Will the Marines get the M10 Booker?

[Edro]

@TopSmith

…Now if the Marines have the M10, it will have to deal with Tank on tank, and urban encounters, that’s part of the one size fits all theory. Would you feel good about the M551 VS a T72 or T80? Nor so much. I don’t know if the Booker will fare a lot better.

With the current arrangement, Marines won’t fair well facing off against a T72, or T80 without tanks. Will the M10 fare well against the T72, or T80? The big unknown is, how well armored is the Booker? Will it be able to absorb the firepower of these tanks with the current armor or will it need add on armor packages? However, at the other end, the 105mm IMO, is still a viable gun. With modern DU ammunition, it is still capable of defeating the armor of these tanks.

Urban encounters are always tough for tanks. This is where tanks must rely on infantry to ferret out enemy threats, while the tanks provide the heavy firepower to defeat dug in defenses. Other than Sabots, the 105mm still has a broad range of ammo, useful for destroying bunkers and other fortifications which infantry may encounter.

The current Marine Corps structure relies on anti-tank missiles to handle armored threats, but these weapons are not ideal against bunkers or other fortifications. Missiles are single use, and certainly not cheap. 30mm is apparently the largest cannon available in the Corps. Unfortunately, at 30mm, the capacity of each round is tiny, compared to a 105mm. A 105mm HEP round contains a significantly larger amount of explosives, which can produce a much bigger bang.

Edro

[TopSmith]

I use a simple rule to determine armor. It is the same rule I use on cars. The Subaru BRZ looks cool and sporty. However the give away on performance is the skinny tires it comes with. A tank with narrow track will most probably not contain as much armor as a wider tracked tank, Something about ground pressure. The Booker will have to be up armored in a combat zone upping the weight, lowering the performance. I agree something in the back pocket is better than nothing at all. However, realize you are going into the fight on the light side. Facing T55’s and T 62’s OK. Newer stuff …

[TopSmith]

I think the Marine concept is latorial. The big old Navy boats will carry us and we will just attack and hold the Beach while the big old Navy’s 16 inch guns will provide all the help we will need…I am unsure of the doctern when The marines have to advance inshore. They use to have tanks artillery and CAS. Seems a lot of that went out of the window.

[TopSmith]

I think one of the problems is the reliance on the Navy. They are behind in the ship building department. They say the Abrams is too heavy. Is that saying we have the wrong type of boat needed? I mean the Abrams is not a new concept and how many years have they had to build boats that can deploy them and keep them in fuel. To me it is a case of not keeping up with the times.

[18bravo]

The Navy has the LCAC.

[TopSmith]

The LCAC was first fielded in "87. As of 2021 68 of them had undergone the service life extension program to gain an additional 10 years of service life. There were 91 made with the standard payload of 60 tons (think M60A1). The overload weight is 75tons (think M1A3). I think the Navy sees this boat near the end of it’s service life and to carry tanks now it has to operate at overload capacity. Do they want to build another 91 upscaled to handle the additional weight? Maybe not.

Another thought is how could they transport 50 of these vessels to a landing site without the world knowing every inch of the way?
Maybe I am wrong, but I think the future fighting of a contested invasion is actually going to occure hundreds of miles offshore.

[Edro]

@TopSmith

I use a simple rule to determine armor. It is the same rule I use on cars. The Subaru BRZ looks cool and sporty. However the give away on performance is the skinny tires it comes with. A tank with narrow track will most probably not contain as much armor as a wider tracked tank, Something about ground pressure. The Booker will have to be up armored in a combat zone upping the weight, lowering the performance. I agree something in the back pocket is better than nothing at all. However, realize you are going into the fight on the light side. Facing T55’s and T 62’s OK. Newer stuff …

I go by weight. The Booker is certainly lighter than every recent tank used by the Marines, going back to the Sherman. However, if you compare the Booker to other current AFVs in USMC service, the weight of the Booker would tell you, it’s better armored than everything else. On a side note, the Marines have typically been equipped with tanks at least a generation or two behind the Army. They made up for the technology discrepancy by training. Making due, and doing the best with the equipment at hand.

