Light Tanks

[gf0012-aust]

60mm weapons are usefull in certain situations. It will put a hole through most IFVs/APCs, and will blow windows out of a second story window if there is an MG nest there.

IIRC, current doctrine is to blow out a ground floor corner of the building so that it drops the entire building as well as the next. That can be achieved with Dragon/AT4/Javelin or a 25/30mm more effectively than a 60. Or, on a taller building, whack it with the main gun....

Physics at work......

 

[rickshaw]

Israelis wanted to retain a 60mm weapon in the platoons. They used to use 60mm mortars. Its an 'odd job' weapon, which was also being marketed at the lower end of the market, mostly as an M113 conversion. Apparently what it is better at then the HRF cannos, is doing damage to concrete, which is the preferred building material in the West Bank and Gaza.

Interesting, then isn't it that the Israelis haven't themselves adopted the 60mm weapon?

I think you'll find that the 60mm suffers from having insufficient HE filling to do any real damage to most buildings and in the open is too small to cause real casualties on infantry. One of the reasons why 75-6mm was preferred in WWII over 57mm - particularly by the Soviets.

 

[Waylander]

Changing a track with 2 people?
That would be fun.
Because than you have one person to lift the track while the other is driving because you need one person at the drivers position while changing a track, put it back onto its place or repair a broken one.

The loader for sure acts as an extra pair of eyes as long as the tank is not engaged in direct combat and he has to lad the gun. All the other time he looks out of his hatch and searches for threats with his eyes and binos. And with most MOUT modification adding another independent weapons station with TI on the top of many tanks his obersvation capability is increased even more.

As to automating a tank.
You just need three man as min with current tech. We have a thread about this I think so I do not write that much.
But just have a look at how UAVs perform and how ground drones work these days you see that you need a dedicated driver with current tech. And combat driving is a fulltime job.
Than there is the gunner.
This is also a full time job (And there is no way till now that there i an automatic tracking system which is precise enough to engage even hidden targets). Once the gunner is firing and aquiring targets he is just not able to do all the tasks the commanders does.
- Searching for a good route
- Searching for new targets while the gunner engages his one (Especially with hunter/killer capabilities)
- Radio operation
- Working with and leading the other tanks in your platoon/company.

 

[FutureTank]

IIRC, current doctrine is to blow out a ground floor corner of the building so that it drops the entire building as well as the next. That can be achieved with Dragon/AT4/Javelin or a 25/30mm more effectively than a 60. Or, on a taller building, whack it with the main gun....

Physics at work......

Who's doctrine?

 

[B.Smitty]

Dont forget the "bushmaster light tank" would be considerably smaller than the IMV version so if it had the same weight limit it would have alot of additional armour.

It's not a light tank. It's an armored car with a gun on it. The term 'tank' implies a certain level of protection and mobility that this vehicle lacks.

I still believe a 60mm gun would be ideal even if this mini tank will never face a main battle tank.

IMHO, a 60mm gun is far from ideal for any role, which is why it's seen only very limited use worldwide (basically a few upgunned M24 Chaffees in Chilean service).

Range advantage alone is a good reason to put a larger 60mm cannon instead of a 25/30mm gun. A 25mm gun at long range may not give a kill, a 60mm gun at the same range would destroy the target.

Cost per round of 60mm ammunition is far less than any small anti tank missile. You could fire a dozen 60mm rounds and still work out cheaper than a guided anti tank missile. Im sure a dozen 60mm rounds would do a fair bit of damage to a bunker or main battle tank.

A 25mm gun may require a dozen rounds to destroy an APC, yet a single 60mm will do the same job. So even though the 60mm would carry less rounds it would not need as many rounds per target.

A 4500m ranged TOW IIB Aero significantly out-ranges a 60mm, and can kill any tank in a single shot at that range.

The only way this vehicle will consistently survive an encounter with enemy tanks (assuming no APS), is to out-range them, and guarantee a 1 shot kill. A 60mm won't do that for you. An autocannon plus TOW will.

Cost is certainly a factor, but if the round can't do what you want it to do, it doesn't matter how much cheaper it is. If you want to kill tanks, you need an ATGM or 105-120mm gun.

IIRC, it's standard practice in the US to fire 3 to 5 round bursts of 25mm against light armor. 3-5 rnds of 25/30mm is far smaller than a single 60mm round.

 

[Manfred]

Does the 60mm you are talking about have other uses?

Would it be a useful weapon in fortifications, helocopters or small partol boats?

 

[eckherl]

Changing a track with 2 people?
That would be fun.
Because than you have one person to lift the track while the other is driving because you need one person at the drivers position while changing a track, put it back onto its place or repair a broken one.

The loader for sure acts as an extra pair of eyes as long as the tank is not engaged in direct combat and he has to lad the gun. All the other time he looks out of his hatch and searches for threats with his eyes and binos. And with most MOUT modification adding another independent weapons station with TI on the top of many tanks his obersvation capability is increased even more.

As to automating a tank.
You just need three man as min with current tech. We have a thread about this I think so I do not write that much.
But just have a look at how UAVs perform and how ground drones work these days you see that you need a dedicated driver with current tech. And combat driving is a fulltime job.
Than there is the gunner.
This is also a full time job (And there is no way till now that there i an automatic tracking system which is precise enough to engage even hidden targets). Once the gunner is firing and aquiring targets he is just not able to do all the tasks the commanders does.
- Searching for a good route
- Searching for new targets while the gunner engages his one (Especially with hunter/killer capabilities)
- Radio operation
- Working with and leading the other tanks in your platoon/company.

I have always needed all 4 crewmen to fix a thrown track, if I want to get it done rather quickly.

1. you need someone to drive
2. you need someone up front to give him driving commands (hand signals)
3. you take one end connector and place it on the track you want to lift.
4. place a tankers bar thru the end connector and have the remaining two crewmen lift it on the sprocket that the driver is moving very slowly, after the sprocket catches it then you can guide it over the support rollers to the idler wheel for connection, itis faster than using rope, average trackblock weight is 82lbs on a M1 series.

One thing that I find is really important on the battlefield is have 360 degree security on your tank so that you can survive, especially when moving.

1. TC is manuvering his tank in relation to the platoon and company, plus conducting land navigation. His area of security on a tank is from the 12 o clock position to the 6 o clock position.
2. Gunner scans for targets between left and right fenders.
3, Driver is responsible for following the terrian and taking driving corrections from the TC.
4. Loaders area of security on the tank covers from the 12 o clock position counter clockwise to the 6 o clock position. And this is very important, he will also handle rear area air watch.

 

[B.Smitty]

Does the 60mm you are talking about have other uses?

Would it be a useful weapon in fortifications, helocopters or small partol boats?

It might have use in patrol boats, but there are already a plethora of weapons that fit the bill here and are already in use.

 

[Waylander]

Exactly the same way we do it in germany. If you need to do it with 3 men you get problems and time is rising significantly even on good terrain.
Not to talk of the places you normally throw your tracks.

 

[eckherl]

Exactly the same way we do it in germany. If you need to do it with 3 men you get problems and time is rising significantly even on good terrain.
Not to talk of the places you normally throw your tracks.

I am a firm believer that what you cannot see on the battlefield can and will get you killed, you need to have a manual loader, this is a major critical issue on Russian style tanks, also may I throw in the Leclerc. The infantry support cannot be with you all the time. Attack helicopters will hit you on the flanks and in the rear end if they can.

 

[Waylander]

Jup. Active scanning of the loader is critical.
If I think of open fields with heavy wood on both sides and having no loader...:shudder
Makes life much easier for infantry tank hunter teams.
Often enough our loaders where the ones to spot the enemy ATGM position or dug in tanks waiting for us to bypass and hitting us in the flanks within minimum range.

 

[FutureTank]

It seems to me people are still unwilling to define what a light tank is
From this follows that there is a misunderstanding of the platform's or it's crew's role in force structure.

IMHO the IFV is a hybreed LC+APC anyway, so not sure where this thread is going.

 

[eckherl]

It seems to me people are still unwilling to define what a light tank is
From this follows that there is a misunderstanding of the platform's or it's crew's role in force structure.

