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

[Stuart Galbraith]

9 hours ago, Renegade334 said:

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).

I was hoping for a Gavin, just to upset Sparky. 'But I wanted an APC!' etc etc.

As far as the bankruptcy of Airborne forces, I was reading the other day, even the Soviets in the 1980's did not consider jumps into the teeth of the enemy to be very wise, except perhaps as coup de grace. They seem to have prefered to have considered using them on the flanks, Austria and Denmark, rather than throw away lots of perfectly good transports on the NATO air defence network.

Still, the Americans seem to prefer to use light infantry like the Russians use theirs today, as a highly mobile group to insert into trouble spots. I doubt anyone but a complete airborne anorak really considers combat jumps very likely these days.

I think they would be better off with a 'super Ontos' personally, but there we are.

Edited June 12, 2023 by Stuart Galbraith

[Burncycle360]

Super Ontos meaning 6x Davy Crocketts? 😁

[Ssnake]

[seahawk]

11 hours 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. 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?

Wiesel can be delivered by helicopter and it adds fire power and carrying capacity to light infantry units for very little costs. It still makes a lot of sense, maybe even more in the future when infantry will have to carry more drones and anti-drone systems.

[TrustMe]

France used parachutist in Mali in 2011 to secure an airfield for follow on troops. Okay, their was no massive air defence there but still ...

Edited June 12, 2023 by TrustMe

[bojan]

2 hours ago, TrustMe said:

France used parachutist in Mali in 2011 to secure an airfield for follow on troops. Okay, their was no massive air defence there but still ...

Small scale para insertations for colonial wars are still viable. Think what Rhodesians did, not D-day.

[Josh]

On 6/11/2023 at 2:25 PM, Burncycle360 said:

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

 

IMO, there is no need for a specialized airborne or amphibious tank. It seems incredibly unlikely that opposed landings/drops are ever attempted by the US again, given the risks. On the other hand a great case could be made for the USMC adopting the M-10 over the M-1, given the logistical difficulties of getting an M1 ashore and then supplying, most particularly in terms of fuel. A 40 ton medium tank would provide most of the direct fire support without a lot of the overhead of an M1.

EDIT: I was perplexed by the 105mm requirement/threshold, given that there are plenty of soft recoil 120mm designs and at 40 tons, soft recoil probably isn't even required. Not sure why you would want a separate ammunition stream from the main tank force. About all 105mm buys you is a few more rounds per vehicle, which doesn't seem worth it to me.

Edited June 12, 2023 by Josh

[TrustMe]

1 hour ago, Josh said:

IMO, there is no need for a specialized airborne or amphibious tank. It seems incredibly unlikely that opposed landings/drops are ever attempted by the US again, given the risks. On the other hand a great case could be made for the USMC adopting the M-10 over the M-1, given the logistical difficulties of getting an M1 ashore and then supplying, most particularly in terms of fuel. A 40 ton medium tank would provide most of the direct fire support without a lot of the overhead of an M1.

EDIT: I was perplexed by the 105mm requirement/threshold, given that there are plenty of soft recoil 120mm designs and at 40 tons, soft recoil probably isn't even required. Not sure why you would want a separate ammunition stream from the main tank force. About all 105mm buys you is a few more rounds per vehicle, which doesn't seem worth it to me.

Maybe a 120mm turret on a 40 ton vehicle would have centre of gravity problems ???

[bojan]

2 minutes ago, TrustMe said:

Maybe a 120mm turret on a 40 ton vehicle would have centre of gravity problems ???

2S25 says no.

[Sovngard]

5 minutes ago, TrustMe said:

Maybe a 120mm turret on a 40 ton vehicle would have centre of gravity problems ???

One of the AMX-32 prototype was armed with a L/52 120 mm smoothbore gun.

[Ssnake]

There are three ways to reduce recoil forces,

- lengthening the recoil path; usuanny not an option because of turret ring diameter restrictions

- reducing the propellant charge (but why then go with the 120mm caliber in the first place?)

