Why don't we use light tanks anymore? after all armor is

>>32721277
Why do
We just call them humvees or APCs

File: 1046002252.jpg (73KB, 1000x541px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1000x541px

Meet the MPF Griffin.

>>32721322
That sits very high.

I still wish the XM8 entered production, although I can understand why it didn't.

>>32721604
what can the xm8 do that the singray2 can't?

>>32721604
>XM8
For someone who doesn't know why, would you kindly explain why? what's its advantage.

>>32721604
Because a dude with an anti-tank can do the same?

>>32721277
Because the idea behind a light tank is that it can go faster than a larger tank, but the larger tanks can now go fast. If a lighter tank existed in today's age in the same idea, it would have to go like 100 mph for it to be worth it.

>>32721656
And also fly

Oh wait

File: m1128mgsside.jpg (200KB, 1071x480px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 1071x480px

I hear the French had a relatively light one for use in Afghanistan to navigate mountainous areas.

As for the US, pic related is essentially it. I served with some tankers in 2CR. Until they got detached to their own unit, every troop had their own platoon of tankers. I wondered why they were so tiny, then saw the inside of this thing. A Fillipino miget would think it was a tight squeeze. Holy hell, they must pick the smallest guys at OSUT to train for Strykers, the poor bastards.

>>32721656
>100 mph machine of death

Muh dick

>>32721656
Light tanks are air mobile in smaller planes and many can fit in larger ones. Speed/mobility/efficiency makes them ideal for rapid deployment. We just haven't had a need for that against a traditional enemy in about 20 years.

>>32721656

One thing light tanks can still do that large tanks can't is be amphibious and move through light bridges. An Abrams would destroy most bridges in SE Asia. And of course, air deployability is a nice perk.

File: 1413285426611.jpg (174KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1024x683px

>>32722485
to have it be light enough to be amphibious you'd sacrifice a lot of armour. air deployable with in field bolt of armour would be good though

File: M1128 MGS.webm (2MB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 854x480px

>>32721882

>>32721277

Bradley is pretty much a light tank

>>32721277
The only thing obsolete about these is the tank part.
Reove the treads, get the useless overarmour trashed and give it a proper cannon instead.

Now you have a cheap, mobile and air-droppable gun that's not vulnerable to infantry firearms at your disposal.
Just ask French and their better track record at modern wars than the US of throw more tax money at it.

>>32721322
why not just put an mgs turret into a bradley hull

>>32721656
there's still the concept of strategic mobility, but stuff like the bradley and LAV already fill the role.

an autocannon + TOW works a lot better than trying to slap mediocre gun on a chassis.

>>32723172

The M2 also can do down streets and pivot in areas a larger tank can't -- that was shown in Iraq.

>>32723209
but the M1 can go THROUGH tight streets

>>32721277
IFV´s made light tanks obsolete

>>32721277
We do. They are called IFV.

>>32722810
>>32722827
>>32722781

Sprut is cute

>>32721291
No, we call them infantry fighting vehicles

>>32721521
It is to replace the M1128 within the US Army Airborne Corps and to re-introduce to them a Light Tank. Airborne has not that kind of firepower since the M551.

>>32721277
Ever heard about the Wiesel?

>>32724409
And it is a specification that it can also be air dropped just like the M551.*

File: wiesel.jpg (262KB, 1024x724px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 1024x724px

>>32724410
aesthetic as fuck

>>32724426
Wiesel a cute.

A CUTE

File: Wiesel.webm (3MB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 854x480px

>>32724426

File: Wiesel ATGM.webm (3MB, 854x470px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 854x470px

>>32724478

File: Wiesel LRV.webm (3MB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 854x480px

>>32724481

File: Wiesel mortar system.webm (3MB, 384x288px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 384x288px

>>32724485

File: Wiesel Ozelot.webm (3MB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 854x480px

>>32724491

File: wiesel atgm.jpg (3MB, 5184x3456px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5184x3456px

>>32724431
The TOW variant is my favorite, it reminds me of Bonaparte from Dominion

>>32724495
License plates on tanks are funny.