IMHO the IFV is a hybreed LC+APC anyway, so not sure where this thread is going.

What is really the use - you have IFVs that can perform the same type of missions, and you have heavy armor to handle the meeting engagements to destroy the majority of your enemy oponents armor.

 

[Waylander]

The definition is not that hard I think.

For me a light tank is a CV90120 (tracked) or Centauro (wheeled).

The difficult thing is as you said to define the role of light tanks on the modern battlefield.

For me they just have their roles as well as heavy MBTs.

You are able to deploy them fast and so give lighter formations like the Stryker Brigade a credible punch and are more economic during peacekeeping oversea operations and normal peacetime duty, especially the wheeled ones.

One should just not try to substitute the heavy units complete with light forces.
Both have their roles and you get problems if you concentrate on just one type of unit.

 

[eckherl]

The definition is not that hard I think.

For me a light tank is a CV90120 (tracked) or Centauro (wheeled).

The difficult thing is as you said to define the role of light tanks on the modern battlefield.

For me they just have their roles as well as heavy MBTs.

You are able to deploy them fast and so give lighter formations like the Stryker Brigade a credible punch and are more economic during peacekeeping oversea operations and normal peacetime duty, especially the wheeled ones.

One should just not try to substitute the heavy units complete with light forces.
Both have their roles and you get problems if you concentrate on just one type of unit.

I like the concept that the U.S is doing. Actually having a light division, we should add another in the future and use them for police actions like Iraq. But they should not be used against heavy mechanized enemy units.

 

[Waylander]

Jup, this sounds good.
Having a good mixture for all kinds of possible future conflicts may save many lives.

 

[FutureTank]

The definition is not that hard I think.

For me a light tank is a CV90120 (tracked) or Centauro (wheeled).

The difficult thing is as you said to define the role of light tanks on the modern battlefield.

For me they just have their roles as well as heavy MBTs.

You are able to deploy them fast and so give lighter formations like the Stryker Brigade a credible punch and are more economic during peacekeeping oversea operations and normal peacetime duty, especially the wheeled ones.

One should just not try to substitute the heavy units complete with light forces.
Both have their roles and you get problems if you concentrate on just one type of unit.

But are these vehicles light tanks, or tanks light on armour?

The 'traditional' role of a light tank is in recon. Just so Waylander doesn't forget history , in German WW2 recon units tracked and wheeeled recon AFVs were intermixed with good reason. In general the German idea of recon did not include a light tank. The SdKfz 232/4 Puma (so really the current Puma should be Puma II ) was an afterthough from the failed Leopard light tank (only the turret was used). While it is credited with being a good design, in fact it never had a place in German doctrine since recon battalions were not meant to fight it out with enemy armour (even if often forced to do so).

So what happens if one introduces light tanks into the recon element as part of the doctrine? The answer was evident even during the Cold War. The Soviet doctrine stipulated detachment of tanks into forward detachment advance guard. Never mind that in the case of the BAOR the light tanks are really light, the recon troops are likely to report 'tanks' if they see anything with even remotely dangerous weapon. Towards the end of the Cold War, and certainly now, the divisional Russian recon battalions have 6-10 medium tanks in an integrated company a la the US Cavalry. This was in turn based on the expereince of US troops in Europe when the light tanks were being slaughtered in their traditional role by German defenders.

So, the development was based on the premise "if we can't see 'em, we might as well make them more survivable".
For the light tank to return, it needs to reverse this premise, and be better at "seeing them". Giving a lightly armoured vehicle a large gun is not going to enable it's survivability because it still needs long range optics/targeting to enable the gunnery capability.
A vehicle that can add nothing to existing IFV capability outside of a larger gun is just going to invite more attention from all manner of gunners, particularly the REAL tanks IMHO

 

[Waylander]

This might have been true during WWII but not later.
Till the end of cold war we (Ok not we but western germany because till the end of cold war I was on the other side of the wall ) had heavy and light elements in our Panzeraufklärungs (recon) companies consisting of Leopard II and Luchs together with ground surveillance radars on Fuchs.

And we are talking about now not the past.
Nowadays deployability and operational costs are much more important than during WWII and cold war.
This added some advantages to the role of light tanks.

And if you have to airlift light forces you just have to make compromises. You can give a light tank a good gun and FCS but you just cannot give him the armor needed for a confrontation with heavy units.
Because of this you need a mix of light and heavy forces.

There should be three kinds of ground forces in the future.
Heavy ones (armored and mechanized infantry divisions).
Light ones (like the Stryker brigade).
Infantry including every kind of infantry (light, airborn, airmobile, mountain, marine) units.

 

[FutureTank]

This might have been true during WWII but not later.
Till the end of cold war we (Ok not we but western germany because till the end of cold war I was on the other side of the wall ) had heavy and light elements in our Panzeraufklärungs (recon) companies consisting of Leopard II and Luchs together with ground surveillance radars on Fuchs..

Ah, well the radars
Without the radars the Leopard is stuck with the usual FCS and therefore LOS, right?

And we are talking about now not the past.
Nowadays deployability and operational costs are much more important than during WWII and cold war.
This added some advantages to the role of light tanks.

And if you have to airlift light forces you just have to make compromises. You can give a light tank a good gun and FCS but you just cannot give him the armor needed for a confrontation with heavy units.
Because of this you need a mix of light and heavy forces..

Is the operational cost of a heavy tank THAT MUCH greater then a light tank? I couldn't get good idea on this because there are so few light tanks around, but it seems to me this gap is in the 10-15% range rather then the 33-50% range some suggest (particularly European wheeled AFV manufacturers ) Maybe my accounting is off

There should be three kinds of ground forces in the future.
Heavy ones (armored and mechanized infantry divisions).
Light ones (like the Stryker brigade).
Infantry including every kind of infantry (light, airborn, airmobile, mountain, marine) units.

Why?
Not much changes in some respects. Convictions over heavy cavalry 200 years ago were disspelled during Napoleonic wars when dragoons and even light cavalry with better training, or from a better tactical position were able to withstand and even defeat heavy cavalry. By WW1 there was only cavalry and infantry, and I think this can remain in future.
In a non-Cold War European environment there is far less chance of the head-on clash of armour scenario, and because one can't armour a tank through all sides in the same way, the design has to change somehow to enhance survival while reducing the armour. I know this sounds crazy :crazy, and I'm sure you want to :smash me on the head for the suggestion, but its the next paradigim shif, just like the time when cavalry had to give up their armour but remain a viable force. IMHO the days of the 'knights' in Chobham armour are ending.

 

[Waylander]

Ah, well the radars
Without the radars the Leopard is stuck with the usual FCS and therefore LOS, right?

I don't get what you want to say to me? :unknown
The radars are a normal ground radar system on a Fuchs (Wheeled APC) chassis.

Is the operational cost of a heavy tank THAT MUCH greater then a light tank? I couldn't get good idea on this because there are so few light tanks around, but it seems to me this gap is in the 10-15% range rather then the 33-50% range some suggest (particularly European wheeled AFV manufacturers ) Maybe my accounting is off

A heavy MBT is expensive to operate when compared to a light wheeled tank.

Why?
Not much changes in some respects. Convictions over heavy cavalry 200 years ago were disspelled during Napoleonic wars when dragoons and even light cavalry with better training, or from a better tactical position were able to withstand and even defeat heavy cavalry. By WW1 there was only cavalry and infantry, and I think this can remain in future.
In a non-Cold War European environment there is far less chance of the head-on clash of armour scenario, and because one can't armour a tank through all sides in the same way, the design has to change somehow to enhance survival while reducing the armour. I know this sounds crazy , and I'm sure you want to me on the head for the suggestion, but its the next paradigim shif, just like the time when cavalry had to give up their armour but remain a viable force. IMHO the days of the 'knights' in Chobham armour are ending.

Why is the chance far less? If you have to do an operation like Desert Storm it comes down to a classical combined arms battle.
And now give me examples why light cavalry style vehicles are better suited for a scenario of this type than a heavy force?