Talk:M10 Booker

Military history: Land vehicles / Technology / North America / United States / Post-Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military land vehicles task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

Essay-like addition

An IP has added an essay-like section attempting to explain the differences between light tanks and "mobile direct fire/mechanised fire support vehicles." There are a number of problems with this addition. The first graf is entirely unreferenced and the second one is cited to a bunch of random manufacturer data sheets and press releases from Rheinmetall and BAE. In addition to being off-topic WP:SYNTH this presents a number of falsehoods about light tanks as fact. In the modern day, [light tanks] generally weigh below 25 metric tons without add-on armor packages. Twenty-five metric tons is the arbitrary cut-off that Janes uses to classify a tank as either a light tank or a medium/MBT. The weight is generally not the defining trait that the U.S. Army has historically used to classify tanks after World War II. The role the vehicle is expected to perform is a much more important consideration. In the MPF's case, the vehicle is not expected to perform reconnaissance as a light tank would or take on MBTs as an MBT would, so the Army chooses not to label it as such.

It is important not to take the Army's idiosyncratic combat vehicle classification strategy to heart. Years ago, the brass responsible for procuring the AGS repeatly made clear that the AGS was not to be labeled as a light tank. They apparently weren't speaking for everybody because this advice was completely ignored by the officials who wrote the literal manuals for light armor operations. Schierbecker (talk) 23:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Light Tank

Calling it a "light tank" makes no sense at all, and I mean even apart from the official US Army speech conventions, which generally make little sense, either. Weighing in at 38 - 42 tons, the Booker is about as heavy as a T-72, and I guess we can all agree that the T-72 is a full-blown MBT, i.e. a main battle tank, even if slightly outdated by today's standards. Even calling it a "medium tank" would be a bit of a stretch, though that would come closer to the truth. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]