Mini Abrams...
- Thread starter lobbie111
- Start date
It is alright if you think so.
But maybe you could elaborate why you think this is possible.
A medium force does not offer many advantages over a heavy force despite strategic mobility.
I have no problem with discussing this in a serious matter and I don't want to punish you in any way.
Just give some reasons why you think that a medium force has a good chance of hunting down a heavy force.
But maybe you could elaborate why you think this is possible.
A medium force does not offer many advantages over a heavy force despite strategic mobility.
I have no problem with discussing this in a serious matter and I don't want to punish you in any way.
Just give some reasons why you think that a medium force has a good chance of hunting down a heavy force.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #83
Not hunting that is where you are wrong, I was thinking more of going to guerrilla style tactics ambushing forward elements and moving off within an TAOR.
Just like the NVA and Viet Cong did in the Vietnam war, the US sent in a two man patrol, they would never come back, so they sent in a few more say a four man patrol, they would never come back. and before you say that you would never leave a large group, the medium force can use mortars (with STRIX or the IMI cargo round) to split the heavier force up
Just like the NVA and Viet Cong did in the Vietnam war, the US sent in a two man patrol, they would never come back, so they sent in a few more say a four man patrol, they would never come back. and before you say that you would never leave a large group, the medium force can use mortars (with STRIX or the IMI cargo round) to split the heavier force up
No this is where you are wrong.
Breaking contact with the heavy forces once you entered combat is extremely difficult for the medium forces.
The only assets with which for example a Stryker brigade can set an ambush are it's dismounts with Javelins and it's Stryker MGS with 105mm guns.
For sure one can hope for some ambushes and side shots and one can try to harass the enemy with mortar fire.
But while a medium brigade is restricted to mortars and towed artillery a HBCT has support by modern SPHs and MLRS as well as mortars.
And these artillery assets are going to silence the fire support of the medium brigade within a short time with their counterfire.
And not only that but these support assets are also going to take their toll on the combat and rear formations of a medium unit.
Remember that while you advertise the advantages of something like STRIX you have to be aware that the HBCT can also use a wide array of modern 120mm mortar, 155mm artillery rounds and MLRS ammo. And it can do this with more and better assets.
And these dismounted Javelin teams amde mobile by a Stryker like platform and the Stryker MGS are just less capable of cross country rides especially when having to drive backwards which is normal if someone sets an ambush or fights a delaying attrition action.
The HBCT units are going to close the gap very fast once contact is established and while they have a huge superiority in firepower and can take a beating much better than a medium unit this advantage only gets bigger when they enter the infight.
All the time we assume that both sides have nearly the same amount of air support and are networked in the same way.
Apart from the US and some other many heavy units all over the world also field better tactical air defense systems which makes them less vulnerable to enemy air assets.
You are trying to compare the whole situation with platoon sized jungle operations of vietnam while this is not the point.
Comparing mechanized maneuver warfare with an example like you gave it is not even comparing apples and oranges.
And you should not forget that one only has so much terrain to give. Or how do you think one can hold a frontline or achieve successes in the offense?
In order to perform you mission one has to fight about a certain terrain and being restricted in your ability to trade terrain for time and cover is more common than the opposite.
Breaking contact with the heavy forces once you entered combat is extremely difficult for the medium forces.
The only assets with which for example a Stryker brigade can set an ambush are it's dismounts with Javelins and it's Stryker MGS with 105mm guns.
For sure one can hope for some ambushes and side shots and one can try to harass the enemy with mortar fire.
But while a medium brigade is restricted to mortars and towed artillery a HBCT has support by modern SPHs and MLRS as well as mortars.
And these artillery assets are going to silence the fire support of the medium brigade within a short time with their counterfire.
And not only that but these support assets are also going to take their toll on the combat and rear formations of a medium unit.
Remember that while you advertise the advantages of something like STRIX you have to be aware that the HBCT can also use a wide array of modern 120mm mortar, 155mm artillery rounds and MLRS ammo. And it can do this with more and better assets.
And these dismounted Javelin teams amde mobile by a Stryker like platform and the Stryker MGS are just less capable of cross country rides especially when having to drive backwards which is normal if someone sets an ambush or fights a delaying attrition action.
The HBCT units are going to close the gap very fast once contact is established and while they have a huge superiority in firepower and can take a beating much better than a medium unit this advantage only gets bigger when they enter the infight.
All the time we assume that both sides have nearly the same amount of air support and are networked in the same way.
Apart from the US and some other many heavy units all over the world also field better tactical air defense systems which makes them less vulnerable to enemy air assets.
You are trying to compare the whole situation with platoon sized jungle operations of vietnam while this is not the point.
Comparing mechanized maneuver warfare with an example like you gave it is not even comparing apples and oranges.
And you should not forget that one only has so much terrain to give. Or how do you think one can hold a frontline or achieve successes in the offense?
In order to perform you mission one has to fight about a certain terrain and being restricted in your ability to trade terrain for time and cover is more common than the opposite.
On occassion it is okay to have a fluid defensive engagement with your opponent, but when it becomes a issue of constantly having to give up ground from becoming destroyed then that battle wil be over rather quickly. Medium vehicles due not have the armor nor ammunition for a sustained fight, at the current time. FCS as AGR points out does have some major advancements, but everything has to be in place and working properly if used against a sizable enemy. Even though the U.S has envisioned thid new concept the verdict is still out on how it will work against a well established sizable enemy force.
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #86
what detection capabilites do modern heavy units have in terms of radar sensors etc.
One only needs to hide out of sight and wait for the rear units such as SPH's, MLRS and supply convoys are going to start walking across your kill zone. Along with an AT and AA capability like stingers or RBS70's you should have no trouble limiting a heavy brigades mobility for supplies but this is what you guys were saying earlier attacking the rear supplies will bring a mechanised unit to its knee's.
One only needs to hide out of sight and wait for the rear units such as SPH's, MLRS and supply convoys are going to start walking across your kill zone. Along with an AT and AA capability like stingers or RBS70's you should have no trouble limiting a heavy brigades mobility for supplies but this is what you guys were saying earlier attacking the rear supplies will bring a mechanised unit to its knee's.
The recce assets of a heavy unit are at least as good as the ones from a light unit.
They are supported by their attached lighter recce ground forces (For example armored cavalry in the US or Panzeraufklärer in GermanyI).
Other recon assets like ground surveillance radars, UAVs, EW/radio guys are also attached and they get the usual support by their Division or Corps (Be it air recon, space birds, intel,...).
Additionaly the battallions also have their own assets. For example in Germany a platoon of light recon infantry made mobile by Wolf (Named Aufklärungs- und Verbindungszug/AVZ) is part of the 1st company.
And while a medium force has the advantage that they can easier give some of their light assets the role of light recon vehicles if needed the heavy force also has an advantage.
They can conduct real recce by force (Is this the right english word for it?).
And a unit like a Stryker Brigade is going to struggle when it tries to counter this.
Trying to catch the rear units is always a good idea (Besides the fact that a modern SPH is not really what I would call a defenseless victim) but actually doing it is not easier with a heavy unit that with a medium unit.
If a Stryker brigade looses their logistical tail it is as much in trouble as a HBCT.
They are supported by their attached lighter recce ground forces (For example armored cavalry in the US or Panzeraufklärer in GermanyI).
Other recon assets like ground surveillance radars, UAVs, EW/radio guys are also attached and they get the usual support by their Division or Corps (Be it air recon, space birds, intel,...).
Additionaly the battallions also have their own assets. For example in Germany a platoon of light recon infantry made mobile by Wolf (Named Aufklärungs- und Verbindungszug/AVZ) is part of the 1st company.
And while a medium force has the advantage that they can easier give some of their light assets the role of light recon vehicles if needed the heavy force also has an advantage.
They can conduct real recce by force (Is this the right english word for it?).
And a unit like a Stryker Brigade is going to struggle when it tries to counter this.
Trying to catch the rear units is always a good idea (Besides the fact that a modern SPH is not really what I would call a defenseless victim) but actually doing it is not easier with a heavy unit that with a medium unit.
If a Stryker brigade looses their logistical tail it is as much in trouble as a HBCT.
Garbage, or spoken like someone with a very limited tactical viewpoint.
A medium, ie LAV/Stryker force, has a range of other advantages over a heavy, ie MBT/IFV, force. On strategic mobility I would say the medium force has no real advantage over a heavy force because the only way to really move ground force assets in any kind of strategic numbers is by shipping. Most RO/ROs don’t care if it’s a 60 tonne tank or a 20 tonne LAV…
However medium forces have significant advantages in using less fuel and being all-wheeled. This enables them to move significantly faster in higher tactical and operational manoeuvre. This enables medium force commanders at Army, Corps, Division and even Brigade levels to do a range of things heavy force commanders can’t do within the same timeframes.
