Posts
It's clear from reading lots of armchair analysis about the M10 Booker that the decades of main battle tank being the only tank has corroded the thinking of lots of people.
No, the M10 is not going to stand toe to toe with an MBT and win.
Light tanks are not, and never have been, able to do that.
But we got out of the light/medium/heavy mix back in the sixties.
The main battle tank is, essentially, a medium tank with a heavy tank's gun.
Improvements in materials and drivetrain even allowed an MBT to start sporting heavy tank armor too.
The light tank role got taken over by APCs and MICV's (read M113 and Bradley).
So the question that should be asked of the Booker is if it does the job better than an M3A4 Bradley, not if it can do the job of an M1A2 Abrams.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteTwo things.
DeleteFirst, you can't read. I said what you said but I was less verbose about it.
Second, you can't read. You didn't follow the instructions for making a comment.
Angus, you make me laugh...panzer guy...
ReplyDeleteInteresting... As one who commanded M-113's and even got to test the suitability of the M-2 Bradley as an Engineer vehicle (it is not, simply not enough room for all the stuff we needed to tote around) I understand there are places the MBTs cannot go and things that would be nice to have ANY tank along to throw in that direct fire assist... So, I can certainly see where the option would be useful, but please let it be more useful than the old Sheridan...
ReplyDeleteIn an intelligent mix, something like the Booker is for when you need more fire and assault support for infantry than a Bradley can provide, but not requiring committing your Abrams MBTs (and their crushing log tail) to the fray.
ReplyDeleteIE the same thing the Gun Stryker or LAV would have provided, but which no one was willing to buy in any numbers, after witnessing the abortion the Sheridan was (it was only useful as a VIZMOD T-72).
History predicts the Booker will go the same route, in the end. For the grunts' sake, one would hope not, but that's never a consideration in Pentagon acquisition and purchasing. Which also explains the new small arms ideas.