Will the Marines get the M10 Booker?

Armor/AFV 1:1 Tank Talk
21

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.

As an 1811, I’m unpologetically biased. But I believe down to my core that Forced reDesign 20-something is a terrible mistake, and it’s going to get Marines killed!

Yes it’s understandable that the Marines weren’t invited to participate in the Booker’s development , but that didn’t stop us before. We always make do. So, if the Marines can get their hands on a tank that the Army isn’t calling a tank, and we can stick a tube over the exhaust pipe, you can bet that the Marines will make it happen.

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.

I can’t tell you that the Marines really want to “sling” a tank. The narrator may insist on this, but I haven’t read anything about this. When it came to Marine tanks in the past, there was no such requirement. What I find ironic is that if it’s true that Marines would want to sling carry a tank, why pick the same “tank” that Army Airborne couldn’t sling?

“Wheeled” tanks might seem to be a more logical pick, but there’s some factors to consider. From my experience, the heaviest “wheeled” tanks are more or less equivalent to the light tank, or a smaller medium tank. Generally, wheels do not carry as much weight as tracks, so the weight is purposely kept down on some of these vehicles. The LAV, for example has a requirement to be sling carried by Super Stallions. Being light makes it possible, but being light means they have thinner armor, which can be defeated by heavy machine gun or auto cannon fire. And they don’t have a large cannon of their own, which means they can’t take on tanks, or heavy fortifications, and, of course, they aren’t tanks.

The other vehicles you mentioned are viable options, and the Marines should consider them, but right now, it’s the Booker which is in the spotlight here, and of course, Forced reDesign will need to be addressed.

As for as not handling recoil well. There’s a number of reasons for this.
First, in terms of weight, a wheeled vehicle is equivalent to a light tank, and if it’s armed with a larger cannon, such as a 105 or 120mm. It’s gonna be a lot like shooting a .38 Special on a S&W J-frame revolver. You’ll get a lot of kick, because it’s a hot round with a very light (low mass) pistol. A .38 Special on a heavier pistol frame would have a lot less kick.

These vehicles also tend to ride higher off the ground. If you want a wheeled vehicle to be able to traverse soft terrain, the tires need to be as wide and as large as possible. The downside is, larger tires means higher ride height, and that means higher center of gravity. If you fire the cannon over the side, the vehicle is going to rock heavily to one side, and it will be so severe that crew can be injured. I believe it’s frowned upon to fire over the side unless it can’t be avoided. The more desired option is to fire the cannon pointing over the bow (or stern)

Edro

1 Like
22

I haven’t seen any requirement for slinging any combat vehicle with a huge gun from a CH-53. At best, the cancelled RCV might be able to since it’s unmanned and can sport a 40-50mm autocannon and perhaps even a larger gun. Being unmanned, the armor level can be 7.62mm just to achieve 18 tons for a CH-53K sling-load, but it’s all moot now since SECDEF and the US Army canceled the whole entire RCV family which I don’t agree with.

As for wheels vs. tracks, there is this…the best of both worlds. A former Marine said it’s a good idea, but I don’t know if the Marines will go for this concept. It may help with LAVs, ACVs, etc.

https://www.mclarenindustries.com/us/en/over-the-tire-tracks/skid-steer-otts/11/?matchtype=p&network=g&device=c&keyword=over%20the%20tire%20tracks%20for%20sale&campaign=9757779110&adgroup=98640898246&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=9757779110&gbraid=0AAAAAD_qm-2A8Y0fospxPDdWRUyKQBXXp&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIxJC0ztuQjgMVrUlHAR185hnJEAMYASAAEgJotfD_BwE

There are some who are really adamant that tanks have no place in Force Design, but the problem I’m seeing is that the USMC has yet to replace tanks with more missiles and missile launchers, and they seem to be dragging their feet with the SPIKE JLTV until I emailed them and the US Navy said that they stopped exploring SPIKE. The USMC gets some of their weapons from the US Navy, so if the Navy, the one with the larger wallet, stopped testing SPIKE ATGM, it probably doesn’t favor the USMC well.

One has to understand that in combat, weapons of war and more tools do help. Having something that the opponent doesn’t also helps. Having the M10 Booker for the USMC will help in some ways or another, especially when there are about 80 of them. M10s may indeed be vulnerable to FPV drones, etc., but that is the risk one has to take during combat, and with ISR and radar, hopefully the Marines can see FPV drones being launched, where they are going, and the end result.

2 Likes
23

As for wheels vs. tracks, there is this…the best of both worlds. A former Marine said it’s a good idea, but I don’t know if the Marines will go for this concept. It may help with LAVs, ACVs, etc.

