The future of the LIGHT tank

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

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Heorot RE:The future of the LIGHT tank ... Shaka 6/4/2003 5:00:36 AM

The British developed the Scorpion/Scimitar range of tanks 30 years ago. Where are they now. As Shaka points out, apart from recce and certain special terrain (such as was found in the Falklands), they have no use on the modern battlefield. I didn't see any deployed in the Gulf War. The Scorpion (with the 75mm gun) has been withdrawn and only the Scimiter (with the 25mm Rarden cannon) is still in service with units that have a recce role only. This tank came in at around 25 tons, the target weight people are talking about for an air portable system, but the biggest gun they could fit was a low velocity 75mm firing a HESH round. Any thing bigger or with higher velocity needed a bigger vehicle. Bigger gun = more weight. Bigger vehicle = more weight.

Quote Reply

Horse Soldier RE:The future of the LIGHT tank ... Shaka 6/4/2003 9:14:28 AM

Weren't some Scorpions refitted with a erill 90mm gun? Or maybe this was just a proposed idea?

Quote Reply

MikkoL RE:The future of the LIGHT tank 6/4/2003 9:25:09 AM

The traditional role of the light tank is that of reconnaissance. However, it always have had a contestor of armoured car in this cathegory, with which it closely shares the job. Recently the trend has been to produce wheeled recce and APC/IFV's as they are more suitable for peacekeeping-like stuff and urban areas. Even if some of them are good at cross-country too, they can however never be as good as tracked ones in that area. Future light tanks will most likely continue to be, as they have been, mobile and 'off-road' capable tools of this cathegory. Even the airmobile ones are planned for a scout role attached with some additional fire power for support role. The factor, which decides the charasteristics of a light vehicle, either a tank or AC, is the way they are thought to be used. If the doctrines won't radically chance (which they, concerning the relative awkwardness of byrocratic institutions like military, won't do in a few years) we can at least try to estimate what kinds of vehicles might pop out. The brits, strongly favouring the classic 'see without being seen' recon tactics, have built over the times vehicles to fit this school of recce tactics. It calls for highly mobile but not necessarily well armed small and handy vehicles. And yes, the consequences of the approach can be seen from WWII; Daimlers, AECs, Ferret, Fox and other armoured cars, Vickers light tanks, later Scimitar and Scorpion. The follower in Britain might well be a purpose built, light armoured scout vehicle, with a crew of three, rotating turret mounting an AC and advanced sensor and electronics fit - and spectaculary low weight and good mobility. There is a good chance that they'll produce more light tanks. The soviets are a clear example of a complete opposite recon doctrine approach - recon by force. The style pioneered by Germans and Russians in WWII sents scouts to aggressively seek enemy frontal positions and if enemy is countered, not to distrupt but to keep on the contact. The tactic 'fire and see what's firing back' effectively shows what the enemy has in it's possession, but recce troop leader always have a trouble that he might get involved in more than somewhat safely can be done and overwhelmed be enemy troops. The basic style has been, that the first recon group of a unit is small, made of BMP's and BMDM's, followed by stronger combat reconnaissance patrols, which will be called to fight enemy frontal positions to get the information. Combat patrols in Soviet army have been much like western combined Task Groups, with BMDM's, BMP's and regular MBT's (the great difference to the 'British' style is that about all elements are from the main units - regiments - rather than being pure recce troops). If the combat recce patrol is beaten back, all time a bigger force will be sent - first a platoon sized, then company, then the regimental advance guard etc. The method is simple and crude, sacrificing a lot lives and equipment from the first recon groups, but it allows fast continuation of the attack as the recce units can be replaced, and thus it really can be used to keep up the motion which will result in 'unstoppable Red Wave'. T70 of WWII is example of a light tank for the role, anyway, russian style calls for no specialistic vehicle, normal IFV/MBT combination can be used with devastating effect, with some additional light wheeled recce/multi-purpose vehicles. Russia have converted some BMP's with minor chances to work primarily as recon vehicles, carrying still a few scouts but not a squad, and as these designs work just fine in their role I suppose eastern 'light tanks' of the future will be light versions of IFV's. France have made a lot of use of armoured cars, which have totally taken the place of a light tank. Apart from being wheeled, they are like powerfully armed light tanks. Designed also to engage enemy these vehicles serve well in aggressive recon role, but can also be used in many other fast response tasks. AMX-10's for example are in my opinion much more 'light tanks' of today than many tracked versions, as they carry out exactly the missions like light tanks in WWII. French maybe won't go on to produce light tanks, but comparable wheeled vehicles. USA is one propable future user of light tank. Light tanks for airmobile units won't enhance force mobility, and I don't think airmobiles are even tried to be developed for being moved around like mechanised infantry while landed. Instead they can give the troop a good recon service, which is essential for a unit of a kind, and possibly add also some serious firepower, being occasionally deployed as fast reserves. Well why don't use light vehicles instead? For a reasons already mentioned in previous posts, airmobiles will never own APC's/IFV's in numbers like regular ground units. Regular ground units of US army have sufficient numbers of other equipment to fill the recon tasks. If aggressive scouting is about to be done (which is the style

Quote Reply

Shaka of Carthage RE:The future of the LIGHT tank ... Mikkol 6/4/2003 12:59:27 PM

You have made some excellent points. Everyone else has make some good points also. In the US case, if I have my Airborne unit on the tatical defensive (waiting on the heavies), the "aggressive scouting" that is being taught no longer works, because I don't have the tools for it. I can still perform my scouting, but it is now the classic "see but don't be seen". I wonder if having to make that mental "switch" doesn't cause problems for the "leadership". And thats not to mention the fact that with technology we can get real creative on the "recon" aspect (as in UAV's). Some excellent points were made in those posts.

Quote Reply

bsl RE:The future of the LIGHT tank ... Mikkol 6/4/2003 8:00:38 PM

First, I apologize for my badly edited last note. -I disagree that the M-1 is a "heavy" tank. In the old terminology, "heavy" tanks were the "infantry" tanks. They were slow, heavily armored machines intended for close infantry support, especially on set-piece battlefields. Think of the Western Front, during WW2, and what most imagined the Maginot Line, would be, during WW2. They sacrificed mobility for protection. In WW2 terms, I suppose the Tiger and King Tiger were the closest things to real "heavy" tanks, in most respects. "Medium" tanks were the real king of the WW2 battlefield. These were the machines with the best balance of firepower, protection and mobility. Notably, they could move fast and far. They were the core around which maneuver warfare was built. These were the tanks which, postWW2, evolved into MBTs, and, for a long time, pretty much took over the "tank" designation, in toto. "Light" tanks, originally, were short on firepower and, especially, protection. What they had was maximum mobility. They were the light cavalry of their time. They'd scout, make raids behind lines, sting flanks. But, they were not intended for battle against heavier tanks, or well prepared defensive positions. The M-1 is a classic example of the postWW2 MBT. It is fair to point out that, at it's weight, it can be restricted from a fair percentage of the world's bridges. But, that's about it. It can move across soft terrain about as well as light armor can, it can move across virtually any terrain light armor can move across. It's very fast, for a tank, and fairly long ranged. It's certainly not an infantry tank, in design or in the doctrine by which it's employed. It can be used for close infantry support, but that's a job which was subsumed under the MBT rubric decades ago, when heavy tanks became obsolete. The distinction was erased, more or less, because technology made up for the deficiencies which were what caused the original difference between medium and heavy tanks. Once upon a time, engines were a major issue. It was difficult for even the most advanced countries to design and acquire engines powerful enough for the heaviest tanks. Even when they could build them, they were very expensive. And, the largest ones tended to be able to move their tanks only slowly. You had to cut back on weight to get a tank which could move quickly and, even, to be able to afford enough engines for them. That's no longer really an issue. Any of the major powers can build or buy engines which can move almost anything they can build. The M-1, especially, with it's gas turbine has been described as handling like a sports car. An exaggeration, perhaps, but a clue that this is no longer the bottleneck of design and production it once was. As someone else has already observed, it so happens that there IS light armor around, in large numbers, right now. Bradley and BMDs. The APC has evolved into something else. Originally, the idea was a "battlefield taxi". Something which allowed the movement of infantry under armor, to provide protection against rifle and machine gun fire, plus shell splinters. Not, however, against direct hits from artillery or tanks. The M-113 was a classic example of this idea in action. Lightly armored, lightly armed, tracked vehicles which could keep up with armor. Later, however, it became feasible to add fairly heavy firepower to more or less the same package. You got armored, tracked vehicles, ostensibly intended to move infantry, but which packed enough firepower to take on real tanks and almost anything lighter. (The autocannon are enough to handle soft vehicles and other subtanks. The missiles can kill real tanks.) What we have, today, are armies with literally thousands of oversized light tanks which carry some infantry, but can do a lot more. The same designs are often modified for other jobs, too. The M-2, the infantry carrier, morphs into the M-3, cavalry fighting vehicle.

Quote Reply

Horse Soldier RE:The future of the LIGHT tank ... Shaka 6/4/2003 8:09:47 PM

Current doctrine for reconnaissance stresses that the only cav units that fight for information are the heavy cav units with M1/M3 mix. Humvee scouts who try to fight for info are generally advised to go ahead and stencil their names on their body bags to speed up recovery. Stryker cavalry is angled toward the recon end of the spectrum as well. They've got a bit more substance than humvee scouts, but they are supposed to go "soft" on the recon like the hummers. If called on to fight a counter-recon battle, I suppose the mix their dismounted Javelins with air and arty support, or hand off the battle to line companies to their rear. Airborne units have very limited ability to mount aggressive recon under current doctrine. The 82nd has a total of one ground cavalry troop, and it is, of course, hum-vee mounted. Light infantry battalion scout platoons are strictly see-don't-be-seen affairs. You've also got the divisional LRSD in the Intel battalion, but those guys, again, are ultra-light and fight only to break contact if compromised. That pretty much leaves the air cav troops in the current force mix for any sort of aggressive reconnaissance.

Quote Reply

bsl RE:The future of the LIGHT tank ... Shaka 6/5/2003 7:39:33 PM

If we're going to be using a lot of light armor - actually, even if we're not - it seems to me the premium is to develop and deploy quantities of fire and forget anti-armor munitions. Also, indirect fire anti-armor munitions. There's a huge problem in having light armor have to sit, quietly, while someone steers a missile at a tank. It takes too long and allows the tankers, if they're alert, to target the missile launcher before the missile can strike home. OTOH, if you had missiles which you could ignore once they were away, your lightly armored launchers could be heading for alternate fire postions before the targets noticed the incoming fire. Better, still, you could have a few spotters lying along a ridgeline, while the launchers were on the reverse slope, where the launches couldn't be seen, at all. In this kind of situation, perhaps you could use light armor against heavy armor successfully. And, again, I think there is a real premium on longer ranged munitions. As long as you can engage outside your enemies' engagement envelope, the lack of heavy armor is a much less important consideration.

Quote Reply

Thomas RE:The future of the LIGHT tank 6/10/2003 7:16:03 AM

I know that the Scorpion was issued to RAF-regiments in the 1980'ies. The original role of the light infantry defending the Air Bases was the possibility that the enemy "dropped in" unanounced by parachute. The light infantry was at that time mounted on lorries with roof mounted heavy mashine guns. Then WAPA began dropping their paratrooper with light armour. This seems to have divided: 1. The british equipped the RAF-regiments with light tanks. 2. In Denmark a local defence BTN (with tanks) was assigned - why they kept the airforce light infantry remains a mystery to me. It seem like the upgrade to scimitar was due to the fact, that they were surplus to army requirements.

Quote Reply

Thomas RE:The future of the LIGHT tank ... Shaka 6/10/2003 7:22:03 AM

During the cold war the BDE on Sjælland used the Walker Bulldog for recon. The explanation I got, was it could swim the Suså (river), which a tank couldn't. It seem that in later years either the Leopard 1 learned to swim or that the requirement to swim wasn't really that essential, because the recon sqdn of todays combat group has Leo 1. What the task of the recon sqdn was remains a mystery too. There were (are) Home Guard groups all over the country with several independent signal systems to forward the desired information - but that is off subject.

Quote Reply

WinsettZ RE:The future of the LIGHT tank 7/5/2003 5:45:40 PM

Sheridans or the AGS might be appropriate light tanks.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT