ZTQ-15 and PRC Light Tanks

Lezt said:

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.

Click to expand...

lets try this again, A light tank is a support system. Intended primarily to supply close fire support to infantry forces particularly against hardened threats like fortifications.

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?

Click to expand...

okay lets break this up. First. The stock T55 is not a main battle tank anymore. it's weapon is inferior, it's hull it weak t modern weapons. well T55M6 could be considered still a relevant one.
Lets drop the engine part I probably went off base and high balled the number, but note that T72B3 has a 1300 HP engine.

Iraqi T55's were engaged by American Abrams Tanks in the Gulf war. and lost resoundingly. yes the primary killer was air power but thee gage of a Main battle tank is Tank on Tank.


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..

Click to expand...

AMX 13 was never a main battle tank. the French MBT of the Era was the AMX-30

TerraN_EmpirE said:

lets try this again, A light tank is a support system. Intended primarily to supply close fire support to infantry forces particularly against hardened threats like fortifications.

Click to expand...

My point was that there is no universal definition for a light tank. All tanks are more or less primarily intended to provide fire support to infantry forces against hardened threats such as fortifications. the 125 and 120mm guns on MBT are very effective for this role.

using your definition, a "infantry support" tank like the Churchill is a light tank? or something more modern like the BMP-T is a light tank?

Point is, these definitions are really muddled.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

okay lets break this up. First. The stock T55 is not a main battle tank anymore. it's weapon is inferior, it's hull it weak t modern weapons. well T55M6 could be considered still a relevant one.
Lets drop the engine part I probably went off base and high balled the number, but note that T72B3 has a 1300 HP engine.

Iraqi T55's were engaged by American Abrams Tanks in the Gulf war. and lost resoundingly. yes the primary killer was air power but thee gage of a Main battle tank is Tank on Tank.

Click to expand...

Sure, the original T55 is obsolete, no questions asked; just like the original Abrams is obsolete. But does obsolesce degrade a tank to not being an MBT and into being a light tank?

Hypothetically, if the Germans did mount the 140mm gun and the latest active protection system on to the Leo2A-something as planned in the cold war, does it make the Leo2A4 with the 120mm L44 nolonger a MBT?

TerraN_EmpirE said:

The question of which is the direct ancestor of the MBT is debatable, there is no right or wrong, but:


AMX 13 was never a main battle tank. the French MBT of the Era was the AMX-30

Click to expand...

It again depends on which country you are coming from; the AMX13 was the "MBT" for Singapore for the better part of the 60s. But then again, their neighbor have no tanks.

This looks like an armored recovery vehicle based on the ZTQ-? chassis, IMHO.

(1121x696)

Light tank are really a way of saving money in procurement and in logistics. They also provide an expeditionary force additional tanks for the campaign. Light tank are mostly employed in the reconnaissance role, or in support of expeditionary forces where main battle tanks cannot be made available or is need elsewhere. Really in these support rolls the employment if 8x8 wheeled fire support vehicle can also be used. However the use of tracks provides better cross-country mobility.

The modern light tank supplements the Main battle tank in expeditionary roles, where tactical mobility dictates a lighter vehicle and in situations where all major threats have been neutralized and excess weight in armor and armament would only hinder mobility and cost more money to operate.


I will now get back to bottling my Malbec

The 8X8 vs light tracked vehicle is worth a good discussion.

8x8 are mechanically complex, each arm requires a drive shaft and respective gearing. the double wishbone suspension is complex and space consuming making the vehicle tall and prone to roll over. Load capacity is comparatively lower but is less noisy, more fuel economical and allow greater speed.

Obviously, qualities which a scout vehicle wants is better suited by wheeled design, but to sustain battle damage and to carry more load, track is better.

Lezt said:

The 8X8 vs light tracked vehicle is worth a good discussion.