Yeah, I’ve seen these types of track systems. Those will only work if the tires are completely open, meaning no fenders, or wheel wells. And the vehicle will need to be modified from steerable tires to skid steer. Not really that difficult to do but there is another type of track system which could be bolted onto almost any wheeled vehicle with no need to convert to skid steering;

There are some who are really adamant that tanks have no place in Force Design, but the problem I’m seeing is that the USMC has yet to replace tanks with more missiles and missile launchers, and they seem to be dragging their feet with the SPIKE JLTV until I emailed them and the US Navy said that they stopped exploring SPIKE. The USMC gets some of their weapons from the US Navy, so if the Navy, the one with the larger wallet, stopped testing SPIKE ATGM, it probably doesn’t favor the USMC well.

What I find funny is that one of the many, many reasons mentioned for the divestment of tanks is how much tanks cost. Well no s#it Sherlock! But so are missiles! Probably more so. Sure, a tank isn’t cheap, but you can keep using them, year after year. But missiles? Each one is at least a million skins and you get to use them just once!

Personally, I really don’t care if some bonehead is adamant that tanks have no place in the Marine Corps. These morons likely have no clue as to the need for an Expeditionary force in America’s defense.

But just in case, here’s the quick explanation. We all know that if you want to fight land wars, you go to the Army and if you want to fight wars at sea, you go to the Navy. Now according to the proponents of Forced reDesign, America doesn’t need a second Army which they view the Marine Corps as becoming. And so the point of FD 2030 is to make Marines a force which fights sea battles from land, namely tiny islands. What they fail to understand is, when it comes to the Navy, the Navy doesn’t simply fight warfare at sea. They have a second equally important role of projecting it’s military might onto land. This can be done via Naval artillery, Naval aviation, or by missile. The Marine Corps is an independent branch of the US military but operates under the Dept of the Navy. And their role within the armed forces, and alongside the Navy is to extend the Navy’s capability by being the force which fights land warfare from the sea.

So the general definition of an expeditionary force is that it is a military force sent to operate in a foreign country, typically for combat missions. These forces are designed to be self-sustaining and capable of rapid deployment to respond to crises or conflicts.

The Marines have specialized in this since the beginning of the nation. However Force Design, guts this capability from the Marines. It removes the expeditionary nature which Marines were designed for and currently focuses them on a single adversary. This is a big problem because flare ups can happen anywhere, and the US may have to send troops to some far flung crap hole on the other side of the globe. If Marines are configured to shoot missiles at ships, it cannot function in a land-centric battlefield where they will need tanks, artillery and aircraft which was lost due to Force Design. And the Army was never intended to take on this role, nor are they configured to operate alongside the Navy.

Edro

2 Likes
24

Revolutionary suggestion:
Reconfigure the Army to be able to operate as an expeditionary force,
able to assault land (with the purpose to do land warfare) over a coastline.

Marine soldiers originated from the times when sea battles were fought at rifle distance (almost musket range …) and bording ships to take them as prizes was part of the tactics. Before cannons boarding was the “only” way to defeat an enemy ship (before ramming became a tactic of its own).

Let the Marines become the Armys “over the coast” assault spearhead.
Able to perform land warfare across a coastline. This “new” branch of the Army would use artillery support provided by the Navy until they have taken enough territory to bring in land based artillery.

I know, this is heresy …

1 Like
25

Revolutionary suggestion:
Reconfigure the Army to be able to operate as an expeditionary force,
able to assault land (with the purpose to do land warfare) over a coastline.

Theoretically, it’s possible, -in fact it was already done during WW2. The D-day invasion and the various amphibious assaults in Sicily were all performed by the Army, as the entire Marine Corps was occupied in the Pacific theater. But it was really a matter of necessity as opposed to strictly sticking to doctrine, or rewriting doctrine to make amphibious operations a permanent capability of the Army, at least the type that requires the help of the Navy. Any amphibious capability that the Army performs today is primarily designed around crossing rivers.

Having said all this, in the current force structure, the US Navy along with US Marines is the force which fights land warfare from the sea. This also means that any operations falls under the purview of the Navy. This is why the USMC operates under the Dept of the Navy.

But lets say we decide to reconfigure the Army to perform the roles held by the Marines. Well, under the current force structure, the soldiers in those theoretical amphibious units would ultimately operate under the Dept of the Army, which may conflict with the needs or objectives of the Navy. The Marine Corps falls under the Dept of Navy. This means that there is no conflict of interest between the Navy and the Marines, they can share the same objectives or have separate objectives but they both answer to the same command.

Marine soldiers originated from the times when sea battles were fought at rifle distance (almost musket range …) and bording ships to take them as prizes was part of the tactics. Before cannons boarding was the “only” way to defeat an enemy ship (before ramming became a tactic of its own).

