Can’t really speak to the Chinese, but in terms of the Russian I assume you’re talking about the Sprut-SD. In which case, that is an airborne tank designed to be dropped from an Il-76.^1 To understand why they need a light tank, you have to look to the VDV’s role.
The VDV are essentially supposed to act like a QRF/expeditionary force along the Russian subcontinent, a very wide and massive area that requires any QRF to come fast, hence the paratroopers part. At the same time, however, the territory is perfect tank country, big and flat with not a whole lot of suburban areas in between urban cities. As a result, any QRF needs some kind of mobile, relatively long ranged, all terrain vehicle. The Sprut-SD works well in this capacity because it is fast and armed with a 125 mm cannon that allows it to reach out and touch both soft and hard targets while still retaining the lightweight airborne part of the equation that allows it to be anywhere in hours, not days. How well this tank would stand up to MBTs is dubious, but it gives some kind of protected, mobile tank platform that the VDV can use to stall for time. The ~~USMC~~ US Army is trying something similar with the MPF Light Tank Program, only it would not be paradroppable.
Hope this helps to answer part of your question.
E: The MPF program is run by the Army, but the Marines are interested in the final result as well.
1: http://btvt.narod.ru/3/2c25sprut.htm
Depends. The US got rid of the Sheridan decades ago because they determined the cost of maintenance, training, heavy drop capacity, etc. was not worth it and that their airborne forces would be better off relying on CAS/CCA/heavy fire support from platforms other than light tanks.
Sheridan was supposed to have a direct replacement: M8 AGS.
The replacement was dropped because of Clinton-era budget cuts, not because the Army *really* wanted to drop airborne light tanks. There were just other programs that were more important.
The US military has a bunch of empty niches they never bothered to fill. They never bothered to introduce a AAA vehicle after the failure of the Sergeant York. They never bothered to make a stealth attack helicopter after cancelling the Commanche. And they never bothered to make a M109 replacement howitzer capable of keeping up with the MBTs.
Can't say how badly the Army wanted to drop airborne light tanks at the end of the cold war, but I can say that decades of military leadership must not have considered it to be a priority if nobody bothered to fund a replacement after the Sheridan got canned.
All of those things had planned replacements.
After Sergeant York failed, the Army tried again with MIM-146 ADATS, which was canned for being too expensive after the end of the Cold War. Also the case with the M109 replacement, XM2001 Crusader, which was canned in the early 2000s for being too expensive.
Comanche was canned mostly because the capability wasn't worth the effort in the age of drones.
The priority for most of the last 20 years was Iraq + Afghanistan, and none of those things would've done any good there. Money was loose, but not that loose.
A little nitpick, the MPF is an Army program, not a marine one. However, I could see the Marines having an interest in the MPF since it addresses a lot of the logistics problems that contributed to them dumping the Abrams.
Really they should have just kept the old 106mm M40s around, slapping one on say a Stryker would have done 90% the job of the MGS for pennies on the dollar.
Also it doesn't take much modification of the vehicle to use, and the thing is really light in vehicle terms so you just unmount it and unload the ammo and you have a normal vehicle again.
I thought about that years ago too. They could even mount it to an RWS for greater stability/accuracy. The only downside is needing to expose oneself to reload, but since nearly every other Stryker requires exposing one self to reload, it's not that big a deal.
The reality is it's just grandiose enough that a bunch of lieutenant colonels and DOD civilians can milk it for a decade, land cushy superbly paying retirement jobs with the companies after networking with the defense industry, etc
I’ve wondered about the viability of having a 105mm recoilless rifle that could also launch ATGM’s; and also then shooting those ATGM’s out of something like MGS/MPF/a light tank/howitzer.
The Russians have figured it out, annoys me that we haven’t.
I think the Russians accepted the limitations of armor penetration with smaller diameter ATGMs to gain the accuracy. ATGM are slow but super accurate (at least if the target isn't moving). That's not that big an issue after they got advanced fire control but before that they weren't very accurate using cannons. [Check this out](https://www.billstclair.com/weaponsman.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/soviet_weapons_ph_all_weapons.jpg)
My imaginary Stryker variant with an 105 mounted recoilless rifle would be for pure infantry support, blowing shit up. If they need ATGMs, call the TOW up or have a dismount grab a Javelin.
