The problem with alot of todays commentors, is that they have actually little to no knownledge of tanks, only from an upfront front on news pages. ATGM kills tank, thus tank is useless. But with that logic, infantry is useless because bullet kills infantry. MBT's are needed because of their doctorine. When we look at light tanks, i infact think the light tank is more usefull than ever. As Spook mentioned, APS gives light tanks an additional protection layer. And people always talk about the hard factors, ignoring the soft factors, in wich light tanks excell. Logistics favour the light tank. So does mobility.
Not only the commenters, the posters too, since our age is so focused on money and popularity, people go on posting as fast as possible without thinking, for 'content'. And then ignorant people agree cuz he said she said.
I'll just watch this conversation develop, it's got a interesting start and great points on how little people actually take time into learning more in depth things
Although I absolutely agree with your point, The thought that’s on my mind is: “How much difference is there in crew survivability between modern MBTs and light tanks.” Which I think is a valid concern.
Type 95 Ha-Go is a perfect example of a light tank being a major headache when it's got nothing to counter it. A little background: the Type 95 was the go-to tank for Japan during World War II. While very small and lightweight, it had several major issues. It was lightweight because it had practically no armor - there were multiple cases in which an anti-tank round fired at a Ha-Go would penetrate through one end and fly straight through the other side of the tank, like the armor was made of cardboard. Armor was in some places as little as 6 mm, which meant even a heavy machine gun could disable it. Perhaps the most embarrassing problem found that if a soldier was brave enough, he could run up to the tank, climb onto it, and stick something such as a combat knife into the turret ring, which was all it took to jam it. Despite all this, the Ha-Go was absurdly effective. It weighted just 8.2 tons (7.3 long tons), had a decent 37mm cannon with a pair of Type 97 MGs for armament, and had an extremely basic suspension (even for a tank) that proved very effective. But by far the biggest reason for its success was that it was just _there._ During this time, almost all countries considered a jungle off-limits to armored warfare; the fact that the Ha-Go was in the jungle without anything to reliably hunt it down meant it went from a paper lion to a complete beast that could rain hell on anyone unfortunate enough to encounter it. Even today, light tanks are still useful. While going into a city is practically a death sentence, wide-open areas such as plains or deserts are the perfect place for a light tank, as a (usual) combination of speed and low profile means they are excellent at spotting, and good at getting away from trouble if they get compromised.
It should be noted that the light build of Japanese tanks proved a distinct advantage in Burma, where, due to a general lack of adequate infrastructure, Shermans saw struggles with terrain passability, even noting a case of a Sherman collapsing a bridge and falling 1000 feet, becoming unrecoverable. There are of course many factors which contributed to why Burma was such a disastrous front for the allies until the very end, but it was generally more difficult for them to leverage their heavier tank advantage.
@@ricardoospina5970 Getting penetration at all will typically cause spalling inside, which will probably kill the crew. The tank itself might be salvageable though.
Although, it is perhaps strange that the Type 95 Ha-Go didn't have thick enough armour to stop medium machinegun and infantry rifle rounds, but I guess that a big sheet-metal monster (even a Ha-Go is big compared to person) is intimidating if you don't know it's armour is almost non-existent and the bog-standard infantry rifle you're holding is effectively an anti-tank rifle.
China currently fields/develops two light tanks themselves, I think they deployed them to their border with India. Which makes sense, it's a mountainous region where low weight and small size seems reasonable. I think light tanks, especially paired with decent sensors and possibly a good active protection system can be extremely viable for regions where an APC would be too vulnerable but an MBT too large. I'd also assume cannister rounds, HE and similar rounds would give them a good niche as a fast to deploy support vehicle for infantry in difficult terrain. I personally love IFV and Light tanks a lot for their utility, but most importantly their flexibility. I think we could see more Light tanks in the future actually.
India annihilated Pakistan's M47/48 tank battalions in the 1960s using heavily outnumbered, light AMX-13s in Kashmir. Ironic that now they think that sending T-90s to Aksai is a good idea, while China has built the ZTQ-15, a light tank specifically built for mountain warfare. I do feel that light tanks, or at the very least highly modular MBTs that can be easily modified for specific missions and terrains, are the future.
@@shaddaboop7998 Didn't know that something similar already happened in the region, thanks for the info. Makes me respect the AMX-13 even more than I already did lol
@@shaddaboop7998 the austrians also use a vehicle with the Amx-13s turret and man, the idea of a bunch of Amx-13 quick firing from multiple ambush positions with those revolver autoloaders is terrifying
There's one more scenario actually where light tanks make sense and it's quite unlikely. Bridges are a problem. Here in Brazil we have a tonnage limit on most of our bridges that severely limits strategical redeployment of armour across our territory, and since replacing a shitton of bridges would take tons of money on top of getting an new tank we opted to invest on light tanks for mobility
@@512TheWolf512 Not in all scenarios, when the enemy has electronic jamming capabilities/AA drones become severely less efective. Also drones are much more useful on the defensive than on the offensive, a role where recon light tanks thrive. Example: the Rus/Ukr war has both sides using drones for recon, however the Ukrainians are using them more effectively it seems
@@512TheWolf512 they're not, not even close. Hell, we are likely going to see the end of the drone as a weapon system in the near future unless AGIs become widely available within the next decade.
@@512TheWolf512 at that point lets use planes? A tank can do much more than a drone in lots of scenarios. Having an active scout tank in a unit will greatly increase it's capability. If the enemy has air defense, the drone will just be shot down. Also drone's can't do anything against most threats, where a light tank that spots an enemy can lob a HE shell at it.
@@Lynxium_ well, okay, if you guys are such fans of this kind of work, I hope you'll go and do this job yourself, in a (light) tank, doing reconnaissance
Light tanks are basically the IFV's of the world anyway. And no, again, attacking without tanks is very stupid. Unless getting WW1 scale casualties on your own side is among your goals
The supremacy of airpower is largely what has dominated for literal decades in western military doctrine. It has by and large superseded tanks (look at the disproportionate amount of aircraft the US has compared to tanks and how much more they get used compared to them). Yes tanks/AFVs/MBTs are still useful in western doctrine but they pale in comparison to the importance of the air force. Guys I served with who were in Afghanistan and Iraq told me of the insanely heavy usage they had to make of the air force compared to tanks.
@@saopro21 You are basing your opinion on 20 years of bombing illiterate 16 year old goat herders armed with 40 year old AKs. That opinion doesn't translate to a war with a near peer opponent that has air defense capabilities.
@@Crosshair84 it also doesn't translate to a war with a near peer with should mounted anti-tank capabilities. The MBT as we know it is obsolete. People think Javelins cost so much when the things they are build to kill costs millions of dollars not 10's of thousands. Javelins are fucking CHEAP in a modern military context. The NLAW is absurdly cheap in comparison. If modern armies actually focused on having a glut of these AT weapons in their infantry formation's they have just rendered the MBT utterly worthless. Which is what has happened in Ukraine, it's an Artillery slugging match because armor just gets blown up, which is why Ukraine has stopped begging for everything except artillery.
@@jorgejustin461 Again, MBT is not wortless, because there is no replacement that can go around with infantry as part of combine arms formation and shot 120/125mm rounds in direct firesupport role, while being protected. MBT will be wortless when replacement for it shows up, but that replacement doesnt exist today.
Each country's geography and politics also influence choice between light tanks and MBTs. Lights are usually common within countries with extremely rough terrain - lots of mountains and small canyons. There are also commonly used by superpowers, since they can provide proper firepower literally anywhere. Meanwhile MBTs are much better option for countries with plain fields and no need to participate in any foreign operations. In case of my country, Poland, we're looking exactly for the second option now for that reason - light tanks wouldn't really show their full potential here. A combination of MBTs, wheeled TDs and strong artillery is just a better option for us
It might be a good point to bring up "contact points" alongside "survivability onion". The only time I've ever heard about the contact point stacking was in Chieftain's video on tanks AA machineguns.
The future is in active protection systems but armour is still very important against other tanks. Sensors are also really important, thermals will mean you can prevent being attacked because you can see the enemy before they can see you. Letting you kill them first. Some sort of radar type sensors would also be nice, battlefield type radars are really usefull at seeing things optics cannot. A drone for each tank would also be helpfull. The only problem with adding all of these systems and sensors on-board is that it means crew will be looking too much and not advancing which will slow down an advance but at the same time their survivability will go up a lot.
Honestly, the way to go with this isn't really to cram sensors onto the tank itself but to equip the tank with a datalink and integrate it into a information network with the sensors. That way instead of the tank crew being forced to control a drone, or parse radar and multiple camera and visual sensor information, that can be done by a different crew and the refined information can be passed down to the tank. It's also more efficient as a platoon of tanks in this scenario could essentially share 1 or 2 drones instead of each tank needing to have 1. Remember, a tank doesn't operate alone, it is an integral part of a combined arms team.
My take on this is: TLDR, no. Light tanks are not useless. I think a good piece of evidence for this is us, the Philippines. The Philippine Army is currently awaiting the arrival of Sabrah light tanks from Elbit Systems based on the Pandur and ASCOD platforms, the first batch of which should arrive some time this year I believe. Most bridges here cannot support the weight of MBTs and we cannot exactly afford a whole lot of them to begin with, much less the entire logistical and support chain that comes with operating them. For a bit of historical context, we only operated tanks like the M24 Chaffee, M41 Bulldog, and M4 Sherman in the past.
Yeah that is the true advantage of a light tank. It can get to places a MBT cannot. In actual fighting I think an MBT is superior in pretty much every way. But if the MBT can't even get to the battlefield, because of bridges or a lack of strategic transport aircraft or whatever, than a light tank is a hell of a lot better than no tank at all. The US is looking to acquire MPF not because they think it will be more capable than Abrams, but because it can be deployed in places Abrams cannot. Abrams is just too heavy for airborne units to deploy with, they need something lighter.
for the type of conflicts that the Philippines faces now the light tank or IFV is a good choice. not a lot of rebels running around with javelins anyway. for actual defense against a superior force, maybe stock up on javelins instead of procuring expensive MBTs to counter an invasion force. the most likely aggressor (China) will probably send light tanks/APVs anyway since sending heavy things over sea/air is a pain.
