M10 Booker Combat Vehicle / Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF)

not doing ur homework. What has the cheif to do w/this at all?
 
I think you're confusing the M8 Thunderbolt technology demonstrator that had the 120mm gun with the actual and earlier M8 AGS that almost went into production.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
I think you're confusing the M8 Thunderbolt technology demonstrator that had the 120mm gun with the actual and earlier M8 AGS that almost went into production.
Click to expand...
There's actually three M8s. The original, that nearly went into production, the Thunderbolt tech demo, and the one that lost to the Booker.

I think he's talking about this:
www.defencetalk.com

M8-AGS with troop compartment

The Thunderbolt also has a ramp door in the rear that lowers for the Engine/Transmission power train to be rolled out for easy maintenance. With the conversion to Hybrid Electric Drive and the flexibility of positioning drive train and suspension...
www.defencetalk.com

Problem is that it appears to be a mockup, not something that ever went into production, or even ever actually drove around.
 
www.defencetalk.com

M8-AGS with troop compartment

The Thunderbolt also has a ramp door in the rear that lowers for the Engine/Transmission power train to be rolled out for easy maintenance. With the conversion to Hybrid Electric Drive and the flexibility of positioning drive train and suspension...
www.defencetalk.com

Whether or not the contractor proposed the original capability is not an operational concern. Arguing for competent Army procurement well....
 
jsport said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1692897173082632484
View: https://twitter.com/ronkainen7k15/status/1692897173082632484
Click to expand...
Hrm. What's the point of having some ATGMs when you have a 105mm?

Unless those are loitering munitions?


jsport said:
www.defencetalk.com

M8-AGS with troop compartment

The Thunderbolt also has a ramp door in the rear that lowers for the Engine/Transmission power train to be rolled out for easy maintenance. With the conversion to Hybrid Electric Drive and the flexibility of positioning drive train and suspension...
www.defencetalk.com

Whether or not the contractor proposed the original capability is not an operational concern. Arguing for competent Army procurement well....
Click to expand...
The original AGS contract specifications did not require dismounts. The M8 engine was in the back!
 
jsport said:
www.defencetalk.com

M8-AGS with troop compartment

The Thunderbolt also has a ramp door in the rear that lowers for the Engine/Transmission power train to be rolled out for easy maintenance. With the conversion to Hybrid Electric Drive and the flexibility of positioning drive train and suspension...
www.defencetalk.com

Whether or not the contractor proposed the original capability is not an operational concern. Arguing for competent Army procurement well....
Click to expand...

This doesn't even make sense.

The only version of the M8 that had a crew compartment is that "hybrid" vehicle that seems to have created the volume by magically assuming that the engine could go "somewhere else" just because it's electric. But there's just no other volume in the M8 hull for an engine, so good luck with that.

Now, as for an MPF-like vehicle needing organic dismounts, this seems like a total misreading of its role. It is intended to provide fire support for light forces, not reconnaissance. That means there will already be infantry dismounts there, with their own transports. MPF doesn't need to cram dismounts in the back any more than a main battle tank needs to carry its own infantry. (Don't even mention Merkava, which can carry pax only at the expense of some or all of its spare ammo, and even then only by having them sit on the floor with their rucksacks.)
 
The propulsor can very be compact. Current solutions are driven by congressional capture not contemporary compact hybrid tech. The entire V-8 engine in an f-1 is only a little larger than two shoes boxes.

Two scouts can largely replace most infantry in the future. Artillery folks have said for years, that at best, infantry serve as expendable sensors finding artillery tgts.
Rand put out a pamphlet in the 80s about replacing the infantry w/ Army JTACs. Budget comparisons have shown F-16s are cheaper than Bns and ships in accomplishing the majority of military missions. but ya still a couple a JTACs.
Much like the ill fated FARA prg where the Karem craft was not selected, two scouts are always the best solution. The tech would need a little longer to mature but the craft has superior horizontal flight rng. Again rushed bad decision to promote some agenda.

