When buying a tank are you happy to exclude a considerable part of the Earth surface from its possible operating area?
ZTQ-15 and PRC Light Tanks
- Thread starter by78
- Start date
Miragedriver
Brigadier
No, that is why a lite or medium tank offer more versatility in operating environment (not to mention maintenance and fuel costs). The only drawback is when confronted with MBT it is handicapped.
If the fire control system on the lite tank is good then the vehicle has a better survivability opportunity. The golden rule of tank warfare is “see first, shoot first kill first”.
However, taking into account the proliferation of anti-tank missiles that can penetrate the most heavily armored MBTs, the day of the large vehicles many be numbered and the less expensive lite tank “En Mas” may be the new vogue.
I will now get back to bottling my Malbec
There we agree. The numbers of MBT's have already been much reduced and some countries, among them The Netherlands, have got rid of them altogether.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
T54/55 is a medium tank, considered by some western analyst as the first Russian Main Battle tank. But the Russians themselves didn't adopt that term until T64. As I said before primarily light tanks were meant for fire support. But if proper conditions they may be able to take a bigger target.
All things are a comprise Delft. But if you want to use that argument then the fact that most tanks can't operate in the Oceans would be covered to. Remember earth is covered with roughly 75% water and most tanks dare not touch that.
Tanks are primarily designed for open terrain where there large cannon has maximum range. Although they can be used in a number of other environments there power points suffer. Infantry shine in enclosed terrain with lots of cover. Tanks supply enclosed terrain in open terrain they are mobile pill boxes meant to punch through enemy lines. They are not perfect nothing is.
well BMP has some limitations its already a cramped IFV loaded with compromises. The hull is very short compared to a western IFV only a midget could stand to full night in on. It's got good fire power but Thin skin. And the troop load of a clown car.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
The gun and the engine. T34 was the best tank of WW2. But the gun, the 76mm gun was fine early war but by late war the Germans countered it with more powerful Tiger and panther tanks who easily killed them the Russians upgunned the T34 with a 85mm but in Korea American Walker and M48 Patton tanks turned it back around. T34 was a great medium tank but hardly a premier Main Battle Tank.
Miragedriver
Brigadier
Yes we agree……
Interesting that there are two notable trends for main battle tank in this era; they both a reflection of increasing systems costs and declines or leveling of military budgets. There seems to be a development of variants off of established IFV are being utilized as a cost saving system. Most militaries have realized now that heavy tanks are not the only option. Militaries have come to the Heavy forces do generally pose greater logistical requirements than light tanks or wheeled armored forces.
With blurring of lines among roles and missions for heavier AFVs and light tanks, the term assault vehicle will likely broaden to reflect a variety of modern programs for light - medium armored vehicles with medium to heavy guns, for use in the assault role. The lethality of light tanks (and AFV) has increased with such things as larger main guns, improved stabilization and fire control systems, additional weapons such as antitank guided missile systems, and improved ammunition. Critical parameters include fire on the move capability, which can be linked to stabilization, rate of fire, integrated sights, acquisition ranges, and weapon range.
In the Gulf War, look how well the American Bradly AFV faired against not only the BMP, but also the T-72. Again it goes back to the old saying “see first, shot first, kill first”.
I see this new Chinese light tank as a continuation in the trend to blurred line between light tank, reconnaissance vehicle, IFV and AFV. Maybe my BMP light tank design will get some traction now. LOL
I will now get back to bottling my Malbac and building light tanks
Miragedriver
Brigadier
Like the clown car comment. Good visual. However the BMP tank concept has some merit. It is larger than the M-24 Chaffe and has a lower profile. The drive would sit in his compartment while the three other crew members are in the tanks turret (plenty of room). The BMP is very lightly armored, but size wise it is 90% the size of the Marder. Still something to think about for poorer nations that want to have one chassis and the abundance of BMPs in storage.
Don’t you like the clean lines? Looks like the bastard child of an M-41 and a BMP
As a side note….
After the Second Lebanon War (2006), the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) rethought the role of heavy forces, by, reorienting their training. They went, in their words, “back to basics” after years of focusing almost exclusively on low-intensity conflict (LIC) and trained extensively on high-intensity combat (HIC) skills, particularly joint combined arms fire and (more importantly) maneuver. This included utilizing the Merkava tank and the Namer APC/AFV/IFV. The Namer has a considerable amount of fire power and utilizes the same (well protected) chassis of the Merkava.
I will now get back to bottling my Malbac
Last edited:
MD, I did say that very "few" tanks are faster than the T80, which yes, you are right, the Leo2 is faster, but it is not the majority.
The case in point is still the Leo2 and the T80 is not by any measure light, they are ~40 tonnes and ~60 tonnes respectively hence both shows that light tanks do not really have an advantage in speed.
