The M10 Booker itself was a good idea initially—to equip the U.S. light infantry with a quicker, armored gunship that would provide more firepower without losing its mobility. What sounded great in theory, though, proved to be a lesson on how even the best well-considered plans tend to go off the tracks under red tape, changing requirements, and the needs of the modern war.
Infantry Brigade Combat Teams did not have a doctrinally assigned vehicle to grant mobility with disproportionate firepower until this point. This left soldiers open to being injured when fighting against stationary targets or lightly armored targets. Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) is a program that started in 2017 and became available to fill the gap.
The task was daunting but simple: create a vehicle light enough to be brought to bear in a hurry, tough enough to last on the new battlefield, and strong enough to offer infantrymen useful assistance where heavier tanks were impossible. General Dynamics Land Systems and BAE Systems tendered for the contract, and after intense tests, GDLS tendered in 2022. Its model would be the M10 Booker under a production contract of $1.14 billion.
The Booker would be a bridge model between a simple tank and an assault gun. It would be equipped with a 105mm main cannon, four crew members, and new thermal-imaging, communications, and target-acquisition gear. It was around 42 tons in weight, heavier than designed but lighter than the M1 Abrams. Modular armor and active protection provided protection and flexibility. The Army never classified it as a “tank” but as an officially combat vehicle for destroying ground positions and light armor, but not tanks.
Sophisticated deployment plans went into its design. Army officers could possibly have up to four battalions out in 2030, with more than 500 vehicles. Production lots one and two were $12.8 million each, hoping that as the production was larger in quantity, the cost would be lower. Trucks would reach their service in 2025, 14 per Infantry Brigade Combat Team.
They were produced in many states: turrets produced in Ohio, hulls in Michigan, and assembled in Alabama. As of mid-2025, 84 had been ordered, 26 had been delivered, and about 80 were constructed in total.
It was needs-based. As the Army’s requirement for security and sophisticated systems increased, so did the weight of the vehicle. What was originally lightweight and air-deployable was now cumbersome. Fort Campbell bridges, 101st Airborne Division headquarters, were too tiny to hold it, and only one unit could be crammed into a C-17 transport aircraft—undermining the speed-of-delivery justification that had spurred its development.
Maintenance likewise was an issue. Contractor restraint limited the Army mechanic’s field repair capacity, i.e., increased reliance on contract civilians. This was a challenge posed to the degree of value the Booker would be in engaging high-speed operation, close-in area environments, or carrying out operations from points remote from bases of operation.
The Army in June 2025 canceled the M10 Booker project, having spent decades of time and money on it. The action was a part of the Army Transformation Initiative aimed at removing programs that were no longer fulfilling strategic requirements. Instead of continuing a design flaw, the leaders accepted their error. Budget constraints, shifting priorities, and the need to modernize brought the project to an end at last.
Though the M10 Booker fell short, the tale is a moral one. It’s a test of engineering to put firepower, armor, and mobility into one vehicle, and there is always some compromise in which an increase in one aspect takes place at the expense of another. The issue, which produced the Booker—deployable armored fire support for light forces, is still an issue yet unresolved.
The experience with the M10 Booker will shape the Army’s future. Wherever there is next-generation material, new drive, or unmanned system, the Army will extend the horizon out into the future. Failure and success of the M10 Booker remind us that innovation needs vision and a vision for practicalities, compromise, and flexibility.