Light Tanks

G

godofthunder9010

Active member
I was doing some digging because I was curious. I didn't know for sure whether the USA or anyone else has many Light Tanks these days and it appears that they do not. I did some digging and it looks like the French LeClerc is faster than any other modern tank I could find. But that's the French's primary tank.

I was wondering, is this an oversight on the part of the militaries of the world? Fine to have the heavy MBT and the armored "swiss army knife" in the Bradley, but why are we not seeing the deveopment of some very versatile and faster moving Light Tanks? Or do they already exist? Seems to me that 70-75 km per hour (fastest top speed I could find) is a good bit slower than it COULD be.
 
Well, there are light tanks out there. The Russians have their PT76, the Type 62 and Type 63, the Sweeds have the Ikv Tank Destroyer, which in my eyes is a light tank. The UK have the Scorpion family of light tanks and AFVs. Thiland has the USA built Cadillac Stingray. Many veraients of the French AMX-13 serve around the globe. Also, many wheeled AFVs have 90mm or 105mm armed versions, and serve infact in the same tactical role as light tanks. By the way, how would you define "Light Tank", by the way? Because the Bradly can acctually fit into the definition in some eyes...
 
My idea of what Light Tank means?

Something very fast and thusly lighter than your heavier MBT. Preferably similar to the Bradley in multifunctional role and varied weapon platform options, but minus the APC side of things -- so not a big target and more useful for recon. Bradley fits the role somewhat, but its not all that fast, it lacks a main gun and as already mentioned its a big target with a high profile. Light tank would be less focussed on tank vs tank confrontations but still have the capability of taking on another tank if need be.

The Scimetar is the sort of thing I'm thinking of from the looks. If I could design my own, I'd prolly add more options for alternate weapons configurations and find a way to make it go even faster if possible.
 
I think you're probably gonna find that the 'light' tank will probably become far more important as Western armies all develop rapid reaction forces. Future MBT designs will likely have to be air-portable as a main priority. I think there's still room for the 50-66 tonne behemoths on the battlefield but they will be supplanted with many more 20-25 tonne MBTs. So there might be a blurring of roles and functions, perhaps even a return to the tank definitions of WW2 of light, medium and heavy rather than MBTs?
 
I don't feel there is enough use/justification for a lite tank. Not when many platforms exist for the very purposes you state. Max speed is good, but you better have an equally good "Stab" to hit targets whiule moving on the thing to compensate for rough ride. Last thing you wanna do is get ready to fire, throw a track and spin out at 50 mph just as you get ready to squeeze the trigger and end up with an "ISU" sight impaled in your eye. Speed is good but it sure isnt the end all.
 
I can understand your point on speed. Of course you don't want to go any faster than can safely be managed, but that kinda goes without saying. If a test run of throws a tread in rough terrain then its time for resdesigning.

The puzzling thing is I can't seem to find anything in the USA's current arsenal that fits that role --- at least not with treads on it. Anyone got any info on US light tanks perhaps?
 
Well, there is the Stingray, but its not terribly fast.

Actually the older M1 Abrams designs were just about as fast as the LeClerc. Not as fast as the Scimetar, but pretty damn fast nonetheless.

So currently, the Abrams and Bradley can keep up with the majority of other tanks and/or tank-like thingies. It seems to me that there's room for a small, light and fast design to go along with them.
 
Having fun with the fact that somebody said that the Bradley isn't a tank. Somebody else said its not an AFV, yet its not a true IFV.

Thus, the Bradley is a "Tank-like thingy". :P
 
Well there was a light tank in US Army service, the Sheridan but it's been put out of service. There is a replacement coming up called the M-8.

The key advantage of the light tank is that they are air transportable. The problem is, they're not very good tanks. In fact, the M-8 is more like a mobile gun system.
 
Well, the future of light tanks as I see it is to take all the advantages of the tank or AFV's and build it into a system that is etremely fast and mobile and more rapidly and/or easily deployable. They are not expected to fill the role of the MBT, but should be capable if absolutely necessary. The should be very potent against infantry and very resilient against small arms fire.

Its possible that tracked vehicles would not be able to fill the role.

the_13th_redneck do you have any data on the M8 that you mentioned?
 
godofthunder9010 said:
Having fun with the fact that somebody said that the Bradley isn't a tank. Somebody else said its not an AFV, yet its not a true IFV.

Thus, the Bradley is a "Tank-like thingy". :P
Click to expand...


Well when I was in, they were called CFV (Cavalry Fighting Vehicle) or also BFV (Bradley Fighting Vehicle). I was always nervous about the noise factor because when the engines rev'ed high like in a pivot stear, you could hear the whine a mile away and the slightly higher than a M1 profile didn't make me sleep to good in the turret.
 
Looking at the M8 Buford, I'm seeing some things I like and some things I hate. Buford ... WTF??? Terrible name. :lol:

The main gun is huge for a tank that size. I don't think its 100% necessary to have such a big gun, but its certainly reassuring to the crew that if they run into a ... lets say a T-90, they can probably kill it if they can shoot and hit first. I think the way that the design forms around the gun can be a problem. Overall, its great to be packing that kind of punch, but its a drawback in other areas. Also, a reconaissance platform probably doesn't need such an enormous gun. This guy wasn't build with recon in mind.

Speed? Its top speed is exactly that of a Bradley or an earlier M1 Abrams version. 45 mph. (Comes out to about 73 kph BTW.) So "faster and more agile" than your MBT come in as a big fat "NO".

Profile? Too high, probably due to the recoil dampening needs for that monster 105mm main gun. I love the narrow front profile for a couple of reasons. The M8 presents less to target from the front or back. The M8 would be able to maneuver into tighter terrain types than current designs. Its a bit worrisome that recoil might knock you over when firing with the turret turned to the side in unfavorable terrain. Armor sloping exists but it appears to have been largely sacrificed for compactness. A bit disappointing.

Secodary weapons? Poor overall. Doesn't pack bigger machine gun, probably to accomodate the space requirements 105mm main. The need for lots of diverse firepower options is crucial for Airborne and recon ops.

Armor? They seem to have build a real winner on this one. Fine, its no M1 but it has better protection available than you ought to be able to hope for in a Light. It just stands up off the ground higher than I think it ought to.

Adaptable Chasis? Looks like a winner on adaptability. I have to wonder what it looks like with LOSAT setup on there. That would be a much better platform that the Humvee for survivability of course. That version of the Buford becomes very appealing for overall use.

My overall take of the M8 Buford? Its an M1 on a massive weightloss and shrinkage program, so it can go join the US Army Airborne units. I think the engineers involved were too focussed on the 105mm than anything else on it. Hurray for the airborne, you've got yourself a mini-M1! It looks to have been made with nothing and nobody else in mind.
 
I get what you are asying, but Id like to make a few notes:


The secondary weapon is sufficiant. The 7.62 CMG is the best Coaxile tank weapon in the world. Its relaible, and very leathal to infantry. The 0.50 cannot serve i the coaxile role cause it is very poor on relaybilty. Ever seen those vids of tank commanders in 'Iraq having to unjamm the 0.50 after every burst they fire... :? ? I agree with you on the profiel and speed though. This is not what Id like to see.
 
The role of the light tank or scout is changing. Rapid response forces need air portable armor that can fulfill the MBT role. Therefore the M8 Buford seems to be designed along those lines. It has to be able to take and help hold objectives/territory until M1s can arrive by sea and take over I'd guess.

PS I'm assuming that Buford is the name of a famous US General of yesteryear?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top