Light Tanks

[Waylander]

Yeah, suicide monkeys!!!!
I would love them.

I think the US should invest in them instead of Future Warrior and FCS. :nutkick

Who cares about PGMs and other stuff if you could flood the enemy with millions of C4 and RPG monkeys.
And against armies with women in it they would even work without weapons because they are soooo cuuute. :nutkick

 

[gf0012-aust]

Im not talking about setting off some bungers at point B while shooting at point A.

Neither am I. The limitation is in the library. The future system using a PDA is for the personal soldier solution - the vehicle or team solution uses a laptop.

That library carries a whole lot of acoustic happy snaps inside of it.....

 

[StingrayOZ]

Gf, well as good as the system is im not sure if I would trust it to ensure it can descriminate between friendly bang bangs and unfriendly bang bangs, if it has automatic return fire capability.

Like any high tech thing, they are still often suseptable to the crude and simple. RPG monkeys and exploding donkeys etc are just an example. And they are dam cheap.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Gf, well as good as the system is im not sure if I would trust it to ensure it can descriminate between friendly bang bangs and unfriendly bang bangs, if it has automatic return fire capability.

the tech has the capability to be slaved to an autorespondent - you would only do that in a free fire area.

Like any high tech thing, they are still often suseptable to the crude and simple. RPG monkeys and exploding donkeys etc are just an example. And they are dam cheap.

apart from exploding donkeys, an RPG is in the acoustic library.

like any system, user education is critical. they're not meant to be a weapon for all seasons, and they're a niche weapon, so the unfettered incoming scenarios that you are talking about are not what was under absolute consideration.

they're typically designed for counter sniper/shooter/marksmen. they're able to be fused into approp kitted UAV's - and they're calibre insensitive. ie, if the calibre is in the database, then the system will find the shooter - be it sidearm, be it 152mm within the sensor parameters (and thats been considerably enhanced by hooking into the UAV "cumulus" grid).

I think you're misunderstanding the op parameters and intended tac use of the system.

you don't have to slave it, you don't have to fuse it into the rest of the sensor grid, you don't have to bring it out for all area protection scenarios.

use it approp and the other side hurts. use it as a weapon for all contacts and you're a fool wearing a uniform.

 

[StingrayOZ]

But thats the clincher, it isn't on all the time.

All it does is reduce the window a sniper has to operate and changes the conditions.

The art of war is still applicable. Hit the enemy at his weak spot, when he is at his weakest moment.

Any chance this system could be used against artillary shells, I know the US have experimented with CWIS on land to protect bases against motar and artillary.

It looks the systems that protected big ships are now comming to tanks and small light land forces. Could we be seeing the end of the heavy tank as it goes the way of the battleship.

 

[gf0012-aust]

But thats the clincher, it isn't on all the time.

It was originally only conceived as an area identification system - the issue is that in the last 12 months, significant steps have been made in autocueing other systems into it.

All it does is reduce the window a sniper has to operate and changes the conditions.

Dislocating a sniper from their usual form of engagement means a plus in itself.

Any chance this system could be used against artillary shells, I know the US have experimented with CWIS on land to protect bases against motar and artillary.

variations of it could be used in conjunction with systems like Cobra

It looks the systems that protected big ships are now comming to tanks and small light land forces. Could we be seeing the end of the heavy tank as it goes the way of the battleship.

I think the tank is going to be around for quite a while - its demise was predicted ever since shaped charges were developed, then ATGM's, then MANPATs.

What is will mean is that it will become increasingly easier for the the average trooper to be connected into the rest of the sensor grid at a more intimate and immediate level.

the major hindrance at the moment is in MANPortable storage power - the sheer growth in all of the portable future sensors and comms systems are turning them into walking fuel cells/lithium batteries...

 

[extern]

Yeah... sniper - it's very horrible weapon. You can see it in Iraq as well: http://ia331310.us.archive.org/0/items/uyhtteed/3.rmvb (82mb)
However, Russia allready are starting to export such antisniper and anti-optic-recconaissance systems more then 5 years ago. It's not something new at all (at least in Russia). Private people also buy those systems as well - to be sure, nobody search them with optic devices and to be able to localize them. Unlike Australian's the Russian systems use another physical principles: they search the space with unvisible IR laser (acustic localising is very problematic in the mountain apropos because of echo ). It give them the possibility to found any optic device on the range up-to 1400 mm - well fits range of any effective sniping.
The developer: NPTs 'Transcript'
The names of allkinda devices: Mirage-1200, Myth-350, 'Luch-1M', Almaz, 'Anti-Nablyudatel', "Samurai"
site: http://www.anti-systems.ru/

 

[gf0012-aust]

Who said they're new? We sold our first export systems to US Treasury 7 years ago.

