Russian SPRUT-SDM, 125MM GUN , FULLY AMPHIBIOUS, CAN FIRE MAIN GUN WHILE SWIMMING. FULLY STABILIZED, FULLY AIR DROPPABLE COWARDLY american garbage 🗑 m110 booker doesn't even come close😒 🙄
Yes. Main battle tanks. 120 mm main guns or larger versus 105 mm. The reason why it's called Mobile Protrcted Firepower is because leadership doesn't want it used as a tank. It provides direct fire support for infantry, not to engage enemy armour. The Abrams and air assets like the Apache and A-10 Warthog exist to engage enemy armour. Plus portable systems like the Javelin.
Retired Abrams Commander here. I had the experience of also being trained on and operated with the XM1128 Stryker MGS, and 105mm is way deadlier than most people think. 105 also has a larger assortment of ammo types, like HEP for wall breaching and obstacle reduction. The breech is also much easier to service in the field!
The M10 Booker isn't filling the same role as the Abrams though, we shouldn't really compare them to each other or other main battle tanks, with this vehicle designed and built to be paired with light infantry units to give them the same assault power of an armored unit with direct fire support to quickly and effectively eliminate fortified positions, when an enemy tank is spotted for example the M10 Booker is ideally going to pull back and let the Light Infantry hit it with an ATGM before moving back up.
If the Engine takes a direct hit from an enemy main battle tank it most certainly won't still function however the engine will more than likely eat up the projectile and save the crew's lives which is much more important, the engine is both figuratively and literally taking a hit for the team.
I hope they make a better job of building this than they did of the Ajax IFV as it was a 15 year Cluster Fcuk, and eventually they got it sorted maybe.
It's NOT a tank. It's a mobile protection for infantry. To shot at enemy fighting position, bunkers, foxholes. Whatever would slow the infantry down. So they don't need to call for airpower. They would move and train with the main tanks.
With the armor being incapable of standing up to any modern main battle tank's gun I don't think that's much of a problem, enemy projectiles will likely punch through the weaker armor rather than slide along it. However it isn't designed to be trading hits with other tanks but designed to push against fortified positions along side light infantry, the light infantry will ideally deal with an enemy tank before the M10 Booker gets into a scuffle with it. But I'm taking that battle plan with a grain of salt because no plan survives first contact with the enemy.
@@riverinafritsch2573we won't send light infantry to take on heavy armor in the first place and in the off chance they should encounter an MBT it would likely be an air strike or guided artillery that makes the kill. Also, that 105mm is a high pressure cannon for a reason and I'm sure that the booker will field the famous 105mm "silver bullet" well capable of dealing with MBT's at range if the need should arrive.
Hmmm… $320M for 26 tanks… that’s over $12M for a vehicle that can still be defeated by a single $249K missile. How about building combat drone tanks fitted with 4 anti-tank and 4 surface-to-air missiles, networked and run by AI to follow the operational battle plan of the day? Make them small, armored only to withstand small arms fire, and priced low enough to almost be disposable combat equipment. Put 1,000 of these in the field per assault, or dug-in berms for defensive warfare. The U.S. has too long attempted to win wars through limited numbers of highly advanced weaponry… in a world where a hobbiest drone plus one shaped charge warhead can destroy the biggest, baddest tank, the days of tanks is coming to the same end as did the battleships of WWII. One refurbished armored personnel C&C carrier plus 100 drone mini-tanks could win just about any battle these days. Hugely expensive tanks are now in the combat category of “targets”.
aAaAA retired General Dynamics director, previously worked in San Diego, probably more than 85 yrs old now, is exploiting illegally US monitoring satellite to harass normal US civilians, inside USA & all over the world for his own entertainment & amusement. These remote sensors of the monitoring satellites are such that they can capture the words you're thinking in your mind, may be, by air vibration or by scanning the waves from your brain. This retired General Dynamics director could have been the mastermind behind the plane crash killing the Secretary of Commerce Ronald Brown of the Clinton Administration, in the plane crash in 1996 in Croatia.
Deadly to the crew. The 105mm cannon if iffy against any modern MBT. Its gross overkill against a BMP. So what is this overgunned/undergunned tracked target supposed to fight? The 105mm gun is simply put, stupid. A long way from one shot kill against a Current T-90 with reactive armor... but the enemy will be a 2033 MBT. Seriously 105mm? A 57mm will kill anything but an MBT at 200rpm with a lighter, more responsive turret. Use a pair of javelin or TOW missiles for the chance MBT and your tank is both lighter and far more survivable with the 57mm outgunning BMT and taking out anything but an MBT. A 105mm weapon suggests strongly that this thing was a weapon born in a congressional committee. This thing is going to get alot of US crews killed. Personally, I think this "brain child" had to involve a transaction paid in rubles. No one's this stupid unless they are paid.