@TopSmith

I think the Marine concept is latorial. The big old Navy boats will carry us and we will just attack and hold the Beach while the big old Navy’s 16 inch guns will provide all the help we will need…I am unsure of the doctern when The marines have to advance inshore. They use to have tanks artillery and CAS. Seems a lot of that went out of the window.

Therein lies the problem with the new latorial concept. The entire expeditionary force concept which the Marine Corps used to specialized in, is tossed out the window, removing a vital tool in America’s defense. If America wants to deploy troops to some distant hotspot, without Marines, The Army is not configured to take on the role. It’s going to take a lot of time for the Army to get there in force, and coordinate with the Navy, which assumingely should already be parked off shore.

@TopSmith

I think one of the problems is the reliance on the Navy. They are behind in the ship building department. They say the Abrams is too heavy. Is that saying we have the wrong type of boat needed? I mean the Abrams is not a new concept and how many years have they had to build boats that can deploy them and keep them in fuel. To me it is a case of not keeping up with the times.

It’s always been the same ol, same ol. The Navy doesn’t really want to share their slice of the defense budget pie, with the Marines. They don’t want to buy big expensive tanks for the Marines when they could buy themselves new ships. The latorial concept was supposed to eliminate a bunch of legacy systems, so that money could be better spent elsewhere. In my opinion, it’s total bs! The latorial concept, known as Forced Redesign, will not save the Marines money. Those legacy systems, tanks, artillery and aircraft aren’t cheap, but you can get years of use out of them. The missile systems the latorial concept will rely on, will cost hundreds of millions of dollars and you get to use them just once! At the same time they gutted the Marines expertise as an expeditionary force in readiness

Yes, the Abrams is getting pretty heavy. Even the Army is coming to grips with this conclusion. Which is why they are experimenting with lighter options, like the Abrams X concept.

The Marines have used heavy tanks in the past. The M103 weighed about 65 tons, and they were transported from ship to shore by landing craft (as LCACs didn’t exist at the time)

The Marines can get the heavier Abrams to shore in time for a fight, but the heavier version of the Abrams also has poor fuel economy, which means they now have shorter endurance. This would require a significant investment in supplying more fuel from the ship to the shore, to keep the Abrams in the fight. The Booker’s lighter weight and more efficient diesel engine would reduce the logistical support necessary to keep the tank in the battle.

Edro

[Trisaw]

Actually, the US Navy is replacing the LCAC with the Ship-to-Shore Connector (SSC). The SSC can carry 75 tons, not overloaded.

The minimum armor for the USMC now is 14.5mm AP, or Russian heavy machine gun. The minimum armor for the US Army now is around 14.5mm AP for tactical trucks and Strykers to 30mm AP for the larger AFVs (Bradley and AMPV) that are not tanks. I think that the M10 Booker has an armor rating better than 30mm, but it’s an AJAX chassis. The M8 AGS’s armor rating at Level III is probably 30mm.

Ship-to-Shore Connector

I think that the USMC should acquire The Rook. It’s an armored CAT skid steer with 7.62mm protection. Add machine guns and APKWS II rocket launcher pods to the lifting arms and it can provide a degree of direct fire support for Marines to stand in front or behind. It’s too tall to fit inside a CH-53K, but about two can fit inside a C-130 and perhaps be airdropped too.

An active Marine on social media didn’t like it…he said “Save The Rook for law enforcement…”

The Rook - Armored Critical Incident Vehicle | Ring Power Tactical Solutions

[Edro]

An active Marine on social media didn’t like it…he said “Save The Rook for law enforcement…”

The only thing I like about it is, in 10-15 yrs, they will end up on government auction sites, where, by then, I can buy a gently used and well maintained skid steer, with the side benefit of enough armor to take a few rounds from my pee’ed off neighbors after I dig up their yard.

