It looks like a tank, moves like a tank, has a tank gun, and was partially named in honor of a tanker. Yet, according to the Army, the M10 Booker isn’t a tank.
Commentary
It looks like a tank, moves like a tank, has a tank gun, and was partially named in honor of a
tanker. Yet, according to the Army, the $13 million M10 Booker, the winner of the
Mobile Protected Firepower competition, isn’t
a tank. Instead, it’s a “combat vehicle” or perhaps, as inspired by video games such as “Call of Duty,” an “
infantry assault vehicle.”
To assess this claim, we'll compare the Booker to the M1A2 Abrams and other well-known tanks and armored vehicles. Like the Abrams, it has a four-man crew. And it uses the same
fire control system as the M1A2 Abrams. While its armor doesn’t match that of the much heavier Abrams, its armor is certainly substantially greater than that of armored fighting vehicles such as the M2 Bradley, or the Stryker. And though it weighs a couple of tons less, and isn’t as heavily armored, its dimensions, length, width, and height, are greater than that of the
T-72B main battle tank (MBT).
Regarding its turret-mounted main gun, the somewhat controversial decision was made to go with a derivative of the venerable
Royal Ordnance L7 105 millimeter (mm), the
M35, instead of a more powerful 120 mm gun, such as the Future Combat System’s XM360. To be sure, the M35 is about 1,200 pounds lighter than the XM36, and by going with a 105 mm gun versus a 120 mm gun, the M10 will be able to carry 35 to 40 percent more rounds. But it’s much less powerful than the 125 mm guns on Russian tanks or the 120 mm guns of most Western MBTs. Presumably, the Army’s analysis has shown that in destroying/breaching typical fortifications over an extended period of time, the 105 mm gun will provide a significant advantage over the 120 mm gun due to having more less-powerful rounds available.
Its secondary weapons are pretty standard. As is the case with the M1 Abrams, it has a top-mounted .50 caliber machine gun that requires an exposed crew member to man it. And it also has a 7.6 mm coaxial machine gun. Interestingly, this is the same setup as the 1960s-era M60 Patton MBTs that did so well in the Gulf War in the 1990s. While the M10’s weapons loadout could be viewed as being mundane and lacking innovation, it could also be viewed as being a tried and true setup for a tank.
Still, the Army insists that it isn’t a tank. The reason being that its role is to be fully integrated with an infantry rifle company and that it will not be out running around on its own getting into tank-on-tank battles. Its close integration with infantry means that the M10 can count on the infantry to screen it from attacks by the growing number of man-portable anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) whose effectiveness has been so
lethally demonstrated in Ukraine. While providing screening for the M10, infantry units will also come across enemy fortification that would require many infantry casualties to overcome but that the M10’s 105 mm gun can easily destroy with direct fire. And the M10’s mobile machine guns will also provide additional welcome firepower.
This kind of close integration 100 percent makes sense, but sidesteps the fact that tanks were always supposed to work closely with infantry. And it has long been recognized that tanks without close infantry support are very vulnerable. While the Gulf War battle of
73 Easting is a great example of armor-on-armor battles that do happen and will continue to happen, the primary role of the tank has always been to work closely with the infantry. So, while declaring that the M10 isn’t a tank because of how closely it works with the infantry does emphasize that the Army really, really doesn’t want the M10 Booker roaming unprotected around the battlefield without infantry protection, it isn’t very persuasive when it comes to establishing the M10’s credentials as a non-tank.
Further, it’s possible that the Army’s understandable desire to hammer home the point that the M10 Booker’s role is to be integrated with infantry units and not to be roaming the battlefield in hunter-killer packs also influenced its choice of the M10’s main gun. After all, an M10 crew might not be as tempted to seek glorious tank-on-tank battles with MBTs when they’re both outgunned and out-armored versus when they believe their main gun to be equal to that of an MBT.
The above discussion indicates that the M10, while not being an MBT, is definitely a tank. Further, when you consider that it weighs 42 tons, calling it a light tank seems a stretch, and a case can be made for reviving the medium tank moniker. Its cost is much more in line with that of big Western MBTs than armored fighting vehicles or infantry fighting vehicles. And arguing that it isn’t a tank because its armor protection is inferior to that of the monstrously large and heavy M1 Abrams is a straw man argument.
Ultimately, the arguments advanced by the Army as to the untankiness of the M10 aren’t persuasive. Not only is the M10 Booker a tank in form, but the functions it will be performing are those that have been executed by tanks from day one. Hence, the M10 Booker is a tank.
Quod erat demonstrandum. Or
QUACK!Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