Most importantly for the tactical battle they can concentrate force and do so in places where the heavy force is weakest. This will typically result in huge force on force number disparities in favour of the medium force and advantageous terrain positioning for the medium force.
Ah, here you go again.
Didn't we talk about that before?
I already waited for you to show up and bless me with your wisdom.
If you would have read what I wrote before you would have seen that I already stated that medium forces are more mobile when going by street.
And last time I checked a Stryker was way smaller than a MBT which makes a difference if one wants to save room on a ship.
Not to talk of deployments by air which is in fact something the users of medium forces are thinking about.
You are again talking of some lonely battlefield with a good road network which is not stuffed up by traffic jams and damaged by air attacks. Or were the flanks of units are not covered by other units.
This is not about two brigades with some support slugging it out in the desert where a Stryker Brigade can use their better mobility to literally dance around a heavy unit using good ground or streets.
I am talking about a medium unit having to take an objective or to defend a certain are of responsibility.
If a Stryker Brigade is able to nearly run unopposed around your positions than your frontline looks more like swiss cheese than like a real frontline.
One has to make a breakthrough in order to maneuver more free behind enemy lines.
Something along the lines of a Sovjet/Russian approach to open a hole with some mot.rifle regiments in order to send a tank regiment through it.
You can enlighten me how a Stryker Brigade is going to break through the terrain which is held by a HBCT. Performing an attack with Stryker MGSs and dismounted Javelin AT-teams followed by Stryker APCs while getting fire support by their towed artillery and integrated 120mm mortars.
This would end up in a massacre.
The defense looks better for a Stryker Brigade as naturally it offers more advantages even for lighter forces.
Still a HBCT can take the damage a Stryker Brigade is throwing at them AND can go on.
As Eckherl already said. If you always have to trade time for safety you have a problem.
I don't say that medium forces don't have their roles. I already mentioned them.
Be it better suited for medium to low intensitiy conflicts, better strategic mobility or as a fire brigade during a high intensity conflict.
Being a substitue for a HBCT in it's natural environment is defenitely not one of their roles.
Didn't we talk about that before?
I already waited for you to show up and bless me with your wisdom.
If you would have read what I wrote before you would have seen that I already stated that medium forces are more mobile when going by street.
And last time I checked a Stryker was way smaller than a MBT which makes a difference if one wants to save room on a ship.
Not to talk of deployments by air which is in fact something the users of medium forces are thinking about.
You are again talking of some lonely battlefield with a good road network which is not stuffed up by traffic jams and damaged by air attacks. Or were the flanks of units are not covered by other units.
This is not about two brigades with some support slugging it out in the desert where a Stryker Brigade can use their better mobility to literally dance around a heavy unit using good ground or streets.
I am talking about a medium unit having to take an objective or to defend a certain are of responsibility.
If a Stryker Brigade is able to nearly run unopposed around your positions than your frontline looks more like swiss cheese than like a real frontline.
One has to make a breakthrough in order to maneuver more free behind enemy lines.
Something along the lines of a Sovjet/Russian approach to open a hole with some mot.rifle regiments in order to send a tank regiment through it.
You can enlighten me how a Stryker Brigade is going to break through the terrain which is held by a HBCT. Performing an attack with Stryker MGSs and dismounted Javelin AT-teams followed by Stryker APCs while getting fire support by their towed artillery and integrated 120mm mortars.
This would end up in a massacre.
The defense looks better for a Stryker Brigade as naturally it offers more advantages even for lighter forces.
Still a HBCT can take the damage a Stryker Brigade is throwing at them AND can go on.
As Eckherl already said. If you always have to trade time for safety you have a problem.
I don't say that medium forces don't have their roles. I already mentioned them.
Be it better suited for medium to low intensitiy conflicts, better strategic mobility or as a fire brigade during a high intensity conflict.