File: Scorpion Op Granby.jpg (3MB, 2770x1820px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2770x1820px

the British FV101-FV107 series of armoured recon vehicles used by light cavalry units like the Blues and Royals are literally light tanks especially the Scorpion which has a 76mm main gun capable of firing HE, HESH and canister(for giving hajis a whiff of grape) rounds

>FV101 Scorpion - 76mm L23A1 tank gun
>FV102 Striker - Swingfire and currently Javelin anti-tank launchers
>FV103 Spartan - babby sized APC used for carrying infantry anti-tank teams
>FV104 Samaritan - unarmed ambulamps
>FV105 Sultan - mobile command post (afaik used by both light recce tank equipped units and Challenger 2 equipped MBT units)
>FV106 Samson - armoured recovery vehicle used to recover IFVs and other light tanks
>FV107 Scimitar - 30 mm RARDEN autocannon that can fire HE, Sabot and APSE

some these little guys took out iraqi tanks during the Gulf War

can you imagine how cucked it must feel to be a tank commander in an Iraqi guards tank regiment only to have your T-54/55 shot out from under you by a cute little light tank's pea shooter?

>>32724716
>>FV102 Striker - Swingfire and currently Javelin anti-tank launchers

whoops I made a mistake

it didn't get its swingfire replaced by the Javelin THE STRIKER WAS REPLACED by Javelin equipped fucbois

File: m8.jpg (44KB, 501x600px)

44KB, 501x600px

>>32721624
>>32723172
The M8(AGS 120) now carries a 120mm that's superior the gun found on the M1A1/A2 and I believe it's going to be on the M1A3.

>>32721277
>marder
>bradley

>>32724426
The germans managed to get a 30mm autocannon on that thing, sadly they are not going to adapt it any time soon.

File: b.png (1MB, 1282x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1282x720px

>>32722827
The use of propellant looks very wasteful.

>>32723126
the tracks are absolutely key though

>>32724782
>File: m8.jpg (44 KB, 501x600)

that looks scary as fuck. pls moar!

File: m50ontos2.jpg (258KB, 1336x813px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 1336x813px

Bring back the ontos with dual TOWs

File: M50 Ontos.webm (2MB, 450x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 450x360px

>>32725285

>>32725285
just pintle mount a tow on a universal carrier

>>32721277
I like how every German tank gets their own little spirit animal.

File: amx10_rc_early.jpg (554KB, 1111x692px) Image search: [Google]

554KB, 1111x692px

The French has done it right first....

File: AMX-10RC-t40.jpg (94KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 900x600px

>>32725553

And has been updated them since..

File: M8 Buford BAE.jpg (1MB, 1365x1024px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1365x1024px

The U.S. should add some organic armor support to its Airborne troops.

File: 20160913_093248.jpg (2MB, 4160x2340px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4160x2340px

Pic is from last summer at a conference but BAE systems is actively trying to get contracts for the M8 AGS. Don't know if its common knowledge, just figured I'd share cause it looks pretty neat.

>>32725916
the fuck? what day were you at the benning conference?

File: 034g[1].jpg (66KB, 720x482px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 720x482px

>>32725170
How about a tank-killing Weisel?

>>32726067
I wasn't. I downloaded the pic here on /k/ a few months back.

>>32721882
>>32725553
>>32725564
Wheels do not a light tank make.

You loose way too much off road mobility for the role.

>>32723158
<--Point You-->
1. The demonstrator is an Ajax, your standard IFV
2. Stryker MGS gun sucks
3. A Bradley hull would be a medium tank. You aren't looking for CV90 or PL-01.

>>32721627

I'll do it for him.

> "Uh.. duurrrr.. Uh.. it looks kewl... Durrr.. Bad Company!"

