Talk:M10 Booker

Military history: Land vehicles / Technology / North America / United States / Post-Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military land vehicles task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

This page is not a forum for general discussion about M10 Booker. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about M10 Booker at the Reference desk.

Essay-like addition

An IP has added an essay-like section attempting to explain the differences between light tanks and "mobile direct fire/mechanised fire support vehicles." There are a number of problems with this addition. The first graf is entirely unreferenced and the second one is cited to a bunch of random manufacturer data sheets and press releases from Rheinmetall and BAE. In addition to being off-topic WP:SYNTH this presents a number of falsehoods about light tanks as fact. In the modern day, [light tanks] generally weigh below 25 metric tons without add-on armor packages. Twenty-five metric tons is the arbitrary cut-off that Janes uses to classify a tank as either a light tank or a medium/MBT. The weight is generally not the defining trait that the U.S. Army has historically used to classify tanks after World War II. The role the vehicle is expected to perform is a much more important consideration. In the MPF's case, the vehicle is not expected to perform reconnaissance as a light tank would or take on MBTs as an MBT would, so the Army chooses not to label it as such.

It is important not to take the Army's idiosyncratic combat vehicle classification strategy to heart. Years ago, the brass responsible for procuring the AGS repeatly made clear that the AGS was not to be labeled as a light tank. They apparently weren't speaking for everybody because this advice was completely ignored by the officials who wrote the literal manuals for light armor operations. Schierbecker (talk) 23:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Light Tank

Calling it a "light tank" makes no sense at all, and I mean even apart from the official US Army speech conventions, which generally make little sense, either. Weighing in at 38 - 42 tons, the Booker is about as heavy as a T-72, and I guess we can all agree that the T-72 is a full-blown MBT, i.e. a main battle tank, even if slightly outdated by today's standards. Even calling it a "medium tank" would be a bit of a stretch, though that would come closer to the truth. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the project is cancelled now.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 08:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the "light tank" that makes no sense, it's the 42 ton weight that makes no sense. In 2013, when requirements for the M10 were first proposed, it was intended as a replacement for the M551 light tank - around 20 tons, transportable by C130. But over the years people kept adding this, and adding that, and eventually all the requirements added up to a 42 ton tank. So now it's basically just an overpriced, under gunned alternative to an M1 Abrams - the Army's version of the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship, effectively useless for the task it was originally intended for.

Definitely yes. It could have made sense if it had fit into an A400M (max 37t or so), and if the U.S. had just procured a bunch of those planes. Then they would still have a way of transporting it into combat zones. But with 42 tons, they will need a Globemaster, and that can as well transport an Abrams. Btw the Germans also have their Puma IFV that is too heavy for the A400M but they made the addon armour modular and field-mountable so they can fly it in. I've never understood the purpose of the Booker in its form - except to give the Army a reason (common platform) to choose the Ascod based IFV over the Lynx in 2027, obviously more malicious intent involved than supporting an effort to choose the objectively better vehicle. Now that the Booker manufacturer got booked, theoretically the choice can now fall again on just the better vehicle for the troops. But probably that project will get cancelled as well, frankly procuring an IFV variant of the AMPV makes the most sense. In any case, if you want to procure a few thousand IFVs and a few hundred 105mm gun carriers, you should first choose the IFV platform and then use that to put a 105mm gun turret on it. That said, the Booker might still make it on the international market, there are some countries that need such vehicles, e.g. mountainous areas or regions with many weak bridges etc.--OBrian (talk) 11:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]