Edro

[tanknick22]

The M10 Booker weighs in at 42 tons the shermans that the marines used in WW2 came in at about 35 tons the first shermans used by the Marines were the diesel powered M4A2 when production of the M4A2 ended 1942 the Marines switched over to the M4A3 which was also used by the ARMY

[Edro]

The point I was making was that if the reason the Abrams was divested from Marines, was that it was becoming too heavy and too expensive in its latest iteration, the M10 would resolve that issue in that it would be lighter and somewhat less expensive than the Abrams.

Edro

[Trisaw]

So, out of curiosity, I asked Google AI what will become of the M10 Bookers and to see if any reporter/journalist asked the US Army.

Here is what Google AI said:

The US Army has canceled the M10 Booker combat vehicle program, formerly known as Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF), due to budget cuts and a shift in priorities. The Army will not proceed with full-rate production and will reallocate the remaining funds to other areas. The 80 M10 Booker vehicles already produced may be used for training, storage, or offered to allied nations. The Marine Corps is also considering whether to adopt the M10 Booker.

Here’s a more detailed breakdown:

• Cancellation:

The Army terminated the M10 Booker program in June 2025 due to a confluence of factors, including budget constraints, a shift in focus towards drone and missile systems, and the vehicle’s increasing weight and cost.

• Funding Shift:

The Army plans to reallocate the funds originally allocated for the M10 Booker to accelerate the fielding of other “war-winning capabilities”.

• Potential Uses for Existing Vehicles:

  • Training: The 80 M10 Booker vehicles already produced could be used for training purposes, potentially at training centers or by units not originally slated to receive them.
  • Storage: The vehicles may be placed in storage, potentially as a contingency measure or until a decision is made on their long-term use.
  • Foreign Sales: The Army might offer the vehicles to allied nations, although the logistical challenges associated with the M10 Booker could make this less likely.

• Marine Corps Consideration:

The Marine Corps is evaluating whether to adopt the M10 Booker to fill a capability gap in providing mobile protected fire support.

• Reasons for Cancellation:

  • Weight and Airdrop: The M10 Booker’s weight increased significantly during development, making it difficult to airdrop as originally intended and impacting its logistical footprint.
  • Cost: The program became increasingly expensive, and the Army determined that the cost was not justified by the vehicle’s capabilities.
  • Maintenance Contract: The maintenance contract with General Dynamics Land Systems was problematic, raising concerns about cost and the Army’s ability to maintain the vehicles independently.
  • Shifting Priorities: The Army’s shift towards a “leaner, more lethal force” and a greater emphasis on drones and missile systems contributed to the cancellation.

• Future of Light Tank Development:

The Army’s decision to cancel the M10 Booker does not necessarily mean an end to the search for a light tank. The Army may need to revisit the drawing board and develop a new light tank that is truly light and meets its evolving needs, according to 19FortyFive.—Google AI

Actually, if you ask Google AI the same question twice, it kind of produces the same answer in more detail.

So bottom line, the M10 Booker was canceled in June 2025 and it’s now mid-August and it seems like no one has written a definitive article on the decision as to what to do with the M10 Bookers.

And to be fair, the “light tank competition losers” will fit in a C-130J. The US Army didn’t like the Stingray II, hence it was the BAE Systems M8 AGS versus the GDLS’s M10 Booker.

The maximum payload weight of a C-130J Super Hercules is approximately 21.32 tons (19,340 kg). This is equivalent to about 47,000 lbs, according to Lockheed Martin. The C-130J-30 variant can carry a slightly higher payload of 46,700 lb (21,183 kg) or 23.35 tons, according to Lockheed Martin --Google AI

The Stingray II light tank weighs 22.6 tonnes (24.91 tons) with the appliqué armor package fitted, according to Forecast International. Without the appliqué armor, the weight can be as low as 21.2 tons, according to GlobalSecurity.org. The enhanced armor package can increase the weight to 26,308 kg (26.3 tonnes, or 29 tons). --Google AI

The M8 AGS (Armored Gun System) had a base weight of 19.5 tons, with combat-loaded versions reaching 23 tons (Level II) and 25.5 tons (Level III). The vehicle’s modular armor allowed for adjustments in weight depending on the level of protection needed.