Being a substitue for a HBCT in it's natural environment is defenitely not one of their roles.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #92
You are almost saying Waylander that the only use for Stryker or medium brigades to be effective is to provide fire support. I think you fail to see the fact that by the time you've caught up with a medium brigade you will need resupply, they may not be able to outmanouvere you but they can outrun you. Take the example of the british and italians in North Africa in WW2, they gave up so much ground that they just couldnt go any further or risk their supply chain collapsing. You might say that you can just resupply by air but with equal airforces on each side these transports will be blown out of the sky.
A medium force does not need to engage in direct combat to defeat a heavy force, by using small scale skirmishes and turning the terrain against a heavy brigade a medium force can win.
A medium force does not need to engage in direct combat to defeat a heavy force, by using small scale skirmishes and turning the terrain against a heavy brigade a medium force can win.
Were do I say that?
I can quote myself.
The Brits retreated nearly 2000km in Africa.
And you take this as an option for most conventional wars? Just retreat 2000km in order not get destroyed?
This is roughly the distance from Berlin to Madrid and more than Berlin to Moscow...
And what do you mean with outrun? When trying to outrun a heavy unit while you are making an offensive move you have to break through their lines. But with the units available to you it is much more likely that you get a bloody nose at the first line of defense. And if the enemy retreat to the next fireposition the game starts new.
If you are in the defense you have a huge problem. You can decide to go for the streets and start a general retreat to save you units and avoid direct contact and leave behind just a few units for a delaying action.
Or you try to perform a mobile defense. The problem is before your wheeled assets have reached the next defensive positions while driving backwards the MBTs and IFVs close the gap between the two units.
And as I said nefore you are even much more outgunned when it comes to artillery support so say goodbye to your indirect fire support after the inital stages of an engagement because their are going to come under heavy counterfire.
Naturally the enemy is going to take more losses when conducting an offensive move against you. But he has the firepower and protection together with the mobility on the battlefield to break through your lines with significant forces giving you only the chance to fully retreat and give the enemy the objective he wants or to stay and die in your positions.
You can imagin what happens to your frontline if one of the medium units decides to push back in order to save the unit. That opens up a hole in the line big enough for whole divisions to push through.
Great for a cohesive defense.
I do not doubt that heavy units suffer earlier from supply problems when they try to catch a medium force which is retreating over a long distance. But how often do you have so much ground to give?
I can quote myself.
Maybe I should make something clear. I used the term fire brigade to say that one can use them to put a plug into holes in the frontlines. They are well suited for such a task due to their better on road mobility behind the frontlines. Now they have to slow down, or better stop the enemy forces, long enough for additional heavy forces to arrive or till a counterattack cuts of the enemy spearhead.
And you again take an extreme situation as a prove of your ideas.
The Brits retreated nearly 2000km in Africa.
And you take this as an option for most conventional wars? Just retreat 2000km in order not get destroyed?
This is roughly the distance from Berlin to Madrid and more than Berlin to Moscow...
And what do you mean with outrun? When trying to outrun a heavy unit while you are making an offensive move you have to break through their lines. But with the units available to you it is much more likely that you get a bloody nose at the first line of defense. And if the enemy retreat to the next fireposition the game starts new.
If you are in the defense you have a huge problem. You can decide to go for the streets and start a general retreat to save you units and avoid direct contact and leave behind just a few units for a delaying action.
Or you try to perform a mobile defense. The problem is before your wheeled assets have reached the next defensive positions while driving backwards the MBTs and IFVs close the gap between the two units.
And as I said nefore you are even much more outgunned when it comes to artillery support so say goodbye to your indirect fire support after the inital stages of an engagement because their are going to come under heavy counterfire.
Naturally the enemy is going to take more losses when conducting an offensive move against you. But he has the firepower and protection together with the mobility on the battlefield to break through your lines with significant forces giving you only the chance to fully retreat and give the enemy the objective he wants or to stay and die in your positions.
You can imagin what happens to your frontline if one of the medium units decides to push back in order to save the unit. That opens up a hole in the line big enough for whole divisions to push through.
Great for a cohesive defense.