I'm curious what you know about the Australian system as its not in the public domain. The people who know about it are the users (very few) and those involved with the development.

We've sold it to 4 allies -and none of that ever appeared in Janes etc....

so where is your knowledge from?

Yeah... sniper - it's very horrible weapon. You can see it in Iraq as well: http://ia331310.us.archive.org/0/items/uyhtteed/3.rmvb (82mb)
However, Russia allready are starting to export such antisniper and anti-optic-recconaissance systems more then 5 years ago. It's not something new at all (at least in Russia). Private people also buy those systems as well - to be sure, nobody search them with optic devices and to be able to localize them. Unlike Australian's the Russian systems use another physical principles: they search the space with unvisible IR laser (acustic localising is very problematic in the mountain apropos because of echo ). It give them the possibility to found any optic device on the range up-to 1400 mm - well fits range of any effective sniping.
The developer: NPTs 'Transcript'
The names of allkinda devices: Mirage-1200, Myth-350, 'Luch-1M', Almaz, 'Anti-Nablyudatel', "Samurai"
site: http://www.anti-systems.ru/

 

[extern]

Who said they're new? We sold our first export systems to US Treasury 7 years ago.

I'm curious what you know about the Australian system as its not in the public domain. The people who know about it are the users (very few) and those involved with the development.

We've sold it to 4 allies -and none of that ever appeared in Janes etc....

so where is your knowledge from?

I said nothing about the Australian system history, mainly because I have no enough knowleage about this. If I was understood wrong, sorry and sorry...

 

[gf0012-aust]

I said nothing about the Australian system history, mainly because I have no enough knowleage about this. If I was understood wrong, sorry and sorry...

no need to apologise, I've obviously misunderstood your response.

 

[jamesteo320]

Does anybody knows whether the amphibious version of Pandur II can be fitted with a 90mm or 105mm turret? How many troops can it carries, excluding the ifv crew?

 

[sashikanth]

I dont really know the advantages of light tanks in a desert senerio.
I dont know where they fit into!!!

 

[DavidDCM]

Light Tanks are specialised vehicles for special situations. In terrain too soft for fullsize mbt a light tank can be useful. Or in operations in places difficult to reach/supply.

In the Falkslands England's only "heavy" forces where something like 3 Scorpions and 4 Scimitars.
The Sprut Light Tank from Russia can be air-dropped.

In every scenario where fullsize MBTs can get deployed, a light tank has lost it's sense of existence.

 

[AGRA]

In every scenario where fullsize MBTs can get deployed, a light tank has lost it's sense of existence.

Not at all. In many scenarios light tanks prove their superioty to heavy tanks in tank vs tank fighting. While the light tank has lighter armour it usually has higher mobility. This means a force of light tanks can concentrate quicker allowing for a higher number of actual vehicles to be invovled in a fight. Is better to have 50 90mm high velocity tubes in a tank fight than only 10 120mm high velocity tubes. US Army testing in the early 1980s found the 15 tonne AAI RDF/LT armed with a 75mm HV gun to be far superior to 55 tonne Chrysler M1s armed with a 105mm HV gun in the then defence of West Germany mission against the Soviet threat. Its only in a one on one engagement that MBTs have advantages. One on one engagements don't really happen in the real world - just on the pages of books about weapons.

 

[DavidDCM]

No, a light tank has not the tactical mobility of a MBT, what could be true is strategic mobility. But come on, 50 light tanks vs 10 mbt's? A nation's army's logistic abilities is based on the fact that the smallest unit to be completely strategic mobile is a bataillon. Do you think they would sent in a team of 10 tanks when the "soviet tankroll" would've come across the border? Neither in attack nor in defense can a light tank nearly match the performance of a MBT. And on tactical level nothing is more mobile on the ground than a MBT.