Here’s a more detailed breakdown:

• Base Version: 19.5 tons.
• Level II Combat-Loaded: Just over 23 tons.
• Level III Combat-Loaded: About 25.5 tons.
• Airdrop Configuration: The base version could be configured to be lighter for airdrop operations.
• Modular Armor: The M8 AGS featured modular armor that could be added or removed to adjust the vehicle’s weight and protection level. --Google AI

The M10 Booker, at around 42 tons, should have the most armor compared to the ones that lost. However, it’s the ones that lost that might be the “winners” here although I don’t know the weight rating in tons for the training area of the US Army Airborne that the M10 Bookers can’t cross over. The US Army hasn’t issued a formal requirement for a new light tank.

[Edro]

Yeah, Google AI didn’t really provide more information than what is already known. So unless there is another use, it’s probably destined for scrapping or selling.

It should have occurred to someone in the Army, that the Booker design, even before it was ever built was never going to be compatible with the needs and requirements of the Army’s Airborne units.

And this isn’t the Army’s first rodeo. They knew from long ago that a tank that must be carried by aircraft is difficult to design and build because gravity is a huge factor. Their options to make it happen is either build aircraft with greater lifting capacity (which comes with its own set of problems) or lighter tanks. But that of course is the catch. To make a tank lighter, you have to sacrifice something…. Usually armor protection and gun size. And that comes with consequences, in that a light tank may not accomplish the roles of infantry support, busting bunkers or take on enemy tanks. -Thats not to say it’s impossible to design a light tank which could effectively deal with infantry support, busting bunkers and defeating enemy armor, but compromises have to be made.

Off hand, I can think of three possible design ideas which would minimize sacrificing armor and gun size, yet still be light enough for current transport aircraft to deliver.

First, we can build a turret-less tank, like a Stug or S-tank. By eliminating the turret, a lot of weight could be eliminated. The con of course is, turret-less tanks can’t shoot on the fly. You have to aim the entire vehicle at the enemy.

Second, possible design idea, remote turret tanks, like the T14 Armata and Abrams X. Move the crew into the hull, in a well armored and protected capsule while the remote turret and rest of the hull carries far less armor. The con? The rest of the vehicle is more susceptible to enemy fire.

Third and final idea, go with an entirely remote controlled tank. Think drone on tracks here. No crew means no need for heavy armor and no need for the space a crew would take up. The vehicle can be made extremely compact with only enough armor to protect vital systems from battle damage. Downside is the same with any other remotely operated vehicle. Sever communications and the vehicle is useless.

Going back to the Booker. As it sits now, the Booker is out. The Army could attempt to get it back in service, but not in the Army’s airborne units. Rather, it might make better sense to use it in a Cavalry unit or in a reconnaissance role. Or perhaps as training tools such as OPFOR vehicles.

The Marines have a good shot at acquiring the Booker and reinvest in tank units as they had before. The whole force design thing needs to be scrapped.

As a long shot, maybe move the remaining Bookers into the Airforce as base security vehicles.

Now, as of August, there isn’t a decision, and at the rate at which government things move, we may not see a decision for quite some time.

Edro

[barkingdigger]

@Edro

Yeah, Google AI didn’t really provide more information than what is already known.