@@basketcase1235 especially since Philipine is a tropical archipelagic state that consist of many islands that also lack abundant of heavy lifter, focusing on more deployable light tank and IFV are the logical choice
@@basketcase1235 let me guess. Assessment based on the Russia-Ukraine conflict? Different terrain, different potential enemy, different tactic. I just don't get people saying what Russia is doing strategy wise against Ukraine, our future aggressor will also duplicate. The Philippines will be erased from the map in less than a day even before China will even consider sending in land forces. We only have short range missile defenses in less quantities. China will not probably even deem it necessary to enter the territorial 200km range from the coast line. They can eliminate us from the sea. The light tanks are for internal threats. If there was a glaring deficiency during the Marawi Siege, it's the AFP's lack of mobile firepower that can penetrate through thick walls. They literally have to settle with turning to 105 howitzers as direct fire. For external threats, Philippines should focus on acquiring more GBADs, and shore based cruise missiles like the Brahmos not these puny "javelens" and "armed drones" like the so-called "experts" are saying.
far from light tanks being useless, I actually think MBTs will soon trend towards becoming smaller, lighter, and cheaper as APS, ERA, and anti-tank munitions improve. why have one 70t abrams that's only marginally more survivable when you can 2 or 3 tanks that are half the weight and shorter with minimal composite, an advanced APS, and covered in advanced ERA that can take out APFSDS rounds before they hit?
As a person living in the Tropical country, I said, "are you kidding me?". Light tank helps to fight against the light infantry as terrain of tropical country are hard to fight.
I think an issue often overlooked regarding the resistance of tanks to enemy fire is that the battle between offense and defense often happens in distinct waves. A new technology is developed and has a very impactful influence on the arms-race until it´s limitations are known and defenses, both tactical and technological are developed. We had a phase like this at the end of WW1, the start of the cold war and we have another of these phases right know, where infantry anti-tank weapons and other less orthodox methods of ordinance-delivery have benefitted hugely from the developments in micro-electronics. The problem is, that while a lot of new attack-vectors have opened up, you can´t scale their effectiveness up indefinitely, their delivery methods will remain the same for the foreseeable future and as such are open to be countered. Active protection systems are still relatively new and will only increase in effectiveness, so while many light tanks and MBTS are relatively equally protected against a broad range of threats right know, there will come a time when the best way to destroy an armored vehicle will be via direct kinetic munitions, simply because these can be upscaled almost indefinitely, while the only reliable protection against them is armor. In conclusion, I agree that there are distinct places where a light tanks superior mobility and logistics make it a worthwhile investment for militaries, but it won´t be able to replace the MBT, although I think that both concepts will ultimately blur with the advent of the unmanned tank, that will probably be able to fill both roles, without compromises in performance.
Ukraine has demonstrated yet again the key to winning battles is Accurate Intelligence, Air Superiority, and Logistics. No amount of armor protection can overwhelm the above. It’s also shown that armor protection is less important than situational awareness. Working Radios, Thermal systems, and Guided weapons are necessary. And so are the trained soldiers to used them.
communication, information, and logistics have always been the way to win wars, all the way back to the first organized wars to far far in the future will those 3 always be key. Which is why it amazes me how SHIT russia was/is with not only their own organization but also with even attempting to deny ukraine theirs lmao, Air superiority is 100% a thing you should want but well, look at the guerilla wars where the enemies had little to no planes to begin with, they tend to be able to hold out due to their Logistics and Information warfare, so idk if id put that as a 100% Need for All battles/wars
Ukraine has proven that logistics win wars, nothing else. The reason Ukraine is winning is because it has the logistical and economical backing of the entire western world, while russia is being crippled economically.
The light tank still fills an important niche in many armies, especially for nations with airborne divisions, Marine Infantry, or those without the resources and funding for main battle tanks. They have important advantages over heavier tanks in Southeast Asia and other nations in the Equatorial region.
^this. And it helps when there is more destroyed stuff on theother side than yours. It's sheer numbers, which is why western militaries cannot understand what happens in an actual war, because it has been decades since they last had to be prepared to sacrifice significant amounts of materiel to achieve their objectives. In other words, shit happens. And this is especially true when you have to ration your forces and split commitments of your armed forces personnel. The last time a major power had to do this, they lost everything because they figured attacking half a continent with the best part of their army in summer clothes was a good idea.
@@AdotLOM Western armies are well aware that in war there is loss even as you are winning, only the general public does not. And you should studdy WW2 more because the way you portray is not accurate.
You basically forget the additional firepower light tanks can provide close up with the infantry. 120mm rounds fired can injure a person standing close just by the shockwave light tanks usually have autocannons that are less dangerous when fired. Light tanks can also carry other equipment like mortars giving protection to the crew that would normally use a truck and it also reduces time if you use a automatic version like on the Wiesel. Light tanks are more versatile because they can carry weapons that usually a 3 man team would need to carry and have it instantly ready reducing engagement time.
What? Most light tanks are armed with 105mm guns or larger, not autocannons. There is really not much point in mounting an autocannon on a light tank because IFVs are already packing autocannons.
@@XanderTuron not really most light tanks don’t Sabre 30mm, Wiesel 20mm and LuWa 27mm. Yes there are light tanks that have larger guns but they are less common because they are not easily transported by air or helicopter. IFVs are heavy and can’t be transported by air like light tanks.
@@exo068 @EXO0 aside from the weasel those are all IFVs. I can't think of any light tanks that have an autocannon over a large caliber gun. Because all the ones I can think of with autocannons are IFVs.
@@notstonks20 no? The Sabre has a crew of 3 and is a Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance although there is a APC version called the Spartan armed with a MG, the LuWa is the replacement for the Wiesel with 3 crew. The only thing that can be called a IFV is the D-56T but it doesn’t really have the armor to consider it one, the Russians also have the BMDs 1-4 light tanks were the BMDs 1-3 can carry troops but are considered more of a APC and not IFV due to the lighter armor. The BMD 4 has the same armor as the BMP3 but can’t carry troops.
@@exo068 Alright, so the Marder is an IFV, not a light tank (maybe you confused it with the Luchs which is armed with the same 20mm autocannon, but that is also not a tank, it is a wheeled reconnaissance vehicle). The LuWa is also not a light tank (unless you want to claim that the Wiesel Armoured Weapons Carrier is a light tank, in which case, lol). It's just an airborne armoured vehicleg. Tracks and a gun do not a tank make. You could maybe call them modern tankettes, but that doesn't make them Light Tanks. The D-56T is not a tank, but is in fact the name of the gun mounted on the PT-76 light tank; while smaller than 105mm, it is very much not an autocannon but is in fact a manually loaded medium caliber gun. The CVR(T) Sabre is the only thing you named that is actually classified as a tank and is armed with an autocannon. It was also considered a failure and the British withdrew it from service after about ten years in service. You probably would have been better off with naming the FV107 Scimitar instead, but that is not always classified as a light tank and is frequently referred to as just a tracked reconnaissance vehicle. Probably the better way for me to have phrased my response would be that Cold War and Post Cold War light tanks tend to pack medium or large caliber guns, not autocannons. The list of light tanks mounting medium or large bore guns is quite extensive; the AMX-13 (75, 90, and 105mm versions), SK-105 (105mm), TAM (105mm), M551 Sheridan (152 gun/launcher that was too big for the vehicle), ZTQ-15 (105mm gun), 2S25 Sprut-SD (125mm), M41 Walker Bulldog (76mm), FV101 Scorpion (76mm), M8 AGS (105mm); the US Army's Mobile Protected Firepower program is also looking at adopting a 105mm armed vehicle. Edit: Since you listed other vehicles; the BMD vehicles are not light tanks, they are airborne IFVs and the BMD-4 can in fact carry troops (because it's you know, an IFV).
People forget tanks aren't the main effort. Infantry is the primary force in ground combat. Everything else supports infantry. Tanks exist to provide a mobile, protected direct fire support asset to infantry.
Put it simple, all tanks are useful defends on : -Geographic (especially terrain) -Weather or Climate -Strategy MBT are awesome, it basically a "Land Battleship", but 60 tonnes MBT are useless in wet, muddy, tropical jungle terrain, it will get stuck and become a sitting ducks, meanwhile Light Tanks could easily maneuver MBT on that terrain, light tank also can be deployed as FSV to destroy enemy fortification. Meanwhile in open plain, MBT are (practically) indestructible unless it encounter other MBT, enemies also cannot deploy ATGM to an MBT unless they have a spot to hide like a bush, trench, or abandoned village.
for me, not being seen is THE most important, stealth gives a lot of advantages, it can be a game changing factor. but heres a thing that i cant get out of my mind, how do you not get seen if tanks now has IR optics? if anti IR devices or even construction of the vehicle can be achieved, implementing those in light tanks can be really good, combine that with great mobility and good fire power on a lightly armored platform and you will have a perfect ambush machine, but well, its easy say that done and dreaming is costless so well, maybe is not a great idea in the long run
The ancient Roman armies won many battles by simply out-marching and flanking their enemies. Most people heavily underestimate the impact that logistics can have on tactics and combat. Most often it's not about the raw potential of a combat asset, but about how effective it can be utilised and worked to its strengths.
In modern technology with new anti tank weapons, armor can be obsolete, thus tank could evolve into something light, stealthy, could perform as transport, attack and retreat tactics.
Thats why the Blitzkrieg was so effective. They had a shit ton of light and medium tanks capable of keeping pace with their infantry. All the Tigers and Panthers did was act as area denial or provide security for the FOB. Couple that with an effective airforce and there you go.
This discussion is a prime example of why heavy tanks don't really exist anymore. You can't out armor anti-armor weapons. Which makes armor past a certain point a detriment. When going against a force that doesn't have reliable or sufficient anti-armor, light takes are the best bet hands down. More than enough firepower to destroy anything before them, fast enough to avoid most counter-fire, and durable enough to ignore most small arms. The only way to have a better weapon platform is to make them fully automated/remote controlled. Even if they do have enough reliable anti-tank, light tanks are still a solid option. If you can make them cheap enough, the high-tech anti-tank missiles will cost more than the tank they just shot.
I live in the Philippines, our military is investing into light tanks over MBTs and I think that's a smart move. Being an archipelago that is mostly mountain and rainforest, there are very few areas on the larger islands where you could realistically deploy MBTs, but even then, a lot of that is muddy farmland and most provincial roads and bridges are narrow and can't support too much weight as well. Light tanks, on the other hand, will be able to traverse most roads and bridges in the country (particularly narrow mountain, backcountry, and urban roads) plus they're also easier to transport by air/sea which is a very important factor in an archipelago.
Anyone who says light tanks are obsolete nowadays compared to main battle tanks must only play War Thunder and think that that gives them greater knowledge then a military General. In my opinion, light tanks serve a great purpose for two main reasons. As you mentioned, their weight allows them to be transported easier and can cross bridges or softer ground. Another useful benefit of light tanks is they are typically far cheaper to produce allowing for greater numbers. Both of these factors are not going to be considered by your average War Thunder player who thinks they know everything. War Thunder does not come even close to showing the realities of the real world.
people don't realize the narrative this guy gave is GOLD .. i don't even play this game and came in thinking its a show case of what a light tank does in this game but this random video surprised me by teaching me so much more .. wow man.