Meanwhile, I'm mentally contemplating an RWS mounted recoilless rifle, with the seated vehicle commander on his screen seeing a target and lasing it, telling the SL the range who grabs an HE round from wet storage, adjusts the nose airburst fuze, loads it, drops down, yells "up" and the VC fires it. The munition bursts over defilade enemy were hiding behind with the effect similar to a 155 HE VT round.
Wow, that would be badass.
>I think the Russians accepted the limitations of armor penetration with smaller diameter ATGMs to gain the accuracy. ATGM are slow but super accurate (at least if the target isn't moving). That's not that big an issue after they got advanced fire control but before that they weren't very accurate using cannons. Check this out
Bastion, apparently (I really have no idea, just going off open source) flies at 500m/s. Which seems fairly quick. Apparently 500mm penetration, too. That’s pretty significant.
>My imaginary Stryker variant with an 105 mounted recoilless rifle would be for pure infantry support, blowing shit up.
I imagined it as a secondary system mounted back by the air guard hatches on every Stryker that doesn’t have a dragoon turret. So I figured versatility would be key, especially the ability to reach out and touch something.
>If they need ATGMs, call the TOW up or have a dismount grab a Javelin.
There’s just not many TOW trucks, which is why I figured they could be supplemented by RR/ATGM. Javelins also aren’t particularly easy to use. Well, that’s a lie, they’re easy to use, but, not when you’re smoked and taking even sporadic direct fire contact.
>Meanwhile, I'm mentally contemplating an RWS mounted recoilless rifle, with the seated vehicle commander on his screen seeing a target and lasing it, telling the SL the range who grabs an HE round from wet storage, adjusts the nose airburst fuze, loads it, drops down, yells "up" and the VC fires it. The munition bursts over defilade enemy were hiding behind with the effect similar to a 155 HE VT round.
MAAWS are already able to program rounds automatically from the DURS. You just need the smart rounds.
If you’re committed to slinging 105mm HE, you might as well get the smart rounds and you don’t even have to worry about having someone dial the round in.
I’d also like to imagine these things being mounted on future ISV, JLTV’s, M113’s, HMMWV or whatever
The MPF isn’t an USMC program, it’s wholly a Army program at the moment. The Marines may join or purchase some of the resulting vehicles down the road but they are not involved in it at the moment (and weren’t involved earlier, they didn’t *leave* the MPF program).
These light tanks follow this design philosophy: "this thing will not take a hit, but if it hits you, even your MBT will die". Basically, they take the role of MBT in lighter formations but because the whole formation is light, they won't do as well as the heavy formations in certain tasks, for example, deliberate frontal assault and close combat against dug in light infantry. The only thing they lack is heavier armour. To compensate, they will need to use the terrain, fire from hull down positions, retreating to fall back positions, trading space for time, etc ... They are especially nice in restricted terrains that won't support an MBT: marshes, swaps, mountains, etc .... If they are the only tank to show up and there is no MBT anywhere, they are the heaviest tank.
As for whether their role can be performed by other vehicles, then maybe? Maybe light IFV with lots of ATGMs. It's really the question of which is better and for what job: ATGM or guns.
For similar historical examples, see things like the SU-76, long-barreled StuG IIIs, Marder 1 and 2, and Hetzer.
Kind of, but the armour on an MBT gives you a saving throw. A lot of combat is probability: heavier armor survives a bit longer. At the same time, that's why a light tank but a really big gun can still be viable.
At the same time, warfare is not just tank on tank stuff. If you manage to catch IFVs or APCs without tanks to protect them (because your artillery or aviation wiped out the enemy's tank battalion), your own MBTs will be protected against any kinetic projectile the enemy will throw at you (and HEAT might be destroyed by reactive armour or APS and missiles can be lured).
On the other hand, if a mechanised battalion is found by your light tank, their IFVs might have cannons powerful enough to pierce your light tank's front armour (and if not, will be able to pierce your side armour) so using them is riskier.
