Is there any reason for a modernized, western military to have "Light Tanks"?

From the length of the control arms, it doesn't have much suspension travel.
Rough ride.

They are becoming more viable.
MBTs are becoming sitting ducks in the approaching age of drone combat.
The age of goat herders wielding Type 56s and AK47s from the1950's is over and they get trained for and supplied with AT missiles by their proxy war faction.
Look at all the Leos the Turks lost.

A light tank that survives RPG fire and maintains enough firepower to fuck up old Soviet tanks is adequate.
When shit hits the fan big time and everyone mobilizes the MBT will shine again.

China- who recently refielded light tanks- says that its gr8 for mountain/jungle/island/mountainous jungle island foightin, especially in low intensity conflicts.

Attached: ZTq Light tank.jpg (625x833, 191K)

Strategic mobility.

>Look at all the Leos the Turks lost.
Wasnt it like four of the oldest shittiest Leos you can find, with less then 10 casualties?

can one kalashnikov magazine fuck up all the optics and electronics on the exterior of the tank?

looks good

No, and you would be extremly lucky to hit. Usually the optics is protected by armored glass that is easily replaceable.

Leopard 2A4 are literally Early 90s Standard so probably on par with older M1A1 models or the better challenger 1. Also the turkish had them from the improved late 90s batches

so not really monkey models or the shittiest you can find

in this day and age the question is
why do they have so much mbts and so few light tanks

Yes in a sense.

Multiple nations are now moving towards having wheeled vehicles with relatively light armour, 105mm+ guns, with the option of APS systems.

This requires the definition of a tank to include wheeled vehicles which is fairly reasonable. You can call it an armoured car if it makes you feel better.

This.

A "light" tank can be places a an MBT logistical train cannot reach, and can get there faster and cheaper. This forces your opponent to deploy countermeasures across a much wider field of potential engagement.

Everything in war is about logistics. Everything.

Air mobility and crossing crappy eastern euro or asian infrastructure.

Depends on what kind of APS. ERA doesn't play nice with the infantry they're trying to support.

does that mean the french where ahead of their time with their light intervention division in the cold war ?

lots of wheeled gun vehicles, nothing overly heavy

>crappy eastern euro or asian infrastructure.

What decade do your opinions come from?

I've never lived in Asia or Eastern Europe, but i like going on driving holidays. I've driven on far better roads in those places than some of those I've driven in the continental US.

The second-tier armies like France and UK that still want to project power but don't have the heavy lift capabilities or naval transport that the US has.

>can get there faster
Many MBTs are fast as fuck. For example the Abrams is faster than most humvees (due to age/bad maintenance/overloading) and significantly faster than the LMTVs, HEMTTs, etc that would be its supply train. And with airborne FAARPs able to be run out the back of a Chinook they can get themselves further faster than basically any other land asset in the US military.

Weight restrictions. Some bridges can't support a 50 ton behemoth.

Current. For example, bridges in Vietnam couldn't hold the weight of an Abrams, and while well maintained the roads in Belarus would be too narrow for one.

Based old-man-back instincts.
Shit would suck off of roads or generally anything other than flat hard pack.

It costs less tiberium, otherwise no.

Attached: Light_Tank.jpg (150x150, 6K)

Isn't balticrussia's infrastructure too narrow for almost any MBTs build since the 70s?

Pretty much all the old Soviet satellite states' infrastructure is. And it's on purpose, specifically to fuck with western euro/US military equipment.

The reasoning is different but the same holds true in southeast asia. China is about the only Asian country western vehicles wouldn't really struggle in.

It has variable height suspension. It can lower or elevate itself much higher than shown here, like it's predecessor the AMX 10 RC.

How are 2A4s the “oldest, shittiest” Leopards?

In other words MBT have a very large logistical footprint.

>China is about the only Asian country western vehicles wouldn't really struggle in.
Northern China.

South China, Tibet, and the Sichuan Basin are practically nightmares for armor.

>Human add-on armor

Like France and it's cars

The leopard 2a4 is basically an original leo2 with some new electronic. The last version before a major refresh.

When will armored motorcycles make a comeback

Attached: 60345939-CD99-4801-AB4E-505A9EC2034C.jpg (1102x750, 398K)

Yeah actually doesn't the late model leo2a4 share the same armour package as the leo2a5, just that the 2a5 has a remodelled turret and additional wedge armour. The hull would basically be the same.
Hell I think that holds true for the leo2a6 as well. The Turkish losses were no doubt due to shitty crews, although it does expose the drawbacks of the front hull ammo (basically a huge rack right next to the driver) of the leopard 2.

>Tires
>Tank

Surging firepower to Indochina and other mountainous jungle terrain

You have to be comfortable sacrificing survivability though

The 105mm version has obscene gun elevation

The biggest issue is that everything under 20 tons has low survivability, low or high intensity

If you accept that though, then Light tanks around or under 20 tons should all come with inate amphibious capability to make the most of their mobility
Very. They had the speedy light 6x6 concept down pat

Yeah, but thanks to the turbine it has a shitty fuel range and endurance, meaning it requires extra fuel trucks, which in turn require extra fuel themselves and extra supplies for the men driving them

Yep. They would only be good for the maneuver and exploit phase of battle: the chauvachee. Anything resembling occupation, defense, or assaulting a prepared position and they get fucked.

Then you have to ask if the rewards for having a separate line of production for a unit so specialized warrants the cost and risk. Most developed countries say no: most MBTs and IFVs can fulfill those roles to an extent without complicating supply-side issues, sacrificing the maximization of strengths while negating the weaknesses of light armor.

For countries that share or transfer that risk through mutual defense pacts/alliances however, light armor may be good enough for the occasional border skirmish/internal policing.