Technically, Marines are not soldiers, just as soldiers are not Marines. But there were historical connections. Marines in the past were often referred to as ‘Soldiers of the Sea’ and their existence can be traced back to antiquity. When men began to take to the sea and wars eventually followed them, sailors found themselves having to fight very much like soldiers on their ships during times when they launched bordering parties, attempting to repel borders. or launched raiding parties on land targets. And yet they had to fight the ship and sail the ship. You can say they had their hands pretty full. If they took casualties, the entire ship was handicapped by the crew losses. The idea of carrying a contingent of “soldiers” was to increase manpower and separate respective roles. The soldiers would do the hand to hand fighting while the sailors fought the ship. This was quite successful and we’ve had Marines in one form or another, ever since.

Let the Marines become the Armys “over the coast” assault spearhead.
Able to perform land warfare across a coastline. This “new” branch of the Army would use artillery support provided by the Navy until they have taken enough territory to bring in land based artillery.

It’s nothing new. There’s always been talk of disbanding the Marines and giving the job over to the Army, and I would have to say that FD 2030 threatens to indirectly accomplish this, because the Marines can’t function in it’s fundamental role as an expeditionary force.
If war was to break out today, the Marines are in no position to invade foreign soil from the sea and the Army is going to need time to build up forces in the area.

I know, this is heresy …

Yes it is. We’re looking for a guillotine as we speak.

Edro

4 Likes
26

That’s what I posted on social media. The SECDEF is not “Axing” programs; he is “guillotining” those programs…cutting them off at the “head” when they were mature, tested, and ready or are in mass production. Strange…

4 Likes
27

Hey Top! I guess I missed this response. I don’t think the “drone issue” applies. From everything I’m reading, what put the nail in the coffin for the Booker had something to do with the Army wanting the ability to repair the Booker, but General Dynamics was refusing to allow it. It was already a sore point that the Booker was over budget and didn’t fulfill any of the original requirements, GD’s demand made it impossible for the Army to repair Bookers in the field and this would certainly need to be addressed if the Marines could acquire the vehicle

Edro

4 Likes
28

Regardless of nationality, political leanings or whatever else,
THAT limitation would definitely kill any military procurement.
Maybe require GD to provide a repair contingent to accompany
any and all operational use of the Booker.
If GD wants a “repair monopoly” then they dang well go out into
the battlefields to repair things when they break.

Definitely a note for future procurements: If the supplier feels like
putting any restrictions whatsoever on the “rights to repair” then
they need not bother to submit an offer.

3 Likes
29

That’s similar to the F-35 in that Lockheed controlled a lot of the repairs. And the same goes for the US Navy’s DDG AEGIS warships where contractors and Defense companies fly out to maintain and service their systems.

General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) has an AI repair and maintenance data architecture system called, “VITALS.” I don’t know if the M10 Booker has it, but the AFV will contact the manufacturer and the US Army as to what is broken and what needs spare parts. It’s kind of like Alexa or Siri, and is another way of ingraining OEM parts into the weapon systems, and controlling Readiness rates.

1 Like
30

General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) has an AI repair and maintenance data architecture system called, “VITALS.” I don’t know if the M10 Booker has it, but the AFV will contact the manufacturer and the US Army as to what is broken and what needs spare parts. It’s kind of like Alexa or Siri, and is another way of ingraining OEM parts into the weapon systems, and controlling Readiness rates.

Although this seems like a great idea, I can see an obvious problem with this. What if the Army wanted to use their own AI repair and maintenance system? Or the Army wanted to lock down security issues relating to data transmitted from combat vehicles? This opens up numerous cans of worms, much of which can be potential security concerns or breeches.

Edro

3 Likes
31

Whenever the Army gets near Marines two things start to happen. First, they start losing gear. Don’t know why the Army can’t keep up with its stuff. The second is Army generals start telling the Marines what to do. Before Desert Storm the Marines had an Iron on USMC and Eagle globe and anchor on the left front pocket of the blouse. Thats it. No other markings

image
image474×440 46.4 KB
.
After being near the Army, nametapes were required on the blouse and pants along with Marine service tapes, I guess they got tired of finding every Marine was named Jody.

4 Likes
32

I agree. GDLS’s VITALS may sound great, but it can also be another form of contractor control over Defense products that the taxpayers paid for.

There was a social media video about US Marines 3D printing repair parts because of supply chain issues and cost and a public commentator posted, “Does this void the OEM and vehicle warranty if a 3D-printed part is used? How do you know that the 3D part qualifies for OEM standards? If an accident were to occur with the 3D-printed part, then who is responsible?”

2 Likes
33

What if the 3D part design was from the manufacturer? Wouldn’t that make it OEM?

2 Likes
34

Yes, but the US Marines were printing the 3D parts from their own 3D printers (for training in battlefield repairs).

2 Likes