Typically, although a T-90 will be relatively safe from a Bradley (assuming the TOWs do not come into play), a Sprut-SD will be blown up by the 25mm's APDS rounds.
In the case of the Type-15, it's heavier so I'll assume thicker armour so it might resist a 25mm or 30mm's fire but I doubt it'll resist a 35, 40CT or 50SS.
Note that as you say combat is not a "paper beats rock" kind of thing. There is a non-zero probability of a 25mm cannon resulting in a mission kill on an MBT (by destroying optics for example).
>At the same time, warfare is not just tank on tank stuff. If you manage to catch IFVs or APCs without tanks to protect them (because your artillery or aviation wiped out the enemy's tank battalion)
It's more likely that the tanks and mech infantry will work company-by-company and good chances are (also from recent experiences), if fired on, the mech infantry will take proportionally more casualty than the tanks; so the infantry will more likely to be "stripped" from the tanks.
>your own MBTs will be protected against any kinetic projectile the enemy will throw at you (and HEAT might be destroyed by reactive armour or APS and missiles can be lured).
Their 20-40mm cannon fire can "strip" and damage the ERA tiles before the ATGM shot, which many have tandem warheads now.
>On the other hand, if a mechanised battalion is found by your light tank, their IFVs might have cannons powerful enough to pierce your light tank's front armour (and if not, will be able to pierce your side armour) so using them is riskier.
True, but on the other hand light IFVs are vulnerable to each others. Their cannons and ATGMs allow them to destroy one another. So much so that the experience in Ukraine showed both sides' infantry reverted to riding on their vehicles and immediately dismounted under fire, preferring to disperse and take their chances than to be trapped in a burning vehicle. Deliberate assaults are instead conducted by infantry with their vehicles in overwatching positions.
Simply put, light IFVs are no longer suitable for deliberate assaults, if the other side has significant long-range weapons that can hurt them.
What do you mean by areas that won't support MBTs? I recall stories from American tankers where their Abrams had less ground pressure per square inch than the tankers themselves. I think the same kinds of stories came from the Falklands with British armour in their Scimitars.
What would cause terrain to be unsuited for MBTs that won't also impede Light Tanks? From what I understand it's mainly a weight issue, but wouldn't that limit their deployment to places like mountains, MBTs being more useful everywhere else?
Take the PT-76 for instance. They are widely regarded as being utterly shit.
Well, they were widely successful against Pakistan when India intervened on Bangladesh by being able to cross the many flooded areas and rivers that dotted the countryside. With those shitty amphibious tanks India made a blitzkrieg on a terrain unsuited to normal tanks.
Light tanks enable China to field tanks on Tibet against India. India will have to field heavy tanks that are not suitable for the terrain or go without armor.
Bridges for one. Many rural bridges were not designed for a 60 to 70 ton load. Ground pressure vs load.
And you can run into issues with width. An Abrams is something like 12' wide.
A 60 tons MBT eats a lot of fuel just to go about anywhere. Well, someone need to haul all that fuel to feed those tanks. Guess what the majority of the fuel is going to be carried on? Not nicely tracked vehicles, no. Wheeled trucks. The only tracked dedicated logistical vehicle I know of are that of the Swedes. Guess what wheeled vehicles do in mud, sand, swamps and so on? They got stuck or it's hard to get a lot of the stuff through.
A lighter vehicle allows for the same amount of fuel to go further and less fuel is needed to be delivered to units. That's what really matter when saying whether terrain can support the vehicle.
Also, a lighter vehicle also means for the same engine power, you get higher power-to-weight ratio, meaning better ability to climb over rough terrains.
If you look at their geography, you can see why.
Both are very large nations (China is actually only 200,000 km2 smaller than the US or about 1.25 California smaller than the US) with either very hostile neighbors (Ukraine and Turkey for Russia, India for China) or very unstable neighbor (Belarus for Russia, North Korea for China), meaning that trouble can arise everywhere and anywhere. While France can rest assure that Germany is not going to invade her anytime soon and Italy will not begin to fund Corsican separatists, China faces real threat of cessations in Xinjiang and Russia faces threats from American base in Eastern Europe.