As far as transport, a "unclothed" pickup ha. Good luck w/ that. Marines often wouldnt leave FOBs w/o an MRAP as ATVs were parked.
As far as Merkva, stories can only be anecdotal as real operational details are hardly ever revealed.
 
TomS said:
Reliably kill heavy MBT targets that 105mm sabot won't? Also, assuming something like a Spike-ER, probably more range and the ability to engage a target in defilade.
Click to expand...
No MBT can survive a 105 to the side armor. The idea is Shermans versus Panthers/Tigers. Distraction to the front, get a tank around to the flank, and boom.

There was a conversation elsewhere on this forum talking about midrange munitions, 10-15km type of range from the main guns. You want a fast one like the MRM-CE or STAFF for when you're out on relatively open ground, and you want a slow one like the KSTAM for when you're in vertical terrain like mountains or cities.
 
jsport said:
The propulsor can very be compact. Current solutions are driven by congressional capture not contemporary compact hybrid tech. The entire V-8 engine in an f-1 is only a little larger than two shoes boxes.
Click to expand...
And the current F1 engine only lasts about 3 hours before you need to rip it apart and rebuild it. Hey, that's the Leyland L60 all over again.


jsport said:
Two scouts can largely replace most infantry in the future. Artillery folks have said for years, that at best, infantry serve as expendable sensors finding artillery tgts.
Rand put out a pamphlet in the 80s about replacing the infantry w/ Army JTACs. Budget comparisons have shown F-16s are cheaper than Bns and ships in accomplishing the majority of military missions. but ya still a couple a JTACs.
Much like the ill fated FARA prg where the Karem craft was not selected, two scouts are always the best solution. The tech would need a little longer to mature but the craft has superior horizontal flight rng. Again rushed bad decision to promote some agenda.
Click to expand...
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Yeah, no.

Infantry are the units that hold ground. Tanks might take it, but infantry keeps it.
 
Scott Kenny said:
And the current F1 engine only lasts about 3 hours before you need to rip it apart and rebuild it. Hey, that's the Leyland L60 all over again.
Click to expand...
correct but the point is current science is not being applied.
Scott Kenny said:
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Yeah, no.

Infantry are the units that hold ground. Tanks might take it, but infantry keeps it.
Click to expand...
Project Carmel experimentation seems to be challenging that. Western population demographics simply will soon no longer support the urban grinder. Alternatives need hard looks. .New world.
 
jsport said:
Project Carmel experimentation seems to be challenging that. Western population demographics simply will soon no longer support the urban grinder. Alternatives need hard looks. .New world.
Click to expand...
The alternative to sending infantry into the city is to nuke or carpet bomb it with FAEs first, and then send the infantry into the rubble.

There's really no other way to take a city.
 
Last edited:
jsport said:

2 scouts

M3 Bradley Armored Reconnaissance Vehicle | MilitaryToday.com

The M3 Bradley armored reconnaissance vehicle s based on the M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle. It replaced the M60 main battle tanks and M113 armored personnel carriers with the US Army cavalry and reconnaissance battalions.
www.militarytoday.com
Click to expand...

Note: the M3 is intended as a reconnaissance vehicle. MPF is not.

Also, the US Army has not been very satisfied with the M3 as a recce vehicle, and keeps tinkering with some mix of light vehicle (HMMWVs, JLTVs, etc) to provide enough dismounts to actually do the dismounted scout function.
 
jsport said:

2 scouts

M3 Bradley Armored Reconnaissance Vehicle | MilitaryToday.com

The M3 Bradley armored reconnaissance vehicle s based on the M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle. It replaced the M60 main battle tanks and M113 armored personnel carriers with the US Army cavalry and reconnaissance battalions.
www.militarytoday.com
Click to expand...
Right.

That's the Cav Scout transport. Not a light tank. Cav Scouts don't get MPF, they have Abrams to back them up.

Could we build a light tank with a transport bay in the back? sure. It'll be as tall as a Bradley and maybe have space for 5 inside due to the big turret basket.

Remember, the M10 Booker MPF "light tank" is really an assault gun, like the Sherman 105s from WW2. It is a way to have large caliber HE to blast bunkers too tough for infantry weapons to deal with.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Right.