I don’t think so, I’d take example from my country, Vietnam. With hilly terrain and some parts of the country still have less than desirable road condition with mud that can easily bog down any heavy vehicle, light tanks would be very useful in those condition as they can go where MBT can’t and provide support with their 90mm, 105mm or 120mm like the new Lynx 120. That’s why for a long time, many of our PT-76s and K-63s are used on many fronts instead of T-54/54 and T-62.
the best armor for a tank now days is not to be hit in the first place i feel it would be better for the military to just go for a light ,fast and hard hitting fleet of fighting vehicles
Light tank is useful in countries that have jungle or tropic terrain... the ground structure is soft and muddy, heavy armor won't be able to move on it especially in rain... that's why you don't see much of them in Vietnam war... the Medium or Heavy Tank might be operable in suburban area but once it hits the jungle... that's a no no man😅
Especially when it's mountainous tropical jungles. You don't simply get bogged down, if you try to drive an MBT over a mountain road during the wet season there's a very real risk of getting buried under a landslide. After millions of weathering and leaching, the jungle soil is mostly gravel mixed with clay. Solid when dry but very unstable when soaked. Most of the south east asian countries have mountain ranges like that so it's not something that can be ignored.
That the Sheridan was widely derided by some but remained in service as long as it did shows that as long as you have something that can do an important job it will remain useful. Not that they couldn't have done better than the Sheridan but it was light enough to move and drop off, and give units a relatively quick armored vehicle with a powerful gun ((too powerful for it's frame but still )) . Speed is life and as long as it's used correctly that holds true for a lot of armor and vehicles, Welding or bolting an aa gun to a ford f-150 may seem dumb but it serves enough of a purpose that people started doing it, Light tanks I think are a lot the same in concept.
On the battlefield you still need to be able to get from point A to point B against enemy fire. That means you need some form of armored mobility unless you plan on dismounted light infantry to carry out offensives.
I enjoy the idea of light tanks, something about using speed for survivability is cool. Especially if the speedy one has a cannon that can penetrate mbts
@@BulletRain100 There's a reason those governers exist. If the engine has to be governed to a certain level, that infers that preforming above that level for prolonged periods of time wouldn't be very good for the engine. I have not heard of governers on light tanks, but I'm sure they exist as well
@@FatherGrigori Governers are to protect the crew, not the engine. You can tow another tank as long as you want and the governer won't do anything to stop you. You have to realize that the driver is the only member of the crew who has a seat belt. Unexpected quick stops result in the crew slamming into whats in front of them such as their sights. There are numerous tankers who lost their teeth slamming into gunner sights or their .50cal. The faster you go, the more serious the injuries become 35mph is about where the US military determined the risk to injury is appropriate for necessary combat speed. Stykers can go faster, but they also have seat belts or gunner restraint harnesses for all personnel inside the vehicle.
@@BulletRain100 but that doesn't stop light tanks from being obsolete unlike light tanks MBTs has weight limitations compared to the latter they are useful in extreme tropical environments and geography or even infrastructures that can't handle the weight of an MBTs they can't get to point A to point B fast enough in rough terrain unlike light tanks.
From what i understand about Ukraine is that optics and fire control systems are a must in any tank, so a light tank containing these would have a nice advantage.
in regards to ukraine, its important to note that up until the last week or two, most of the vehicles being employed by the russian side were extremely outdated, mostly t-72b's and t-80b's. while they're good tanks, they are obviously not capable of standing up to modern threats, and despite that, their effect on the battlefield was superb. another point that should be noted is the sheer amount of misinformation that is floating around, so verify everything you see.
I’m fairly neutral on the topic of Ukraine, but people coming out with blanket statements like “Russian tanks aren’t effective” or comments about doctrine etc. sort of irks me. Russian doctrine heavily relies on armoured and manoeuvre warfare as well as artillery, if Russian tanks weren’t effective, they wouldn’t have been seeing the success they’ve had so far.
This is true. If a Russian tank gets destroyed it automatically means that it is a piece of garbage which is not true. Also the old t 64 used by Ukraine is good-ish. They don't deserve it
@@blumpfreyfranks8863 there were several cases where their armor advanced without proper air cover or infantry screen, so they ignored combined arms warfare
Thats not true, see Oryx confirmed equipment losses. T90s, upgraded T80s, and the highest losses for a long time were actually the newest T-72 variant. Russia sent their best tanks into Ukraine. Its more recent that the lost tanks get older and older. Im also not sure what you mean with "superb" performance. The tanks are good enough, and the modern stuff is likely better than what Ukraine has, but they were used in an amateurish fashion. Best bet on the tank losses is something like 1000 tanks gone, and very little to show for that.
I'd say light tanks are probably more useful on the modern battlefield than MBTs, and the light tanks of today would be more comparable with a medium tank of ww2 not a ww2 light tank.
In our decades long communist and muslim insurgencies, where the terrain involves jungle and urban or semi urban areas, we had used Scorpion CVRT light tanks for years. They are well suited for these conditions and operations, where an MBT would be immobilised and useless.
In the case of Southeast Asia, light tanks are useful because they fulfill certain factors. In terms of the Philippines and Indonesia, they have their own light/medium tanks such as the Sabrah (Philippines) and the Harimau (Indonesia). Being an archipelago, having light tanks would be easier to transport due to its lighter weight. If these archieplagos ever get invaded, these light tanks don't need to wait for bigger and longer SSVs to transport them but instead have LCHs to bring them from one island to another. In short, they're good for rapid deployment. Second one is, it's more adaptable to our tropical raining season. Since most of these light or medium tanks weight an average of 30 tons, they have less chance of being bogged down to muddy places. In addition, they can be used to fight in mountainous terrain. If im right, India considered buying the Sprut after the border conflict with China a few years back. Although, this doesn't mean MBTs are useless in Southeast Asia, there are multiple countries that have Leo 2s, t90s and t72s in their arsenal. We cannot deny that MBTs will always be the superior tank from light tanks, its just that light tanks specialize on certain roles such as weight. In short, I believe that light tanks are useful in the battlefied but i dont think they are made for every country. I believe its role is perfect for more complex terrain of south east asia and maybe even south asia
As per usual, far too many people think of tanks in video game tank v tank terms, and complete fail to consider that tanks have a far wider role than engaging other tanks, and that tanks are far more likely to engage anti-tank weapons and lighter armoured vehicles.
One thing that I feel is often left out of these discussions is that tanks' APS are not like naval point defenses where the threat is just shot down. They may damage the warhead so it doesnt collimate properly, thus cutting a lot of penetration (and for anti-kinetic ones, theg usually bend or snap the rod for a similar effect, but you cant just "shoot down" a fast slug, short of vaporizing it I guess). The point is, you still need armor behind the APS, whose job is to make the armor's easier, not to substitute it. Thus adding an APS is adding a supplement yo armor, not a replacement. Of course you now need less thick plates in theory, but its not like you can cut a lot from the roof or back anyway, and the front is mostly for facing enemy tanks, which are extremely powerful and may need the extra effectiveness on top of thickness to remain useful. A light tank could thus use an APS but only sacrifize frontal armor mostly, as it is not made to fight enemy MBTs. By only I mean as allowed by its different use, without making serious compromises...
Light in comparison to what? Light as defined by what exactly? That's my issue with this whole discussion. One because I think I've spent too much time reading, following Nick Moran's material and the other being.... well, I come from a HEMA background, there's a whole heap of weird language around things and when you name an item in relation to something else, you're relying on the point of comparison. So it's pretty easy for things to get confusing. Do I think the tank is going away? No. I think we're going to see more things called tanks be designed for a good long while. Do I think the exact role of the tank is entirely set? Also no. I think there's a whole heap of tank things tanks do. As strange as that sounds, the moment you ask a vehicle to do it, then you probably design a tank to do it. Do I think the light tank, perhaps a tank designed for speed, firepower at the trade off of it being weighed down by protection is a viable choice? Maybe, depends on what you want to do with it and the threat its meant to counter. An armoured unit with a mix of vehicles, lighter vehicles scouting makes a lot of sense. A cav unit have units with dismounts and a fire support, heavy section made of relatively speaking 'light' vehicles, makes a lot of sense. Weren't some of the Stryker units designed in such a way? Again, point of comparison, point of reference. Does the standard issue assault bridge that carries one MBT define light? That part I have to admit
Spook, can you talk about War Thunder's cold war to modern vehicle smoke dischargers? How they should explode quicker but not land too close to your vehicle, thus blinding you in the process.
its very useful specially in pacific theater in south east asia to be exact where mostly composed of many islands which main battle tanks will have a hard time traversing and also transporting. Light tanks is making a come back Russia, China, US, South Korea, India, Indonesia and Philippines already has them and other countries also in the process of acquiring them
IIRC isn't Japan switching to a primarily Light Tank based force. Using Wheeled Tanks IIRC. So a double whammy. Not only are the light but also wheeled.
No, Light tank is not obsolete. Light tank are actually useful for certain doctrine and geographical purpose, for example Indonesian army and Philippine army mostly use light tank/FSV due to nature of Tropical island archipelago of both country limiting the practical usage of heavy vehicle like MBT and doctrinal usage in tropical archipelago nation dictate that Infantry is used as spearhead while vehicle like light tank is used to supporting infantry, the polar opposite of traditional combined arms doctrine that employed in europe/middle east where tank become the spearhead while infantry are supporting the tank.
Dear everyone in the Philippines who think we don't need tanks, kindly watch this so that there will be knowledge that can be stuffed in empty brains of yours. Thanks
modern infantry platoon equipped with modern ATGM could provide additional protection to light tanks, while light tanks could provide instant and heavy covering fire needed for infantry assault.
Light tanks will excell as fire support units in jungle and amphibious environments as they can go where MBTs can't and have the firepower to engage and destroy what autocannons can't (fortifications, armored vehicles etc)
Light tanks are great at dealing with any kind of armor and fortification just like mbt's. However they are much easier to deploy and offer more mobility and can traverse more kinds of ground. I can see them fitting very well into a conventional army. The middle ground between an IFV and MBT
I think the problem with relying purely on a active protection system to protect a vehicle is that it cannot stop kinetic projectiles from other tanks. I think that light tanks will be useful in situations where you are not facing other tanks or when higher strategic mobility is required, but in a armor against armor capacity it is a little lacking.
Knowing barely anything about tanks in real life, and without watching the video, one would assume that at the very least light tanks would be more affordable and/or lighter and therefore better in rough terrain. That being said however, I usually feel like APC's could be made into a reasonable light tank replacement. If I were a dictator in some 2nd/3rd world country, and I could only choose one option, I would definitely invest in APC's (assuming my infantry was any good).
A lot of the tank kills, at least early in the Ukrainian war (and undoubtedly throughout) stem often from the tank first being rendered immobile by their surroundings and having inadequate infantry support. This was often a result of poor tactics - you can’t blame a tank for being used poorly.
