|
Post by bigdawgs on Apr 18, 2024 16:39:34 GMT -5
Today, at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, the Army dedicated the new Infantry Assault Vehicle, the M10 Booker. It honors one Medal of Honor Recipient and one Distinguished Service Cross Recipient from 2 generations. Private Robert D. Booker, a native of Nebraska, was killed in 1943 while knocking out a German Machine Gun nest in Tunisia while serving in the 34th Infantry Division. He was posthumously awarded the Purple Heart for his action. Staff Sergeant Stefon Booker, a native of Pennsylvania, was killed in action on the 3d Infantry Division's famous Thunder Run into Baghdad on April 5, 2003. When both of his tank's machine guns failed to function, SSG Booker lay prone on the turret of his Abrams Main Battle Tank and engaged dismounted Iraqi troops trying to outflank his platoon. The M10 is armed with a 105mm main gun and has a top speed of 70kmph. It is designed to give the Infantry the capability to assault fortified positions and is mounted on a Bradley Fighting Vehicle Chasis. It is expected to be fielded in 2025. The sister of Private Booker on the left and the mother of Staff Sergeant Booker on the right
|
|
|
Post by bigdawgs on Apr 18, 2024 17:10:36 GMT -5
These will be assigned to Light units like the 82d Airborne and 10th Mountain Divisions. They provide a firepower capability sorely needed but not readily available in the inventory. It is not in theory a light tank, because unlike most previous light tanks, this vehicle is heavily armored and has great crew protection. It is 30 tons lighter than an Abrams, but is still over 35 tons. Two can be carried by a C17 Globemaster without any disassembly. The C17 can only carry one Abrams. The Booker has a range of 350 miles, a hundred more than an Abrams. The 105 mm gun is not as lethal as the Abrams 120 mm smooth bore, but it still provides a very strong anti armor capability.
|
|
|
Post by CFF on Apr 18, 2024 21:15:39 GMT -5
Do you know if it is air droppable?
|
|
|
Post by bigdawgs on Apr 18, 2024 21:25:49 GMT -5
Do you know if it is air droppable? It is not. My old M551 Sheridan was air droppable. Once.
|
|
|
Post by CFF on Apr 19, 2024 7:47:51 GMT -5
Do you know if it is air droppable? It is not. My old M551 Sheridan was air droppable. Once. I never got to fire the Sheridan. Why would they give the tank to the 82nd if it isn't droppable? Not being a smart ass, just wondering.
|
|
|
Post by bigdawgs on Apr 19, 2024 9:17:40 GMT -5
Because they need firepower if they are going to remain relevant. For example, in 1990 when Sadaam took over Kuwait, the 82d was the only force available to get somewhere fast and provide a defense for Saudi Arabia. But, if the Iraqis were competent and had they desired, the paratroopers would have been but a bump in the road against Iraqi armor. Same would have been the case for the 10th Mountain. At least the Marines had some armor, but even they can't get to the battlefield as fast as the 82d.
If you have a vehicle that is air droppable, it is not likely to be sufficiently tough or armored to provide the firepower the division needs in fighting on a mid intensity to high intensity battlefield. So, the next best thing is to make a tank like vehicle that can be transported by air to get it to the battlefield quickly. The M10 would seem to fit that bill since 2 can be carried by a Globemaster and 3 in a C5. The armor protection for the crew is as good as the Abrams and the firepower only slightly less formidable. It is a hybrid, and thus compromises were necessary. The Army has needed something like this for a long time. The on going War in Ukraine provided an impetus to move more quickly on it.
If it proves to be successful, I can see it being put into the Divisional and Regimental Cavalry Squadrons to give them the same type punch, but with a continued ability to move, shoot and communicate faster than other armor and mech formations.
|
|
|
Post by CFF on Apr 24, 2024 17:01:39 GMT -5
It still doesn't make sense to give them to the 82nd. Where are they going to land the aircraft to offload the tanks? That defeats the purpose of quick entry. By the time they secure a runway the heavy's could come.
I can surely see it in the Cav and Mechanized Infantry.
|
|
|
Post by bigdawgs on Apr 24, 2024 17:47:37 GMT -5
The 82d gets lots of their support by landing aircraft as well as airdrops. Obviously it would be ideal to have something air droppable along the lines of a Sheridan, but that doesn't exist. Right now the 82d can get places fast, but if facing a heavy threat, they do not have the firepower or maneuver speed to do much more than delay. This gives them a significant increase in firepower. No, you might not get it there on day 1, but you sure can get it there much faster than any ship afloat. 5 C17s can bring in 2 platoons of M10s pretty quickly.
Mech forces don't need this system. They are already task organized with armor units and have Abrams with them in most configurations. Actually, the USMC is looking at this as a better option than their decision to get rid of all their tanks. Their drive up the Euphrates in 2003 along side of the 3ID would never have happened without their armor.
|
|
|
Post by Elapid on Apr 24, 2024 19:03:51 GMT -5
They will ask for a way to make it droppable?
|
|
|
Post by bigdawgs on Apr 24, 2024 19:09:59 GMT -5
They will ask for a way to make it droppable? You can't make a 34-40 ton vehicle air droppable. The Sheridan was 17 tons and it was not truly air droppable...they normally lapsed it out the back of the aircraft. Even then, it was often not operable. I had 54 Sheridans as a motor officer in 76 and we had a nightmare of a time trying to keep them operational and we were a cavalry unit. Due to money issues, almost all weapons systems are compromises.
|
|
|
Post by Elapid on Apr 24, 2024 19:27:04 GMT -5
Can they load one in a C-5M?
|
|
|
Post by bigdawgs on Apr 24, 2024 19:43:10 GMT -5
Can they load one in a C-5M? C-5 can handle 2 Abrams with the newest models. Previously they had some wing fatigue issues. I think they still only carry 1 unless we have an emergency requirement. CFF would probably know better than me on the latest. C5 can handle 3 M10s. Cubes out before it weighs out.
|
|
|
Post by USCGamecocks on Apr 25, 2024 8:45:43 GMT -5
Interesting. Anyone know what type of runway is needed for a c-5 to be able to land?
|
|
|
Post by bigdawgs on Apr 25, 2024 11:43:45 GMT -5
Interesting. Anyone know what type of runway is needed for a c-5 to be able to land? The C5 needs hardstand and at max weight 8300 ft for take off and 4900 ft for landing. The C17 needs 3500 feet for both landing and takeoff and only a 90ft wide runway.
|
|
|
Post by Elapid on Apr 25, 2024 12:43:53 GMT -5
It's nice having this kind of information at your disposal.
|
|
Vespula
Senator
"Panzerkönigin"
Posts: 3,814
|
Post by Vespula on Apr 25, 2024 13:44:56 GMT -5
This whole discussion makes me think we need a vectored thrust, heavy lift cargo aircraft that can supplant the medium lift helicopters in use today.
|
|
Vespula
Senator
"Panzerkönigin"
Posts: 3,814
|
Post by Vespula on Apr 30, 2024 21:45:35 GMT -5
|
|