That's the Cav Scout transport. Not a light tank. Cav Scouts don't get MPF, they have Abrams to back them up.

Could we build a light tank with a transport bay in the back? sure. It'll be as tall as a Bradley and maybe have space for 5 inside due to the big turret basket.

Remember, the M10 Booker MPF "light tank" is really an assault gun, like the Sherman 105s from WW2. It is a way to have large caliber HE to blast bunkers too tough for infantry weapons to deal with.
Click to expand...
Economies of scale could be realized if focus was placed on a new MPF/Cav veh (recon is not the only Cav mission) based on the M-8 and able to carry two scouts. This veh could serve as the light tank, assault gun, even 105mm SPH (possibly using the highly advanced indirect fire 105mm gun which was paid for under FCS and never used and or even the 120mm ETC why was that not picked up IDK). Two troops would only be a modular option. A MPF able to given even rapid deployment forces the ability to commit small ThunderRuns could have disproportionate value early in an intervention. The two scouts managing additional robotics. Mini Robotics also able to fit in the veh. The genius of Merkva is being able to carry sh..t.
 
jsport said:
Economies of scale could be realized if focus was placed on a new MPF/Cav veh (recon is not the only Cav mission) based on the M-8 and able to carry two scouts. This veh could serve as the light tank, assault gun, even 105mm SPH (possibly using the highly advanced indirect fire 105mm gun which was paid for under FCS and never used and or even the 120mm ETC why was that not picked up IDK). Two troops would only be a modular option. A MPF able to given even rapid deployment forces the ability to commit small ThunderRuns could have disproportionate value early in an intervention. The two scouts managing additional robotics. Mini Robotics also able to fit in the veh. The genius of Merkva is being able to carry sh..t.
Click to expand...
True, the US expects its Cav Scouts to be able to fight. IIRC that's the screening part of their mission. But Cav Scouts have Abrams backing them up, they don't need 105s.

The M8 is incapable of carrying any dismounts unless they ride on top, the engine is in the back. And there's barely enough space for the crew inside, either. Have you watched The Chieftain's video on the M8 MPF? There's very little space at all inside for the crew, it's about as tight as an F1 car inside!

I don't remember if the M10's engine is in the back or up front like the UK Ajax. If the engine is in the back, that also leaves no space for dismounts.

The 120mm ETC was not reliable, that's why it wasn't picked up.

As to what the Bradley Replacement will look like, I have no idea.

=============

The M3 Cavalry Fighting Vehicle was supposed to be the replacement for the M114, which was such a failure as a scout car that the Canadians made cut down M113s for their scouts. (The hull shape was bad and the M114 lacked engine power).

Many of the old Cav Scouts didn't like the M3 because of how tall it is. Recon vehicles should not be 12+ feet tall! And any vehicle that has space for modern American-sized and equipped troops as dismounts cannot be short, see the AMPV for an example of the current minimum height APC.
 
l
Scott Kenny said:
True, the US expects its Cav Scouts to be able to fight. IIRC that's the screening part of their mission. But Cav Scouts have Abrams backing them up, they don't need 105s.
Click to expand...
A common M-8 w/ 120mm for cav units and 105mm for RDFs. XM-320 may never happen if history is a guide. So little innovation which could be integrated in M2 until real radical innovation is realized. Industrial welfare program.

Cav units need to carry Scouts the longest AIT in the Army.
Scott Kenny said:
The M8 is incapable of carrying any dismounts unless they ride on top, the engine is in the back. And there's barely enough space for the crew inside, either. Have you watched The Chieftain's video on the M8 MPF? There's very little space at all inside for the crew, it's about as tight as an F1 car inside!