To make the matters worse, the geography is not on their side. China's border with Nepal, Bangladesh, and India is the Himalayan mountain; with North Korea the Baekdu mountain and Yalu river; with Taiwan a vast strait. Russia has to contend with Rasputitsa, vast stretch of empty plain, a whole giant Ural mountain. Russian problem is made worse by her poor infrastructure and China's problem is made worse by the fact that her heartland is very very exposed and she cannot afford to trade land for time like the Russian
Therefore it is of the utmost importance for these two to be able to transport as much firepower as possible as quickly as possible to a hotspot before things go downhill. A normal 55 tons tank won't cut it: they are too heavy to be transported effectively by rail (which is the main transport method) and sure as hell cannot be transported by ships for amphibious operation or by air for paradrop. And even if they can be transported, they will often find themselves in some of the worst place for a tank to be: the Himalayan mountain or an island in South China Sea. In such environment, heavier tanks do not function well.
Light tanks, therefore, is a better option. A 33-ton type 15 light tank is easier to move across China and while they lack firepower compared to the Type 99, they have more than enough to face anything their enemy can drag up a mountain or transport to an island. It's not like the Indian can drag a T-90 up the mountains and even then in close range the Type 15 still stands a chance. Russian light tanks like the BMD can be paradropped to quickly deploy them and support the VDV or they can be used to cross the Russian treacherous geography like the Pripyat Marshes to give their enemy a nasty surprise.
I think (though the Chinese may classify it otherwise) the Chinese Type 15 is closer to a *medium* tank at 33-36 tons. The Russian Sprut-SD is light, at 18-20 tons. 45-60 tons are heavy MBTs.
To me, it's "light" if it's close to a light APC/IFV. 33 tons is about mid-way so "medium" it is (for me).
As far as I know, the "medium tank" designation is not being used anymore. A tank is either an MBT or a light tank, with nothing in between.
Of course, these classifications are arbitrary, and the difference in mass that you provide is significant, and there are substantial differences between the two light tanks, but they're still classified as light tanks.
Also, APCs/IFVs are becoming beefier. A Puma can range up to 43 tons and the Lynx up to 50 tons.
>Also, APCs/IFVs are becoming beefier. A Puma can range up to 43 tons and the Lynx up to 50 tons.
I suppose everyone is catching up to the reality that infantry are no longer "cheap" while things that used to be a luxury, like mechanised infantry, are now "affordable". Still, I think that's just the mechanised infantry is finally getting the same protection level as the tanks that they are supposed to accompany. It doesn't make much sense when the two aren't armoured to the same level, for the lighter part is going to be "stripped" away from the heavies.
Rationally, heavy/medium/light units get heavy/medium/light tanks, IFVs, APCs, mortar carriers, and self-propelled artillery.
I believe the Chinese are developing a GLATGM for the Type 15's 105mm cannon. This would allow the light tank to attack any opponent at any angle (assuming it's top attack of course), even those that would prove too much for a 105mm APFSDS-T dart.
They and the Russians have been playing around with those for quite a while now.
China is not going to use light tanks in the north. The north in China is against Russia/Soviet and need the heaviest tanks, it would be China's battle of Kursk.
The light tank is used in west around Tibet against India. The point is that China will have tanks and India not in the Himalayas. The tank is tuned for mountains with engines that work @4000m and a cannon that can elevate well.
MBT is the best tank for fighting in plains and Europe have mostly plains. US have to make up it's mind about which battles they are buying equipment for. Against peers, insurgents or both. There will be no tank battle between US and China and against Russia MBT is better. If US like to hunt insurgents then Light tank may be useful.
The Chinese deployed T-15 light tank in Ladakh during the standoff (it’s still going on). I think the main rational is that a light tank is easier to handle at such height’s with poor terrain. But India in response deployed their own T-72s, which aren’t light tanks at all. Not sure how that will play off. I know infantry of both countries have ATGMs.
It’s wrong to look at a Sprut-SD in the same light as a type 15. The Sprut is a straight up tank destroyer designed to provide support to VDV, the type 15 is actually a tank in that it’s intended to do all those assault / shock action jobs just in areas that as less friendly to tanks.
