I am a 69 year old retired U.S. Army Master Sergeant (E8/1972-1993) and former Defense Contractor (2005-2010). In my opinion this is a total waste of money! Although tracked, this is similar to the M1128 wheeled Mobile Gun System and will probably end up going the same way in the end. They can tell you what is isn't, but have a hard time articulating what it is. While they deny it, this is nothing more or less than a light tank and much more vulnerable because of that. When heavy tanks are having a tough time on the battlefields of Ukraine, how do you think this vehicle will do against drones and anti-armor weapons? What is really needed in my opinion are assault guns and flame thrower tanks for urban environments. We haven't had something like an assault gun since we retired the M728 Combat Engineer Vehicle. It's replacement, the M1150 Assault Breacher Vehicle, got rid of the gun which in my opinion was a silly decision. The 165mm M135 short-barreled demolition gun which fired HEP (high explosive, plastic) squash head ammunition was perfect for dealing with structures and fortifications of all types in an urban environment. I know since I was a mechanized combat engineer squad leader in an Armored Cav Regiment from 1980-1984, and we had these vehicles. Flame thrower tanks should also be brought back as well. They have an extreme psychological and intimidation effect on the battlefield and are great for clearing people out of structures and fortifications. Getting rid of flamethrowers of all types was one of the biggest mistakes the army made years ago when the decision was made to eliminate them.

Nine minutes of vague claims and generalities. This was more like a marketing pitch than an informative review.

Really? Change the battlefield for ever? Watching events in Ukraine really does not make me think this no doubt wonderful vehicle is going to change anything. Was waiting to hear details of how it was going to be designed to deal with dense mine fields and drone swarms. The chain gun on the Bradly is currently looking at one of the most effective weapons you can have! Active defence systems like Trophy? Did I miss something?

The angled armor exposing the turret ring seem to be a glaring flaw.

Come on, it's a light tank. Not tank-like, it's a tank.

I can't believe they're still designing manned tanks

In WWII, the Sturmgeschütz was defined as an Assault vehicle. It was used a defacto tank by Field command despite 'orders' from above..

One word will destroy your marketing pitch like a drone on a tank: DRONE. Boomm......

After WWII the US had the M41 Walker Bulldog and made it for Korea, then before Vietnam the Sheridan M551 which was a light recon vehicle for the cavalry regiments in Europe, Vietnam, and the 82nd Airborne Division. I can see a full circle going back for a light tank to support light infantry and to equip cavalry squadrons and troops with additional light armor capabilities. Old ideas become new again I ever wonder?

If you don't plan for anti-drone defense you're pissing in the wind these days

Looks like an updated FV101 Scorpion.

I welded the Hull on the prototype of this tank back in 2014ish.

They need an anti air version. Thales has a turret available that uses a 40 mm Rapidfire anti air cannon combined with Martlet missiles. Just pop one of them on every tenth Booker hull.

Awesome!😊

Surely it would have been better to have a 120mm gun for ammunition commonality. You could have had the cv90/120 .

Sounds like the M551 Sheridan, a metal coffin!

4:40 it even integrates a hydration system for the soldiers to the right and back of the vehicle!!! Smart Water?

So it's a Sherman.

They need to develop an automatic anti drone defense unit. (with both Jammers and activate hard kill systems) To mount on vehicles, and small remote operated vehicles. Without such protection a vehicle like this is a waste of money. I also think it would be better armed with a 50 mm chain gun, independent 40 mm GL, and auto reload ATGMs. Or develop a 105 that can fire 50 rounds a minute.

A roughly 40 to 42 tonne tank with a 105mm gun? High mobility with reasonable protection. The Leopard 1 was a great balance back in the day

This is cute. Even a fictional modernized Leopard 1 would offer comparable capabilities at a fraction of the system costs.

It's basically the same as an AMX-13 105, a Kurassier, or the Textron Stingray. You are simply paying $12.9 million a piece for an old idea. Poland has a similar system with a 120mm gun. Same with South Korea. Turkey can put a 105mm on their Otokar Arma for about $2 million. Japanese Type 10 MBT is $11.3 million or you could get the Type 16 fire support vehicle for $6.2 million. The only thing revolutionary about the M10 Booker is how quickly it is ripping off the American taxpayer.

It’s great

We just needed a lighter tank to travel over bridges and roads in European and Far Eastern countries, plus it helps getting them over there being lighter. Upgrading them with anti drone capabilities help too. Our MBT in WW2 was an M4 Sherman medium tank.

*Derived from the Austrian-Spanish ASCOD infantry fighting vehicle-platform, the GDLS Griffin II was offered under Army's Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF). In accordance with the program's caliber requirements, it incorporated a 105 mm M35 tank gun and a redesigned chassis.*

Ukraine shows that we need a different look at this waste of a tank!

The armor must be very strong...40 tons for a small tank. The T-72B3 is 46 tons. Only 6 tons more for a MBT.

It's a nice little tank.

They better be able to deploy these in the thousands. A real war is fought with numbers and logistics, not who has the fanciest toy.

