Why the Army’s New $13 Million Combat Vehicle Is 'Not a Tank' | WSJ Equipped

It basically bridges the gap between a Bradley and an Abrams. It supports troops like a Bradley, but has a bigger cannon and doesn't haul troops, like a tank.

The Booker is the quintessential definition of a light tank. A light tank is meant to work closely with infantry and allows for armed reconnaissance.

My favorite part of this video? The Army explicitly saying "this is our new light tank", and then we get 7 minutes of someone trying to convince us the Army didn;t just tell us exactly what the Booker is: a light tank. LOL.

It's a building buster, and it's easier to transport. An M1 is built for destruction of other tanks and heavy/armored equipment. We've seen in Ukraine, and what will likely hold true in an environment like Taiwan, is the need to fight in small to mid sized towns and villages, take out buildings/small defensive fortifications and be highly mobile

The Booker is what the Stryker Mobile Gun System couldn't be.

This is the type of tank that the Marine Corps needs. It'd be perfect for their amphibious strategies.

The M10 Booker looks small enough to be conveniently deployed in urban environments where threat exposures are difficult to see and predict. Adding additional armor such as slat armor or even try out this unproven method called "winged armor" for infantry elements to fold out on both sides of the tank to conduct street to street combat. Otherwise, this particular tank could use an armored dozer blade as an operational accessory to plow through abandoned vehicles or breach obstacles and provide adequate ballistic protection and provide decent cover for infantry elements.

Give it to a bunch of soldiers and they will find ways to break it. Truer words have never been spoken.

Just to clarify, when she zoomed in on the turret, she was highlighting ERA tiles NOT ammo boxes. The ammo that sometimes detonates is in a carousel underneath the turret (at least the external visible part of it), inside the hull. ERA is remarkably stable, which is why you can see unexploded tiles covering the tank even after an ammo detonation and being engulfed in flames. I don't know if anyone was confused by that, but it bothered me enough to comment lol

This type of vehicle gives infantry assaulting an objective the ability to bring direct fire on prepared positions. It's not meant to fight and knock out enemy armor, it's meant to give infantry heavier hitting power to support the infantry

It's a light tank in simple terms. If I am correct, it would be used in the same role as the Stryker 105. Being used in a scouting role and being deployed when, other more heavier tanks such as the Abrams couldn't make the trip because of their slower speeds and gas guzzling engines compared to the lighter M10 Booker.

It's not a Main Battle Tank (MBT). It is, however, a tank - being a tracked vehicle designed for a combat role. Maybe closer to a CFV, if you like ... but those are also tanks (the M2/M3 Bradley CFV was too light for the role, and this Booker looks like it addresses some of that issue).

The U.S Marines would be so obsessed with this light tank for mobility warfare

2:28 "... a nearly 105-millimeter cannon" man that "nearly" gave me a stroke💀

I'm going to Armor school in January with an Airborne contract to be one of the first M10 Booker crewman. Wish me luck!!!

Philippine Army realized during the marawi 50 cal and 25mm is not enough to penetrate concrete building so they decided that they need more fire powered so they order 105 light tanks and IFV (Ascod 2 Sabrah and Pandur 2).... since most bridges here in the Philippines and roads can't cater heavy mtb, light tank is a good choice.

Pretty good acquisition for the US Army! It provided much needed protection and additional engagement for infantry BCT.

The Booker has also lots of cameras around it for better visibility for the crew as seen in a in-depth video from The Chieftain.

Appreciate all the work that went into this video (reporting, graphics, editing, etc)! The breadth of content covered by the WSJ team is pretty huge and yet most videos are pretty high quality.

Stryker: exists Booker: I'm you, but better.