P/W is one measure of mobility, and again, the TAM is not really better than the T54/55
The T54/55:
1) ford deeper
2) cross wider trenches
3) drive on hillier terrain (side slope of 40deg vs 30deg) without rolling over
The TAM:
1) lower ground pressure
2) better power weight ratio
3) fuel economy (obviously, but this is not really mobility)
Which really again proves my point, there is very few light tanks with a better mobility than the T54/55 and infact as you have shown with the Leo2, and I just pulled the data for the T80, the light tank does not have a marked improvement over the MBTs in mobility.
Ground Pressure:
T80: 0.86 kg/cm2
T54/55: 0.81 kg/cm2
TAM: 0.788 kg/cm2
Leo2: 0.83 kg/cm2
Fording depth:
T80: 1.8m unprepared, 5m with kit
T54/55: 1.27m unprepared, 4.55m with kit
TAM: 1.4m unprepared, 4m with kit
Leo2: 1m unprepared, 2.3m with preperation, 4m with kit
Trench crossing:
T80: 2.85m
T54/55: 2.85m
TAM: 2.5m
Leo2: 3.0m
Gradiant Climb:
T80: 60/40 deg
T54/55: 60/40 deg
TAM: 60/30 deg
Leo2: 60/30 deg
Vertical Wall Climb:
T80: 1m
T54/55: 0.8m
TAM: 0.9m
Leo2: 1.1m
I take naming conventions as a grain of salt.
For example,
The panzer III was termed "primary battle tank" and the panzer IV was termed the "support tank" and later as the "battle tank" by the germans; the Americans came and called them mediums, the British came and called them "cruiser" tanks.
The churchill and matilda was termed an "infantry support" tank and the crusader was termed a "crusier/cavalry" tank by the British, while the Americans called them "heavy", "light" and "medium" respectively.
The tiger was originally termed a "break through" tank, and the allies came along and the "heavy" tank term became popular.
And there were "light" tanks that were "tankettes" tanks and vice versa; and "heavy" tank that were "super-heavy" tank and vice versa.
Similarly, the centurion was originally termed a "cruiser tank", then a "universal tank" by the British and later called a "main battle tank"
The soviet BT seires tank was termed "fast tank" and is called by other nations as "light tanks"
What is important to me is the "current" classification, in today's world, there are only MBTs and light tanks; in regards to actual "tanks" and that is where I base my comparison on. And the term MBT or heavy/medium/universal/battle tank can be retrospectively be applied from different tank cultures; just as each nation have been calling each others tank by whatever they feel fit. Can a MBT be a light tank? sure. An AMX 13 is a light tank and also a MBT.
Last edited:
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
What you've describing is not so much a change in definition as a change in doctrine brought about by the results of battle and modification to the tanks themselves. Gun systems at the start of the war that were thought world beaters were proven impotent, armor was found easier to add to this tank over that one changes made and classifications adjusted. It happens not just in tanks but also naval shipping where today's destroyer is tomorrow's frigate.
Keeping with T55/54 we find a classic case of such. A Medium tank (evolutionary speaking most consider Medium Tanks as the direct ancestor to Main Battle tanks hence its not improper) at the time, second only to the Stalin Heavy Tank. But today T55 is looked on more like a light tank? Why? Because time when't by. The gun a 100mm cannon was surpassed by 115mm,120mm 125mm. Engines and horse power went up and armor became heavier and more refined. T55 was not able to keep up. Against Abrams in Iraq it was slaughtered. So the class of a tank has to be compared by era, yes. And era refers to its peers. Todays MBTS typically weigh between 40 and 80 tons using compound armor with a main gun between 120 and 125mm high velocity with a 1300hp or better power pack. If the tank falls short of these its not a MBT in the modern sense.
If it out performs these it changes the modern definitions and may force reevaluation by other nations of there Tanks pushing a new generation.
Furthermore the role of the tank is also a factor. A light tank in modern terms is more a catch all category for obsolete tanks with sub caliber cannons, tanks built on APC hulls that sacrifice armor for logistics. [see Marder medium tank], tanks that fit special niches. For example amphibious tanks a true MBT is a land fighter, a amphibious tank sacrifices armor for sea worthiness'[see PT76]. Or a airborne tank which sacrifices armor to allow it to be air transported in numbers aboard smaller transports[see M551 Sheridan].
Generally speaking in a gun dual a light tank cannot survive direct attack by a Modern Main Battle Tank. That is not to say that a light tank cannot take a main battle tank in proper conditions. If it has the gun system on its side it may be able to win. Most would have to attack the sides or rear. A few like the Thunderbolt Armored gun system block II a light tank that packed a 120mm Tank gun. From cover employing that cannon with first shot on target it can take most most Main battle tanks.