1:18 This! This is exactly what i've been saying since these discussions came up again. If you show pictures of dead soldiers (corpses) you might invoke sympathy for them, which you wouldn't want to do if the dead soldier is an enemy (also Geneva Convention and things like that). Pictures of a destroyed Plane or Helicopter aren't that easy to come by, at least not pictures usable for Propaganda, because the wreckage tends to be less "identifiable" to the layman and it tends to be "somewhere" (as well as being more rare than a destroyed tank. For Warships, the same problems as with Planes and Helicopters apply, but they apply even more. A destroyed Tank (at least the pictures that are then spread) tends to be near some kind of road or settlement, so you've probably got people moving or living nearby anyway who can take poictures for you. The Tank is a symbol of power every layman understands, with a destroyed tank being a symbol of the enemies power being crushed by you. TLDR: A destroyed enemy Tank is the perfect Propaganda Picture for simple Warfare.
If I'm going to be honest, I feel like if anything light tanks are starting to surpass MBT's. An AT missile destroys a heavily armored tank just as well as a lightly armored one, so the added mobility is worth more.
I saw a debate on a Chinese forum about the new ZTQ-15, lots of people hated it because it can't compete with Indian T-90s, but most suggest it is built for the horrible road condition in south-east asia.
No, the ZTQ15 is specialized for mountainous warfare in the border with India. Heavier mbts have difficulty being deployed there and require more resources to maintain, in a place where resupplying is a difficult task. It doesn't matter that it is weaker than T90, in a prolonged war the ZTQ15s will outnumber and be easier to replace and deploy than the T90s. Also it has much easier time navigating the terrain than it's mbt counterparts.
Light tanks are more cost effective, because they are cheap if you compare them to MBT. But you can put on them reactive armor, or active protection system, so they are protected against misses in same way as MBT
I'd like to point out that big tanks will struggle in cities. Their gun elevation is generally lower than that of light tanks. Their barrel may be too long to turn and too much of the tank sticks out before you can engage a target around the building and don't get me started on bridges and basements...
The best part of light tanks development since the second world war is their ability to not only carry comparable armaments to an MBT and mount the same applique armor options, but also their ability to be made amphibious. If your light tank is 14.5 proof (At least .50 cal proof), then you have an extremely good recon and general fire support platform that pairs remarkably well with IFV's. Main downside is that if they applique solutions are sort of a one-shot deal. ERA detonates once. Active protection only defends from missiles. IR Smoke works both ways, and if you're some people also tends to be uh...extremely incendiary. They don't have endurance enough to be a sledgehammer.
This is why I live the french wheeled bois. Big enough cannon and good speed, it's a really good adition for mixed combat and this is the reason somewhat for me that I like heavier IFVs so much. Like the Bradley, it can deliver troops, kill troops, destroy fortifications, in one package. And nowadays I understand more why the brits stayed with the rifled guns. Their doctrine is still pretty much viable, supporting the troops closely, and still got enough firepower to deal with most treats.
I would say that all of these evaluations go the wrong way. The purpose of a tank is to deliver direct firepower on the battlefield. To accomplish this training, weapons, tactics and organization must be all done well to get a great impact. Note that weapon is just one of these elements. This is true for any weapon system and thus true for tanks. The entire point of light tanks is mobility, often strategic mobility. Combined with the right training, tactics, and organization this could be quite successful. I would say the biggest challenge to all of this is the huge change to tactical intelligence that low cost drones are bringing to the table. We are just at the start of this process. We have seen neither good anti-drone training, weapons, tactics, and organization nor have we seen full exploitation of these new capabilities. Let me give you one example and yes I realize that there will be counters to this and then counters to the counters, etc. Imagine a low cost drone that is used for surveillance and has a laser targeting system in it. That could allow a Copperhead artillery round (M712) to pick off moving tanks at a range of almost 10 miles. Given that the Javelin is acclaimed for both range and fire and forget capability, this could extend the equivalent of ATGMs to 4x the current range. I think there is a lot of iteration work to be done both offensively and defensively on these systems.
I feel like the most important things about modern tanks is not gun - armour - speed but target acquisition - speed - and most importantly tactics. Basically any modern munition can penetrate an MBT so seeing it first and shooting first is the more important than having a bigger gun. Speed is always useful, and tactics can twofold an army’s strength or make it useless, and under the tactics umbrella is intel, knowing where the enemy is.
In an anti tank role id say yes. However in an infantry support role and scouting role no. Id also say they have a place in nations with rough terrain such as japan, italy and a portion of europe. And also light tanks are more easy to transport and cheaper to build and maintain.
I wonder if part of the problem is with the term light tank it's self. I think people are to hung up on it when the reality saying a light tank sucks because it's less over all capable is like saying a destroyer sucks because it's less overall capable then a cruiser. They're both warships but the have different rolls to fulfill and since the destroyer is smaller and lighter it has a flexibility the larger ships do not. Not a 1 for 1 comparison but conveys similar ideas.
I guess the counterpoint (for dummies) would be an mbt and light are simmilar sizes...certainly closer than a cruiser and destroyer. But the big difference really is weight/agility.
A key metric of an armoured vehicle that is often overlooked is the survivability of the crew after the vehicle has died. Loosing an AFV and a crew member or two in place of loosing a infantry section is preferable. AFV's take years to design but months to build (if industry is functioning) but 20 yr old grunts take 20 years to build and a functioning society to birth them, raise them, educate them, care for them, equip them. Loosing 10 guys to a machine gun/gl ambush is a easier grasp for an opponent to achieve then having an atgm team against an AFV. AFV's of any weight class make sense because of their comparative disposability. As long as a crew to bail out and have the support to suppress that initial ambush or meeting engagement.
Light tanks are useful because you can bring tank in an area where your enemy didn't expect it. With aps becoming more prominent it gets one more layer of protection. Now one need a competant crew and military to support it, then it won't be getting it's ass hannded down to it. It's good to have a big stick but how one swings it matter.
I would say if the argunent is light vs. heavy then light is preferable. Why just arbitralily have a heavy tank? If you can have armor thats extremely light and does more than typical stuff like steel then why not. You gotta be light enough for civil bridges, and other uses. Im no pro but if you have an 8 ton vehicle thats just as survivable as an 80 ton tank and can fire the same ordnance, AND its faster, can do better on inclines, and cross bridges better then why not have a light vehicle?
When people debate the usefulness of light tanks I am always minded of the early battles of Cuito Cuanavale in Angola in 1987 (Op Modular). A South African infantry battle group supported by a company of Ratel 90's took on several Angolan/Cuban Armoured and Mechanised brigades and held them off. The Ratel was, or is, a wheeled APC based on a Belgian design. The Ratel 90 was the fire support version and carried a 90mm gun. Later, as more Angolan and Cuban assets were sent to Cuito more South African mechanised assets were deployed including 61 Mech Battle group (also with Ratels including another company of 90mm armed Ratel 90's) and a squadron (company) of Olifant MBT (South African upgrades of the Centurion) and a platoon of experimental Ratels with ATGWs bolted to the standard 20mm turret. Despite there being 13 Olifant/Centurion MBTs and 4 Ratel ATGW on the South African side, the bulk of the "tank" fighting was between Angolan and Cuban T-55's and the Ratel 90's. Strictly speaking the Ratel isn't a light tank, coming closer to being an armoured car, but the outcome is the same. Properly directed by officers who know what they are doing, properly manned by soldiers who know what they are doing and using the terrain to their advantage, light armoured vehicles can take on tanks and at least hold their own long enough for heavier kit to turn up and help.
One of the problems i see in the reports coming in from Ukraine is that we often don't know if the vehicle in question was a) destroyed in combat or b) abandoned. I think that can also skew the perception of what happened.
Personally I think the light tanks and MBTs are both going to be needed for a long time, however I have noticed a trend of some states making what is supposed to be a medium tank more like a heavy tank and feel that the concept of weight classes could help make designs more intentional and well thought-out. For example by making it so if a state is leaning towards heavy break-through vehicles(for example in response to more static battle lines) they don't saddle whats supposed to be a medium tank with the traits of a heavy tank.
The problem with alot of todays commentors, is that they have actually little to no knownledge of tanks, only from an upfront front on news pages. ATGM kills tank, thus tank is useless. But with that logic, infantry is useless because bullet kills infantry. MBT's are needed because of their doctorine. When we look at light tanks, i infact think the light tank is more usefull than ever. As Spook mentioned, APS gives light tanks an additional protection layer. And people always talk about the hard factors, ignoring the soft factors, in wich light tanks excell. Logistics favour the light tank. So does mobility.
Manned tanks are the problem. Thats the over arching point no one is talking about
Not only the commenters, the posters too, since our age is so focused on money and popularity, people go on posting as fast as possible without thinking, for 'content'. And then ignorant people agree cuz he said she said.
sound just like how anti-vax work
I'll just watch this conversation develop, it's got a interesting start and great points on how little people actually take time into learning more in depth things
Although I absolutely agree with your point, The thought that’s on my mind is: “How much difference is there in crew survivability between modern MBTs and light tanks.”
Which I think is a valid concern.
Type 95 Ha-Go is a perfect example of a light tank being a major headache when it's got nothing to counter it. A little background: the Type 95 was the go-to tank for Japan during World War II. While very small and lightweight, it had several major issues. It was lightweight because it had practically no armor - there were multiple cases in which an anti-tank round fired at a Ha-Go would penetrate through one end and fly straight through the other side of the tank, like the armor was made of cardboard. Armor was in some places as little as 6 mm, which meant even a heavy machine gun could disable it. Perhaps the most embarrassing problem found that if a soldier was brave enough, he could run up to the tank, climb onto it, and stick something such as a combat knife into the turret ring, which was all it took to jam it.
Despite all this, the Ha-Go was absurdly effective. It weighted just 8.2 tons (7.3 long tons), had a decent 37mm cannon with a pair of Type 97 MGs for armament, and had an extremely basic suspension (even for a tank) that proved very effective. But by far the biggest reason for its success was that it was just _there._ During this time, almost all countries considered a jungle off-limits to armored warfare; the fact that the Ha-Go was in the jungle without anything to reliably hunt it down meant it went from a paper lion to a complete beast that could rain hell on anyone unfortunate enough to encounter it.
Even today, light tanks are still useful. While going into a city is practically a death sentence, wide-open areas such as plains or deserts are the perfect place for a light tank, as a (usual) combination of speed and low profile means they are excellent at spotting, and good at getting away from trouble if they get compromised.
It should be noted that the light build of Japanese tanks proved a distinct advantage in Burma, where, due to a general lack of adequate infrastructure, Shermans saw struggles with terrain passability, even noting a case of a Sherman collapsing a bridge and falling 1000 feet, becoming unrecoverable. There are of course many factors which contributed to why Burma was such a disastrous front for the allies until the very end, but it was generally more difficult for them to leverage their heavier tank advantage.