What? AI couldn’t make something up? That’s unusual…

[Ted_Dannemiller]

I was next to this yesterday, and here’s my thoughts

The Corps won’t acquire the M10

• It’s heavier than the ACV (which massed 32 tons). That CACV is going to have a time getting two of these ashore. The planned and failed EFV massed 36 metric tons, but at least if could float.
• The Corps does need MPF. Unfortunately, it has failed to develop a needs document aligned to its current/new strategy. Buying and back-fitting an M10 is going backwards.
• There are 93 of these (well, 92 now) in storage. With spares and special tools. I spoke to the driver of the special trailer that was used to transport most of them to a depot. The Curator of the USAAC confirmed the number and the PLL (parts) packaging also.
• Perhaps the Corps will try someone else’s MPF (mobile protected firepower) system, but the current administration doesn’t seem open to reversing the status quo.

[Trisaw]

A great summary…thank you!

[Trisaw]

The Marine Corps seems to be stuck in modernization because of the maintenance backlog of the US Navy’s amphibious ships not being repaired in time to meet sealift demands for the MEU. It’s no secret that the US Navy is far behind in fixing everything from warships to submarines. A lot of skilled veteran shipyard workers retired during COVID and didn’t train their replacements, if any. Furthermore, there is a demand for skilled welders elsewhere, such as SpaceX, where Tesla stock is popular and “hot.” Even the US Coast Guard’s icebreakers and Offshore Patrol Cutter is behind schedule.

Too bad the US Army’s Remote Combat Vehicle was canceled as that could have provided 30-50mm autocannon support. Also, the US Navy canceled SPIKE ATGM for reasons that they won’t explain so that means it’s Javelin, Hellfire, JAGM, and TOW ATGMs still.

Readiness plays a huge role in preparedness for deployment and a Marine general told the media that Readiness can affect modernization by just repairing vehicles and buying spare parts. Budgets can only stretch so far and the US spends a huge amount on Defense.

I haven’t seen a push to increase the vehicle firepower of the USMC beyond 30mm autocannon…and now FPV drones are popular.

I personally think that the USMC needs to adopt tracked vehicles again. It’s all wheeled vehicles now with the divestment of the USMC M1A1 tanks.

[Edro]

I was next to this yesterday, and here’s my thoughts

The Corps won’t acquire the M10
- The Corps does need MPF. Unfortunately, it has failed to develop a needs document aligned to its current/new strategy.

So long as Force Design remains USMC strategy, tanks will not have a place in the Corps. And thats the problem I have with Force Design. It’s inevitable, someday, there is going to be a war, or some kind of conflict, other than China, in which America will have to send in the Marines. If they don’t have armor support -tanks, a lot of Marines will lose their lives. FPV drones maybe the new thing, but there isn’t a substitute for tanks. The idea that the Army will provide tanks, the moment Marines need them is also folly.

Buying and back-fitting an M10 is going backwards

That’s standard operating procedure for the Marines…… The Marines were never large enough to have tanks specifically designed and built for their operations. Thus, while all tank designs were spearheaded by the Army, the Marines simply adopted and adapted those “Army” designs to their own needs, and it’s been “relatively” successful, (with some exceptions)
The M10 is an existing design which wouldn’t need very many modifications to adapt into Marine Corps use. With the Navy’s current LCAC fleet, there is no need to “float” the M10 or provide wading gear, for them to reach shore. The LCACs can easily carry the M10, drop them on the beach and fetch another. This is how it was done with the older Abrams and the M60A1 before it. Once on the dirt, it can function like any other tank, and provide the Marines with a cannon greater than 30mm. The 105mm may seem outdated, but the 105mm is still a great, highly accurate gun with a wide variety of ammo types available

- Perhaps the Corps will try someone else’s MPF (mobile protected firepower) system, but the current administration doesn’t seem open to reversing the status quo.

I would love for the current administration to recognize and reverse Force Design, and thus return the original role of the Marines in our national defense. I wouldn’t be opposed to keeping some elements of Force Design, in the sense that Marines could adopt an offensive strategy against an enemy naval force, but I’m dead set against reconfiguring the entire Corps to that one role, and giving up the capability of projecting a landing force from the sea.

In its current form, Force Design guts the Marines role as an expeditionary force in readiness, which in turn undermines America’s ability to rapidly deploy military force to hotspots anywhere in the world. That has to change and change quickly.

