The Booker is a tank, even if it defies the modern armored imagination.īefore today’s main battle tanks devoured their siblings and became one tank to rule them all, armies around the world had different tanks for different functions.Įven the U.S. We at the Military Times Observation Post hereby reject the Army’s final, most essential command. The white paper’s authors argued, then, that dropping the “light tank” moniker was meant to “dissuade” troops from using it like a main battle tank rather than in the infantry support role they envisioned. The Booker is much smaller than the Abrams main battle tank, which officials say will allow it greater maneuverability and reduced maintenance needs while also providing powerful support to the infantry brigades they’ll join.īut for its advantages, the Booker isn’t supposed to square off against enemy main battle tanks. Army, and recently resurfaced by Task & Purpose - in which two officers argue that the service intentionally moved away from the “light tank” label. So why does a faction within the Army tell us to reject the evidence of our eyes and ears?Ī potential answer comes via a 2019 white paper - first published by the Association of the U.S. So are tanks.Įven Dean, a prominent Booker tank denier, confessed that it “looks like, smells like feels like” a tank.

It’s protected enough to withstand attacks from enemy armored vehicles.

Its controls mimic those of the M1 Abrams main battle tank.

What is the military name for a tank