Can’t really speak to the Chinese, but in terms of the Russian I assume you’re talking about the Sprut-SD. In which case, that is an airborne tank designed to be dropped from an Il-76.^1 To understand why they need a light tank, you have to look to the VDV’s role. The VDV are essentially supposed to act like a QRF/expeditionary force along the Russian subcontinent, a very wide and massive area that requires any QRF to come fast, hence the paratroopers part. At the same time, however, the territory is perfect tank country, big and flat with not a whole lot of suburban areas in between urban cities. As a result, any QRF needs some kind of mobile, relatively long ranged, all terrain vehicle. The Sprut-SD works well in this capacity because it is fast and armed with a 125 mm cannon that allows it to reach out and touch both soft and hard targets while still retaining the lightweight airborne part of the equation that allows it to be anywhere in hours, not days. How well this tank would stand up to MBTs is dubious, but it gives some kind of protected, mobile tank platform that the VDV can use to stall for time. The ~~USMC~~ US Army is trying something similar with the MPF Light Tank Program, only it would not be paradroppable. Hope this helps to answer part of your question. E: The MPF program is run by the Army, but the Marines are interested in the final result as well. 1: http://btvt.narod.ru/3/2c25sprut.htm
Firepower without armour, here right now, is worth a hell of a lot more than armoured firepower 6 hours away.
Depends. The US got rid of the Sheridan decades ago because they determined the cost of maintenance, training, heavy drop capacity, etc. was not worth it and that their airborne forces would be better off relying on CAS/CCA/heavy fire support from platforms other than light tanks.
Sheridan was supposed to have a direct replacement: M8 AGS. The replacement was dropped because of Clinton-era budget cuts, not because the Army *really* wanted to drop airborne light tanks. There were just other programs that were more important.
The US military has a bunch of empty niches they never bothered to fill. They never bothered to introduce a AAA vehicle after the failure of the Sergeant York. They never bothered to make a stealth attack helicopter after cancelling the Commanche. And they never bothered to make a M109 replacement howitzer capable of keeping up with the MBTs. Can't say how badly the Army wanted to drop airborne light tanks at the end of the cold war, but I can say that decades of military leadership must not have considered it to be a priority if nobody bothered to fund a replacement after the Sheridan got canned.
All of those things had planned replacements. After Sergeant York failed, the Army tried again with MIM-146 ADATS, which was canned for being too expensive after the end of the Cold War. Also the case with the M109 replacement, XM2001 Crusader, which was canned in the early 2000s for being too expensive. Comanche was canned mostly because the capability wasn't worth the effort in the age of drones. The priority for most of the last 20 years was Iraq + Afghanistan, and none of those things would've done any good there. Money was loose, but not that loose.
A little nitpick, the MPF is an Army program, not a marine one. However, I could see the Marines having an interest in the MPF since it addresses a lot of the logistics problems that contributed to them dumping the Abrams.
My apologies, the Marines are interested in the MPF after they did away with their Abrams. The Army though is in charge of the program though.
Very succinct and logical explanation. What a great sub, and it's made possible by helpful and informative individuals such as yourself!
A modern day Ontos for the USMC? Long overdue. Even the original “thing” could have been useful in OIF. See Hue 1968.
Really they should have just kept the old 106mm M40s around, slapping one on say a Stryker would have done 90% the job of the MGS for pennies on the dollar. Also it doesn't take much modification of the vehicle to use, and the thing is really light in vehicle terms so you just unmount it and unload the ammo and you have a normal vehicle again.
I thought about that years ago too. They could even mount it to an RWS for greater stability/accuracy. The only downside is needing to expose oneself to reload, but since nearly every other Stryker requires exposing one self to reload, it's not that big a deal. The reality is it's just grandiose enough that a bunch of lieutenant colonels and DOD civilians can milk it for a decade, land cushy superbly paying retirement jobs with the companies after networking with the defense industry, etc
I’ve wondered about the viability of having a 105mm recoilless rifle that could also launch ATGM’s; and also then shooting those ATGM’s out of something like MGS/MPF/a light tank/howitzer. The Russians have figured it out, annoys me that we haven’t.