>>32722888
>>32724097

before i knew any better i thought the bradley was just a light tank

[Insert M113 turrets and RR turret pics]
>>32725285
>>32725299
>All those Weasels
Basically we want a Weasel and a light tank/armor platform. I say light tank because you design your platform around the biggest factor, not the other way round. Stryker MGS demonstrates this failure from the reverse. Centauro, while only a tank destroyer / self-propelled gun, derives the VBM.

RR is love, RR is life.

File: m8-ridgeway-ags.jpg (65KB, 800x442px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 800x442px

>>32726702

This is the XM8 AGS (Armored Gun System), you fucking asshat.

It was an experimental light tank/Support Vehicle for airborne troops to replace the M551 Sheridan in US Airborne Forces. It had a modular armor package that allowed it to be carried by strategic and tactical airlifters in various roles with crew and could be deployed quickly to support heliborne, or airborne assaults, offering organic armor support like the Sheridan.

At least fucking learn to understand context before you post.

File: ikv_105-broschure.gif (479KB, 992x794px) Image search: [Google]

479KB, 992x794px

Sweden used a light tank from 1976 to 2002. The IKV-91 (Infanterikanonvagn). It used a 90mm low pressure gun that fired APHE (or HEAT) and HE shells but did not fire APFSDS rounds in service. Attached to infantry Battalions in the AT Company, the IKV would fill the role of being an infantry support weapon, destroying (assumingly) Soviet light vehicles and AFVs as well as engaging infantry in cover.

Plans were presented to upgun it to 105 but using a NATO standard 105 proved too much for the chassis, so Bofors developed (In coalition with RUAG I think? I might be thinking of another project) a proprietary 105, which was dubbed IKV-105 (pictured) It was trialed by India but scrapped.

212 were made and are all now retired.

File: 33979e8450cb3ed9fab56ca0e5a03aaf.jpg (69KB, 600x377px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 600x377px

The Stingray light tank is probably one of the better known Light tanks of the modern age. The Stingray was a development outgrowth of the Armored gun System that gave birth to the XM8 AGS, and currently only sees use in Thailand.

With 23mm of armor, the Stingray is unlikely to protect its crew from much more than small arms fire and large artillery fragments at distances greater than ~5-8 meters. However, it is a highly mobile, quick and reletivly quiet tank with low visibility. It apparently makes (well, made) an excellent scout vehicle, thanks to the advances FCS and Day/Night and thermal system in it (now par for the course).

The 105mm low recoil L7 gives it the ability to competently engage a fair variation of armored threats it's expected to face, and also allows it to competently support infantry. As I understand it, Thailand uses them at Regimental-Level Reconnaissance units; I am not sure how these are organized, but I assume it's a company with a squadron of 3 with a c&c vehicle. They have 103, but I remember reading in some defense journal a few years ago about 20-30 are kept for parts and training purposes.

>>32724782
>All that ERA

Why not just get an Abrams at that point?

File: 2008_Moscow_Victory_Day_Parade_(59-18).jpg (459KB, 1920x1280px) Image search: [Google]

459KB, 1920x1280px

The SPURT-SD (Henceforth 2S25) is sometimes called "Tank Destroyer" but is closer to a light tank.

The 2S25 was an outgrowth of a Soviet project similar to the American AGS or Expeditionary Tank project, which sort of netted the Russians the BMP-3 weirdly. The 2S25 probably mounts the best main gun of any of the modern "Light Tanks" that see use, the 2A72 125mm cannon, which can fire the full spectrum of Russian 125mm shells, including ATGMs.

The 2S25 is protected from 12.7mm fire along the frontal arc and 7.62mm fire from all positions, but that's all the information I have on its actual armor. There's proposals to fit it with ERA, but the combat weight would probably go up too much. Able to be transported by all of the VDVs prime movers (IL-76, AN-124, MI-26) and the RMPs primary long range aviation transports, the 2S25 would probably be expected to be seen at the Regimental level/Battalion level, organically attached in a unit of 9. There are currently 36 in service with Russians of January of last year, that number may have gone up, or plans may be in the works to replace it with a member of the new "T" family of common chassis.

