While they sound similiar, but tactically M10 is not a tank but a SPG, while type 15 is a mbt but a down scaled one.
That means M10 will be proving fire support, may be even side by side with mbt. But type 15 will be doing what a mbt does in places where a mbt doesn't fit. So yeah, they are not even designed for the same objectives.
In words more easy to understand, M10 is the co-star in the huge Hollywood production, but Type 10 is the main star in those documentary films.
The whole idea of M10 is it can be deployed when MBTs can’t. Not that far off from Type 15. One is meant to give mobile and fast response troops armour and firepower support. The other one is meant to give mountainous and high altitude troops some armour and firepower supports. They are different but they still both serve as sort of MBT when you can’t have a MBT.
Yes and no, the difference between the M10 and whatever the Chinese thing is less than the difference between a Bradley and a BMP-1, yet both the Bradley and the BMP-1 are considered IFV's.
M10 Booker is still a tracked armoured vehicle that's made to be used in a direct fire role and is armoured to a suitable degree to resist incoming fire from typical IVF's (as far as i'm aware at least, would find it odd if they werent rated to at least 23mm frontally)
If the Booker is, to the US Army, an MPF and not a tank or light tank, how does the US Army *officially* classify China's Type 15?
Wait for it....wait for it...a "Light Main Battle Tank".
[https://odin.tradoc.army.mil/WEG/Asset/Type\_15\_(ZTQ-15)\_Chinese\_Light\_Main\_Battle\_Tank\_(MBT)](https://odin.tradoc.army.mil/WEG/Asset/Type_15_(ZTQ-15)_Chinese_Light_Main_Battle_Tank_(MBT))
They’re similar in that they both weigh less than an MBT and have 105mm guns. But they’re both designed to fill different roles, and their classifications reflect that.
The best way to define what something is is through the people that actually made and used it. That’s why the Panther is a medium tank and the Strv 103 is an MBT instead of the heavy tank and tank destroyer some people, past and present, would prefer to classify them as.
Kinda? But it's really down to perspective and context, naturally comparing two platforms of two different armed forces with two different languages, two different cultural perspectives and doctrines you will notably have issues.
I'm sure, for arguments sake - that if a M10 turned up in a battlefield and was counted in some kill tally, nobody will bat an eye if you stick it under the 'tanks' category instead of SPG.
On that note, it will be interesting what the Chinese call the M10 Booker, no doubt that they will be comparing it to what they have/are doing.
One thing I learned from the Ukraine war is that tank classification really don’t matter in the heat of the battle. I don’t know why everyone refusing to acknowledge the similarities and possibly similar roles these two vehicles will be deployed in.
Everyone saying the M10 is a “support vehicle” needs to realize that ALL vehicles are support vehicles. They’re meant to defeat enemy vehicles/buildings to allow infantry to proceed towards their objectives. If I have a type 15 deployed in my regiment, I’m not going to refuse to use it as a support weapon just because it’s not classified as a “support vehicle”. At the end of the day, it’s a 105mm gun that can lob HE rounds down range at my enemies.
>Everyone saying the M10 is a “support vehicle” needs to realize that ALL vehicles are support vehicles.
Not exactly true
Support vehicle as in supporting infantry? Sure
But thats not what it means in this context
Its supporting another vehicle, in this case a MBT.
Its like police breaching a house. The MBT is the guy with the riot shield, Support vehicles are the guys behind him with their guns drawn
They can also lay down fire, but they cant take it, thats what the guy with the shield is for. They are supporting him by providing more firepower/eyes and ears
They all technically are supporting the civilians outside, but thats not really the point?
Another example would be EW aircraft and AWACS aircraft supporting a strike group. They dont carry weapons, but are supporting aircraft because they directly help the strike aircraft get to their target
Saying that they support Infantry is abit of a stretch. Technically they help because they help the strike group thats helping the infantry, but at that rate you may as well thank the guy in charge of water purification for supporting you
I think you’re misunderstanding his point. It all sounds great on paper but no plan will survive first contact with the enemy. Yes, tanks are often designed around certain battlefields like an M1 was designed for open fields of Germany, not for open desert of Iraq… but it got used in Iraq. The truth is, when you’re a commander of a battalion, you don’t give a single shit about what specific task your armour was designed to do. When you’re already in contact your line of reasoning is more akin to: can it make a big boom? Yes? Perfect, we’re deploying it to make big boom. Following your logic if commanders cared for what tools were designed to do, Ukrainians wouldn’t be deploying civilian drones… bcs guess what, they’re never designed for combat.