That's a funny way to type penetrate
Over penetration of anti tank round isn't really a down side for a tank, until the other tankers shoot HE shells or even just their machine guns.
@@ricardoospina5970 Getting penetration at all will typically cause spalling inside, which will probably kill the crew. The tank itself might be salvageable though.
Although, it is perhaps strange that the Type 95 Ha-Go didn't have thick enough armour to stop medium machinegun and infantry rifle rounds, but I guess that a big sheet-metal monster (even a Ha-Go is big compared to person) is intimidating if you don't know it's armour is almost non-existent and the bog-standard infantry rifle you're holding is effectively an anti-tank rifle.
China currently fields/develops two light tanks themselves, I think they deployed them to their border with India. Which makes sense, it's a mountainous region where low weight and small size seems reasonable. I think light tanks, especially paired with decent sensors and possibly a good active protection system can be extremely viable for regions where an APC would be too vulnerable but an MBT too large. I'd also assume cannister rounds, HE and similar rounds would give them a good niche as a fast to deploy support vehicle for infantry in difficult terrain.
I personally love IFV and Light tanks a lot for their utility, but most importantly their flexibility. I think we could see more Light tanks in the future actually.
India annihilated Pakistan's M47/48 tank battalions in the 1960s using heavily outnumbered, light AMX-13s in Kashmir. Ironic that now they think that sending T-90s to Aksai is a good idea, while China has built the ZTQ-15, a light tank specifically built for mountain warfare. I do feel that light tanks, or at the very least highly modular MBTs that can be easily modified for specific missions and terrains, are the future.
@@shaddaboop7998 Didn't know that something similar already happened in the region, thanks for the info.
Makes me respect the AMX-13 even more than I already did lol
Us italians too are more focused on light/wheeled vehicles because of our terrain
@@shaddaboop7998 the austrians also use a vehicle with the Amx-13s turret and man, the idea of a bunch of Amx-13 quick firing from multiple ambush positions with those revolver autoloaders is terrifying
There's one more scenario actually where light tanks make sense and it's quite unlikely. Bridges are a problem. Here in Brazil we have a tonnage limit on most of our bridges that severely limits strategical redeployment of armour across our territory, and since replacing a shitton of bridges would take tons of money on top of getting an new tank we opted to invest on light tanks for mobility
As the chieftain said, the mission of the tank remains and there isn't anything that can do it better yet.
Drones.
Mecha
@@zollyy so how are drones going to destroy enemy tanks
@@aniviamain309 Suicide drones. Drones dropping bombs etc.
@@zollyy so what about if there is air cover? look up the Rheinmetall AHEAD system
Something worth mentioning is that light tanks can also scout enemy targets, and often can do it better because that's a part of their purpose
*DRONES* are even better.
@@512TheWolf512 Not in all scenarios, when the enemy has electronic jamming capabilities/AA drones become severely less efective. Also drones are much more useful on the defensive than on the offensive, a role where recon light tanks thrive. Example: the Rus/Ukr war has both sides using drones for recon, however the Ukrainians are using them more effectively it seems
@@512TheWolf512 they're not, not even close. Hell, we are likely going to see the end of the drone as a weapon system in the near future unless AGIs become widely available within the next decade.
@@512TheWolf512 at that point lets use planes? A tank can do much more than a drone in lots of scenarios. Having an active scout tank in a unit will greatly increase it's capability. If the enemy has air defense, the drone will just be shot down. Also drone's can't do anything against most threats, where a light tank that spots an enemy can lob a HE shell at it.
@@Lynxium_ well, okay, if you guys are such fans of this kind of work, I hope you'll go and do this job yourself, in a (light) tank, doing reconnaissance
Light tanks are basically the IFV's of the world anyway. And no, again, attacking without tanks is very stupid. Unless getting WW1 scale casualties on your own side is among your goals
The supremacy of airpower is largely what has dominated for literal decades in western military doctrine. It has by and large superseded tanks (look at the disproportionate amount of aircraft the US has compared to tanks and how much more they get used compared to them). Yes tanks/AFVs/MBTs are still useful in western doctrine but they pale in comparison to the importance of the air force. Guys I served with who were in Afghanistan and Iraq told me of the insanely heavy usage they had to make of the air force compared to tanks.
Not IFV but AFV(armored fighting vehicle)
@@saopro21 You are basing your opinion on 20 years of bombing illiterate 16 year old goat herders armed with 40 year old AKs. That opinion doesn't translate to a war with a near peer opponent that has air defense capabilities.
@@Crosshair84 it also doesn't translate to a war with a near peer with should mounted anti-tank capabilities. The MBT as we know it is obsolete. People think Javelins cost so much when the things they are build to kill costs millions of dollars not 10's of thousands. Javelins are fucking CHEAP in a modern military context. The NLAW is absurdly cheap in comparison. If modern armies actually focused on having a glut of these AT weapons in their infantry formation's they have just rendered the MBT utterly worthless. Which is what has happened in Ukraine, it's an Artillery slugging match because armor just gets blown up, which is why Ukraine has stopped begging for everything except artillery.
@@jorgejustin461 Again, MBT is not wortless, because there is no replacement that can go around with infantry as part of combine arms formation and shot 120/125mm rounds in direct firesupport role, while being protected. MBT will be wortless when replacement for it shows up, but that replacement doesnt exist today.
Each country's geography and politics also influence choice between light tanks and MBTs. Lights are usually common within countries with extremely rough terrain - lots of mountains and small canyons. There are also commonly used by superpowers, since they can provide proper firepower literally anywhere. Meanwhile MBTs are much better option for countries with plain fields and no need to participate in any foreign operations. In case of my country, Poland, we're looking exactly for the second option now for that reason - light tanks wouldn't really show their full potential here. A combination of MBTs, wheeled TDs and strong artillery is just a better option for us
I saw that you guy recently acquired the fabled _green_ Abrams
@@h3069 Yup, cause we like *green*
It might be a good point to bring up "contact points" alongside "survivability onion". The only time I've ever heard about the contact point stacking was in Chieftain's video on tanks AA machineguns.
Which video is that exactly? I can't seem to find it by searching or googling.
The future is in active protection systems but armour is still very important against other tanks. Sensors are also really important, thermals will mean you can prevent being attacked because you can see the enemy before they can see you. Letting you kill them first. Some sort of radar type sensors would also be nice, battlefield type radars are really usefull at seeing things optics cannot. A drone for each tank would also be helpfull. The only problem with adding all of these systems and sensors on-board is that it means crew will be looking too much and not advancing which will slow down an advance but at the same time their survivability will go up a lot.
Honestly, the way to go with this isn't really to cram sensors onto the tank itself but to equip the tank with a datalink and integrate it into a information network with the sensors.
That way instead of the tank crew being forced to control a drone, or parse radar and multiple camera and visual sensor information, that can be done by a different crew and the refined information can be passed down to the tank.
It's also more efficient as a platoon of tanks in this scenario could essentially share 1 or 2 drones instead of each tank needing to have 1.
Remember, a tank doesn't operate alone, it is an integral part of a combined arms team.
@@Maverick-gg2do True. Sort of an F-35 concept but for the ground is what I am thinking.
My take on this is: TLDR, no. Light tanks are not useless. I think a good piece of evidence for this is us, the Philippines. The Philippine Army is currently awaiting the arrival of Sabrah light tanks from Elbit Systems based on the Pandur and ASCOD platforms, the first batch of which should arrive some time this year I believe. Most bridges here cannot support the weight of MBTs and we cannot exactly afford a whole lot of them to begin with, much less the entire logistical and support chain that comes with operating them. For a bit of historical context, we only operated tanks like the M24 Chaffee, M41 Bulldog, and M4 Sherman in the past.
Yeah that is the true advantage of a light tank. It can get to places a MBT cannot. In actual fighting I think an MBT is superior in pretty much every way. But if the MBT can't even get to the battlefield, because of bridges or a lack of strategic transport aircraft or whatever, than a light tank is a hell of a lot better than no tank at all.
The US is looking to acquire MPF not because they think it will be more capable than Abrams, but because it can be deployed in places Abrams cannot. Abrams is just too heavy for airborne units to deploy with, they need something lighter.
for the type of conflicts that the Philippines faces now the light tank or IFV is a good choice. not a lot of rebels running around with javelins anyway.
for actual defense against a superior force, maybe stock up on javelins instead of procuring expensive MBTs to counter an invasion force. the most likely aggressor (China) will probably send light tanks/APVs anyway since sending heavy things over sea/air is a pain.
@@basketcase1235 especially since Philipine is a tropical archipelagic state that consist of many islands that also lack abundant of heavy lifter, focusing on more deployable light tank and IFV are the logical choice
@@basketcase1235 let me guess. Assessment based on the Russia-Ukraine conflict? Different terrain, different potential enemy, different tactic. I just don't get people saying what Russia is doing strategy wise against Ukraine, our future aggressor will also duplicate. The Philippines will be erased from the map in less than a day even before China will even consider sending in land forces. We only have short range missile defenses in less quantities. China will not probably even deem it necessary to enter the territorial 200km range from the coast line. They can eliminate us from the sea. The light tanks are for internal threats. If there was a glaring deficiency during the Marawi Siege, it's the AFP's lack of mobile firepower that can penetrate through thick walls. They literally have to settle with turning to 105 howitzers as direct fire. For external threats, Philippines should focus on acquiring more GBADs, and shore based cruise missiles like the Brahmos not these puny "javelens" and "armed drones" like the so-called "experts" are saying.
The reason the phil army brought the light tank is to experiment with them so that they eventually moved on to buy a full sized MBT.
far from light tanks being useless, I actually think MBTs will soon trend towards becoming smaller, lighter, and cheaper as APS, ERA, and anti-tank munitions improve. why have one 70t abrams that's only marginally more survivable when you can 2 or 3 tanks that are half the weight and shorter with minimal composite, an advanced APS, and covered in advanced ERA that can take out APFSDS rounds before they hit?
Because you are are still reducing 2 layers of the onion then.
Autonomous unmanned tanks is the future. Like the drones in ukraine.
Isn’t this just Russian tank doctrine
I don’t think any era or aps can defeat and apfsds shell
@@AltF4OuttaHere not yet.
also APS is usually for guided missiles.
As a person living in the Tropical country, I said, "are you kidding me?". Light tank helps to fight against the light infantry as terrain of tropical country are hard to fight.
I think an issue often overlooked regarding the resistance of tanks to enemy fire is that the battle between offense and defense often happens in distinct waves. A new technology is developed and has a very impactful influence on the arms-race until it´s limitations are known and defenses, both tactical and technological are developed.
We had a phase like this at the end of WW1, the start of the cold war and we have another of these phases right know, where infantry anti-tank weapons and other less orthodox methods of ordinance-delivery have benefitted hugely from the developments in micro-electronics.