 

[AGRA]

No, a light tank has not the tactical mobility of a MBT, what could be true is strategic mobility. But come on, 50 light tanks vs 10 mbt's? A nation's army's logistic abilities is based on the fact that the smallest unit to be completely strategic mobile is a bataillon. Do you think they would sent in a team of 10 tanks when the "soviet tankroll" would've come across the border? Neither in attack nor in defense can a light tank nearly match the performance of a MBT. And on tactical level nothing is more mobile on the ground than a MBT.

Tactical ranks from an individual fighter through to Corps. If you have a combat team of MBTs and I can concentrate a battalion + of light tanks I will beat you. Because MBTs do not have the same tactical mobility of light tanks. Light tanks are faster, can cross more terrain, and can be lifted by air, etc. This increased mobility enables the commander to respond and initaite quicker enabling higher concentration. Light tanks however suffer in close combat where terrain limits there mobility.

 

[DavidDCM]

Tactical ranks from an individual fighter through to Corps. If you have a combat team of MBTs and I can concentrate a battalion + of light tanks I will beat you.

This comparison makes no sense. If I throw thousand Somalis at 2 Delta Force snipers, the snipers get killed, but that doesn't mean the Somali militias are better soldiers. Of course a battalion of Light Tanks would beat a handful of MBT's but why should such a scenario occur. You yourself posted the following statement:

One on one engagements don't really happen in the real world - just on the pages of books about weapons.

Apart from the fact that I've never read such books you're totally right, but only a single post later you write "a combat team of MBTs vs. a battalion+ of light tanks". Such a scenario is as unrealistic as a one-on-one standoff. An Army that can only bring a couple of MBT's into the battle vs a batallion sized enemy wouldn't have performed any better if it had Light Tanks instead. Such a statement is worthless when evaluating the performance of MBTs vs Light Tanks. That's more of a criticism toward the logistical abilities of that particular Armed Forces.

Because MBTs do not have the same tactical mobility of light tanks. Light tanks are faster, can cross more terrain, and can be lifted by air, etc. This increased mobility enables the commander to respond and initaite quicker enabling higher concentration. Light tanks however suffer in close combat where terrain limits there mobility.

This is not World War II anymore, where huge steel beasts crept along the streets with 5 miles per hour. Nowadays they are a little faster. The AAI RDF/LT you mentioned was way inferior when it comes to cross country/offroad abilities.
Being air-dropable is just caused by it's particular specialized task on the battlefield. It's like a airborne paratrooper, he is not better or worse than a guy from the mechanized infantry who drives around in an IFV. Both have their particular tasks and both are equipped and trained for that exact purpose. And that is the same with Light Tanks vs MBT's, both have their field of activity. And full scale armoured warfare versus an equally strong enemy is definitely not the field of activity of a Light Tank.

 

[eckherl]

Looking at a large scale scenario I think that light tanks make good recon and screening action vehicles with just enough firepower to get out of trouble. They are also of use fighting smaller scale conflicts with less capable opponents.

 

[kato]

In my opinion, light tanks provide a good high-mobility capability in a classic tank-hunter/tank-destroyer role actually. Especially on the defensive side.

In 1991, Austria deployed troops along the border in a defensive action against possible violations by Yugoslavian or Slovenian troops in the short independence war of Slovenia.
What Austria primarily deployed there armor-wise wasn't their M60A3, but instead light SK-105 in prepared defensive positions, with two bataillons going in position on the second day, the same that Yugoslavian troops reached the border region. These Austrian light tanks were supported by infantry anti-tank troops, and the primary "opponent" eyed for these deployed units wasn't infantry - but in particular 30 Yugoslavian T72s fighting Slowenian irregulars just across the border in that particular place.

 

[Waylander]

As said befire by others here light forces can perform excellent when used as recon assets, screening forces, tank hunters, convoy escorts and for UN-missions.
Add to this their smaller operating costs and strategic deplyoability and you got a nice, versatile vehicle which should exist in every good balanced army.

And one should exactly use them for this role instead of trying to substitute MBTs with them.
They are not able to do what tanks do.
I've yet to see a light wheeled tank which has better tactical mobility than a MBT.
Light forces are not able to perform the same intense mobile battles like heavy tank forces.

The argument that you are able to field more of them and outmaneuver your opponent due to sheere numbers (not mobility!) is not going to help your btn commander who has to attack an overstrength enemy tank company in a mobile engagement (Or when he is really screwed a counterattack against enemy positions).
While every hit by the tanks results in a nearly 100% kill it is not near the other way around due to better armor and often enough better firepower.