8x8 are mechanically complex, each arm requires a drive shaft and respective gearing. the double wishbone suspension is complex and space consuming making the vehicle tall and prone to roll over. Load capacity is comparatively lower but is less noisy, more fuel economical and allow greater speed.

Obviously, qualities which a scout vehicle wants is better suited by wheeled design, but to sustain battle damage and to carry more load, track is better.

Click to expand...

I am in complete agreement with you. An 8x8 wheeled vehicle mounting a 105mm, can perform the task of: fire support vehicle, scouting, etc. at a lower cost (acquisition and maintenance). This can be exemplified in the use of the Italian Centauro (and variants) in the Iraq war. The exception (as you mentioned) being mobility over certain terrain.

I’m a big supporter of wheeled vehicles and could go on in infinitude, as there are others here at the forum that could take the opposing point of view (that what I enjoy is the exchange of Ideas). Back on topic, wheeled vehicles is a much lighter mechanized force and improve an army's capabilities for rapid power projection across strategic distances. They also provide the army with three important issues, those being Operational mobility, tactical mobility and strategic mobility.
I will elaborate:

Strategic mobility
Given the relative lightness, wheeled vehicles tend to consume significantly less fuel (and other lubricants) than tracked armored vehicles of equal weight. Their relative "lightness" and reduced logistical needs together give the wheeled family an edge over the tracked in strategic mobility. Meaning the transport of forces over continental and intercontinental distances can be achieved faster, less expensively and probably in larger qualities.

Tactical mobility
Tactical mobility is the kind needed when a force is in immediate contact with its adversary. Direct confrontation with an enemy imposes at least two mobility requirements:
1) Good off-road mobility is an important precondition of being able to evade enemy action and exploit unexpected avenues of approach.
2) Agility -- a combination of high speed, good acceleration, and the ability to "zig-zag"--is also key to being able to respond flexibly to rapidly changing opportunities and challenges.

Operational mobility
There are two reasons that forces equipped with wheeled armor are more likely to deploy operationally in a timely fashion:
1) First, there are fewer and shorter refueling stops. (The average road range of wheeled vehicles exceeds that of their tracked counterparts by 50 - 100 percent.)
2) Second, the average marching speed of wheeled vehicles is, on roads, also 50 - 100 percent higher than that of tracked vehicles.

A final point: although wheeled armored vehicles are not really suited for being equipped with very powerful weapons for direct fire, they might be able to do a better job than their tracked counterparts when equipped with lighter weapons, such as 30mm to 60mm auto-cannon, recoil-less 105mm guns anti-tank missile launchers. This is because the running gear of wheeled vehicles has a "pre-stabilizing", softening effect. Firing lighter weapons on the move should normally be easier from a wheeled platform than a tracked one.


I will now get back to bottling my Malbec

Here is a list of possible missions a wheeled vehicle intervention force would engage in:

1) Extrication of friendly forces under optimal protection,
2) The escort of coveys convoys through high-threat areas,
3) Containing and resolving pockets of resistance,
4) The routine escort of humanitarian convoys,
5) The beefing-up of base defense,
6) Cavalry screens (to cover the movement of other forces), delaying actions, and pursuit,
7) General reconnaissance,
8) Target acquisition and designation for indirect fire,
9) Protection of main attack force side and flanks. Cavalry type maneuvers,
10) Control occupied areas,
11) Urban warfare,
12) Indirect fire to assist in attacks,
13) Use in follow-on-forces attack and to stop enemy breakthroughs.


I will now get back to bottling my Malbec

Another nice aspect of the wheeled vehicle is the acquisition and maintenance cost, but also the logistic economic benefit of a family of vehicles.

A heavy family (8x8 and weighing 25 to 30 tons) for instance, the Italian CENTAURO and a variant of the ROOIKAT in the light wheeled tank aspect; South African RHINO and the Czech/Slovak DANA in the mechanized artillery role.