This leads up to look at the new emerging class of MBT in the true medium weight. The Japanese Type 10, Polish PL01 and BAECV90-120 are they really light tanks at all? They seem to be a attempt at moving from armor to stealth. Using reduced signature to allow them in theory to sneak up on a MBT and engage with a full power gun. They could indicate the next generation of MBT will be based around Hybrid power packs with smart skins and low radar cross sections.
Keeping with T55/54 we find a classic case of such. A Medium tank (evolutionary speaking most consider Medium Tanks as the direct ancestor to Main Battle tanks hence its not improper) at the time, second only to the Stalin Heavy Tank. But today T55 is looked on more like a light tank? Why? Because time when't by. The gun a 100mm cannon was surpassed by 115mm,120mm 125mm. Engines and horse power went up and armor became heavier and more refined. T55 was not able to keep up. Against Abrams in Iraq it was slaughtered. So the class of a tank has to be compared by era, yes. And era refers to its peers. Todays MBTS typically weigh between 40 and 80 tons using compound armor with a main gun between 120 and 125mm high velocity with a 1300hp or better power pack. If the tank falls short of these its not a MBT in the modern sense.
If it out performs these it changes the modern definitions and may force reevaluation by other nations of there Tanks pushing a new generation.
Furthermore the role of the tank is also a factor. A light tank in modern terms is more a catch all category for obsolete tanks with sub caliber cannons, tanks built on APC hulls that sacrifice armor for logistics. [see Marder medium tank], tanks that fit special niches. For example amphibious tanks a true MBT is a land fighter, a amphibious tank sacrifices armor for sea worthiness'[see PT76]. Or a airborne tank which sacrifices armor to allow it to be air transported in numbers aboard smaller transports[see M551 Sheridan].
Generally speaking in a gun dual a light tank cannot survive direct attack by a Modern Main Battle Tank. That is not to say that a light tank cannot take a main battle tank in proper conditions. If it has the gun system on its side it may be able to win. Most would have to attack the sides or rear. A few like the Thunderbolt Armored gun system block II a light tank that packed a 120mm Tank gun. From cover employing that cannon with first shot on target it can take most most Main battle tanks.
This leads up to look at the new emerging class of MBT in the true medium weight. The Japanese Type 10, Polish PL01 and BAECV90-120 are they really light tanks at all? They seem to be a attempt at moving from armor to stealth. Using reduced signature to allow them in theory to sneak up on a MBT and engage with a full power gun. They could indicate the next generation of MBT will be based around Hybrid power packs with smart skins and low radar cross sections.
I am not sure where this is going, yes, there are some circumstance that a light tank can take on an MBT, but that a rarity, and if that rarity justify the existence of light tanks is the question; sure if the country is rich enough.
Also, what you said about the T54/55 is true, it is a dated design, but it doesn't mean that it had not been upgraded for the modern battlefield with the official version being:T-55M6, 2A46M 125mm main gun, protection level to T80U level; and the new fire controls. So technically, the T54/55 did keep up, maybe falling on the short end, but it have a 125mm gun, armor around 1000 RHAe from the front. And your definition of a MBT will exclude the T72 with the 780 hp engine, or the Type 96 with the 780 hp engine.
And it is unfair to compare the gulf war T-55 vs Abrams which is not really purely tank to tank, but C4I2 with better tanks, vs C2I tanks. Would you claim that Abrams are bad tanks because the ISIS was able to easily take out a few of the iraqi M1 tanks?
The question of which is the direct ancestor of the MBT is debatable, there is no right or wrong, but:
Centurion family: Mk1-4 heavy cruiser <-> Mk1-4 universal tank -> Mk5-10 MBT
T44 family: T44 Medium -> T54/55 Medium/MBT -> T62 Medium/MBT ->T72 MBT -> T90 MBT
M26 family: M26 Heavy-> M46 Medium -> M47 Medium -> M48 Medium -> M60 -> MBT
Regarding performance, we also have to remember that some country categorize tanks by weight (like the USA pre cold war) and some by combat potency (like germany pre cold war) and some by some by surviability (like france/britan pre cold war).
in your definition an AMX13 with the 105mm L7 derivative, 40mm armor at 15 tonnes is a what tank? given that you you feel that the T55 with a 125mm gun, +400mm armor, at 35 tonnes is a light tank?
I am also not sure how you get low RCS on a tank, generally speaking, it is kind of moot as ground clutter makes the detection of tanks by radar hard already... and it is hard to reduce the heat signature of a 1000+hp engine; and 40-80 tonne of metal is not naturally found in nature..
Attachments
-
2-1407296964016-8-0-415-799-crop-1407297060849.jpg