I do not doubt that heavy units suffer earlier from supply problems when they try to catch a medium force which is retreating over a long distance. But how often do you have so much ground to give?
lobbie - think of what you just stated, if you cannot go head on with a heavy mechanized force and they constantly have you on the run or force you to fight delaying action style skirmishes then they are dictating that battle for you and you will run out of room to manuever, they will destroy you in pieces if needed, war is not just counted on how many casualties that you can inflict on your opponent, taking large chunks of real estate is also the name of the game. This type of thinking is really alarming at this current time, everyone seems to be under the impression that our future potential opponents have lost the technology edge and that they will attack us with big lumbering outdated weapons platforms and this is turning out to not be the case with some of the new designs that they are researching. Yes - we are working very hard with our FCS program with some really good designs about to be fielded, do some of these designs offer promise and potential yes, but we still have aways to go with it not counting the big dollar expenditures that it is going to take to bring in every system that is needed for our new concept in war fighting into play.
@AGR
You seem to have alot of knowledge in our FCS program, what realistic time frame do you see all ( everything ) weapons platforms and systems in place for this.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #95
Your both right I admit, I have Australia in mind when writing my posts. Australia has bought the ASLAV because of its terrain, preffering mobility over heavy firepower. In Australia you have to invade where the defences arn't...the middle of knowhere perfect for faster and lighter medium manouvere forces. Heavy stuff will be slower and require more supplies.
Also in places like say Europe or anywhere else, cities can be choke points to hold a heavy force up, this will not have the same affect of giving up swaths of ground but if say you were the US (Heavy) invading mexico (Medium/Light), assuming you have equal airpower and supply ability like before. Using cities and towns as choke points holding the US up until they can no longer sustain the losses. Keep in mind you only have to keep a vehicle disabled not neccesarily destroy it to achieve this.
On a lighter note "We're surrounded? Good. That means we can attack in any direction then!"
With regards to the FCS does anyone know what sort of protection levels they will have? Will they be a medium type force agumented by Bradley's and Abrams being still heavy and the Stryker brigaes will form the lighter forces?
Also in places like say Europe or anywhere else, cities can be choke points to hold a heavy force up, this will not have the same affect of giving up swaths of ground but if say you were the US (Heavy) invading mexico (Medium/Light), assuming you have equal airpower and supply ability like before. Using cities and towns as choke points holding the US up until they can no longer sustain the losses. Keep in mind you only have to keep a vehicle disabled not neccesarily destroy it to achieve this.
On a lighter note "We're surrounded? Good. That means we can attack in any direction then!"
With regards to the FCS does anyone know what sort of protection levels they will have? Will they be a medium type force agumented by Bradley's and Abrams being still heavy and the Stryker brigaes will form the lighter forces?
Last edited:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I think you misunderstand how Australia uses the ASLAV. It provides a recon and surveillance capability for higher level forces and is employed in this role for both our "medium" brigade (1 Brigade) and light forces in 7 Brigade, though of course they will do this for any deployed packages.
1 Brigade is a medium brigade because it is a mechanised infantry unit. Infantry are the primary fighting force, not armour, which has a supporting role, unlike NATO equivalent "armoured brigades".
ASLAV is certainly faster than M1A1 and M113 vehicles on roads, but it's off-road manoeuvrability is not as high as the tracked vehicles and do not provide the protection levels the tracked vehicles do, hence why M113's and future tracked vehicles will continue to equip Army's primary fighting units, as opposed to light wheeled vehicles...
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #97
I understand what you are saying that they are not as well suited to cross country performance as tracked vehicles are but the terrain in the middle of Australia is desert not desert in the sense of the Middle eastern desert but mostly flat and dry level terrain no, this to me is as good for wheeled as well as tracks. (this is not from experience unfortunately having only been given a sneak peak from a light aircraft
) I never said it was mechanized infantry, I think i may have gotten the US Stryker and the ASLAV confused with each other during my hasty posting sorry about that.
@Lobbie
I always admitted that if the terrain allows it wheeled medium forces are faster, even cross country, than heavy forces.
And cities are defenitely the home of the infantry with heavier forces only acting in a limited supporting role. I also admitted that before. Medium units usually just have more dismounts available and this combination of vehicles and crunchies is more favourable for city fights.
I am not familiar with the terrain in some parts of Australia (We have enough Aussies here to tell everything somebody wants to know... ) and I can well think of them as flat and dry.
Maybe not a dry salt lake but flat and dry enough to allow wheeled vehicles to sustain high speed for longer time.
But how often do you have this ground together with the huge space of the Australian no mans land.
There are defenitely such parts in the world but they don't exist that often and they are also often enough not very important like parts of Mongolia for example.
And because of this I reacted a little bit harsh when AGRA again came with his opinion.
