Light Tanks
- Thread starter lobbie111
- Start date
The following clip shows UK light tanks providing direct infantry support in Afghanistan. Though lightly armed the 30mm still provides a useful addition to local commanders arsenal. Vehicles fitted with bar armour
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2iCkSNiwbs&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2iCkSNiwbs&mode=related&search=
These are not light tanks in the classic sense. They are armored gun platforms - closer to tank destroyers than tanks. They all lack the protection to be truly classified as tanks.
They are useful for adding punch to medium forces, while maintaining a common logistics train with other vehicles in the brigade. But they are vulnerable to everything from autocannons to ATGMs and MBTs.
The term 'tank' implies to me a balance of protection, mobility and firepower.
These vehicles overemphasize firepower and mobility at the expense of protection - just like the tank destroyers of WWII.
Perhaps I'm quibbling over semantics, but i think the distinction is important with regards to their intended mission and method of employment.
Maybe not in the traditional way of light tanks but they are what we now have as light tanks.
And they are the vehicles we talk about whatever name one gives to them.
They are not pure tank destroyers as they are not purely addicted to any of the other possible roles we listed here.
And they are the vehicles we talk about whatever name one gives to them.
They are not pure tank destroyers as they are not purely addicted to any of the other possible roles we listed here.
No, they are not pure tank destroyers. Their role (at least the Stryker MGS) is primarily infantry fire support.
They do, however, have the characteristics of tank destroyers - namely light armor and large tank gun.
But a tank destroyer needs not only a big gun but a big gun which is able to threaten modern tanks frontally.
And the 105mm (Not to talk of 90mm) carried by most of the vehicles we talk about are not able to effectively enemy armor frontally.
You should remember that vehicles like the Centauro or MGS entered service with a 105mm gun when it was obvious that it is not sufficient anymore for the AT-role.
And the 105mm (Not to talk of 90mm) carried by most of the vehicles we talk about are not able to effectively enemy armor frontally.
You should remember that vehicles like the Centauro or MGS entered service with a 105mm gun when it was obvious that it is not sufficient anymore for the AT-role.
The 105mm gun with modern munitions is effective against older MBTs.
Centauro now has a 120mm option, and the CV90120 carries a 120mm.
But as I said, these vehicles are intended to provide fire support to infantry and only have a secondary AT role. Thus the MGS moniker on the Stryker - Mobile Gun System. They didn't call it a "light tank" for a reason.
Both vehicles are not in service and remain prototypes till now.
And I know what the mission of the MGS is. To give the Stryker brigades some punch/direct fire support.
It is nearly unimportant how we call those vehicles.
We just used light tanks to have a name to work with.
We can also call all them MGS or fire support vehicle or whatever.
We discuss about possible roles of such vehicles on a modern battlefield or in other operations (Like peacekeeping operations).
And I know what the mission of the MGS is. To give the Stryker brigades some punch/direct fire support.
It is nearly unimportant how we call those vehicles.
We just used light tanks to have a name to work with.
We can also call all them MGS or fire support vehicle or whatever.
We discuss about possible roles of such vehicles on a modern battlefield or in other operations (Like peacekeeping operations).
The Stryker MGS is in service.
Well, if those vehicles Waylander mentioned above are too lightly armoured to be called Light Tank, then we should notice that there are no Light Tanks anymore. Stuff like CV90120, Sprut and stuff are the best protected vehicles right after MBT's.
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
Is there a firm A) Ordered/Inservice number or B) Required number for the Stryker MGS?
Correct - you have either infantry support vehicles or infantry fighting vehicles for current trends, there are still being used though for secondary roles in some countries armies. Russian PT 76, French AMX 13, and China Type 62.That's exactly what I mean.
There are just those vehicles and MBTs. There is nothing in between.
Right now there is approximately 67 that are built. Some are being used in Iraq by the 9th light infantry Division.
Here is some pictures, you will notice that one of them shows a Tow launcher that is starting to be fielded also.
Perhaps I haven’t fully explained what I mean here in relation to 10 vs 40. I used the term concentrate and thought that would be enough. It has nothing to do with overall numbers of logistics but how many vehicles you can manoeuvre in response to the enemy to achieve concentration.
In analysing the effectiveness of light tanks vs MBTs one has to do so from a systems perspective. In particular analysing the difference between the RDF/LT and a LAV based gun platform (like the Stryker MGS) versus the M1 one finds that in conventional open terrain tank vs tank fighting the lighter tanks have a range of advantages. In particular higher mobility allowing the commander to concentrate more force when and where its needed.
Assume you have a US armoured cavalry regiment defending against a Soviet tank division. Once you identify the Soviet axes of advance you concentrate your tanks to meet and engage them. With a formation of M1 tanks you can only concentrate a single company or combat team of tanks but with the faster moving lighter tanks you can concentrate an entire ‘squadron’ or battle group. This provides you the 40 vs 10 advantage.
It is important to note that mobility isn’t just some maximum speed listed in Janes but actual deployable speed of an entire tank company. In this case the light tank has significant advantages over most terrain types than the M1. Helicopter supported light tanks have even more significant mobility advantages. Imagine trying to move a convoy of 20 buses from one town to the next through some back streets and country tracks. Then imagine trying to move a convoy of 20 Smart cars over the same route. Maximum speed may not be very different but the ease in which the smaller cars can formate and manoeuvre gives them a clear advantage.
Or use the Somali example. The 2 Delta Force snipers will beat the 1,000 Somalis if the Somalis can't concentrate their force. If they are limited by their own mobility and terrain to only approach the snipers 10 men at a time then the snipers will win. However if they can concentrate and approach at 100 a time they will have overwhelming firepower.
This is why in any kind of battle simulation and often in the real world (Israeli Shermans and AM-13s thumping Egyptian JS-3s and T-55s) lighter vehicles that have faster ‘operational’ mobility win out. This is what motivated the West to move down the LAV path in the 90s for FCS and FRES. Unfortunately the real world intervened and enemy forces facing dominant western air-land firepower have retreated into close terrain like cityscapes where armour counts for more than mobility.
Exactly , and you can not substitute MBT's for it , its something completly different , like comparing a Tomato's vs Apple's