M10 Booker Was Obsolete Even Before It Hit the Battlefield

The U.S. Army revealed earlier this month that the new M10 Booker armored vehicle is effectively canceled. The M10, originally intended for the Army’s infantry brigade combat teams, suffers from serious design flaws, and as a result will not enter production.

But whatever its production flaws, the Booker already was an outdated solution for the problem of infantry fire support in a world where new platforms, such as drones, precision artillery, and other cheaper, more mobile assets can fill the firepower gap.

The M10 Booker displayed at it’s dedication ceremony at Aberdeen Proving Ground in Aberdeen, Md., April 18, 2024. As part of the dedication of the M10 Booker Combat Vehicle in their name, Pvt. Booker, a Medal of Honor recipient, and infantryman, assigned to the 133rd Infantry Regiment, 34th Infantry Division, during World War II, and Staff Sgt. Stevon A. Booker, a Distinguished Service Cross recipient, and tank crewman, assigned to Alpha Company, 1st Battalion, 64th Armor Regiment, 3rd Infantry Division, in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, will be recognized and honored for their ultimate sacrifice, heroism and commitment to service and the country, represented by family members during the ceremony. (U.S. Army photo by Christopher Kaufmann).

M10 Booker is part of a static display while a live segment for FOX and Friends is being filmed at Fort Liberty, N.C., May, 21, 2024. The M10 Booker Combat Vehicle is named after two American service members: Pvt. Robert D. Booker, who posthumously received the Medal of Honor for actions in World War II, and Staff Sgt. Stevon A. Booker, who posthumously received the Distinguished Service Cross for actions during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Their stories and actions articulate the Army’s need for the M10 Booker Combat Vehicle, an infantry assault vehicle that will provide protection and lethality to destroy threats like the ones that took the lives of these two Soldiers. (U.S. Army Photo by Sgt. Jacob Bradford)

There was also a debate about some calling it a ‘Light Tank’. 

The M10 Booker, developed by General Dynamics Land Systems, was conceived as a mobile protected-firepower solution for the Army. The Booker was developed around a 105-mm main gun, and it was intended to offer direct fire support to light infantry. The Booker was meant to be light enough to be carried two at a time by Air Force C-17 Globemaster III transports—twice as many vehicles in one go as the larger, heavier, M1A2SEPv3 Abrams main battle tank. The Army planned to eventually purchase 504 M-10s. 

Although it looked like a tank, the M10 was conceived for an entirely different purpose. American light infantry has traditionally suffered from a lack of organic firepower, especially firepower that can be brought up to reduce or eliminate tough enemy defenses. Although it looked like a tank, it was doctrinally an assault gun. A tank is supposed to be a main component of a mechanized attack, deployed to exploit any gains made by that attack. An assault gun supports an infantry attack, using its main gun to reduce obstacles and enemy strongpoints. 

Since an armored vehicle that merely supports an attack does not need the heavy armor of a main battle tank, the Army believed it could keep the weight of an assault gun-type vehicle low enough to deploy with airborne, airmobile, mountain, and light infantry units.

Most of these units trade tactical mobility for strategic mobility, allowing them to deploy quickly via far fewer Air Mobility Command transport aircraft than a heavier mechanized unit would require. Unfortunately, according to Defense One, the Army failed to keep the Booker’s weight down. The resulting 42-ton vehicle could only be carried one at a time by a C-17 transport, but worse still, it could not safely traverse bridges at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, and other posts. 

The M10 was never fielded in significant numbers—and now, it never will be. The Booker took 10 years to field, but it will not be missed by the light infantry formations it was meant to support. The vehicle requirement was made largely obsolete by a decade’s worth of advances in warfighting technology, allowing units at the battalion level and below to field organic firepower equivalent to the 105-mm gun while not adding a major logistical burden to the light force. 

The Ukraine War’s Impact

Russia’s war in Ukraine has demonstrated beyond a doubt that kamikaze drones and precision-guided munitions are essential to modern combat.

Small, and capable of being launched by foot and truck-mobile forces, these weapons are extremely accurate. One example of a kamikaze drone is the Switchblade 300 Block 20, a loitering munition that can act as a reconnaissance drone, then attack a target with the equivalent of a Javelin missile warhead.

While the Excalibur 155-mm GPS-guided round became famous in the war, advances in electronics miniaturization have pushed precision down to the level of the infantry mortar. One example, the Israeli Iron Sting 120-mm guided mortar shell, has a circular error probability of just one meter. In other words, half of Iron Sting shells launched at a target should land within three feet of the bullseye. 

In addition to these new weapons, infantry can use the Javelin anti-armor missile, the M3A1 Multi-Role Anti-Armor Anti-Personnel Weapon System (or Carl Gustav), and the M136 AT4 anti-tank rocket. 

Javelin missile firing.

Javelin Attack. Image Credit: Twitter Screenshot.

No single weapon system is a perfect replacement for the M10 Booker. Drones may be affected by an adverse electronic-warfare environment, while mortars are ineffective against high- and low-angle targets such as buildings or strongpoints built at the base of multi-story buildings. But drones and precision mortar rounds are easier to integrate into the infantry forces, don’t have the transportation and logistical footprint of a tracked vehicle, and give an infantry commander a wealth of organic options that don’t require asking for support from headquarters. Such weapons can be spread out across a ground formation, making it difficult to destroy all of them, instead of presenting a 42-ton armored vehicle as a target for the enemy’s drones and precision artillery. 

The M10 Booker is yet another Army armored vehicle program that has either failed to produce a viable, working vehicle (such as the Future Combat Systems, Ground Combat Vehicle), or spent so long in development that the weapon was overtaken by real-world events (the XM2001 Crusader howitzer).

In this case, it is probably a good thing that it took 10 years to develop the M10 Booker. If it took three to five years, the Army would already be stuck with many vehicles it does not want and no longer needs. While a 105-mm gun is not exactly obsolete, it no longer takes a complex, 42-ton armored vehicle to get the gun’s equivalent firepower on the modern battlefield. 

About the Author: Kyle Mizokami 

A 19FortyFive Contributing editor, Kyle Mizokami is a defense and national-security writer based in San Francisco. His work has appeared in Popular Mechanics, Esquire, The National Interest, Car and Driver, Men’s Health, and many others. He is the founder and editor for the blogs Japan Security Watch, Asia Security Watch and War Is Boring.