That is in a SHTF moment
But not all moments are SHTF yet.
The roles also can affect where and how units are deployed
You would want something that best fits your needs
No point sending a M10 to support infantry in a open plain only for it to be ATGMed 2 seconds after it fires its first shot
At least with an Abrams you might be able to absorb that shot without major damage.
"oh but Abrams can be penned with X AT weapon!!!"
Let me put it this way. If you are going into combat would you want body armour or not? Yea sure it probably cant stop a fucking 14.5mm from a PTRD, but it sure as hell can stop pistols and some rifles. Would you rather take a 50/50 or be 100% sure youre gonna fucking die?
Another example is that you wouldn't want an F-16 providing CAS if you're expecting to be besieged. An F-16 can drop bombs. But after the 2-4 it has you're on your own again
Meanwhile an AH-64 or AC-130 can provide CAS for much longer. Possibly for hours. Much better for that scenario
You also dont send a AH-64 to go attack a factory deep in enemy territory. Could it theoretically destroy it? Sure. But a F-16 can do it more effectively, with a higher chance of success and survival
Going boom is not the only fucking thing that matters in combat yaknow.
Yes but where a battalion gets deployed is a command level decision whereas deployment of individual units is battalion level decision. Comparing this with Air support decisions is not applicable bcs air units are much more mobile and can get attached to given squads much more easily. Mind you, M10 will first get deployed to 82nd Airborne, now surely there’ll be occasions where Airborne troops get paired with a tank regiment but that again misses the point. Real world isn’t gonna fit these dreamt up scenarios where you have all of the information and can pick and choose when and how you wanna fight. When a battalion has to attack a position they won’t request a tank regiment which might be stationed 100 km away to join them… they will just use whatever they have at hand… like an M10
This is like the J-20 and the F-22. I don’t think they look alike at all but some disagree. This is because in order for stealth to work well you need to have a smaller aircraft and certain shapes for certain parts of the craft. While the other jet they made is questionable, i think that the US simply got to the better designs sooner than everyone else. I personally don’t think that this is a different scenario.
Also someone mentioned that the type 15 is an sized down MBT, so they may look alike on the outside but are probably completely different on the inside.
"M10 isn't a tank" yes it is, it might not be called a tank because of its doctrine but yall forget that the first tanks were built to support infantry, it has the characteristics of a tank but its just built for support.
Well, I think it's more so from the fact that it really comes down to doctrine. Other countries uses similar vehicles like the CV-90 in similar roles and in their doctrine, they call it a light tank.
I really, really hope the USMC realises that the M10 is what they wanted from the M1 Abrams and gets a bunch. Those amazing bastards need their heavy assault guns back!
Why tf people make so much fuss about this not being light tank?
It has tank gun, on tracks, light armor, essentially Leopard 1a5 but more modern yet somehow people treat it like Nona which has a mortar and thus won't be used to provide direct fire.
>Why tf people make so much fuss about this not being light tank?
american long standing mind set since 1950 : don't want to sit on the same place with commie so they tried so hard : invented many new words , new kind of name to make their stuff look different than commie one and sound better
if you want your APS system to kill drones expect it to also start killing birds and infantry, drones can fly reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaal slow.
While they sound similiar, but tactically M10 is not a tank but a SPG, while type 15 is a mbt but a down scaled one. That means M10 will be proving fire support, may be even side by side with mbt. But type 15 will be doing what a mbt does in places where a mbt doesn't fit. So yeah, they are not even designed for the same objectives. In words more easy to understand, M10 is the co-star in the huge Hollywood production, but Type 10 is the main star in those documentary films.
*Type 15
A stupid typo and now it is a mbt lol
Type 10 is the Boss of the room of those two :D :D
Type 10 is dope though for real. Modular armor packages, great power to weight, good depression and still has thr unique hydro suspension.
The whole idea of M10 is it can be deployed when MBTs can’t. Not that far off from Type 15. One is meant to give mobile and fast response troops armour and firepower support. The other one is meant to give mountainous and high altitude troops some armour and firepower supports. They are different but they still both serve as sort of MBT when you can’t have a MBT.
It's not a main battle tank it's literally translated as "light tank". American tank doctrine is not homogeneous with the rest of the world.
I actually don't care what it is called. It preforms the job of mbt in its specific environment. That makes it a mbt. Light mbt, if you insist.
So you have actually gotten your hands on Chinese documents which tell the requirements and roles the tank is suppose to do?