I don’t know if there is a MPF type vehicle that would fit the bill. A vehicle like the Centauro 2 has the firepower of a MBT, but the armor tends to be lighter, and wheeled mobility isn’t a match for tracks, especially in an amphibious role, in which a vehicle might have to traverse mud and water (not necessary deep water)

The old Cadillac Gage Stingray had been mentioned , so I’ll mention that possibility. The Army has no interest in it, but the Marines might, if it clicks all the boxes. In the overall picture, the Stingray is a light tank. It does carry a 105mm, which is good, but armor-wise, there is no advantage to any other AFV currently in Marine Corps inventory. If the Stingray could be up-armored and given a more powerful engine to counter the weight penalty with suspension upgrades, it might be a suitable option. But I don’t see it because the Stingray was specifically designed to be cheap so it would appeal to the export market. For the Marines, it would need some advanced technology to make it competitive against modern MBTs it may encounter, and thats a tall ask. In my opinion, the Marines really need a Main Battle Tank, the only MBT option in the US inventory is the Abrams and that’s getting too heavy, even for the Army. The M10 is the next best option, considering that it exists. There is no possibility for Marines to get the old M60A1s back, but they could get back those older M1A1s and A2s with a few upgrades. -Personally, I’d like to see a diesel variant of the Abrams for USMC use as the turbine engines are quite thirsty. Unfortunately there isn’t a current diesel in the 1000+ hp range available for an Abrams. The old AVDS1790 Conti engines are about 70 yrs old now and they were never designed to support over a thousand horsepower. That means either a new engine design or buy German MTU engines (provided they fit in the hull).

Anyway, as far fetched as it sounds, thats my opinion, for what it’s worth

Edro

[Trisaw]

There are a few “light tanks” that can be considered, but I seriously doubt the US Marines will consider them since they’re not “Made in the USA.”

There’s the Turkish Kaplan MT at 30-35 tons. (Click on image to enlarge).
[Kaplan MT / Harimau - Wikipedia]

But the US already has the domestically produced BAE M8 AGS and Stingray II light tank that are even lighter than the Kaplan.

And then Turkey’s FNSS also makes the Marine Assault Vehicle which looks like a modern upgraded version of the USMC’s decommissioned AAV7, but with a remote weapons station.

https://www.fnss.com.tr/en/products/mav-marine-assault-vehicle

I don’t know of the US Department of Defense buying any military system from Turkey even though Turkey is a NATO nation. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.

[Edro]

There are a few “light tanks” that can be considered, but I seriously doubt the US Marines will consider them since they’re not “Made in the USA.”

Preferably, US military vehicles should be “Made in the USA”. In my opinion, American national defense shouldn’t be left to or rely on foreign manufacture. Not that foreign manufacturers can’t produce high quality products, but when it comes to US national defense, the best option is to rely on our own production, for a variety of reasons. Having said that, there has been a number of vehicles in US service, of foreign design, such as the Marines, LAV-25, which is built under license. For the Kaplan to be considered, I would suspect, that vehicle would have to be manufactured, under license, in the US of A.

But the US already has the domestically produced BAE M8 AGS and Stingray II light tank that are even lighter than the Kaplan.

As I mentioned before, what the Marines really need is a Main Battle Tank. One (of many) of the problems which lead to the divestment of tanks in the first place from the Marine Corps, was that the M1 Abrams was putting on a lot of weight which greatly complicates the Marines doctrine of Amphibious Assault. By no means is the Booker a Main Battle Tank, but at this stage, anything is better than nothing at all, and at least the Booker addresses the weight concerns plaguing the Abrams.

The main problem with any light tank is, they generally don’t do as well against MBTs. For the Marines, this could be a great disadvantage as, they won’t have MBTs to support them if they run into larger numbers of enemy armor, until the Army arrives, which could be a considerable amount of time, if at all.

Edro