- Muzzle brakes

The problem with the latter is, they are significantly increasing the firing signature, and they may obscure the observation of your own fire. Plus, they are a hazard for everybody around, in close to medium proximity.

 

As always in engineering: No free lunch, only trade-offs.

[Manic Moran]

The official nomenclature of the thing is "Combat Vehicle, Full Tracked, Light Armored: 105mm, XM10, Booker

[Burncycle360]

7 hours ago, Josh said:

IMO, there is no need for a specialized airborne or amphibious tank. It seems incredibly unlikely that opposed landings/drops are ever attempted by the US again, given the risks. On the other hand a great case could be made for the USMC adopting the M-10 over the M-1, given the logistical difficulties of getting an M1 ashore and then supplying, most particularly in terms of fuel. A 40 ton medium tank would provide most of the direct fire support without a lot of the overhead of an M1.

EDIT: I was perplexed by the 105mm requirement/threshold, given that there are plenty of soft recoil 120mm designs and at 40 tons, soft recoil probably isn't even required. Not sure why you would want a separate ammunition stream from the main tank force. About all 105mm buys you is a few more rounds per vehicle, which doesn't seem worth it to me.

That's way, way too low resolution. "Opposed landings" represent an entire spectrum of possibilities and we cannot rule anything out.  That's not to say we're going to be climbing the cliffs at Omaha, but we can absolutely assume they're going to shoot back in most cases.  The fact is, while it's better to land where the enemy is not, it's not always the case that there is enough coastline to do this.  Nor does it make sense to tell light infantry that there's no place for an HE throwing direct fire support vehicle capable of landing with them during the initial phases of an assault when it's entirely technically feasible to make this happen.

The problem with opting for the M10 over the M1 is that 40 tons is still too heavy for an LCAC to carry two, and not being amphibious they still cannot land during the initial wave. If you're going to be bringing the direct fire support vehicle in after the foothold is established anyway, you might as well bring the M1.  It would be better at defending that foothold against a counter-attacks that might involve OPFOR MBT, and it would also be better at spearheading a relief force to airmobile marines who may have secured advanced positions inland (bridges, airfields, key compounds, embassies, etc) where it also may encounter enemy MBT en route, as well as being better at securing those positions once there. 

The MBT can do MPF stuff, the MPF cannot do MBT stuff basically.  The 120mm can kill anything it encounters, the 105mm not necessarily. The M1 is able to resist 125mm while the M10 definitely cannot.  You can't assume the M10 won't encounter these threats just because it wasn't envisioned to fight them, especially if it's the only armor you've brought.  The logistics problems of the M1 (ie, fuel consumption) are a red herring here, marine M1s are operating closer to a supply head than any other M1 would be in any other operation ever, and don't forget the Marines have been operating with them for decades. Can it be a pain in the ass? Sure, but their unique considerations can be planned around.  The M1 brings a capability that cannot be replaced (they'll just use Army M1s if they need them, but M1s all the same).  In the meantime, there is a role for a MGS / MPF -- but if we're going to do it, it ought to be capable of doing something we can't do right now:  Land in the initial phases with the ACV, and have the mobility to bring a 120mm asset places where heavier vehicles (including the M10) cannot go.
 

[DKTanker]

People keep talking about the USMC and tanks.  The USMC hasn't had tanks for two years now, they deactivated their last M1A1 battalion May 2021.

[Stuart Galbraith]

And doubtless Marines are still screaming for 5 inch support on top of the 8 inch they never got. 

I think it telling that in the last 2 wars Russia has fought, in which vehicles specially developed for airdropping were used, neither were airdropped. In Georgia they were actually delivered via sea (bet the Naval Infantry were pig sick about that), and in Ukraine they drove into combat. Revealing the worst flaw of the vehicles, to no surprise of anyone, that they were inadequately protected. The one occasion when they might have been useful would have been Antonov airport, and they never used them, presumably because they were unwilling to risk MI26's to carry them.

I do wish the west would grow up from this fantasy of light forces springing into combat at the drop of a hat to achieve some miracle victory that heavy forces taking 2 months longer to get there could not. In reality all they are doing is giving Task Force Smith light support. 

