The future of the LIGHT tank

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Horse Soldier RE:The future of the LIGHT tank 6/2/2003 7:24:46 AM

Well, the US seems to be planning what is, in essence, a 22-24 ton light tank as part of the Future Combat System. Armed with a 120mm, but only protected against 30mm, it seems most definitely not to be a replacement for the MBT, despite initial claims.

Quote Reply

Shaka of Carthage RE:The future of the LIGHT tank 6/2/2003 1:25:20 PM

Someone else made an excellent point. An this subject alludes to it. There used to be three categories of tanks. Light, Medium and Heavy. Somewhere down the road, Medium and Main Battle Tank became one and the same. US already has a Light tank. Its the Bradley. And the M1's are Heavy tanks. The "Future Combat System" is really trying to create a Medium Battle Tank. Something we no longer have. Why not just purchase Leopards instead? Or the French AMC's (?). They meet that definition of "mediums". The Bradleys can already perform the role of a Light tank.

Quote Reply

Spent Case RE:The future of the LIGHT tank 6/2/2003 1:41:51 PM

Whatever happened with the Stingray light tank? Armor-wise, would it fare better than some of the 113 or LAV based vehicles out there. It carried the 105, with all its ammunition types.

Quote Reply

Horse Soldier RE:The future of the LIGHT tank 6/2/2003 2:39:30 PM

I think the problem with the Stingray is that it is too heavy to transport via C-130, which limits is utility as far as the US Army is concerned. I agree with Shaka to some extent about the Bradley, but we could certainly have a superior light tank if it was product designed exclusively to be a light tank, and not the series of compromises the Brad represents. The M8 AGS really should have been built, in my opinion, but the direct fire version of the FCS currently described (22 tons, 30mm armor protection, 120mm gun) makes it sound a lot like an improved version of the M8.

Quote Reply

bsl RE:The future of the LIGHT tank 6/2/2003 7:50:43 PM

I've argued, elsewhere, that the net effect of various developments is to push design towards both ends of the spectrum, away from the middle. i.e. Towards both the heavy and the light end, and away from the compromise middle. I think that their are a few considerations which tend to dominate the logic: 1)Technology has made it possible to field a wide variety and number of weapons which can kill even the heaviest tanks, and with a very small number of shots. At the moment of it's greatest battlefield domination, during the Gulf War, the M-1 was still vulnerable to shots from almost any tank in the rear, and to hits on it's top armor from warheads small enough to be carried by a single man. Since then, weapons tech has advanced and there are missiles deployed which are specifically designed to attack tanks from above. The bottom line is that while there is certainly still a premium on heavy armor, it's not a complete protection. There are and will remain a level of vulnerability for even the best protected tanks anyone is capable of building. 2)Firepower is much lighter than armor. While a really heavily armored tank is a monster, you can put the largest weapons such vehicles carry on much, much lighter carriages. You can put antitank missiles which can take out any tank in the world on a bicycle, let alone a HMVEE. 3)Transportation is a huge issue, as a practical matter, in the world, today. It is MUCH less a fundamental issue than most who speak of the difficulties moving tanks would have you believe. First of all, you can move anything by sea. A lot of the trouble the American military has been having lies in America not buying enough shipping, and, also, in not being willing to plan operations to take the necessary sea transit time into account. In fact, the times when it really is "essential" to be able to move the force by air are fairly infrequent. Second, some of the people in this debate - notably, the Europeans - have really failed to buy enough of almost everything they need to allow them to carry out the policies they claim to want to carry out. Too-heavy armor is less an issue than a lack of ANY way to move almost ANY force, for instance. And, a paucity of any force to move, in the first place. In this context, a lot of the complaints out of Europe ought be seen more a sort of general complaining and excuses than a serious argument against heavy armor. If they had medium tanks, they'd come up with another set of reasons not to use them. The bottom line is that their are plenty of countries which can use the heaviest armor they can get, in many circumstances. As far as light armor goes, given that it can pack pretty much the same firepower as heavy armor, sacrficing, instead, protection, I think it's obvious that there is a role for light armor with big gun and missiles. This would be the easiest to move, fast, and would allow a major military presence on almost any battlefield in short order. The drawback, of course, is that it's especially vulnerable to enemy fire. The danger would be that a light force encountering a heavy force would be slaughtered. But, it would be more mobile, and that seems to be pretty much all a bunch of people care about, right now. It COULD kill, effectively, so if the weapons were better and longer ranged, and the support very good, including, for instance, complete dominance of the skies, we might even have some success with this kind of force. It would also be useful as a sort of "light calvalry" element in a larger, heavier package. The sort of things M-3s do, right now, for instance. What about "medium" armor? Problem is that it may combine the weakness of both heavy and light without offering much in exchange. It would be more difficult to move than light armor, so it would lose in that comparison. In exchange, it would offer more protection. But, in a day when even the heaviest tanks can be killed, is the increased protection enough of a trade-off for a decreased ability to move the vehicles? After all, a given amount of transport could move more "light" than "medium". And, "medium" would really carry more firepower than "heavy", so, matched against heavy, it will always come off as second best.

Quote Reply

Final Historian RE:The future of the LIGHT tank 6/2/2003 7:53:44 PM

I would agree with Shaka that the M1 is really a heavy tank. In its latest version it is just as heavy the the Tiger II/King Tiger. The Russian T-55 series of tanks are real MBTS, as was the M48/M60. The M1 is simply too big now, it needs to really be split up again, or changed somehow. There are lots of bridges across the world that can't handle its weight, so the question is do we create a light, medium and heavy tank, or a light tank and MBT?(this is for another day) I think that a light, air transportable tank is an absolute must. For my qualifications it should be able to have a gun able to destroy any non AFV vehicle it meets. That means APCs or IFVs. 120 mm sounds a bit much to me. That is a large calibur, and that means larger, heavier barrel, larger, heavier shells, so less ammo for the tank. I would probably go with 105 at the heaviest. Besides, 105 with sabot rounds should be able to engage any tank out there, if not from the front, certainly from the side or rear. As for armor, I think that it needs a composite armor mix that can withstand light/medium RPG fire, because this is likely what it will face the most. Its not desinged to face MBTs, so RPGs will be its most common foe. It needs the skin to withstand them, along with light cannon fire. As for engine, I think that a light tank doesn't have to be faster than a MBT, in fact it can be slower and still be a good tank. A smaller engine makes the tank slower, true, but makes is lighter, and thus easier to transport. And since airborne forces will use it, and they aren't maneuver dependent like regular army units, a top speed doesn't need to be faster than 60 mph. Also, the role this tank will be used in will be different from your MBT. Rather than concentrate light tanks and use them to punch holes in enemy lines and dump troops through, they will better used supporting light infantry in hot spots, acting as fire support, much like they were used in WW1.

Quote Reply

Shaka of Carthage RE:The future of the LIGHT tank 6/2/2003 8:26:16 PM

Read the responses from Spent Case, Horse Soldier, bsl and Final Historian. And here is your first problem... no one agrees on the mission for a Light Tank. You guys know the drill... what is the mission and what is the opposition. Armor has three (3) flavors to it; Mobility, Firepower, Protection. Its all in the mix. If you want a tank to defeat another tank, then you want a Heavy. If you want maneuver, you want a Medium. Other than recon, why would you want a Light? Light Tanks = Tank Destroyers = see US WWII. Want "air transportable" use some sort of "cheap" platform (HMMVWs) that is "cost effective". Use Air platforms as well. And if you want to get "really" innovative, there is a whole "doctrine" out there that advocates "Air Mechanized" Assault. I don't agree or understand most of it, but it does make you think.

Quote Reply

Thomas RE:The future of the LIGHT tank 6/3/2003 1:31:18 AM

First of all: I agree with Shaka that there is a medium tank: Leopard 1. It is really designed for manoevre. It is transportable on a railroad flatbed (barely: track stick out on both sides). As we on the other page are coming to an agreement of the need for light infantry, we need to consider the need for armour to accompany the light infantry. (Yes Shaka: I'm leading up to combined arms) If the light infantry is to fight with combined arms, they need some sort of vehicles with firepower that can keep pace with them under the conditions light infantry is relevant: Narrow roads, wooded areas and so on. We can't expect to fight on rolling plains and deserts all the time. this means for instance, you have to shorten the gun (if a gun is what is needed).

Quote Reply

Shaka of Carthage RE:The future of the LIGHT tank ... Thomas 6/3/2003 4:00:09 AM

This is where we differ. I don't agree that Infantry require a Light Tank. Modern day Infantry that are strategically mobile (ie air transportable) once they reach the theater, have no operational or tactical mobility. Even if it is a helicopter heavy force (ie air mobile), while it may be operational mobile, it still has no tactical mobility. So if this limited mobility force is basically holding ground until heavier stuff arrives, why does it need a Light Tank? The mobility? Then get a SP Anti-weapon (be it gun or missile). Protection against artillery? Use the terrain (as in dirt). The fallacy is believing a "air transportable" armored force will somehow be able to maneuver in the face of a heavier armored force. It can't. Artillery or Tanks in competent enemy hands will cause you losses. Hence, if all I require is operationally mobility to get from point A to B, but I have to be on the tactical defensive to survive the assault of a heavier force, then I might as well use HMMVWs or Trucks. That leaves us with the "peacekeeping" mission. You can get there fast, you can provide armored protection to your forces, you have the intimidation factor of "tanks", without the escalation factor of using real tanks. Same factors that motivate "internal security forces" the world over to use Armored Cars. And if the combatants do bring out some obsolete tanks, you can handle those. Historical analysis, US think tanks and UN think tanks all agree on this point. Thats why the proposed UN "Legion" looks identical to the US Army Medium Brigades (ie Strikyer). Peacekeeping missions for the regular military is a mistake. Its a force tailored for one specific mission. If I am going to war, then my "lighter" forces are there to provide me with forced entry until the heavier stuff arrives. Infantry fighting with Armored forces already exist as Armored Infantry (IFV) or Mechanized Infantry (APC). Anything lighter than that operating against armored forces is a mistake.

Quote Reply

Thomas RE:The future of the LIGHT tank ... Shaka 6/3/2003 8:19:01 AM

Thank You for the clarification - that was exactly the fuse I wanted you to blow! Sorry for provoking, but it helps at times. We don't differ, I agree - as I suppose you have seen from my earlier posts. The problem is that everybody seems to want a tank - just a tiny, weeny one. Accept the conditions and limitations. Another thing: The light forces are an important political tool. If the bad guys threatnes Upper Slobodavia, an operative mobile, air transportable unit can be dispatched, dig in and signal to the bad guys: We are preparing for the big hammer - back off. The light forces cannot, as you so wisely point out, undertake offensive action - so the bad guy will have the option of backing down.

Quote Reply

1 2 3 4 5 NEXT