I have no problem with a discussion and I am perfectly able to change my mind if somebody discusses with me and I see that his arguments are strong.
But AGRA brought his examples before. And placing two units (one heavy and one medium) in the middle of nowhere, with surprisingly good ground for wheeled vehicles and with only the medium unit being highly networked and technical advanced is not a good example.
You just cannot say that medium units can use their advantages against heavy ones and are a substitute for them because it works in a lonely flat desert with unequal opponents.
It proves that Stryker Brigades are able to be shipped to some 3rd world chaos country and have enough punch to go against a local heavy unit.
But this is not how a serious big war looks like especially not in the advanced parts of the world.
I just don't like it when somebody acts seriously arrogant and talks down to me as if I have no clue whatsoever without even adressing the examples I give. Maybe it is because I am not a native speaker
So don't take my harsh tone as directed to you. Usually I am nice and calm here on DT.
I always admitted that if the terrain allows it wheeled medium forces are faster, even cross country, than heavy forces.
And cities are defenitely the home of the infantry with heavier forces only acting in a limited supporting role. I also admitted that before. Medium units usually just have more dismounts available and this combination of vehicles and crunchies is more favourable for city fights.
I am not familiar with the terrain in some parts of Australia (We have enough Aussies here to tell everything somebody wants to know...
) and I can well think of them as flat and dry.Maybe not a dry salt lake but flat and dry enough to allow wheeled vehicles to sustain high speed for longer time.
But how often do you have this ground together with the huge space of the Australian no mans land.
There are defenitely such parts in the world but they don't exist that often and they are also often enough not very important like parts of Mongolia for example.
And because of this I reacted a little bit harsh when AGRA again came with his opinion.
I have no problem with a discussion and I am perfectly able to change my mind if somebody discusses with me and I see that his arguments are strong.
But AGRA brought his examples before. And placing two units (one heavy and one medium) in the middle of nowhere, with surprisingly good ground for wheeled vehicles and with only the medium unit being highly networked and technical advanced is not a good example.
You just cannot say that medium units can use their advantages against heavy ones and are a substitute for them because it works in a lonely flat desert with unequal opponents.
It proves that Stryker Brigades are able to be shipped to some 3rd world chaos country and have enough punch to go against a local heavy unit.
But this is not how a serious big war looks like especially not in the advanced parts of the world.
I just don't like it when somebody acts seriously arrogant and talks down to me as if I have no clue whatsoever without even adressing the examples I give. Maybe it is because I am not a native speaker
So don't take my harsh tone as directed to you. Usually I am nice and calm here on DT.
Fighting a large scale conflict and using cities as choke points will not slow down your opponent, he will most likely bypass you with the majority of his fighting force and mop you up after they have achieved their objectives, remember speed is the name of the game even for heavy size units. Russians are very good at this, if they come up against a sizable force of resistance then they will bypass you and pound the living snot out of you with artillery and air assets until they come for you at a later time.
FCS is supposed to have good protection systems in place, with hard kill and soft kill systems, intel and good armor with lethal firepower, will they use M1s and Bradley fighting vehicles augmented with FCS weapons platforms remains to be seen, we just may end up with 3 different fighting forces in the U.S, Heavy, Medium and light, we just need to see if the capabilities offered with the FCS program live up to our expectations.
Clearly you are talking above your pay grade, if you had ever served in a unit or formation HQ you would know it’s not all as simple as you make out. Where do you think all that fuel come from to keep your heavy force mobile? How does a tank brigade get into battle? Who organises the road routes and tank transporters. Warfare is all about logistics and all about higher level manoeuvre. The final tactical battle may get all the press but usually by then the result has already been decided.
But don’t take my ‘wisdom’ for granted. What I am talking about here is backed up by EVERY SINGLE serious thinker about warfare and winner of battles and wars. Perhaps you should read some Guderian, you might have heard of him before.
But never let historical military reality get in the way of a good story that helps one sell bigger and more expensive tanks. Sure the Germans conquered France in 1940 with pipsqueak Panzer IIs, sure the Soviets did it back to the Germans with comparatively lightweight T-34s, the Israelis won with Shermans and AMX-13s vs Egyptian IS-3s, the South Africans with Ratels vs T-55s, India with PT-76s, etc, etc. But lets keep building bigger and heavier tanks.
It looks much better that way.