Turbine is not too bad if not idling. Also, it can use multiple different fuels in a supply shortage.

Shitty compared to what? If it was re-engined with the LV100-5 it would likely have better endurance than the Leopard 2A7.

Sheridan was not a tank, it was an AT-Missile Carrier

Only delusional Americans disagree

Underrated post.

The Sheridan was not an AT-Missile Carrier or a tank, it was a firework

Attached: 1320.jpg (730x486, 116K)

Tru

>hit AT mine: explode and burn down to a puddle
>hit by RPG-2: explode and burn down to a puddle
>hit by DSHK: explode and burn down to a puddle
>wave a cigarette vaguely in the direction of a charge bag: explode and burn down to a puddle

Attached: 1319.jpg (730x486, 104K)

Light tanks are as useful as paratroopers

Take that as you will

I luld

Sufficient armor to stand up to 20mm AP and then rely on APS/reactive for AT/RPG w/HEAT. Make it airmobile and limited amphibious (i.e wetlands and small rivers).Give it a 40mm AC with .30 cal coaxial and a pair/quad of AT/MANPADs in pindal mounted pods. It will get rolled by MBT and can't expect to live long under heavy missile fire, but it can be where you need it to provide fire support and light anti-vehicle.

So pretty useful.

Lmao, ask me how I know you’re an American

In case you want to invade some place with "light infrastructure".

Yeah, every former Sheridan crewman has a horror story about the tank.

Assuming they still lived to tell the story, that says something good for the tank’s survivability, no?

>Never carried the MGM-51 into it's combat debut in Vietnam
>Fired exclusively HE and Canister in combat
>Fired 6 MGM-51 ATGMs in combat during its entire service life, all during Desert Storm

Attached: 1549426638696.jpg (960x952, 37K)

Nobody has actually died from having their tank melt on them though. All the cases of them literally melting were after they've been vacated, or weren't manned to begin with.

If i remember one story correctly, the Sheridan can dismantle itself by firing its gun too much.

M551 was a Good Tank that was designed for a specific role. To be Droped into a position where tanks normally couldn't get and Light up Soviet armor with ATGMs

However they were sent to Vietnam to be used as infantry support tanks where they performed horribly at that role and the Generals were mad that this Light tank designed to use ATGM from a Long range, wasn't amazing at shooting at shit from point blank range....

support light infantry
rapid deployment

>M551 was a Good Tank
No, this isn't a game, the M551 was probably one of the worst. Those unfortunate enough to have a Sheridan in their unit say everything broke down way too often and this was during peacetime.

>Light tanks are as useful as air mobile infantry

Lets be a little more accurate.

They're really useful for any kind of low-intensity conflict or peacekeeping operation because they're far safer than a truck for encounters with land mines or small arms fire, have the firepower to deal with troops in hard cover and anything a third-world militia can drive in front of you, all while being vastly cheaper to operate than a full-on MBT.

Something like the M551 is pretty terrible for this role what with it being basically a VBIED, but if something like the AMX 10RC or Rooikat or M8 doesn't get your dick hard there's probably something wrong with you. The fact that they don't need strategic airlift to bring them into theater alone is a massive advantage.

Attached: Aerotransport_ERC90.jpg (1772x1181, 510K)

This isn’t War Thunder user.
Also a5-7 have improved hull armorz

>can hide in the woods
>brought in by air
>nimble as fuck

And dont forget a tow launcher doesnt care what its mounted on. Have 3 of these with tow launchers hidden well and you can fuck up a whole convoy and then speed away in your cute af tank

Attached: wiesel-001.jpg (800x548, 42K)

>we are going to have to act
>if we want to live in a different world

This.

And look how much fun the driver has.

Attached: DcdosOb.jpg (1022x679, 143K)

one always works better with a smile on their face.
Another reason why the wiesel is the best

>Is there any reason for a modernized, western military to have "Light Tanks"?

Yes. I love the scorpion and two Scorpions could be carried in a C130 Hercules

Attached: Scorpion_CRVT_(4119399295).jpg (300x200, 21K)

Heh

>building
>unit ready
>building
>unit ready
>building
>unit ready

Attached: loit tank.jpg (175x132, 7K)

>M551 was a Good Tank

Attached: yikes.jpg (598x415, 60K)

Attached: 1547301558469.png (2048x2048, 51K)

>NATO armor
>50tons
Dream on, even the Leclerc is over 50t. All Leo2s are over the 60t and the latest M1 upgrades are touching 70t. Only MBTs in service that is under 50t are the T-72 and T-64 series, even the Armata is well over 50t.

>muh multifuel
Pretty much all piston diesels can safely burn kerosene, most tank engines are even deliberately designed to handle them.
The turbine is crap in terms of fuel economy if it's doing anything but running full speed.

Are you retarded user? A bridge that cant take a 50 ton tank will not be able to take a 60 or 70 ton vehicle either.

Cheaper, faster, better for counter insurgency work. Lower weight means better power to weight and thus better terrain handling.

>better for counter insurgency work
Light tanks have a lower footprint but effectiveness in counter-insurgency really depends on the environment and the nature of the enemy.

The difference between the a4s and a5s armour are literally the steel wedges which can be added to an a4. there was nothing else done to the armour since it was a Kampfwertsteigerung (KWS II) and should serve as an upgrade to existing tanks

leopard 2a5 only got new steel wedges as turret armour and some electronics

the a4 was the first which got ENTIRELY new armour for the hull and turret

Isn't that always the case? The MBT, however, is usually out of it's scope when dealing with insurgents.

Type 10 and the ZTZ-96 are under 50.

The Leopard 2A4 and 2A5 turret have more differences than just wedge armor.