US Army News and updates general discussion

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
How logistically supportable in a peer level war is any effective force of these tanks that are sent in by air though, particularly if it takes a day to get them up to their full armour rating?
Having images of Arnhem day 3/4.
Supportable enough. Keep in mind every medium to heavy AFV in the US Army has multiple levels of armor that can be removed or applied depending on need.

Light tanks are to provide MBT-like support to elements for which MBTs are beyond the definition of outsized cargo.
That is, the various light infantry division types. And in all the infantry division types, it's no more than a battalion of MPF.
And as I said, it's not going to get to its end point in a plane. That could be an airfield in a neighboring country.
I don't think anyone planned for purely or even dominantly airborne logistics for the infantry division types.
 

Stuart M

Well-Known Member
It all depends upon the plan and how long you are there for. I just use it as an example and one from memory put forward by Prof Geoffrey Till who's an expert in things like this. You make sure of good planning and good intelligence, unlike Market Garden.
Yep. But, to borrow from Tyson, everyone has a plan untill they get a smack in the face; that the problem, you have a plan and so does the other fellow.
 

Stuart M

Well-Known Member
That's a very abstract thing to say. Anything concrete perhaps?
Is it any less abstract than what you wrote? How do you provide anything concrete about a hypothetical peer level conflict and operations with equipment that hasnt even been feilded yet and unknown enemy activity?
We do know that in a war shit gets destroyed, people die and very seldom do things go to plan. At best I'd settle for adherence to general principles and good improvisation.
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
Is it any less abstract than what you wrote? How do you provide anything concrete about a hypothetical peer level conflict and operations with equipment that hasnt even been feilded yet and unknown enemy activity?
We do know that in a war shit gets destroyed, people die and very seldom do things go to plan. At best I'd settle for adherence to general principles and good improvisation.
There are plenty of things we know from experience and common sense. War is chaotic only when we don't know how to organize it, and for that we have the tools.

Light tanks have their place today, and it's been proven, regardless of the reason any country buys them.
I guess what I'm saying is that if you want there to be a proper debate, you should name the things that would be disrupted realistically in a way that detracts from this concept.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
There are plenty of things we know from experience and common sense. War is chaotic only when we don't know how to organize it, and for that we have the tools.
I was under the impression that war is chaotic even if one knows how to organise it and has the tools. The difference is how one manages the chaos and the uncertainty.
 

Stuart M

Well-Known Member
There are plenty of things we know from experience and common sense. War is chaotic only when we don't know how to organize it, and for that we have the tools.

Light tanks have their place today, and it's been proven, regardless of the reason any country buys them.
I guess what I'm saying is that if you want there to be a proper debate, you should name the things that would be disrupted realistically in a way that detracts from this concept.
Yes, light tanks have a place, but it seems your asking me to go down a rabbit hole of proving a negative here. I cant show what 'hypothetical' enemies (CCP/Russia) will and will not do, im not privy to that information anymore than you are.
I'm not interested in that game.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Yes, light tanks have a place, but it seems your asking me to go down a rabbit hole of proving a negative here. I cant show what 'hypothetical' enemies (CCP/Russia) will and will not do, im not privy to that information anymore than you are.
I'm not interested in that game.
Be advised, whilst @Big_Zucchini doesn't carry a Def Pro tag the Moderators are aware of his history and he does know has, and has had access to material that you are unaware of. I will vouch that he knows exactly what he is talking about and I suggest that you treat him with some respect. You are an enthusiast, whilst there are many on here who actually know what they are talking about, having the scars and tee-shirts to prove it. If you want to know what the Russians will do read the FM100-2-1 Soviet Army Operations and Tactics Manual which the Russian Army apparently still stick to.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
bsp_27956-jdw-18076.jpgVT-5_Light_Tank_2018.pngfnss-kaplan-mt-guncellenmis-hali-ile-idef21de-sergilenecek-1.jpg
K21-105-parked.jpg

I put some Light Tank (or you can call it Medium Tank if you want) pictures (from various online sites), that coming to market and gaining traction. I can only add 4 Pictures, thus not getting the 5th which are Sabrah base Ascod Light/Medium Tank, which already choose by Philipines.

Call it Light Tank, however US GDLS, Chinese VT-5, Turkey/Indonesia Harimau, Philipines Sabrah, and Korean K-21 base are all 30-40 ton base depending on the add on armour (as all van have the option). All now being promote with 105mm but they can be given option of 120mm (or 125 mm on VT-5 detivatives).

Thus they are close to T-72 families, thus not really can be call Light Tank but not yet MBT. The way I see it, despite the advancement of ATGM whether from Infantry, Mobile Platform, Helicopter GunShip or Drones, the need for Mobile Infantry supported by more armoured 'secondary' gun platform is increasing.

Whatever what you want to call, Tanks are far from dead yet.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
Call it Light Tank, however US GDLS, Chinese VT-5, Turkey/Indonesia Harimau, Philipines Sabrah, and Korean K-21 base are all 30-40 ton base depending on the add on armour (as all van have the option). All now being promote with 105mm but they can be given option of 120mm (or 125 mm on VT-5 detivatives).
The RTA has long had the Stingray which as it turns out wasn't an export success. There has also been attempts to steer countries away from MBTs by upgunning IFVs; in the early 2000's the Malaysians were offered a 120mm armed CV90. During that period; from what I was told by some Australian Armoured Corps people who were here on an exchange; their worry was that the Centurions would be replaced by a 120 or 105mm armed IFV.

Whatever what you want to call, Tanks are far from dead yet.
Indeed. There have been various - premature - claims in the past but the tank is not dead or obsolete; far from it. There remains no alternative when it comes to delivering mobile, protected firepower. After the 1973 war we heard how how ATGWs had supposedly made the MBT obsolete and after Naragano Karabakh we heard how UASs had supposedly done the same.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
The RTA has long had the Stingray which as it turns out wasn't an export success
Well those five that I believe represent the trend, practically 50%+ heavier then Stingray. I don't know how fare they will be in Export market, but they're 'light' in name only.

Even Indonesian Army defense planner, don't see this class as MBT replacement. They're studying potential up gun the Harimau next batch from 105mm cockerill to 120mm cockerill (since it won't change the turret). However their study still definitely call them Medium Tank and not MBT.

Full armour package can make this class somewhere between 35 ton to 40 ton, and with engine between 600hp to 1000hp (considering present tech can pull that much power on more compact engine bay). This's already closing in toward 50's design MBT. So it is more then just upgunning IFV, eventough Sabrah and K21 base on IFV.

This shown defense planner are thinking bigger on Tank as we can see the plan for NG MBT.Sabrah-Light-Tank.jpg

Just add Sabrah, just so all 5 that represent present trend in market shown.
 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I wouldn't necessarily discount the effectiveness of a105mm gun against a MBT either. MBTs like everything else have their weaknesses and a 105mm APDS round in the right place will do the damage. How the medium / light tank is utilised is totally dependent upon the doctrine / CONOPS of the army that's using them.
 

Terran

Well-Known Member
A 105mm even an old 90mm to the sides or rear will be a bad day for just about any MBT. If on the other hand the Medium tank tries to high noon shoot out against said MBT…

In other topics.
Lonestar Future Weapons / True velocity apparently withdrew its Government Accountability Office protest of Sig Sauer’s win of the NGSW program.

 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
In other topics.
Lonestar Future Weapons / True velocity apparently withdrew its Government Accountability Office protest of Sig Sauer’s win of the NGSW program.

I actually quite like the look of the new Sig Sauer 6.8mm rifle and if it works as advertised it might even replace my L1A1 SLR in top spot. The new 6.8mm x 51mm round actually outdistances the 7.62mm x 51 round round has has more kinetic energy. I have never liked the 5.56mm x 45 round because it doesn't have the stopping power of the 7.62mm x 51. Yes they reckon it takes 10 people to move a wounded soldier from the line, be said soldier gets patched up and can come back and kill you one day. I was taught that when I shot an enemy they stayed shot and the enemy had to find someone to replace them permanently, then we shot that fulla too. Pure and simple.
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
We need to separate, in this discussion, the various types of "light tanks".

Their definition as such can either come from their exceptionally low weight (e.g M8, Sheridan, Sprut), or their light protection (but relatively high weight).

If we look at the Philippines, we see a country that cannot afford a full blown MBT for a multitude of reasons.
  • So take a more economically viable APC hull, attach a low cost high caliber turret of choice, and call it a day. It won't be as light as a Sprut or a Sheridan, but it certainly will be lighter than an MBT, so the costs are going to be lower across the board.
  • Protection-wise, the vehicle will be a light/medium armored target. That's why we've seen the terms "light tank" or "medium tank" (Indonesia) thrown around quite liberally.
If we look at the US or Russia, we see tanks that are built to a certain logistical limit. The yet unnamed MPF is built for a weight limit that coincides with a C-17's cargo limit (can carry exactly 2 MPF with 1.5 tons to spare IIRC).
  • Russia wants a vehicle they can airdrop across a vast theater.
  • And India wants to buy the Russian Sprut because they lack a direct fire weapon for mountain units.
So they are actually 'light', and it comes from them being purposefully lighter in weight than an MBT, not necessarily with lighter protection. It is, for example, definitely a logical step for the US to invest in active protection for the MPF.

Lumping them all together would be wrong.

@Stuart M if you still want to debate why you think there are problems with the concept of light/medium tanks, I'm all for it. I just need concrete arguments to work with. Unless I misunderstood you?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top