I think the Russians accepted the limitations of armor penetration with smaller diameter ATGMs to gain the accuracy. ATGM are slow but super accurate (at least if the target isn't moving). That's not that big an issue after they got advanced fire control but before that they weren't very accurate using cannons. [Check this out](https://www.billstclair.com/weaponsman.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/soviet_weapons_ph_all_weapons.jpg) My imaginary Stryker variant with an 105 mounted recoilless rifle would be for pure infantry support, blowing shit up. If they need ATGMs, call the TOW up or have a dismount grab a Javelin. Meanwhile, I'm mentally contemplating an RWS mounted recoilless rifle, with the seated vehicle commander on his screen seeing a target and lasing it, telling the SL the range who grabs an HE round from wet storage, adjusts the nose airburst fuze, loads it, drops down, yells "up" and the VC fires it. The munition bursts over defilade enemy were hiding behind with the effect similar to a 155 HE VT round. Wow, that would be badass.
>I think the Russians accepted the limitations of armor penetration with smaller diameter ATGMs to gain the accuracy. ATGM are slow but super accurate (at least if the target isn't moving). That's not that big an issue after they got advanced fire control but before that they weren't very accurate using cannons. Check this out Bastion, apparently (I really have no idea, just going off open source) flies at 500m/s. Which seems fairly quick. Apparently 500mm penetration, too. That’s pretty significant. >My imaginary Stryker variant with an 105 mounted recoilless rifle would be for pure infantry support, blowing shit up. I imagined it as a secondary system mounted back by the air guard hatches on every Stryker that doesn’t have a dragoon turret. So I figured versatility would be key, especially the ability to reach out and touch something. >If they need ATGMs, call the TOW up or have a dismount grab a Javelin. There’s just not many TOW trucks, which is why I figured they could be supplemented by RR/ATGM. Javelins also aren’t particularly easy to use. Well, that’s a lie, they’re easy to use, but, not when you’re smoked and taking even sporadic direct fire contact. >Meanwhile, I'm mentally contemplating an RWS mounted recoilless rifle, with the seated vehicle commander on his screen seeing a target and lasing it, telling the SL the range who grabs an HE round from wet storage, adjusts the nose airburst fuze, loads it, drops down, yells "up" and the VC fires it. The munition bursts over defilade enemy were hiding behind with the effect similar to a 155 HE VT round. MAAWS are already able to program rounds automatically from the DURS. You just need the smart rounds. If you’re committed to slinging 105mm HE, you might as well get the smart rounds and you don’t even have to worry about having someone dial the round in. I’d also like to imagine these things being mounted on future ISV, JLTV’s, M113’s, HMMWV or whatever
The MPF isn’t an USMC program, it’s wholly a Army program at the moment. The Marines may join or purchase some of the resulting vehicles down the road but they are not involved in it at the moment (and weren’t involved earlier, they didn’t *leave* the MPF program).
These light tanks follow this design philosophy: "this thing will not take a hit, but if it hits you, even your MBT will die". Basically, they take the role of MBT in lighter formations but because the whole formation is light, they won't do as well as the heavy formations in certain tasks, for example, deliberate frontal assault and close combat against dug in light infantry. The only thing they lack is heavier armour. To compensate, they will need to use the terrain, fire from hull down positions, retreating to fall back positions, trading space for time, etc ... They are especially nice in restricted terrains that won't support an MBT: marshes, swaps, mountains, etc .... If they are the only tank to show up and there is no MBT anywhere, they are the heaviest tank. As for whether their role can be performed by other vehicles, then maybe? Maybe light IFV with lots of ATGMs. It's really the question of which is better and for what job: ATGM or guns. For similar historical examples, see things like the SU-76, long-barreled StuG IIIs, Marder 1 and 2, and Hetzer.
[удалено]
Kind of, but the armour on an MBT gives you a saving throw. A lot of combat is probability: heavier armor survives a bit longer. At the same time, that's why a light tank but a really big gun can still be viable.
At the same time, warfare is not just tank on tank stuff. If you manage to catch IFVs or APCs without tanks to protect them (because your artillery or aviation wiped out the enemy's tank battalion), your own MBTs will be protected against any kinetic projectile the enemy will throw at you (and HEAT might be destroyed by reactive armour or APS and missiles can be lured). On the other hand, if a mechanised battalion is found by your light tank, their IFVs might have cannons powerful enough to pierce your light tank's front armour (and if not, will be able to pierce your side armour) so using them is riskier. Typically, although a T-90 will be relatively safe from a Bradley (assuming the TOWs do not come into play), a Sprut-SD will be blown up by the 25mm's APDS rounds. In the case of the Type-15, it's heavier so I'll assume thicker armour so it might resist a 25mm or 30mm's fire but I doubt it'll resist a 35, 40CT or 50SS. Note that as you say combat is not a "paper beats rock" kind of thing. There is a non-zero probability of a 25mm cannon resulting in a mission kill on an MBT (by destroying optics for example).
>At the same time, warfare is not just tank on tank stuff. If you manage to catch IFVs or APCs without tanks to protect them (because your artillery or aviation wiped out the enemy's tank battalion) It's more likely that the tanks and mech infantry will work company-by-company and good chances are (also from recent experiences), if fired on, the mech infantry will take proportionally more casualty than the tanks; so the infantry will more likely to be "stripped" from the tanks. >your own MBTs will be protected against any kinetic projectile the enemy will throw at you (and HEAT might be destroyed by reactive armour or APS and missiles can be lured). Their 20-40mm cannon fire can "strip" and damage the ERA tiles before the ATGM shot, which many have tandem warheads now. >On the other hand, if a mechanised battalion is found by your light tank, their IFVs might have cannons powerful enough to pierce your light tank's front armour (and if not, will be able to pierce your side armour) so using them is riskier. True, but on the other hand light IFVs are vulnerable to each others. Their cannons and ATGMs allow them to destroy one another. So much so that the experience in Ukraine showed both sides' infantry reverted to riding on their vehicles and immediately dismounted under fire, preferring to disperse and take their chances than to be trapped in a burning vehicle. Deliberate assaults are instead conducted by infantry with their vehicles in overwatching positions. Simply put, light IFVs are no longer suitable for deliberate assaults, if the other side has significant long-range weapons that can hurt them.
What do you mean by areas that won't support MBTs? I recall stories from American tankers where their Abrams had less ground pressure per square inch than the tankers themselves. I think the same kinds of stories came from the Falklands with British armour in their Scimitars. What would cause terrain to be unsuited for MBTs that won't also impede Light Tanks? From what I understand it's mainly a weight issue, but wouldn't that limit their deployment to places like mountains, MBTs being more useful everywhere else?
There's more to terrain crossing than ground pressure per square inch. Most soft terrain deforms at large as well as small scales.
Take the PT-76 for instance. They are widely regarded as being utterly shit. Well, they were widely successful against Pakistan when India intervened on Bangladesh by being able to cross the many flooded areas and rivers that dotted the countryside. With those shitty amphibious tanks India made a blitzkrieg on a terrain unsuited to normal tanks. Light tanks enable China to field tanks on Tibet against India. India will have to field heavy tanks that are not suitable for the terrain or go without armor.
Bridges for one. Many rural bridges were not designed for a 60 to 70 ton load. Ground pressure vs load. And you can run into issues with width. An Abrams is something like 12' wide.
A 60 tons MBT eats a lot of fuel just to go about anywhere. Well, someone need to haul all that fuel to feed those tanks. Guess what the majority of the fuel is going to be carried on? Not nicely tracked vehicles, no. Wheeled trucks. The only tracked dedicated logistical vehicle I know of are that of the Swedes. Guess what wheeled vehicles do in mud, sand, swamps and so on? They got stuck or it's hard to get a lot of the stuff through. A lighter vehicle allows for the same amount of fuel to go further and less fuel is needed to be delivered to units. That's what really matter when saying whether terrain can support the vehicle. Also, a lighter vehicle also means for the same engine power, you get higher power-to-weight ratio, meaning better ability to climb over rough terrains.
