring any components that are shared with other platforms that still enjoy support, the Marines will have to foot the cost of restarting the supply pipeline, or watch their pool of available vehicles dwindle once any existing pool of spares is exhausted as one machine is cannibalized to keep others functional.
3 Likes
The video was very good until the narrator offered the three options for the US Marines…those options are so freaking dated that it “tanked” the video and made the narrator look like an amateur. The tactical Jeep concept lost to the GM Defense Infantry Squad Vehicle. The Chenowth DPV is no longer really used because it lacks a radiator, and Chenowth came out with the Light Strike Vehicle, which wasn’t mentioned. The Lamborghini tactical vehicle…really? That concept never matured. What the USMC needs is the Flyer Defense 60 and 72, so it’s kind of obvious that the narrator didn’t attend “Modern Day Marine” expo like Chris Cappy did before he broke away and started his own YouTube channel because he didn’t make partner after Task and Purpose sent him to film in Ukraine and that pissed off Chris Cappy for sticking his life and neck out for the team.
The USMC just had five M1A1s in a MEU, so it makes sense to have 80 US Army M10 Bookers transferred to the Marines because the Navy and Marine landing crafts can carry them. The US Army’s JLTV was canceled due to the SECDEF and the USMC did decide to “Go it alone” and finance their own portion of JLTVs to make inventory. So it is possible to finance the M10 Bookers separate from the US Army if the USMC really wanted to, and I think that it will be a very wise decision because the largest caliber in the USMC Ground Combat Element is currently a 30mm autocannon. A USMC general said in a webinar that the Marines will need a larger and heavier caliber than 30mm for urban warfare, but he didn’t specify how or what.
I believe that it’s possible for the USMC to support the M10 Bookers alone. The USMC has LMADIS and MADIS air-defense and anti-drone systems to protect the M10s from drones even though the M10s lack Active Protection Systems.
The USMC needs something better than an ACV with a .50cal or 40mm AGL and a JLTV with the same armament. Only the MADIS air-defense JLTVs sport 30mm autocannon and Stinger missiles. Yes, there is the ACV-30 and the upcoming ARV-30 with 30mm autocannon, but they will not be as numerous, or as armored as a tank.
If the US Marines do adopt the M10 Booker, and they should, call it what you will, but it’s a medium tank. The Textron Stingray II at around 25 tons is a light tank with publicly available information of 23mm armor protection frontal arc and side skirts and probably 14.5mm protection elsewhere…and that is the armor rating of an AAV7P without the 23mm armor protection.
2 Likes
Being that it was not designed for tank on tank warfare, I wonder if it would fair any better than a stryker in an urban setting? If not, back to the old M60A1.
2 Likes
We have done this with the AV-8Bs. We bought old British aircraft and parts. Then cannibalized others as they turned them in for F-35 training.
2 Likes
I’m not really sure why the M10 isn’t considered a tank. I know the Army has redefined vehicles that traditionally would be considered a tank whenever it suited a purpose. The M1 “Combat Car”, and the M551 Sheridan AR/AAV (Armored Reconnaissance/Airborne Assault Vehicle) comes to mind. Both of these vehicles were light tanks, but the Army chose to recognize them as something other than tanks. The Marines would not have to follow the Army’s logic in this.
As far as design, the M10 may not have been designed for tank on tank combat, but it certainly has a cannon with modern anti-tank ammo capable of defeating tank armor. But I thinks that it would be adept in the close infantry support role, which is currently lacking.
PS
I’ve always thought that the M60A1 should make a return, if not a modified M1 Abrams, featuring a diesel in place of the turbine. But if the ‘60 returns, it should be upgraded along the lines of the Israeli Magach 6B Gal Batash or Sabra
3 Likes
I believe that this was the narrator’s idea of humor. The part where I disagreed was when he inferred that the inability to sling carry an M10 by Super Stallion, fit in a C130 or made to swim was somehow a disadvantage for Marines, yet Marines were still able to deploy the M60A1, the M1A1 Abrams, even the heavy M103 when the USMC operated these vehicles.
Edro
1 Like
That can be an issue for Marine only equipment deployment, while the first two are not great but not a deal breaker. No fording could be the deal breaker. The other tanks could ford.
