The information is sourced from the following website：
It is mentioned in the text：
Son canon à faible effort de recul M35 de 105 mm est dérivé du prototype de canon EX35 développé au début des années 1980 par les laboratoires Benét de l’arsenal de Watervliet, ce dernier fut testé sur le M8 Buford et le LAV-105. Il doit tirer des obus flèche avec une portée de tir maximale de 4 km et des obus explosifs à une portée de 1,8 km. Il reprend la gamme de munitions de calibre 105×617mmR (en) employée par le M1128 Mobile Gun System dont l’obus-flèche M900A1. Le canon principal est chargé manuellement. Une mitrailleuse lourde de 12,7 mm est montée sur la trappe du commandant. Deux rangées de quatre lance-grenades fumigènes sont montées de chaque côté à l’avant de la tourelle.
Translating into English is：
Its 105mm M35 low-recoil gun is derived from the prototype EX35 gun developed in the early 1980s by Benét Laboratories at the Watervliet Arsenal, the latter being tested on the M8 Buford and LAV-105. It is intended to fire arrow shells with a maximum firing range of 4 km and explosive shells with a range of 1.8 km. It uses the 105×617mmR range of ammunition used by the M1128 Mobile Gun System including the M900A1 arrow shell. The main gun is loaded manually. A 12.7 mm heavy machine gun was mounted on the commander’s hatch. Two rows of four smoke grenade launchers are mounted on each side at the front of the turret.
The article explicitly mentions that the m10 booker can launch the m900a1 armor piercing missile
…which I was wondering if “M900A1” and “M900” (when used in military documents) designations both refer to the same round that actually entered production. In fact, I’ve never seen the name “M900A1” and “M900” appear in the same document, but I can be more informed on that matter.
Moreover,we don’t know exactly what the differences between the M900A1 and the M900 are. Hell, sometimes both shells are in fact considered as one or there were rumours circulating online that the M900A1 in reality was a lower-pressure version of the M900 that was hastily put up for the USMC M60A1s and M60A3s to be used in the First Gulf War since the US Army had either the 105mm M1 and M1IP with their M833 and M900 or the M1A1 with the M829 which were all more efficient APFSDS rounds than the M774 which was used by the Pattons.
Of course this rumour is either not confirmed or debunked considering that the M774 was more than enough for the USMC to use against the Iraqi Army (which had the T-72 as their most modern tank) and that they also fielded a limited numbers of M1A1s that they borrowed from the Army.