The problem is, that while a lot of new attack-vectors have opened up, you can´t scale their effectiveness up indefinitely, their delivery methods will remain the same for the foreseeable future and as such are open to be countered.
Active protection systems are still relatively new and will only increase in effectiveness, so while many light tanks and MBTS are relatively equally protected against a broad range of threats right know, there will come a time when the best way to destroy an armored vehicle will be via direct kinetic munitions, simply because these can be upscaled almost indefinitely, while the only reliable protection against them is armor.
In conclusion, I agree that there are distinct places where a light tanks superior mobility and logistics make it a worthwhile investment for militaries, but it won´t be able to replace the MBT, although I think that both concepts will ultimately blur with the advent of the unmanned tank, that will probably be able to fill both roles, without compromises in performance.
Ukraine has demonstrated yet again the key to winning battles is Accurate Intelligence, Air Superiority, and Logistics. No amount of armor protection can overwhelm the above.
It’s also shown that armor protection is less important than situational awareness. Working Radios, Thermal systems, and Guided weapons are necessary. And so are the trained soldiers to used them.
And if super-trained personnel are too expensive, defensive use of anti-tank weapons is a strong obstacle
communication, information, and logistics have always been the way to win wars, all the way back to the first organized wars to far far in the future will those 3 always be key. Which is why it amazes me how SHIT russia was/is with not only their own organization but also with even attempting to deny ukraine theirs lmao, Air superiority is 100% a thing you should want but well, look at the guerilla wars where the enemies had little to no planes to begin with, they tend to be able to hold out due to their Logistics and Information warfare, so idk if id put that as a 100% Need for All battles/wars
Ukraine has proven that logistics win wars, nothing else.
The reason Ukraine is winning is because it has the logistical and economical backing of the entire western world, while russia is being crippled economically.
Information is ammunition
The Philippine Military themselves are getting Light tanks in the form of the Sabrah ASCOD2 with 105mm/52 guns
The light tank still fills an important niche in many armies, especially for nations with airborne divisions, Marine Infantry, or those without the resources and funding for main battle tanks. They have important advantages over heavier tanks in Southeast Asia and other nations in the Equatorial region.
It is very strange that some people dont understand that in war stuff is destroyed. You cant wage a war without losses.
^this. And it helps when there is more destroyed stuff on theother side than yours. It's sheer numbers, which is why western militaries cannot understand what happens in an actual war, because it has been decades since they last had to be prepared to sacrifice significant amounts of materiel to achieve their objectives.
In other words, shit happens. And this is especially true when you have to ration your forces and split commitments of your armed forces personnel. The last time a major power had to do this, they lost everything because they figured attacking half a continent with the best part of their army in summer clothes was a good idea.
@@AdotLOM Western armies are well aware that in war there is loss even as you are winning, only the general public does not.
And you should studdy WW2 more because the way you portray is not accurate.
Lol, it tripped me out, that you slowed down the background music to a lower BPM. But always great vid!
You basically forget the additional firepower light tanks can provide close up with the infantry. 120mm rounds fired can injure a person standing close just by the shockwave light tanks usually have autocannons that are less dangerous when fired. Light tanks can also carry other equipment like mortars giving protection to the crew that would normally use a truck and it also reduces time if you use a automatic version like on the Wiesel. Light tanks are more versatile because they can carry weapons that usually a 3 man team would need to carry and have it instantly ready reducing engagement time.
What? Most light tanks are armed with 105mm guns or larger, not autocannons. There is really not much point in mounting an autocannon on a light tank because IFVs are already packing autocannons.
@@XanderTuron not really most light tanks don’t Sabre 30mm, Wiesel 20mm and LuWa 27mm. Yes there are light tanks that have larger guns but they are less common because they are not easily transported by air or helicopter. IFVs are heavy and can’t be transported by air like light tanks.
@@exo068 @EXO0 aside from the weasel those are all IFVs. I can't think of any light tanks that have an autocannon over a large caliber gun. Because all the ones I can think of with autocannons are IFVs.
@@notstonks20 no? The Sabre has a crew of 3 and is a Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance although there is a APC version called the Spartan armed with a MG, the LuWa is the replacement for the Wiesel with 3 crew. The only thing that can be called a IFV is the D-56T but it doesn’t really have the armor to consider it one, the Russians also have the BMDs 1-4 light tanks were the BMDs 1-3 can carry troops but are considered more of a APC and not IFV due to the lighter armor. The BMD 4 has the same armor as the BMP3 but can’t carry troops.
@@exo068 Alright, so the Marder is an IFV, not a light tank (maybe you confused it with the Luchs which is armed with the same 20mm autocannon, but that is also not a tank, it is a wheeled reconnaissance vehicle).
The LuWa is also not a light tank (unless you want to claim that the Wiesel Armoured Weapons Carrier is a light tank, in which case, lol). It's just an airborne armoured vehicleg. Tracks and a gun do not a tank make. You could maybe call them modern tankettes, but that doesn't make them Light Tanks.
The D-56T is not a tank, but is in fact the name of the gun mounted on the PT-76 light tank; while smaller than 105mm, it is very much not an autocannon but is in fact a manually loaded medium caliber gun.
The CVR(T) Sabre is the only thing you named that is actually classified as a tank and is armed with an autocannon. It was also considered a failure and the British withdrew it from service after about ten years in service. You probably would have been better off with naming the FV107 Scimitar instead, but that is not always classified as a light tank and is frequently referred to as just a tracked reconnaissance vehicle.
Probably the better way for me to have phrased my response would be that Cold War and Post Cold War light tanks tend to pack medium or large caliber guns, not autocannons.
The list of light tanks mounting medium or large bore guns is quite extensive; the AMX-13 (75, 90, and 105mm versions), SK-105 (105mm), TAM (105mm), M551 Sheridan (152 gun/launcher that was too big for the vehicle), ZTQ-15 (105mm gun), 2S25 Sprut-SD (125mm), M41 Walker Bulldog (76mm), FV101 Scorpion (76mm), M8 AGS (105mm); the US Army's Mobile Protected Firepower program is also looking at adopting a 105mm armed vehicle.
Edit: Since you listed other vehicles; the BMD vehicles are not light tanks, they are airborne IFVs and the BMD-4 can in fact carry troops (because it's you know, an IFV).
People forget tanks aren't the main effort. Infantry is the primary force in ground combat. Everything else supports infantry. Tanks exist to provide a mobile, protected direct fire support asset to infantry.
4:15 Which allows the Japanese Type 87 RCV and Type 16 capable of using Japan's bridges and roads, since they are only used for Self Defense Purposes.
Put it simple, all tanks are useful defends on :
-Geographic (especially terrain)
-Weather or Climate
-Strategy
MBT are awesome, it basically a "Land Battleship", but 60 tonnes MBT are useless in wet, muddy, tropical jungle terrain, it will get stuck and become a sitting ducks, meanwhile Light Tanks could easily maneuver MBT on that terrain, light tank also can be deployed as FSV to destroy enemy fortification.
Meanwhile in open plain, MBT are (practically) indestructible unless it encounter other MBT, enemies also cannot deploy ATGM to an MBT unless they have a spot to hide like a bush, trench, or abandoned village.
If heavy armour isn't doing much to stop the newest missiles, then lighter tanks with jammers may be the way to go.
for me, not being seen is THE most important, stealth gives a lot of advantages, it can be a game changing factor. but heres a thing that i cant get out of my mind, how do you not get seen if tanks now has IR optics? if anti IR devices or even construction of the vehicle can be achieved, implementing those in light tanks can be really good, combine that with great mobility and good fire power on a lightly armored platform and you will have a perfect ambush machine, but well, its easy say that done and dreaming is costless so well, maybe is not a great idea in the long run
The ancient Roman armies won many battles by simply out-marching and flanking their enemies.
Most people heavily underestimate the impact that logistics can have on tactics and combat. Most often it's not about the raw potential of a combat asset, but about how effective it can be utilised and worked to its strengths.
In modern technology with new anti tank weapons, armor can be obsolete, thus tank could evolve into something light, stealthy, could perform as transport, attack and retreat tactics.
yeah light tanks are quite good infantry support vehicles
Thats why the Blitzkrieg was so effective. They had a shit ton of light and medium tanks capable of keeping pace with their infantry. All the Tigers and Panthers did was act as area denial or provide security for the FOB. Couple that with an effective airforce and there you go.
This discussion is a prime example of why heavy tanks don't really exist anymore. You can't out armor anti-armor weapons. Which makes armor past a certain point a detriment.
When going against a force that doesn't have reliable or sufficient anti-armor, light takes are the best bet hands down. More than enough firepower to destroy anything before them, fast enough to avoid most counter-fire, and durable enough to ignore most small arms. The only way to have a better weapon platform is to make them fully automated/remote controlled.
Even if they do have enough reliable anti-tank, light tanks are still a solid option. If you can make them cheap enough, the high-tech anti-tank missiles will cost more than the tank they just shot.
meta in war thunder is Light Tanks, its just that war thunder hates on other nation's LTs that look cool so they higher their BR by 5 points
I live in the Philippines, our military is investing into light tanks over MBTs and I think that's a smart move. Being an archipelago that is mostly mountain and rainforest, there are very few areas on the larger islands where you could realistically deploy MBTs, but even then, a lot of that is muddy farmland and most provincial roads and bridges are narrow and can't support too much weight as well. Light tanks, on the other hand, will be able to traverse most roads and bridges in the country (particularly narrow mountain, backcountry, and urban roads) plus they're also easier to transport by air/sea which is a very important factor in an archipelago.
Anyone who says light tanks are obsolete nowadays compared to main battle tanks must only play War Thunder and think that that gives them greater knowledge then a military General. In my opinion, light tanks serve a great purpose for two main reasons. As you mentioned, their weight allows them to be transported easier and can cross bridges or softer ground. Another useful benefit of light tanks is they are typically far cheaper to produce allowing for greater numbers. Both of these factors are not going to be considered by your average War Thunder player who thinks they know everything. War Thunder does not come even close to showing the realities of the real world.
people don't realize the narrative this guy gave is GOLD .. i don't even play this game and came in thinking its a show case of what a light tank does in this game but this random video surprised me by teaching me so much more .. wow man.