General Dynamics is the USA. There are no other winners to these military “competitions”

Actually Its been a really smooth and fast development for a US armored vehicle. I like it, they did the procurement right with all the basics done well and nothing more. The suspension is a big deal. The UK has used this kind of suspension great effect in the Challenger 2

Looks similar with the AMX 10 RC: a significant amount of of fire on a light and fast platform.

It is the Argentine TAM

Super ergonomics

Ukraine is teaching us that mech warfare is changing, and changing fast. This IMHO is the past, not the future.

Smells like a Great Leap Backward.

For light infantry to be effective on future battlefields. They will need their own organic armor. The Booker appears to fulfill that role.

We something like the Gepard. Proven against drones, anti-air. Twin 54mm bushmaster canons.

Nothing can replace the M1 Abrams

In a combat brigade this booker fits. Mated with a couple bradley a3 and a few abrams and some air support i see this as a good thing. The Abrams are still needed no mattter what but a booker with bradleys and a atgm squad yeah the would run over alot of forces.

It leaks all ready

It needs more spaced armor especially on the whole turret. If they really want to have a capable light tank then it needs to protect its turret more because any peer enemy militaries will have heat shells which includes top attack munitions

Front-mounting the engine gave the designers a perfect opportunity to include a rear hatch, like the one on the Israeli Merkava, for ease of escape, and potential storage space for additional ammo. Looks like they didn't do that.

It’s DOA. “Mister Booker, meet Mister FPV Suicide Drone.” 💥

A key purpose of the Booker is to enable armored infantry support using the narrow roads and bridges of Europe. The Abrams cannot pass over most bridges and roads on mountainous terrain. It would be a prudent idea to add anti-tank rockets like the Javelin or TOW to the Booker to defend itself from enemy tanks.

looks to me like a drone flying into the slot between the chassis and turret would make it look more like a t-72 Jack-in-the-box Russian tank.

this astounding machine enables the crew to apply their makeup on the run..............

Maybe a stat4ement of how, specifically, the tank would be used would have been helpful.

Not calling it a light tank is fine, but they’re manning it with soldiers with a tanker MOS. Tankers are naturally going to use it like a main battle tank.

Tasty target for smart munitions

Seems quite expensive… more expensive than m1a2s??

In essence we are looking at a souped up and tracked Centauro.

Now we have another tank name after a person

I hope some commander doesn’t make some decision to use this “tanks” in some inappropriate manner. Like happened with the Styker.

Last light tank we had was the Sheridan. They can call it whatever they want its still a tank and its a waste of money

The tracks are way way too narrow for the deep mud and snow of Russia. Build tanks that can swap between extremely wide tracks, ordinary tracks, and running on its steel wheels in the dry season. If you build tanks that can't, you'll have to design and build a whole new set of tracked vehicles on new chassis after war breaks out. Which shows the true purpose of today's substandard vehicles: to profit military contractors.

So the US Army finally came back around to the mission of the STG 3 and 4! How is that changing the battle field forever? A tank designed to support Infantry assigned to Infantry units. Man if only the German's had tried that in France in 1940. They might have created I don't know lets call it the Blitzkrieg. Man those Frenchie's wouldn't have never stood a chance I'm guess.

just as easily destroyed as every other tank these days. I was a tanker in the 70's, at least we had a chance back then but not any more....

I think it needs some sort of rapid fire mechanism like the Bradley. This one at a time thing is not effective

Yeah, okay, you sold me! Can I get one in red with a white racing stripe and Crager wheels? Does it come with 8 track or cassette?

Will the M10 be fielded in the ACRs or will Armor Calvary Regiments keep Abrams MBTs?

the M10 is a schmexy beast.

I like the vechicle, but it has the wrong gun. For pretty much any mission, the 105 is either too big or not big enough. I'd have gone with a vehicle with the same chassis, but with the entire crew down in the hull for better protection. The crew capsule would be armored to STANAG level 6. The turret would be an unmanned remote weapons systems, with either the French 40mm CTA gun, ore the 50mm Bushmster from the Griffin II demonstrator. The gun would have a high level of elevation for urbar or AA warfare. Of course there's be a coax 7.62mm MG. In addition, the RWS would have modular bolt on armored box launchers for a mumber of missiles (Hellfire, Javelin, Stinger, 70mm Hydra, and any other necessary. The vehicle would have a acive protection system to defeat ATGMs. This vehicle would be lighter, better protected. more versatile. and cheaper to operate (only 3 man crew) than the M19 as it currently exists.

I agree on flamethrowers. Also, where is the frontal protection for tank . Did they ever consider it to have a ant tank weapon on it? You never know the meets T72 in battle.

'Tank like vehicle'? Its a tank!

Any anti drone defense? Drone survivability?

How does it do against drones?

I'd like to know what that do-hickey is that's mounted on the main gun mantle??? It looks like an Angler Fish's lure, it's even moveable like one, lol.