2 Likes
Marines had been equipped with tanks before. And none of those tanks needed to swim or be carried by aircraft. What was important for Marines was the ability to get tanks from ship to shore and this was traditionally done via LCAC or landing craft. One of the many reasons the Marines divested their tanks was that the Abrams were getting heavier with each subsequent upgrade, making them more difficult to transport to shore by traditional means. However the M10 Booker is a lot lighter, even lighter than the M60A1 which the Marines used prior to the Abrams. So imo it seems like a no brainer. The use of the M10 would restore the lost armor capability the Marines had without stressing existing ship to shore operations.
Edro
2 Likes
Don’t really disagree for the most part but the no fording is an issue. LCACs cannot always be guaranteed to fully make it on land for drop off or come forward enough inland to ford a river later on. With the tanks gone we got rid of the bridge layers too. Having extra firepower is good but not if it can’t get to where you need it.
Could we field adapt fording gear, maybe we have done it before but will we be allowed or possibly with the design, I don’t know.
1 Like
The USMC wasn’t invited to the M10 Booker testing, design, and trials. I know; I asked. The M10 was developed for the US Army Airborne and Light Forces and it made sense that the Marines weren’t invited because a Marine in charge of Force Design posted on social media that he didn’t want tanks, not even the M10 Booker. Back then under Commandant General David Berger, the philosophy was strictly “No tanks” because of the logistical burden of the M88 Recovery Vehicle and fuel tankers. The Marines followed Commandants Berger and now Eric Smith who sided with “No tanks.” Thus, the M10 was not designed with fording gear, but that can probably change…maybe.
If the USMC desired to sling-load a “tank,” there is always the 8x8 tank destroyer like the 120mm Italian Centauro II, 90mm Cockeril, and others. But some said that the wheeled tank destroyers don’t handle main gun recoil well and they carry few rounds. The USMC actually tested a lot of vehicles, so did the US Army, and these have been tested for the M8 AGS that won over the Stryker MGS, but politics prevailed and the Stryker MGS was adopted. The Marines never said that they wanted the US Army’s divested Stryker MGSs. The CH-53K can sling-load 18 tons and the Stryker MGS is 20.7 tons so it won’t work. The 120mm Centauro II is actually 30 tons and the Centauro I weighs 24 tons so that won’t work.
And oddly, there are other medium tanks now besides the M10 Booker such as the KAPLAN MT. However, the KAPLAN has very light armor of 14.5mm AP and 25mm AP with add-on armor. A M2A2 Bradley has 30mm AP armor protection. It weighs 30-35 tons, or about that of the M8 AGS.
2 Likes
I think the narrator was referring to swimming as opposed to fording. No tank is really designed to swim. The dd systems developed for the Sherman was something of a desperation move, and wouldn’t work for the modern Marine Corps. where amphibious capability requires vehicles that can transition between sea use to land use without major preparation.
Fording capabilities I believe are entirely possible if you aren’t fording deep water, and I suspect the Army requires it to some extent as well. Of course theres a great deal of preparation to make to a tank, for it to drive under, say 20ft of water. Deep water fording comes with it’s own need of preparation and a set of risks, and that risk level would increase greatly if you’re dropping a tank off the back of a ship. Bridging and floating are your best options for not only tanks but all sorts of other vehicles necessary for operations. And that has been part of the complexity that Marines have specialized in for decades.
2 Likes
Do know what the fording depth is for the M10? I couldn’t find anything online in a quick search. I also didn’t see any photos of it fording water. My best guess would be around 3’.
1 Like
I am not expecting that kind of deep water fording/
amphibious operations, just in the ballpark with current vehicles. The M1A1 was 7.5’ with fording kit, Humvee with fording kit 5’, JLTV with no fording kit 5’, LAV at 5’-9”. So around 5’-7’ would keeping up with the standard. Right now, my best guess for the M10 Is around 3’ without any fording gear. That would be an issue if cannot keep up with the JLTV.
1 Like
I think everyone is sitting on their hands at the moment due to the drone issue and the current administration cuts.
1 Like
The Army first intro duced the Ontos then backed out. The Marines used it in a spectacular way. Why wondent they choose the Booker It is quick, heavily armed, ait transportable. The Army just didn’t want to loose the M1 Abrahms. OOH RAH.