Light tanks reference the old adage: "Any tank is better than no tank"
I don’t think so, I’d take example from my country, Vietnam. With hilly terrain and some parts of the country still have less than desirable road condition with mud that can easily bog down any heavy vehicle, light tanks would be very useful in those condition as they can go where MBT can’t and provide support with their 90mm, 105mm or 120mm like the new Lynx 120. That’s why for a long time, many of our PT-76s and K-63s are used on many fronts instead of T-54/54 and T-62.
the best armor for a tank now days is not to be hit in the first place i feel it would be better for the military to just go for a light ,fast and hard hitting fleet of fighting vehicles
Light tank is useful in countries that have jungle or tropic terrain... the ground structure is soft and muddy, heavy armor won't be able to move on it especially in rain... that's why you don't see much of them in Vietnam war... the Medium or Heavy Tank might be operable in suburban area but once it hits the jungle... that's a no no man😅
Especially when it's mountainous tropical jungles. You don't simply get bogged down, if you try to drive an MBT over a mountain road during the wet season there's a very real risk of getting buried under a landslide. After millions of weathering and leaching, the jungle soil is mostly gravel mixed with clay. Solid when dry but very unstable when soaked. Most of the south east asian countries have mountain ranges like that so it's not something that can be ignored.
That the Sheridan was widely derided by some but remained in service as long as it did shows that as long as you have something that can do an important job it will remain useful. Not that they couldn't have done better than the Sheridan but it was light enough to move and drop off, and give units a relatively quick armored vehicle with a powerful gun ((too powerful for it's frame but still )) . Speed is life and as long as it's used correctly that holds true for a lot of armor and vehicles, Welding or bolting an aa gun to a ford f-150 may seem dumb but it serves enough of a purpose that people started doing it, Light tanks I think are a lot the same in concept.
On the battlefield you still need to be able to get from point A to point B against enemy fire.
That means you need some form of armored mobility unless you plan on dismounted light infantry to carry out offensives.
Light tank/artillery hybrid is an extremely useful concept 120 mm artillery platform that can move on its own is a nice thing to have.
I enjoy the idea of light tanks, something about using speed for survivability is cool. Especially if the speedy one has a cannon that can penetrate mbts
Light Tanks have no advantage in speed. Engines for MBTs have gotten so powerful that their speed is limited so they don't go too fast.
@@BulletRain100 There's a reason those governers exist. If the engine has to be governed to a certain level, that infers that preforming above that level for prolonged periods of time wouldn't be very good for the engine. I have not heard of governers on light tanks, but I'm sure they exist as well
@@FatherGrigori Governers are to protect the crew, not the engine. You can tow another tank as long as you want and the governer won't do anything to stop you. You have to realize that the driver is the only member of the crew who has a seat belt. Unexpected quick stops result in the crew slamming into whats in front of them such as their sights. There are numerous tankers who lost their teeth slamming into gunner sights or their .50cal. The faster you go, the more serious the injuries become
35mph is about where the US military determined the risk to injury is appropriate for necessary combat speed. Stykers can go faster, but they also have seat belts or gunner restraint harnesses for all personnel inside the vehicle.
@@BulletRain100 I have not thought of that before. That is a good reason to have a governer
@@BulletRain100 but that doesn't stop light tanks from being obsolete unlike light tanks MBTs has weight limitations compared to the latter they are useful in extreme tropical environments and geography or even infrastructures that can't handle the weight of an MBTs they can't get to point A to point B fast enough in rough terrain unlike light tanks.
Depends on the situation. It still favors MBTs on open field, such as desert.
Tanks hate sand. It's coarse and rough and irritating, and it gets everywhere.
From what i understand about Ukraine is that optics and fire control systems are a must in any tank, so a light tank containing these would have a nice advantage.
in regards to ukraine, its important to note that up until the last week or two, most of the vehicles being employed by the russian side were extremely outdated, mostly t-72b's and t-80b's. while they're good tanks, they are obviously not capable of standing up to modern threats, and despite that, their effect on the battlefield was superb. another point that should be noted is the sheer amount of misinformation that is floating around, so verify everything you see.
I’m fairly neutral on the topic of Ukraine, but people coming out with blanket statements like “Russian tanks aren’t effective” or comments about doctrine etc. sort of irks me. Russian doctrine heavily relies on armoured and manoeuvre warfare as well as artillery, if Russian tanks weren’t effective, they wouldn’t have been seeing the success they’ve had so far.
This is true. If a Russian tank gets destroyed it automatically means that it is a piece of garbage which is not true. Also the old t 64 used by Ukraine is good-ish. They don't deserve it
Russia is deploying even older ones these last few weeks, T-62s and such.
@@blumpfreyfranks8863 there were several cases where their armor advanced without proper air cover or infantry screen, so they ignored combined arms warfare
Thats not true, see Oryx confirmed equipment losses. T90s, upgraded T80s, and the highest losses for a long time were actually the newest T-72 variant. Russia sent their best tanks into Ukraine. Its more recent that the lost tanks get older and older.
Im also not sure what you mean with "superb" performance. The tanks are good enough, and the modern stuff is likely better than what Ukraine has, but they were used in an amateurish fashion. Best bet on the tank losses is something like 1000 tanks gone, and very little to show for that.
I'd say light tanks are probably more useful on the modern battlefield than MBTs, and the light tanks of today would be more comparable with a medium tank of ww2 not a ww2 light tank.
In our decades long communist and muslim insurgencies, where the terrain involves jungle and urban or semi urban areas, we had used Scorpion CVRT light tanks for years. They are well suited for these conditions and operations, where an MBT would be immobilised and useless.
In the case of Southeast Asia, light tanks are useful because they fulfill certain factors. In terms of the Philippines and Indonesia, they have their own light/medium tanks such as the Sabrah (Philippines) and the Harimau (Indonesia). Being an archipelago, having light tanks would be easier to transport due to its lighter weight. If these archieplagos ever get invaded, these light tanks don't need to wait for bigger and longer SSVs to transport them but instead have LCHs to bring them from one island to another. In short, they're good for rapid deployment. Second one is, it's more adaptable to our tropical raining season. Since most of these light or medium tanks weight an average of 30 tons, they have less chance of being bogged down to muddy places. In addition, they can be used to fight in mountainous terrain. If im right, India considered buying the Sprut after the border conflict with China a few years back.
Although, this doesn't mean MBTs are useless in Southeast Asia, there are multiple countries that have Leo 2s, t90s and t72s in their arsenal. We cannot deny that MBTs will always be the superior tank from light tanks, its just that light tanks specialize on certain roles such as weight.
In short, I believe that light tanks are useful in the battlefied but i dont think they are made for every country. I believe its role is perfect for more complex terrain of south east asia and maybe even south asia
As per usual, far too many people think of tanks in video game tank v tank terms, and complete fail to consider that tanks have a far wider role than engaging other tanks, and that tanks are far more likely to engage anti-tank weapons and lighter armoured vehicles.
a light tank works better to the likes of philippines thats why im happy and excited to see the Sabrah in the future
As I say Armor dont mean jack shit if a tank can get to the rear of another tank and kill it.
For instance the M4 Sherman vs the Tiger 1
One thing that I feel is often left out of these discussions is that tanks' APS are not like naval point defenses where the threat is just shot down. They may damage the warhead so it doesnt collimate properly, thus cutting a lot of penetration (and for anti-kinetic ones, theg usually bend or snap the rod for a similar effect, but you cant just "shoot down" a fast slug, short of vaporizing it I guess).
The point is, you still need armor behind the APS, whose job is to make the armor's easier, not to substitute it. Thus adding an APS is adding a supplement yo armor, not a replacement. Of course you now need less thick plates in theory, but its not like you can cut a lot from the roof or back anyway, and the front is mostly for facing enemy tanks, which are extremely powerful and may need the extra effectiveness on top of thickness to remain useful.
A light tank could thus use an APS but only sacrifize frontal armor mostly, as it is not made to fight enemy MBTs. By only I mean as allowed by its different use, without making serious compromises...
4:30
Light tanks: SKILL ISSUE
Light tanks cost less SP to spawn than MBTs
Light in comparison to what? Light as defined by what exactly?
That's my issue with this whole discussion. One because I think I've spent too much time reading, following Nick Moran's material and the other being.... well, I come from a HEMA background, there's a whole heap of weird language around things and when you name an item in relation to something else, you're relying on the point of comparison. So it's pretty easy for things to get confusing.
Do I think the tank is going away? No. I think we're going to see more things called tanks be designed for a good long while. Do I think the exact role of the tank is entirely set? Also no. I think there's a whole heap of tank things tanks do. As strange as that sounds, the moment you ask a vehicle to do it, then you probably design a tank to do it. Do I think the light tank, perhaps a tank designed for speed, firepower at the trade off of it being weighed down by protection is a viable choice? Maybe, depends on what you want to do with it and the threat its meant to counter.
An armoured unit with a mix of vehicles, lighter vehicles scouting makes a lot of sense. A cav unit have units with dismounts and a fire support, heavy section made of relatively speaking 'light' vehicles, makes a lot of sense. Weren't some of the Stryker units designed in such a way?
Again, point of comparison, point of reference. Does the standard issue assault bridge that carries one MBT define light? That part I have to admit
"Light in comparison to what?" Probably MBTs,
@@XeroOps Which weigh anything between 40, 45 tonne through to just over 72 odd from memory.
Not exactly a useful or defining criteria. Yet.
Im honestly kinda thankful that apex gaming didn't but a whole 60-90 second chuck of all your videos
Spook, can you talk about War Thunder's cold war to modern vehicle smoke dischargers? How they should explode quicker but not land too close to your vehicle, thus blinding you in the process.
"I wanna talk about my spo-"
*double taps right arrow key*
I love how the ad is exactly 10sec so its a very smooth and fast transition.
Honestly i think he does it on purpose 😂👍
its very useful specially in pacific theater in south east asia to be exact where mostly composed of many islands which main battle tanks will have a hard time traversing and also transporting. Light tanks is making a come back Russia, China, US, South Korea, India, Indonesia and Philippines already has them and other countries also in the process of acquiring them
IIRC isn't Japan switching to a primarily Light Tank based force. Using Wheeled Tanks IIRC. So a double whammy. Not only are the light but also wheeled.
im pretty sure light tanks are more reliable then MBTs (irl)
cheaper to produce more maneuvrable
and at our age armor is not the meta
No, Light tank is not obsolete. Light tank are actually useful for certain doctrine and geographical purpose, for example Indonesian army and Philippine army mostly use light tank/FSV due to nature of Tropical island archipelago of both country limiting the practical usage of heavy vehicle like MBT and doctrinal usage in tropical archipelago nation dictate that Infantry is used as spearhead while vehicle like light tank is used to supporting infantry, the polar opposite of traditional combined arms doctrine that employed in europe/middle east where tank become the spearhead while infantry are supporting the tank.
SPAAG with no armour at least 3cmm Autocannon with APFSD, Rocket AAMissile HEAT+Tandem. is better than anything.
With ERA in every side and absolute fuck tons APS would do fine.
Dear everyone in the Philippines who think we don't need tanks, kindly watch this so that there will be knowledge that can be stuffed in empty brains of yours. Thanks
Lmfao generalized ahh comment not everyone in the philippines think this put this into your mind not every country works like a hive mind 💀💀
@@WeirdestBoi-xd4qp well this is Philippines. Never underestimate the national stupidity.
modern infantry platoon equipped with modern ATGM could provide additional protection to light tanks, while light tanks could provide instant and heavy covering fire needed for infantry assault.