CENTAURO


ROOIKAT


RHINO


Czech/Slovak DANA

A medium family (6x6 and weighing 10 to25 tons) equipped with 20mm to 60mm auto-cannons could be the IFV/APC.

A light family (4 x 4 and weighing less than 10 tons) would be for reconnaissance equipped with machine cannon, anti-tank missile system, shorter-range indirect fire (mortar), and an air defense missile system. They would have acceptable ground pressure (to allow movement over soft ground) and a high degree of agility. Compactness and agility would enhance their survivability. This would be combined with unrivaled operational and strategic mobility.

Six-by-six and eight-by-eight configurations do have an advantage, however: they are somewhat more robust with regard to mine damage. If one or two tires are destroyed the vehicle can still limp back to base. This would be impossible for a 4 x 4 vehicle. (In the case of a tracked vehicle, mine damage to a track also incurs instant immobilization.) Modern sensor-triggered mines are not exclusively directed against tracks or wheels, however, but against the whole bottom of a vehicle. Relying on clever design, some relatively small and light armored wheeled vehicles can achieve an "under-belly" protection level superior to that of much larger and heavier vehicles. A good example is the new South African-inspired German personnel carrier (ATF 2). It carries 5 - 6 occupants and weighs 8 t, and is reported to have substantially better mine protection than the much larger FUCHS (6 x 6) with its crew of 12 and weight of nearly 20 t.

As a side note: when a 6x6 or even an 8x8 are equipped with a 40mm to 60mm guns they cannot carry more than 5 to 7 occupants. This would suffice for patrolling missions, but in a warfighting scenario the vehicle's crew may be too small to form a viable tactical entity. However, the currently common practice of loading 10, 12, or even more soldiers into a large 15 - 25 t wheeled carrier creates a “too many eggs in one basket” scenario. This is especially worrisome because large multi-wheeled vehicles are particularly vulnerable to direct fire, as are many tracked APCs. For this reason, the small-crew and compact vehicle approach demands further study. One possibility would be to team pairs of vehicles closely together.



I will now get back to bottling my Malbec

Miragedriver said:

Light tank are really a way of saving money in procurement and in logistics. They also provide an expeditionary force additional tanks for the campaign. Light tank are mostly employed in the reconnaissance role, or in support of expeditionary forces where main battle tanks cannot be made available or is need elsewhere. Really in these support rolls the employment if 8x8 wheeled fire support vehicle can also be used. However the use of tracks provides better cross-country mobility.

The modern light tank supplements the Main battle tank in expeditionary roles, where tactical mobility dictates a lighter vehicle and in situations where all major threats have been neutralized and excess weight in armor and armament would only hinder mobility and cost more money to operate.


I will now get back to bottling my Malbec

Click to expand...

Why does track provide better off road mobility? Is it lower ground pressure or what else?

Also, why is wheeled vehicle cheaper? They (track and wheel) can have the same engine and transmission, while wheeled vehicle needs to transmit power to every wheel, tracked vehicle only needs to transfer power to two drive wheel.

Given that FCS aimed at 20 ton tracked tank, if that goal can be met for a tracked tank, what do you think about convert that weight into a wheeled vehicle?

313230 said:

Why does track provide better off road mobility? Is it lower ground pressure or what else?

Also, why is wheeled vehicle cheaper? They (track and wheel) can have the same engine and transmission, while wheeled vehicle needs to transmit power to every wheel, tracked vehicle only needs to transfer power to two drive wheel.

Given that FCS aimed at 20 ton tracked tank, if that goal can be met for a tracked tank, what do you think about convert that weight into a wheeled vehicle?

Click to expand...

Well there are several reason why a track vehicle provide better off road mobility

1) lower ground pressure
2) more traction contact

Both of these are because the track engages the terrain over a larger area

Tracked vehicle are cheaper to build but more expensive to operate due to the fact that the transmission is simpler and that since tracks are not circular, each rotation around the wheels will "destroy" inertia.

FCS? fire control system? I don't understand the last question