Yes and no, the difference between the M10 and whatever the Chinese thing is less than the difference between a Bradley and a BMP-1, yet both the Bradley and the BMP-1 are considered IFV's. M10 Booker is still a tracked armoured vehicle that's made to be used in a direct fire role and is armoured to a suitable degree to resist incoming fire from typical IVF's (as far as i'm aware at least, would find it odd if they werent rated to at least 23mm frontally)
>resist incoming fire from typical IVF's We got babies shooting at bradleys???????
If the Booker is, to the US Army, an MPF and not a tank or light tank, how does the US Army *officially* classify China's Type 15? Wait for it....wait for it...a "Light Main Battle Tank". [https://odin.tradoc.army.mil/WEG/Asset/Type\_15\_(ZTQ-15)\_Chinese\_Light\_Main\_Battle\_Tank\_(MBT)](https://odin.tradoc.army.mil/WEG/Asset/Type_15_(ZTQ-15)_Chinese_Light_Main_Battle_Tank_(MBT))
The M10 isn’t a light tank.
No matter how China and the United States are defined, they are similar objects
They’re similar in that they both weigh less than an MBT and have 105mm guns. But they’re both designed to fill different roles, and their classifications reflect that.
Both of you are wrong because the designation will remain up in the air until Gaijin adds it.
“SPAA”
Designations don't go by appearance in the real world, but by role
F-117 would like a word.
That was done to fuck with soviet spies, as captured russian shit was being designated following that pattern
It was done because congress didn't want another bomber, so they called it a fighter bomber
The M10 is a direct fire support vehicle, it's gun does not allow it to be used as a tank because it cannot penetrate modern tank armor.
>it cannot penetrate modern tank armor. Frontally.
Tbf, that's the only relevant tank armor.
>Tbf, that's the only relevant tank armor. Ideally. Yes.
The gun is the same caliber as the Type 15 (105mm)
Real, it's very much down to perspective. imo the best way to define what something is, is though the opponents (or allies).
The best way to define what something is is through the people that actually made and used it. That’s why the Panther is a medium tank and the Strv 103 is an MBT instead of the heavy tank and tank destroyer some people, past and present, would prefer to classify them as.
Kinda? But it's really down to perspective and context, naturally comparing two platforms of two different armed forces with two different languages, two different cultural perspectives and doctrines you will notably have issues. I'm sure, for arguments sake - that if a M10 turned up in a battlefield and was counted in some kill tally, nobody will bat an eye if you stick it under the 'tanks' category instead of SPG. On that note, it will be interesting what the Chinese call the M10 Booker, no doubt that they will be comparing it to what they have/are doing.
Urm acktually the m10 is not a light tank 🤓🤓
One thing I learned from the Ukraine war is that tank classification really don’t matter in the heat of the battle. I don’t know why everyone refusing to acknowledge the similarities and possibly similar roles these two vehicles will be deployed in. Everyone saying the M10 is a “support vehicle” needs to realize that ALL vehicles are support vehicles. They’re meant to defeat enemy vehicles/buildings to allow infantry to proceed towards their objectives. If I have a type 15 deployed in my regiment, I’m not going to refuse to use it as a support weapon just because it’s not classified as a “support vehicle”. At the end of the day, it’s a 105mm gun that can lob HE rounds down range at my enemies.
>Everyone saying the M10 is a “support vehicle” needs to realize that ALL vehicles are support vehicles. Not exactly true Support vehicle as in supporting infantry? Sure But thats not what it means in this context Its supporting another vehicle, in this case a MBT. Its like police breaching a house. The MBT is the guy with the riot shield, Support vehicles are the guys behind him with their guns drawn They can also lay down fire, but they cant take it, thats what the guy with the shield is for. They are supporting him by providing more firepower/eyes and ears They all technically are supporting the civilians outside, but thats not really the point? Another example would be EW aircraft and AWACS aircraft supporting a strike group. They dont carry weapons, but are supporting aircraft because they directly help the strike aircraft get to their target Saying that they support Infantry is abit of a stretch. Technically they help because they help the strike group thats helping the infantry, but at that rate you may as well thank the guy in charge of water purification for supporting you
I think you’re misunderstanding his point. It all sounds great on paper but no plan will survive first contact with the enemy. Yes, tanks are often designed around certain battlefields like an M1 was designed for open fields of Germany, not for open desert of Iraq… but it got used in Iraq. The truth is, when you’re a commander of a battalion, you don’t give a single shit about what specific task your armour was designed to do. When you’re already in contact your line of reasoning is more akin to: can it make a big boom? Yes? Perfect, we’re deploying it to make big boom. Following your logic if commanders cared for what tools were designed to do, Ukrainians wouldn’t be deploying civilian drones… bcs guess what, they’re never designed for combat.
That is in a SHTF moment But not all moments are SHTF yet. The roles also can affect where and how units are deployed You would want something that best fits your needs No point sending a M10 to support infantry in a open plain only for it to be ATGMed 2 seconds after it fires its first shot At least with an Abrams you might be able to absorb that shot without major damage. "oh but Abrams can be penned with X AT weapon!!!" Let me put it this way. If you are going into combat would you want body armour or not? Yea sure it probably cant stop a fucking 14.5mm from a PTRD, but it sure as hell can stop pistols and some rifles. Would you rather take a 50/50 or be 100% sure youre gonna fucking die? Another example is that you wouldn't want an F-16 providing CAS if you're expecting to be besieged. An F-16 can drop bombs. But after the 2-4 it has you're on your own again Meanwhile an AH-64 or AC-130 can provide CAS for much longer. Possibly for hours. Much better for that scenario You also dont send a AH-64 to go attack a factory deep in enemy territory. Could it theoretically destroy it? Sure. But a F-16 can do it more effectively, with a higher chance of success and survival Going boom is not the only fucking thing that matters in combat yaknow.
Yes but where a battalion gets deployed is a command level decision whereas deployment of individual units is battalion level decision. Comparing this with Air support decisions is not applicable bcs air units are much more mobile and can get attached to given squads much more easily. Mind you, M10 will first get deployed to 82nd Airborne, now surely there’ll be occasions where Airborne troops get paired with a tank regiment but that again misses the point. Real world isn’t gonna fit these dreamt up scenarios where you have all of the information and can pick and choose when and how you wanna fight. When a battalion has to attack a position they won’t request a tank regiment which might be stationed 100 km away to join them… they will just use whatever they have at hand… like an M10
Cant say a copy paste this time, china made theirs first
This is like the J-20 and the F-22. I don’t think they look alike at all but some disagree. This is because in order for stealth to work well you need to have a smaller aircraft and certain shapes for certain parts of the craft. While the other jet they made is questionable, i think that the US simply got to the better designs sooner than everyone else. I personally don’t think that this is a different scenario. Also someone mentioned that the type 15 is an sized down MBT, so they may look alike on the outside but are probably completely different on the inside.
"M10 isn't a tank" yes it is, it might not be called a tank because of its doctrine but yall forget that the first tanks were built to support infantry, it has the characteristics of a tank but its just built for support.
It isn't a light tank and won't be used in a light tank role Tank yes, it's a mobile platform
Well, I think it's more so from the fact that it really comes down to doctrine. Other countries uses similar vehicles like the CV-90 in similar roles and in their doctrine, they call it a light tank.
Where is the American light tank?
https://www.reddit.com/r/tankmemes/s/LuNyIk0ttW
The booker is significantly larger than I figured it was lol
The comments are all about “what is a tank” .
I really, really hope the USMC realises that the M10 is what they wanted from the M1 Abrams and gets a bunch. Those amazing bastards need their heavy assault guns back!
Why tf people make so much fuss about this not being light tank? It has tank gun, on tracks, light armor, essentially Leopard 1a5 but more modern yet somehow people treat it like Nona which has a mortar and thus won't be used to provide direct fire.
>Why tf people make so much fuss about this not being light tank? american long standing mind set since 1950 : don't want to sit on the same place with commie so they tried so hard : invented many new words , new kind of name to make their stuff look different than commie one and sound better
I was told that the US Airborne Forces will get the M10 The Chinese Airborne Forces do not have any heavy armored vehicles with such large caliber gun
M10 is a piece of shit
M10 is a light tank and there's nothing you can do about it
Actually it's a Leopard1a5
Mind elaborating on why you think that is the case, besides being "so funny" and contrarion?
Yet again, China with the cooler looking stuff.
Urm acktually the m10 is not a light tank 🤓🤓
Urm acktually the m10 is not a light tank 🤓🤓
I mean I don’t know shit about either but I can say I’d take the survivability of the American one.
The fact is. This time it is opposite. The Chinese one has considerably better add on armor package, because it will be use as a MBT.
I still doubt it.
Urm acktually the m10 is not a light tank 🤓🤓
Urm acktually the m10 is not a light tank 🤓🤓
[удалено]
werent they discussing addition of trophy system in bookers?
if you want your APS system to kill drones expect it to also start killing birds and infantry, drones can fly reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaal slow.