Light tanks will excell as fire support units in jungle and amphibious environments as they can go where MBTs can't and have the firepower to engage and destroy what autocannons can't (fortifications, armored vehicles etc)
Light tanks are great at dealing with any kind of armor and fortification just like mbt's. However they are much easier to deploy and offer more mobility and can traverse more kinds of ground. I can see them fitting very well into a conventional army. The middle ground between an IFV and MBT
thats why the swedish name for them is good, IKV(infanetrikanonvagn) meaning infantry support vehicle
I think the problem with relying purely on a active protection system to protect a vehicle is that it cannot stop kinetic projectiles from other tanks. I think that light tanks will be useful in situations where you are not facing other tanks or when higher strategic mobility is required, but in a armor against armor capacity it is a little lacking.
3:55 -"and can be used to secure bitches"
Knowing barely anything about tanks in real life, and without watching the video, one would assume that at the very least light tanks would be more affordable and/or lighter and therefore better in rough terrain.
That being said however, I usually feel like APC's could be made into a reasonable light tank replacement. If I were a dictator in some 2nd/3rd world country, and I could only choose one option, I would definitely invest in APC's (assuming my infantry was any good).
after watching the video: The logistics thing makes a lot of sense.
Are Light Tanks useless? Only if you're using them wrong.
Light tanks best tanks. Just need actually functional optics🎉
I see the K21-105 in thumbnail, I see you're truely a man of culture.
A lot of the tank kills, at least early in the Ukrainian war (and undoubtedly throughout) stem often from the tank first being rendered immobile by their surroundings and having inadequate infantry support. This was often a result of poor tactics - you can’t blame a tank for being used poorly.
You make great points man
1:18 This! This is exactly what i've been saying since these discussions came up again. If you show pictures of dead soldiers (corpses) you might invoke sympathy for them, which you wouldn't want to do if the dead soldier is an enemy (also Geneva Convention and things like that). Pictures of a destroyed Plane or Helicopter aren't that easy to come by, at least not pictures usable for Propaganda, because the wreckage tends to be less "identifiable" to the layman and it tends to be "somewhere" (as well as being more rare than a destroyed tank. For Warships, the same problems as with Planes and Helicopters apply, but they apply even more. A destroyed Tank (at least the pictures that are then spread) tends to be near some kind of road or settlement, so you've probably got people moving or living nearby anyway who can take poictures for you. The Tank is a symbol of power every layman understands, with a destroyed tank being a symbol of the enemies power being crushed by you.
TLDR: A destroyed enemy Tank is the perfect Propaganda Picture for simple Warfare.
Armor to counter autocannons
Active protection to counter HEAT
Shoot first to counter APFSDS
If I'm going to be honest, I feel like if anything light tanks are starting to surpass MBT's. An AT missile destroys a heavily armored tank just as well as a lightly armored one, so the added mobility is worth more.
I saw a debate on a Chinese forum about the new ZTQ-15, lots of people hated it because it can't compete with Indian T-90s, but most suggest it is built for the horrible road condition in south-east asia.
until they realize t90 engine can't just at 70% at 3000m+, and ZTQ15 still flying on there
No, the ZTQ15 is specialized for mountainous warfare in the border with India. Heavier mbts have difficulty being deployed there and require more resources to maintain, in a place where resupplying is a difficult task. It doesn't matter that it is weaker than T90, in a prolonged war the ZTQ15s will outnumber and be easier to replace and deploy than the T90s. Also it has much easier time navigating the terrain than it's mbt counterparts.
@@bigoof1105 That's um, what I'm saying
@@Jowjoejoe you said nothing of the sort, but okay..
Hey spooks I was wondering what your option on the new update that is coming up?
Light tanks are more cost effective, because they are cheap if you compare them to MBT. But you can put on them reactive armor, or active protection system, so they are protected against misses in same way as MBT
Hey Spookston I’m the T-69II-G at 2:01 thanks for ruining my China grind (lol)
I think a good topic for this is the cheifton to cover who does alot of the wot videos but has his own channel now dudes a tank genius.
I'd like to point out that big tanks will struggle in cities. Their gun elevation is generally lower than that of light tanks. Their barrel may be too long to turn and too much of the tank sticks out before you can engage a target around the building and don't get me started on bridges and basements...
It’s always refreshing hearing the subnautica theme
The best part of light tanks development since the second world war is their ability to not only carry comparable armaments to an MBT and mount the same applique armor options, but also their ability to be made amphibious. If your light tank is 14.5 proof (At least .50 cal proof), then you have an extremely good recon and general fire support platform that pairs remarkably well with IFV's. Main downside is that if they applique solutions are sort of a one-shot deal. ERA detonates once. Active protection only defends from missiles. IR Smoke works both ways, and if you're some people also tends to be uh...extremely incendiary. They don't have endurance enough to be a sledgehammer.
This is why I live the french wheeled bois. Big enough cannon and good speed, it's a really good adition for mixed combat and this is the reason somewhat for me that I like heavier IFVs so much. Like the Bradley, it can deliver troops, kill troops, destroy fortifications, in one package.
And nowadays I understand more why the brits stayed with the rifled guns. Their doctrine is still pretty much viable, supporting the troops closely, and still got enough firepower to deal with most treats.
I would say that all of these evaluations go the wrong way.
The purpose of a tank is to deliver direct firepower on the battlefield. To accomplish this training, weapons, tactics and organization must be all done well to get a great impact. Note that weapon is just one of these elements. This is true for any weapon system and thus true for tanks. The entire point of light tanks is mobility, often strategic mobility. Combined with the right training, tactics, and organization this could be quite successful.
I would say the biggest challenge to all of this is the huge change to tactical intelligence that low cost drones are bringing to the table. We are just at the start of this process. We have seen neither good anti-drone training, weapons, tactics, and organization nor have we seen full exploitation of these new capabilities.
Let me give you one example and yes I realize that there will be counters to this and then counters to the counters, etc. Imagine a low cost drone that is used for surveillance and has a laser targeting system in it. That could allow a Copperhead artillery round (M712) to pick off moving tanks at a range of almost 10 miles. Given that the Javelin is acclaimed for both range and fire and forget capability, this could extend the equivalent of ATGMs to 4x the current range.
I think there is a lot of iteration work to be done both offensively and defensively on these systems.
Well, the US completely negated insurgent use of drones, so it might be on the right track to deal with military drones.
I feel like the most important things about modern tanks is not gun - armour - speed but target acquisition - speed - and most importantly tactics. Basically any modern munition can penetrate an MBT so seeing it first and shooting first is the more important than having a bigger gun. Speed is always useful, and tactics can twofold an army’s strength or make it useless, and under the tactics umbrella is intel, knowing where the enemy is.
No
Yet
They have fairly specific use
Excellent video
In an anti tank role id say yes. However in an infantry support role and scouting role no. Id also say they have a place in nations with rough terrain such as japan, italy and a portion of europe. And also light tanks are more easy to transport and cheaper to build and maintain.
Is a sword obsolete? Well yes if you use it wildly wrong.
I wonder if part of the problem is with the term light tank it's self. I think people are to hung up on it when the reality saying a light tank sucks because it's less over all capable is like saying a destroyer sucks because it's less overall capable then a cruiser. They're both warships but the have different rolls to fulfill and since the destroyer is smaller and lighter it has a flexibility the larger ships do not. Not a 1 for 1 comparison but conveys similar ideas.
I guess the counterpoint (for dummies) would be an mbt and light are simmilar sizes...certainly closer than a cruiser and destroyer.
But the big difference really is weight/agility.
Yay. New spinesteam upload
A key metric of an armoured vehicle that is often overlooked is the survivability of the crew after the vehicle has died. Loosing an AFV and a crew member or two in place of loosing a infantry section is preferable. AFV's take years to design but months to build (if industry is functioning) but 20 yr old grunts take 20 years to build and a functioning society to birth them, raise them, educate them, care for them, equip them. Loosing 10 guys to a machine gun/gl ambush is a easier grasp for an opponent to achieve then having an atgm team against an AFV. AFV's of any weight class make sense because of their comparative disposability. As long as a crew to bail out and have the support to suppress that initial ambush or meeting engagement.
Yes and no
Light tanks are useful because you can bring tank in an area where your enemy didn't expect it. With aps becoming more prominent it gets one more layer of protection. Now one need a competant crew and military to support it, then it won't be getting it's ass hannded down to it. It's good to have a big stick but how one swings it matter.
I would say if the argunent is light vs. heavy then light is preferable.
Why just arbitralily have a heavy tank? If you can have armor thats extremely light and does more than typical stuff like steel then why not.
You gotta be light enough for civil bridges, and other uses.
Im no pro but if you have an 8 ton vehicle thats just as survivable as an 80 ton tank and can fire the same ordnance, AND its faster, can do better on inclines, and cross bridges better then why not have a light vehicle?
When people debate the usefulness of light tanks I am always minded of the early battles of Cuito Cuanavale in Angola in 1987 (Op Modular). A South African infantry battle group supported by a company of Ratel 90's took on several Angolan/Cuban Armoured and Mechanised brigades and held them off. The Ratel was, or is, a wheeled APC based on a Belgian design. The Ratel 90 was the fire support version and carried a 90mm gun.
Later, as more Angolan and Cuban assets were sent to Cuito more South African mechanised assets were deployed including 61 Mech Battle group (also with Ratels including another company of 90mm armed Ratel 90's) and a squadron (company) of Olifant MBT (South African upgrades of the Centurion) and a platoon of experimental Ratels with ATGWs bolted to the standard 20mm turret. Despite there being 13 Olifant/Centurion MBTs and 4 Ratel ATGW on the South African side, the bulk of the "tank" fighting was between Angolan and Cuban T-55's and the Ratel 90's. Strictly speaking the Ratel isn't a light tank, coming closer to being an armoured car, but the outcome is the same. Properly directed by officers who know what they are doing, properly manned by soldiers who know what they are doing and using the terrain to their advantage, light armoured vehicles can take on tanks and at least hold their own long enough for heavier kit to turn up and help.
One of the problems i see in the reports coming in from Ukraine is that we often don't know if the vehicle in question was a) destroyed in combat or b) abandoned. I think that can also skew the perception of what happened.
Personally I think the light tanks and MBTs are both going to be needed for a long time, however I have noticed a trend of some states making what is supposed to be a medium tank more like a heavy tank and feel that the concept of weight classes could help make designs more intentional and well thought-out. For example by making it so if a state is leaning towards heavy break-through vehicles(for example in response to more static battle lines) they don't saddle whats supposed to be a medium tank with the traits of a heavy tank.