We need to separate, in this discussion, the various types of "light tanks".
Their definition as such can either come from their exceptionally low weight (e.g M8, Sheridan, Sprut), or their light protection (but relatively high weight).
If we look at the Philippines, we see a country that cannot afford a full blown MBT for a multitude of reasons.
- So take a more economically viable APC hull, attach a low cost high caliber turret of choice, and call it a day. It won't be as light as a Sprut or a Sheridan, but it certainly will be lighter than an MBT, so the costs are going to be lower across the board.
- Protection-wise, the vehicle will be a light/medium armored target. That's why we've seen the terms "light tank" or "medium tank" (Indonesia) thrown around quite liberally.
If we look at the US or Russia, we see tanks that are built to a certain logistical limit. The yet unnamed MPF is built for a weight limit that coincides with a C-17's cargo limit (can carry exactly 2 MPF with 1.5 tons to spare IIRC).
- Russia wants a vehicle they can airdrop across a vast theater.
- And India wants to buy the Russian Sprut because they lack a direct fire weapon for mountain units.
So they are actually 'light', and it comes from them being purposefully lighter in weight than an MBT, not necessarily with lighter protection. It is, for example, definitely a logical step for the US to invest in active protection for the MPF.
Lumping them all together would be wrong.
@Stuart M if you still want to debate why you think there are problems with the concept of light/medium tanks, I'm all for it. I just need concrete arguments to work with. Unless I misunderstood you?