The 2S25 fits well into the Russian doctrine and is probably one of the few instances of a modern Light Tank being born out of a real doctrinal improvement instead of a kind of stop gap or need to support native industry really. The VDV and RMP, indeed the Russian army as a whole are nearly fully mechanized. The Vdv being transported by the BMD and BTR-D. Lacking in the organic firepower of a tank(even a light one) in mechanized forces was seen as a flaw, even with the over proliferation of ATGMs in Soviet service, and the spurt, much like the M551 and XM8 AGS, probably would have been or would be a welcome addition to tactical planing on amphibious or airborne attacks.

File: download (6).jpg (9KB, 275x183px)

9KB, 275x183px

The primary role of the Light Tank since the end of the "Weight" tank system and the birth of the MBT has been generally Reconnaissance, Mobility and cost. Countries with large airborne forces or Marine Forces, equatorial or Southeast Asian Nations, and nations with low funding generally have made more use of the light tank than the MBT, but with cheap M60s, Centurions T-55/T-62s on the market, the light tank has kind of fallen by the wayside.

The advantages of a modern Light tank are limited mostly to its size. The low fuel consumption rate, the light weight, the speed, the transportability, and the general ability to cross terrain that MBTs couldn't otherwise are really all the major advantages: they generally can not Cary as powerful a suite of weapons and never have as much armor as their MBT counterparts, and as such they fill a niche role.

The modern Light tanks primary use, if they were to make a comeback, would probably be as an expedition art tank with nations rapid reaction corps, Marines, or Airborne Forces. Powerful optics and sensor suites with armor to protect them from fire up to 12.7mm, a medium sized gun and a decent engine is all that's really needed: the problem is that this role can be filled mostly just as well by things like the Bradley, BMP-2/3, Warrior, or CV90: Infantry Fighting Vehicles. The real desire is to have immediate disposal to that gun, the firepower immediately available by way of a stabilized main gun is really helpful in combat for obvious reasons, more so if the vehicle can get in, fire and get out quickly; something basically all modern MBTs can do well. But MBTs can't be transported, generally, to unprepared airfiells, airdropped, or made to swim to shore through deep water. They might get stuck in very deep mud and require heavy prime movers to get out, something Expeditionary or QR forces don't always have access to.

TL;DR The Light Tank concept has its niche but it's rather limited.

>>32726739

those are M50 ontos anon, it existed before the weasel

It's also way heavier

>>32727406
Well you are not gonna get many more new toys unless you have a purpose, be it a lighter Ontos or heavier Weasel. Referring to the concept a light weapons carrier vehicle,

>>32727406
>>32727569
Don't quite know how to call something between a Weasel and a light tank so I tried. If we are introducing a light tank we may want a light weapons carrier to accompany it and the forces not a light tank destroyer in the middle.

>>32726003
>>32725903
>>32725916
Seems like a giant turret
how much weight could be saved going a smaller unmanned turret?
Or even a casemate design

>>32727125
Because an Abrams is a hell of a lot heavier? And is a rather dated platform in & of itself?

>>32725299
That'd be bad ass in an urban siege
>Canister shot to clear a street for 500 meters of anything alive
>He to explode buildings filled with bad people
>Ap to knock out jury rigged or captured armor
Beautiful man

File: tank laughs.jpg (69KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 500x333px

>>32721277
>if a rebel from miles away can blow up your heavy tank.
And they'd find it even easier to blow up an unarmoured tank

File: wiesel.png (507KB, 720x500px) Image search: [Google]

507KB, 720x500px

>>32724426

>>32726735
The original command and conquer agrees.

>>32721882
Were the MGS and the operators a worthwhile thing? Or are they shit like everyone says?

>>32727125
Because the M8 can be air transportable.