The purpose of it isn't to fight enemy armour. The Abrams will do that. It's to provide direct fire support for infantry. During the mission in Afghanistan Canada deployed Leopard 1's with 105 mm main guns to provide direct fire support before acquiring Leopard II's and deploying them.
the 105 is a great weapon, some of the new shells for the 105 can defiantly penetrate a modern mbt, some nations use the 105 still for there mbt's. not to mentions there are a good amount of reasons as why a cannon is can be more useful. cannons have a longer effective range then auto cannons such as the one on the bmp 3. cannons can fire more shell types such as HEAT. cannons are good at penetrating fortified positions and can pierce concrete more accurately and effectively. the main job of this tank is to support frontline infantry, frontline infantry commonly faces entrenchments and bunker which cannons tend to be better for. also active protection can stop a atgm no problem. but what it can't stop is a uranium 105mm APFSDS shell flying threw your tank and 1,600 meters per second/
Technically, a tank is designed to hold either a gas or a liquid, and only rarely is it fitted any type of gun. One example would be the tank on a fertilizer truck which spreads manure over croplands.
Funny you should say that seeing as the first tank was called a tank in hopes that enemy intelligence would believe that it was for holding a liquid and the name has stuck ever since.
Is there a deadlier tank out there right now?
Russian SPRUT-SDM, 125MM GUN , FULLY AMPHIBIOUS, CAN FIRE MAIN GUN WHILE SWIMMING. FULLY STABILIZED, FULLY AIR DROPPABLE COWARDLY american garbage 🗑 m110 booker doesn't even come close😒 🙄
Yeah, and they're all 50 years old
T-72B
Yes. Main battle tanks. 120 mm main guns or larger versus 105 mm.
The reason why it's called Mobile Protrcted Firepower is because leadership doesn't want it used as a tank.
It provides direct fire support for infantry, not to engage enemy armour. The Abrams and air assets like the Apache and A-10 Warthog exist to engage enemy armour.
Plus portable systems like the Javelin.
You are a joker.
Retired Abrams Commander here. I had the experience of also being trained on and operated with the XM1128 Stryker MGS, and 105mm is way deadlier than most people think. 105 also has a larger assortment of ammo types, like HEP for wall breaching and obstacle reduction. The breech is also much easier to service in the field!
The M10 Booker isn't filling the same role as the Abrams though, we shouldn't really compare them to each other or other main battle tanks, with this vehicle designed and built to be paired with light infantry units to give them the same assault power of an armored unit with direct fire support to quickly and effectively eliminate fortified positions, when an enemy tank is spotted for example the M10 Booker is ideally going to pull back and let the Light Infantry hit it with an ATGM before moving back up.
Agree completely, it doesn't have a role. Many other designs with smaller, more nimble guns would be vastly superior.
Definitely Canada needs these
Well....I hope it works out better than the Sheridan.
I didn’t hear anything about it’s power plant! What type is it? How protected is it? Can in sustain a hit and still function?
If the Engine takes a direct hit from an enemy main battle tank it most certainly won't still function however the engine will more than likely eat up the projectile and save the crew's lives which is much more important, the engine is both figuratively and literally taking a hit for the team.
It's all fluff words, with ZERO specifics. I block these channels
What is the speed of this vehicle
I hope they give the Marines some.
That's specifically what it's meant for, among other things.
I saw a USMC graphic showing the M10 s in their unit TO+Es @ 2038 or so. Trying to find it again.
Fuck that. Give them backtheir abrams
Its very! similar, to a Leopard 1 from the 60ies! 38to, 105mm, Nimble, fast, Diesel. hehe!
Hard enough to maintain our Leopard II's.
Just will have those and the LAV 6.0 and derivatives of it.
I hope they make a better job of building this than they did of the Ajax IFV as it was a 15 year Cluster Fcuk, and eventually they got it sorted maybe.
What about armour?? They really need to add armour at the top of the Turret thank to the Ukrainian war.
There are better ways to defend against top attack munitions.
7:07 Look how thin the hull is around the driver's hatch. How could they make a tank hull that thin?
Those are abrams. What are you talking abour.
All hail king booker T
It's NOT a tank. It's a mobile protection for infantry. To shot at enemy fighting position, bunkers, foxholes. Whatever would slow the infantry down. So they don't need to call for airpower. They would move and train with the main tanks.
The original tank was an infantry support vehicle, pretty much exactly what you describe. Read some freaking history.
A direct fire vehicle to support the infantry.
@@charlesfaure1189right on!
So many shot traps.
With the armor being incapable of standing up to any modern main battle tank's gun I don't think that's much of a problem, enemy projectiles will likely punch through the weaker armor rather than slide along it. However it isn't designed to be trading hits with other tanks but designed to push against fortified positions along side light infantry, the light infantry will ideally deal with an enemy tank before the M10 Booker gets into a scuffle with it. But I'm taking that battle plan with a grain of salt because no plan survives first contact with the enemy.