I don't remember if the M10's engine is in the back or up front like the UK Ajax. If the engine is in the back, that also leaves no space for dismounts.
Click to expand...
already addressed will not repeat.
Scott Kenny said:
The 120mm ETC was not reliable, that's why it wasn't picked up.
Click to expand...
Apparently no intent, gov capture
Scott Kenny said:
Many of the old Cav Scouts didn't like the M3 because of how tall it is. Recon vehicles should not be 12+ feet tall! And any vehicle that has space for modern American-sized and equipped troops as dismounts cannot be short, see the AMPV for an example of the current minimum height APC.
Click to expand...
Cav Scouts gotta make up their mind. do they want ride in MPF like a M-8 or suffer the heights of IFVs. ..wanta survive ride in tank like vehicle. Ukr had a T-72 hulled vehicle which carried trps in the back.
 
jsport said:

2 scouts

M3 Bradley Armored Reconnaissance Vehicle | MilitaryToday.com

The M3 Bradley armored reconnaissance vehicle s based on the M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle. It replaced the M60 main battle tanks and M113 armored personnel carriers with the US Army cavalry and reconnaissance battalions.
www.militarytoday.com
Click to expand...
Replaced from 2014 onwards with M2 Bradleys to provide a greater number of dismounted scouts.

View: https://youtu.be/nmiIqONvHeQ?feature=shared
 
Thank you for the update TFP,
two four six whatever the Javelin, sniper, JTAC, scout, robotics operator or extra ammo mix for each operation. cdrs have options as the vehicle carries sh..t like the Merkva.. Same goes for Karem FARA proposal. The creature appears large enough for more than two dismounts. A helicopter placed sniper or Javelin team w/ great interdiction effect.

PS: as always how does an Army man/fill these complicated MTOEs w/o the British Army's model for long term retention of troops w/fair compensation. the current retention model simply leaves constant flux w. empty positions.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
The 120mm ETC was not reliable, that's why it wasn't picked up.
Click to expand...

It was completely reliable? ETC was supposed to equivocate 140mm in performance, so no one would have to replace the 120mm. It didn't go anywhere because it equivocated a slightly lengthened penetrator, at most, and maybe a refrigerated ammo rack at worst.

Lightning Bolt demonstrated consistently improved ignition curves, but instead of the 50-75% muzzle energy increase, it was often closer to 5-7%. Which might as well be ambient temperature difference.

I guess if you want a few micro-mils greater accuracy you can do it but it's not very useful in real terms.
 
FYI, the first LRIP batch of M10 Booker Combat Vehicles (BCV) was christened and unveiled today. Some slightly modifications were made. Please follow the following source for more updates and pictures.
Source (x fka twitter): https://x.com/ronkainen7k15
Sorry, I am not an Army guy and this evening I have no time to attach pictures. :)
 
Scott Kenny said:
Right.

That's the Cav Scout transport. Not a light tank. Cav Scouts don't get MPF, they have Abrams to back them up.

Could we build a light tank with a transport bay in the back? sure. It'll be as tall as a Bradley and maybe have space for 5 inside due to the big turret basket.

Remember, the M10 Booker MPF "light tank" is really an assault gun, like the Sherman 105s from WW2. It is a way to have large caliber HE to blast bunkers too tough for infantry weapons to deal with.
Click to expand...
I think they specifically said that in an interview or article that I can remember.

They call the Booker an assault gun, not a light tank, so I can't blame that other people who only got little military knowledge of proper terminologies kept calling it a light tank.
 
Bruno Anthony said:
Will we see a new US MBT b4 2050?
Click to expand...
If you mean a replacement for the Abrams? unlikely. Possible, but unlikely. While I'd hope that the US would start design work on a whole new tank chassis sometime soon, I'm not expecting it to happen until someone develops a sure-kill ATGM that really will render the MBT obsolete...

The M1A3 (type-standardized M1E3) will show up around 2030 with a whole new turret integrating the APS under the armor as much as possible.
 
The M1E3 looks like it will effectively be a different tank. Power pack, turret, crew positions all might change.
 
Josh_TN said:
The M1E3 looks like it will effectively be a different tank. Power pack, turret, crew positions all might change.
Click to expand...
Horrific, the inability or unwillingness to start with a clean sheet. Uninspired warming up of last week’s potatoes and the week before that.

I have a suspicion that a significant % of the uniform & civilian DoD just want to give it all up & just do an all drone military.
No worries about recruiting, casualties, design factors for humans, etc

Horrific
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom