ZTQ-15 and PRC Light Tanks

delft said:

A tank can be designed to have a low ground pressure. That was a big advantage of the T34 over its German opponents in the first two years after the beginning of German-Soviet war.

Click to expand...

True. However, I believe that Lezt was referring to existing modern main battle tank.


I will now get back to bottling my Malbec

From the photographs of the vehicle it appears the engine compartment is in the rear. It would have been interesting to see a vehicle such as this to have a front mounted engine, and to have an APC design based on the same chassis to simplify production and maintenance of the combat force.


I will now get back to bottling my Malbec

Miragedriver said:

True. However, I believe that Lezt was referring to existing modern main battle tank.


I will now get back to bottling my Malbec

Click to expand...

That suggest that "modern" main battle tanks are not designed for muddy places like The Netherlands or South East Asia but specifically for deserts as in the Middle East. That is an interesting strategic choise.

delft said:

That suggest that "modern" main battle tanks are not designed for muddy places like The Netherlands or South East Asia but specifically for deserts as in the Middle East. That is an interesting strategic choise.

Click to expand...

The modern main battle tank was designed to fight across the open fields of a irradiated Germany. It's a product of both the second world war and the cold war.
Lets go back to its origin story.
After the end of the first world war, two schools of tank thought predominated. The French school viewed the tanks as merely infantry support. The British school saw them as armored cavalry. In particular the theory's of then col. John Frederick Charles Fuller a British military officer and mystic who along with his military treatments wrote essays on Alistair Crowley and Yoga. Fullers works became heavily influential among both the British and the Germans. The results of these were the Tank class system of WW2
The light tank or Tanketts were high speed low drag machine guns with light cannon.
The heavy tanks were slow monsters with massive cannon and armor.
When the war started though it quickly became apparent that the WW1 fortified warfare was long over. Advances punched through so fast that the light tanks were dealing with the heavyweights far sooner then they would have liked and the heavy tanks meant to take heavy tanks were lumbering way behind the scene.
This created the medium tank. If a light is to light and a heavy to heavy this is the Goldie locks. They took a good enough gun mated it to a good enough engine and topped it with a fair armor. The key failing of the period was power. Engines of the time were not up to producing a tank that had the optimum performance armor, firepower and maneuver. By the end of the war Medium tanks are the rule of battle. Although there would remain heavy and even super heavy tanks less and less were they actually used. The first main battle tank comes from the British. Taking Fuller to heart. And following late war innovations by 1945 the British developed the then called Universal tank. This tank took a top gun mated to a powerful engine and placed it in a well protected hull they dubbed it the Centurion. They called it universal as it could support infantry, charge and take on other tanks. It was not until the mid 50s that the US and USSR would adopt there own as both sides were fully stocked with WW2 leftovers.
When they did adopt them both sides modeled there battles across open Europe they set to proving grounds in such terrain. East and west Germany. From time to time the brush fire wars would pop up. In Europe when Republiks of the USSR and Warsaw pact tried to break away the Russians were quick with the tanks. And they evolved there own unique form. Russian tanks aimed to be small but powerful. They also introduced the IFV well the west was using poorly armed armored boxes.
Vietnam for the US was not a armored war. Although there were some armored battles the US command felt that Full MBTs would be more trouble than worth, they also had little in the way of a actual tank battle to worry about and were more concerned with trying to fight a insurgency. The tactics adopted by the US made Vietnam the Helicopter war. With the Huey, Cobra, Jolly Green Giants, Loach, Dog and other choppers taking the fame. The thick jungle, mountains and mud were seen and still are as unsuitable to armored mechanized war which favors open flat terrain.

OT
To my mind the beginning of modern tanks was T-34, not Centurion. The Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement included mutual inspection of fighter and tank production. The Russians showed the MiG production plant and then the Germans showed the plant producing Bf-109. The Germans showed the production of the PzKpfw IV and the Russians concluded that they were being fooled so didn't show the T-34 plant. In WWII Germans and Russians won much more experience in tank battles than the US or UK forces. The Centurion was indeed the first modern British tank. The first modern Western medium tank was the PzKpfw V Panther of which production began in 1943.

Miragedriver said:

I believe that you are missing the point of TerraN’s argument there are other factors involved in determining which tank will “come out on top”. Obviously if both vehicles are in open terrain (i.e. middle of the desert) then the MBT will most likely be victorious due to its longer reach. However, let’s incorporate rolling hills between 1 and 2 km apart. What then? Now one must consider the vehicles “hull down” ability and the amount of the depression available to the main gun.

Now consider mountainous terrain, where the line of sight is further reduced. What then?

Now consider jungle terrain where a vehicle with low ground pressure can go “off road” and is not limited to roads. In addition to the even more restrictive line of sight due to vegetation. If you read some excerpts from the Vietnam War the US tank crews utilizing M-48 had substantially different mobility than those using the Sheridan.

Lighter tanks have their place and in some situations can take on main battle tanks and come out victorious. What they lack in armor protection they make up for in tactical mobility.


I will now get back to bottling my Malbec

Click to expand...

I don't think I have; light tanks do not automatically equate better mobility - ground pressure, power-weight ratio etc. Nor does it automatically mean that it is easier to conceal; Also light tanks are not necessarily light weight.

for example, it is hard to find a light tank with better mobility than the T54/55, very few will have a speed of that of a T80

Don't get me wrong, there are a place for light tanks and light MBTs, but its primary role is not to fight MBTs and one shouldn't expect it to come out ontop on a regular basis against one.

The point about light tanks is in strategic mobility, not tactical mobility. Strategic mobility means how much effort you need to send a column from A to B in how much time, now much logistic footprint does these maneuvers have.

For example, in places where there are a lot of bridges, then the tank that are light enough to cross the most bridges has the best mobility. If you are fighting in a jungle, then aside from bridges, lines of communication are usually limited and narrow. What you probably don't want as a planner is a fighting vehicle consuming up fuel like there is no tomorrow, and need a constant stream of supply trucks to keep it moving.

delft said:

That suggest that "modern" main battle tanks are not designed for muddy places like The Netherlands or South East Asia but specifically for deserts as in the Middle East. That is an interesting strategic choise.

Click to expand...

Delft, some times the comments that you post have nothing to do with the topic or appear to be baiting. A couple of post above I clearly stated that a modern main battle tank in open ground (i.e. desert) would have the upper hand against a light tank. In regards to the Netherlands, as I also stated that you will be limited to roads or ground which can support your vehicle. See TerraN's explanation.

Next time I will need to utilize the Socratic method in explaining.


I will now get back to bottling my Malbec

There are different tanks for different purposes in general lite tank have an advantage in certain terrains:

Additionally:

Lezt said:

…… very few will have a speed of that of a T80 .

Click to expand...

Top speed of T-80
70 km/h (43 mph) (road)
48 km/h (30 mph) (cross country)
Top Speed Leopard 2
72 km/h (road)
52 km/h (cross country)

Lezt said:

……for example, it is hard to find a light tank with better mobility than the T54/55… .

Click to expand...

Power to weight of T-54/T-55 14.6 hp/Ton
Power to weight of TAM tank 24 hp/Ton
Power to weight of Leopard 2 tank 24.1 hp/Ton


I will now get back to bottling my Malbec

TerraN_EmpirE said:

From time to time the brush fire wars would pop up. In Europe when Republiks of the USSR and Warsaw pact tried to break away the Russians were quick with the tanks. And they evolved there own unique form. Russian tanks aimed to be small but powerful. They also introduced the IFV well the west was using poorly armed armored boxes.

Click to expand...

TerraN, speaking of lite tanks. I have sometimes thought about how the Russians could have made a series of vehicles based on the BMP. Similar to how the German utilize the Marder IFV and developed the TAM, Mader 120 mm mortar carrier and the 155mm SP howitzer.

Last night I found this picture:




I will now get back to bottling my Malbec