US Army's Mobile Protected Firepower vehicle to be named "M10 Booker"

[Dawes]

Been quite some time since the US Army had a tracked vehicle to officially name:

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2023/06/10/us-armys-new-combat-vehicle-named-for-soldiers-killed-in-iraq-wwii/

[BansheeOne]

I'm officially old, because my first thought was this.

[Rick]

Can never understand why the U.S. Army believes it needs a light tank.

[TrustMe]

2 hours ago, Rick said:

Can never understand why the U.S. Army believes it needs a light tank.

Both the Russians and the Chinese are fielding light tanks.

[bojan]

For Russia, while 2S25 is for all effect "light tank" it is under artillery branch, used in self-propelled AT batteries of Para Rgt or SPAT Bn of Para Bde. None other than paras use those and there is whole lot of 36 or so of those. IOW largely irrelevant.

For China they have two, - standard one (Type 15) and amphibious one (designation escapes me ATM). First one is primary used in whole area of harsh mountains with very poor infrastructure. And it does not do anything that T-55 with decent FCS can not do. Unless US plans to fight in Tibet or other such areas Type 15 is largely irrelevant. Amphibious one is concern for Taiwan, but not that it needs any special measures to counter. And even if it did, US fielding "light tank" is not that measure.

 

 

[Dawes]

Well, at least they didn't re-use the name "Sgt York".

[Harold Jones]

I guess the airborne was crying out for 4" support.

[Dawes]

Send a few to Ukraine for operational testing. Nothing shakes out your design like actual combat.

[TrustMe]

1 hour ago, bojan said:

... And it does not do anything that T-55 with decent FCS can not do. Unless US plans to fight in Tibet or other such areas Type 15 is largely irrelevant....

I believe that the design of the T15  has some sort of technology so that it's engine can operate at peek efficiency even at high altitudes.

[bojan]

Claimed to.

And is is generally irrelevant, since no one is going to liberate Tibet.

[Walter_Sobchak]

5 hours ago, Rick said:

Can never understand why the U.S. Army believes it needs a light tank.

The Army has been very adamant that it is not a tumor light tank.  And at 38 tons, I believe them.  

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2023/06/10/its-not-light-tank-army-unveils-new-armored-combat-vehicle.html

 

[RichTO90]

Medium Weight Armor strikes again. We skewered the reasoning behind that iteration 23 years ago.

[bfng3569]

MGS replacement......

[Burncycle360]

While I acknowledge there are some areas in which a 40 ton can operate where a 65-70 ton cannot, there will almost certainly be tremendous overlap in places where an M1 is supported... but an M10 is what you get, increasing the risk to that crew.

Meanwhile, we still don't have an air droppable MGS for the airborne, or an amphibious one for the USMC -- two places where there actually is a real niche that could use filling.  Maybe one day someone in a position to make decisions looks at the Sprut SD and starts breathing heavy

 

Edited June 11, 2023 by Burncycle360

[usernamedeleted]

2 hours ago, bojan said:

And is is generally irrelevant, since no one is going to liberate Tiber.

True that America has few designs there.

But it is highly relevant if China fears that an increasingly nationalistic and right-wing India may attack disputed holdings in Xinjiang and Tibet. As they have had multiple violent skirmishes, including several in 2020-2021, this is not an abstract concern.

Type 15s would also be useful in undeveloped, rugged regions of North Korea and Vietnam. For the latter, they may recall rather heavy losses of Type 62 light tanks in the Sino-Viet War.

3 hours ago, TrustMe said:

I believe that the design of the T15  has some sort of technology so that it's engine can operate at peek efficiency even at high altitudes.

So it is said. I've never seen descriptions, but it is almost certainly turbocharged. As some Chinese medium tanks are too, possibly this is an elaboration, a two-stage with an intercooler, or something like that (or maybe it is exaggerated). Also, for really high altitudes, might have provision for supplemental O2 bottles for the crew.

[Ssnake]

It's dubious that air delivery anywhere near a frontline with a defender even with 1980s air defense tech is a promising proposal.

Medium armor might work in an environment with low chance to meet tank threats, if equipped with active protection against infantry anti-tank weapons.

Insofar, the Booker might be, while not entirely satisfying, a realistic compromise with sufficient growth potential as an assault gun type infantry support vehicle.

[Stuart Galbraith]

And the Hooker light tank was born..

 

 

 

 

[Dawes]

The "M10 McNamara" has a certain ring to it.

[Ssnake]

...with a truly integrated fire control system, Codename Westmoreland. Working principle: Whenever you kill a target, the vehicle automatically abandons the current fire position.

[bojan]

2 hours ago, Ssnake said:

It's dubious that air delivery anywhere near a frontline with a defender even with 1980s air defense tech is a promising proposal...

One thing that could be gleamed from Ukraine that none has really talked about* is that classic airborne, jumping from the transport planes is simply dead as dodo vs even second rate AD network. Hence vehicles like M8, 2S25, BMDs, Wiesel and whatever the China has are relics of the long gone age and  as such redundant.

*Maybe because everyone realized that already?

Edited June 11, 2023 by bojan

[Renegade334]

Eh, was hoping for a M10 Schwarzkopf, but I guess USAR has since switched to naming its new vehicles after soldiers who died in the line of duty (like the Stryker - also named after two unrelated individuals who perished in two different wars).

[Ssnake]

1 hour ago, bojan said:

One thing that could be gleamed from Ukraine that none has really talked about* is that classic airborne, jumping from the transport planes is simply dead as dodo vs even second rate AD network.

Eh, that was professional opinion at Officer's School even in the late 1980s.

Still, I see the Wiesel as the continuation of the Bren Carrier in that it provides mobility and fire support for light infantry. It doesn't have to be delivered by plane or helicopter to be useful. Wiesel is small enough to fit through narrow passages in mountain villages if necessary, and it can carry substantial firepower - whether it's a heavy mortar, an autocannon, or ATGM launcher. The relevant point is, it expands the capabilitry of light infantry in general, not just paratroopers, without a massive logistical footprint.

[Burncycle360]

There are still applications for airborne and air assault, it's just that advances in AD will require more careful consideration with regards to their use.

The 173rd did jump into Bashur in 2003, tying up around 6 divisions of Iraqis to secure their northern flank.  In this case the DZ was secured by Kurds and ideally MBTs would be part of the follow on forces arriving at the airfield hours later to secure a foothold, but an argument could be made that light armor would have been advantageous in the absence of anything heavier particularly in those first 24 hours in order to disrupt any counter attacks by QRF.  You could also posit that liberal application of Javelins would accomplish the same task, but not only does this not preclude their use also, but direct fire support to reduce compounds in securing the AO isn't something that Javelins are better at than HE throwers.  Something along the lines of 120mm cannon or a breech loading 120mm mortar would be useful.

Likewise the USMC could use something alongside the AAV (or ACV now) to help secure the initial foothold and repel counter attacks until it's safe to bring in LCACs with M1s which can shore up the foothold and even project deeper to relieve air-mobile forces securing advance objectives.

Finally, being light infantry both of these specialized units would benefit from assets capable of filling niche roles: ie, having a particularly low ground pressure so they can operate in areas where MBTs or even heavy IFVs cannot.  Or for applications like CAAT teams - I can't think of any situation where HMMWVs would be preferable to something like CVR(T) or Wiesels, given the option.

 

[bojan]

40 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

Eh, that was professional opinion at Officer's School even in the late 1980s.

Still almost everyone tried to keep those in "old school role", US and Russia in particular (maybe also China, don't know enough about that one)..

Quote

Still, I see the Wiesel as the continuation of the Bren Carrier in that it provides mobility and fire support for light infantry...

I agree that dedicated light armor for infantry formations can be quite nice thing to have, basically as you noted Bren/tankettes on (some) steroids. Wiesel did it quite well, and AFAIK did it relatively cheaply. British CVRT series also. Those just don't have to be airdopable and have other limitations that come from their airborne origin.

Edited June 11, 2023 by bojan

[Ssnake]

I like the discipline in thinking that "air transportable" as a requirement instills in the military when composing their wish lists (unless it's the US, where bloated requirements lists are indicative of deeper problems).