 

[sunday]

6 hours ago, Manic Moran said:

The official nomenclature of the thing is "Combat Vehicle, Full Tracked, Light Armored: 105mm, XM10, Booker

Why the colon?

[Stuart Galbraith]

Because its going to get reamed.

[Manic Moran]

11 hours ago, sunday said:

Why the colon?

I have no idea, but that's what I got in the email from the head of PEO GCS

[Harold Jones]

11 hours ago, sunday said:

Why the colon?

The army nomenclature system (MIL-STD-1464A)specifies a colon after the item name in section 4.2.2.2 http://everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD-1400-1499/MIL-STD-1464A_5605/ this the summary from the wiki 

Quote

The complete nomenclature consists of an Approved Item Name (AIN), an extended modifier (if applicable), and the type designation. The AIN is presented in all capital letters, is not abbreviated, and is followed by a colon. Each AIN has a corresponding 6-digit Item Name Code (INC) which can be referenced in the H6 Cataloging Handbook. The extended modifier is in lower case and may contain abbreviations (which are capitalized). The type designation does not use any spaces or hyphens

I may have far too much time on my hands.

[sunday]

Curiouser and curiouser.

Thanks!

[Dawes]

In terms of overall capability, how would the M10 compare with something like Italy's Centauro 2 (with it's 120mm gun)?

[Burncycle360]

2 hours ago, Dawes said:

In terms of overall capability, how would the M10 compare with something like Italy's Centauro 2 (with it's 120mm gun)?

The 120mm from Centauro II is obviously going to be more effective should it happen to encounter another MBT.   I don't know off the top of my head the HE fill comparison between 120mm AMP and something like 105mm HE, but it's likely a better caliber for the fire support role round for round as well. Ammunition storage for Centauro is something like 40 rounds with 12 in the turret, IIRC.  Not sure on M10 but it uses an Abrams turret so presumably something like 44 105mm rounds in the bustle?  No idea WRT optics and FCS between the two, assumption is they're both good enough.

As far as overall capability, it's the normal wheels vs tracked stuff. Centauro 2 is faster on the roads, can go some places M10 cannot regarding local infrastructure (ie, bridge weight limits), is less likely to tear up roads during peacetime and peacekeeping / occupational stuff,  easier to transport strategically due to it's lighter weight, can theoretically limp away after a mine hit, most likely accelerates faster but also has a higher CG and more likely to roll over traversing uneven terrain, and has a larger turn radius compared to a tracked vehicle.

M10 is going to be more mobile cross-country and in adverse conditions like mud and softer ground,  it can turn in place (advantageous in urban areas, close terrain, for repositioning, etc), is in a different weight class (heavier) so likely has better base level protection against legacy non-MBT threats, with Abrams turret presumably the crew is more likely to survive ammunition deflagration (Centauro stores most of their ammo in the hull, no idea if the turret ready ammunition is in protective bustles) so crew survivability is likely going to be better for the M10 overall.

Both will be knocked out with one good hit from 125mm at any aspect, but they're not "tanks" so that's not really a ding on them since infantry brigade combat teams are not envisioned to ever encounter enemy MBTs 🙄, and if they do "we have javelin for that" they'll say, so I'm sure the brigade commander will keep them well out of harms way and not try to kill enemy MBT with the M10 anyway (j/k, they absolutely will).  The enemy will likely have terrible crews with outdated T-XX so the M-10 will probably win thankfully, but it's definitely risky and not best practice.

Edited June 14, 2023 by Burncycle360

[R011]

For an extra five tons, you can get 125 mm and more armour.

[Walter_Sobchak]

How did they arrive at the designation M10?  Last vehicle was the M8 Buford.  Was there an M9 that I missed?  I ask partly in jest, vehicle designations have seldom made sense.  Anyhow, lets all hope this new vehicle is better than it appears.

[methos]

Obviously the M9 Armored Combat Earthmover belongs to the same line as the M8 Buford and the M10 Booker.