@@riverinafritsch2573we won't send light infantry to take on heavy armor in the first place and in the off chance they should encounter an MBT it would likely be an air strike or guided artillery that makes the kill. Also, that 105mm is a high pressure cannon for a reason and I'm sure that the booker will field the famous 105mm "silver bullet" well capable of dealing with MBT's at range if the need should arrive.
Come on it’s not lightweight enough to be air dropped and it’s not heavy enough armored combat
It's not meant to fight enemy armour. That's what the Abrams is for.
It's to provide direct fire support for infantry.
The M8 Buford AGS- is airdroppable. Should get them for the 11th and 82d Airborne Divisions, 173d Abn BCT and a ACR for XVIII Airborne Corps
Hmmm… $320M for 26 tanks… that’s over $12M for a vehicle that can still be defeated by a single $249K missile. How about building combat drone tanks fitted with 4 anti-tank and 4 surface-to-air missiles, networked and run by AI to follow the operational battle plan of the day? Make them small, armored only to withstand small arms fire, and priced low enough to almost be disposable combat equipment. Put 1,000 of these in the field per assault, or dug-in berms for defensive warfare. The U.S. has too long attempted to win wars through limited numbers of highly advanced weaponry… in a world where a hobbiest drone plus one shaped charge warhead can destroy the biggest, baddest tank, the days of tanks is coming to the same end as did the battleships of WWII. One refurbished armored personnel C&C carrier plus 100 drone mini-tanks could win just about any battle these days. Hugely expensive tanks are now in the combat category of “targets”.
... THAT'S NOT A TANK.
The original tank was an infantry support vehicle. Deal with it.
It is not a tank. Deal with it.@@charlesfaure1189
The 105mm is sub par, you just know we will have to pay for the upgraded 120mm some day
105 mm works for direct fire support for infantry which is what this was adopted for.
The Abrams will take on enemy armour.
Looks like a BMP with a turret.
aAaAA retired General Dynamics director, previously worked in San Diego, probably more than 85 yrs old now, is exploiting illegally US monitoring satellite to harass normal US civilians, inside USA & all over the world for his own entertainment & amusement.
These remote sensors of the monitoring satellites are such that they can capture the words you're thinking in your mind, may be, by air vibration or by scanning the waves from your brain.
This retired General Dynamics director could have been the mastermind behind the plane crash killing the Secretary of Commerce Ronald Brown of the Clinton Administration, in the plane crash in 1996 in Croatia.
It looks like a variation of the Israel 'Merkava'.
??? Merkava weighs nearly DOUBLE!
Deadly to the crew. The 105mm cannon if iffy against any modern MBT. Its gross overkill against a BMP. So what is this overgunned/undergunned tracked target supposed to fight?
The 105mm gun is simply put, stupid. A long way from one shot kill against a Current T-90 with reactive armor... but the enemy will be a 2033 MBT. Seriously 105mm?
A 57mm will kill anything but an MBT at 200rpm with a lighter, more responsive turret.
Use a pair of javelin or TOW missiles for the chance MBT and your tank is both lighter and far more survivable with the 57mm outgunning BMT and taking out anything but an MBT.
A 105mm weapon suggests strongly that this thing was a weapon born in a congressional committee.
This thing is going to get alot of US crews killed.
Personally, I think this "brain child" had to involve a transaction paid in rubles.
No one's this stupid unless they are paid.
The purpose of it isn't to fight enemy armour. The Abrams will do that.
It's to provide direct fire support for infantry.
During the mission in Afghanistan Canada deployed Leopard 1's with 105 mm main guns to provide direct fire support before acquiring Leopard II's and deploying them.
the 105 is a great weapon, some of the new shells for the 105 can defiantly penetrate a modern mbt, some nations use the 105 still for there mbt's. not to mentions there are a good amount of reasons as why a cannon is can be more useful. cannons have a longer effective range then auto cannons such as the one on the bmp 3. cannons can fire more shell types such as HEAT. cannons are good at penetrating fortified positions and can pierce concrete more accurately and effectively. the main job of this tank is to support frontline infantry, frontline infantry commonly faces entrenchments and bunker which cannons tend to be better for. also active protection can stop a atgm no problem. but what it can't stop is a uranium 105mm APFSDS shell flying threw your tank and 1,600 meters per second/
Technically, a tank is designed to hold either a gas or a liquid, and only rarely is it fitted any type of gun. One example would be the tank on a fertilizer truck which spreads manure over croplands.
Funny you should say that seeing as the first tank was called a tank in hopes that enemy intelligence would believe that it was for holding a liquid and the name has stuck ever since.
Its crap. Any 12 yr old can poke a hole in it with a rocket.
Actual brainrot