This vehicle reminds me of the light tank of WWII called the Stuart. It was a failure from the outset and was not competitive with any first line German tank even in North Africa early in the war despite being called the "Honey" by the British. It was only useful in the Pacific against poor Japanese tanks. Despite the hype of this video I predict it will not last any length of time against either Russian or even Chinese tanks. This tank fails in both conception and performance. The army even fails to call it a tank and calls it bureaucrat speak a "mobile protected firepower". What nonsense.

The name "M-10" made me think of the A-10 warthog 30MM gun on a light tank.

Oh come on, the combat vehicle won't change the battlefield FOREVER but SHORT LIVE.

You know what's going to be funny when a $200 drone takes out this 10 million tank the battlefield is changing and while they still may be effective in certain circumstances are ridiculously easy to take out with a drone

What advantage does it have over the M1tank? Dramatically cheaper? Dramatically more deployable? Is it air drop able? How many more can fit on an aircraft?

If they put these in light infantry battalions all you'll end up with is a less effective mechanized unit and a less effective light unit, as time spent maintaining the vehicle and learning how to maintain it will take away from time spent training in light infantry doctrine and developing new light infantry doctrine for the modern battlefield. Also, big Army has tried the "light tank" thing before, it's never worked out.

I like IT, Light Tanks or any tracked vehicle with a big gun is cool!! Not saying that the 25mm on my Bradley was a slouch but I would have liked something a little bigger…lol!

Yeah I hear criticism similar to the whining about the WWII Sherman which suffered but in the end worked for us. Experience with military equipment throughout the ages often doesn't jive with what we thought we got! That Roman legionnaire throwing a poorly made javelin probably thought, when it bent, nuts! Then he saw the crappy shield of his opponent tip down from the weight and stab! Just a story but the Romans and all militaries use what they think works and sometimes it works in a different way. My point is everyone usually does the best they can.

It appears that the nose of this vehicle extends in front of the tracks, a major flaw of the M114s that I served on in the seventies since it limits the vehicle's ability to get over a berm without digging the nose in.

Can this Booker take a direct hit because it looks light? Still need a mobile missile system that can be loaded from the inside to support the Booker from above and ort range.

Not convinced the tank either light or heavy has a future on the modern battlefield.Hope I'm wrong but drones and the likes of Brimstone seem to have marked their card.

All good, but would like to see a couple of anti tank missiles on that turret; missiles with a longer range than its anti tank rounds

Looks like a CVRT

Is there some reason we couldn't copy the Merkava? I mean it's seriously battle tested and holds a small number of infantry. Very low profile. Maybe other people know better.

Why does this tank have what appears to be rivet hull construction? I thought that rivets were a death trap.

It can’t be as bad as the British Ajax! What a balls up that is! 💯💯💯🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

Is it not a kind of M4 Sherman tank? Light, easily transportable, yet mobile and easy to maintain (let's hope) an persistent?

The US Army does not want this vehicle called a "Light Tank" as they think that folks will expect it to take on other tanks. And we don't call them 12.7mm guns. We call them .50 caliber guns.

Needs at least four inch or more track width. Sooner or later it is going to run into a tank with 120 or 125 cannon. It's little 105 will be like throwing pebbles.

So in what War will the Booker be used in?

They should have put the Trophy system on it.

It's a deathtrap in the age of drones and man-portable anti-tank weapons.

Appears that land mines and drones are dominating the battlefield, not tanks.

The ultimate point here is the Booker isn't a vehicle that will change the battlefield FOREVER, that was the original WW1 tank, this will either be reasonably successful or totally useless like so many before it. Forget how great it is in testing the real test is actual battle, it will depend on how it can be used on the modern battlefield with, ATGW, Drones, Mines, LAWS,(various types), 30-50mm Hi- velocity Auto Cannon, all around, and how quickly it can be taken out. Can it "DO IT TO THEM BEFORE THEY DO IT TO IT"!!

I like the engine in the front like the Merkava, but I would put a hatch in the back for four to six infantry mounts. For a gun I would use the high speed 50mm chain gun. The 25mm has proven effective against tanks if you can put enough fire on the target close enough. A 50mm firing at the same rate would be devastating. On top of the 50mm I would have an independent remotely controlled 50cal both guns should be controlled by a joy stick with full automatic loading. Crew of three driver, main gunner, commander and 50 cal operator.

Should have went with the CV 90 120 or should have given this thing the 120 mm from the get go .

it looks very similar to the Swedish CV90 but with a tank gun lol

The Army may not call it a tank, but I can damn well guarantee you that the enemy will treat it as one.

Drones and anti-tank weapons systems make this 100% wasted money.

DRONES CHANGED THE BATTLE FIELD FOREVER... THAT LIGHT TANK WILL BE EASY PREY AGAINST ENEMY DRONES...

NO ES UN TANQUE ES UN VEHÍCULO DE APOYO DE INFANTERÍA , HAY TAMBIÉN UNO DE TRANSPORTE DE TROPAS CON CAÑON DE 30mm Y MISILES SPIKE Y OTRO CON UN MORTERO AUTOMÁTICO

The turret left over. The base for the deployment of drones and guided missiles, with 360º anti-drone systems. Satellite communications and processors for AI and drone swarm. That would be scary.