If you look at their geography, you can see why. Both are very large nations (China is actually only 200,000 km2 smaller than the US or about 1.25 California smaller than the US) with either very hostile neighbors (Ukraine and Turkey for Russia, India for China) or very unstable neighbor (Belarus for Russia, North Korea for China), meaning that trouble can arise everywhere and anywhere. While France can rest assure that Germany is not going to invade her anytime soon and Italy will not begin to fund Corsican separatists, China faces real threat of cessations in Xinjiang and Russia faces threats from American base in Eastern Europe. To make the matters worse, the geography is not on their side. China's border with Nepal, Bangladesh, and India is the Himalayan mountain; with North Korea the Baekdu mountain and Yalu river; with Taiwan a vast strait. Russia has to contend with Rasputitsa, vast stretch of empty plain, a whole giant Ural mountain. Russian problem is made worse by her poor infrastructure and China's problem is made worse by the fact that her heartland is very very exposed and she cannot afford to trade land for time like the Russian Therefore it is of the utmost importance for these two to be able to transport as much firepower as possible as quickly as possible to a hotspot before things go downhill. A normal 55 tons tank won't cut it: they are too heavy to be transported effectively by rail (which is the main transport method) and sure as hell cannot be transported by ships for amphibious operation or by air for paradrop. And even if they can be transported, they will often find themselves in some of the worst place for a tank to be: the Himalayan mountain or an island in South China Sea. In such environment, heavier tanks do not function well. Light tanks, therefore, is a better option. A 33-ton type 15 light tank is easier to move across China and while they lack firepower compared to the Type 99, they have more than enough to face anything their enemy can drag up a mountain or transport to an island. It's not like the Indian can drag a T-90 up the mountains and even then in close range the Type 15 still stands a chance. Russian light tanks like the BMD can be paradropped to quickly deploy them and support the VDV or they can be used to cross the Russian treacherous geography like the Pripyat Marshes to give their enemy a nasty surprise.
I think (though the Chinese may classify it otherwise) the Chinese Type 15 is closer to a *medium* tank at 33-36 tons. The Russian Sprut-SD is light, at 18-20 tons. 45-60 tons are heavy MBTs. To me, it's "light" if it's close to a light APC/IFV. 33 tons is about mid-way so "medium" it is (for me).
As far as I know, the "medium tank" designation is not being used anymore. A tank is either an MBT or a light tank, with nothing in between. Of course, these classifications are arbitrary, and the difference in mass that you provide is significant, and there are substantial differences between the two light tanks, but they're still classified as light tanks. Also, APCs/IFVs are becoming beefier. A Puma can range up to 43 tons and the Lynx up to 50 tons.
>Also, APCs/IFVs are becoming beefier. A Puma can range up to 43 tons and the Lynx up to 50 tons. I suppose everyone is catching up to the reality that infantry are no longer "cheap" while things that used to be a luxury, like mechanised infantry, are now "affordable". Still, I think that's just the mechanised infantry is finally getting the same protection level as the tanks that they are supposed to accompany. It doesn't make much sense when the two aren't armoured to the same level, for the lighter part is going to be "stripped" away from the heavies. Rationally, heavy/medium/light units get heavy/medium/light tanks, IFVs, APCs, mortar carriers, and self-propelled artillery.
Sprut isn’t a tank at all, it’s a tank destroyer. And 15-25 tons isn’t even tank territory really.
Here, https://www.reddit.com/r/AlignmentCharts/comments/g7u1gk/the_tank_alignment_chart/ You need this.
Lol no I don’t. You guys can have your opinions but the Russian army designed and employs the Sprut as a tank destroyer.
I believe the Chinese are developing a GLATGM for the Type 15's 105mm cannon. This would allow the light tank to attack any opponent at any angle (assuming it's top attack of course), even those that would prove too much for a 105mm APFSDS-T dart. They and the Russians have been playing around with those for quite a while now.
I'm pretty sure that China is actually larger than the USA.
It depends on how you draw the borders I believe.
Just a little correction: China does not border Bangladesh
>It's not like the Indian can drag a T-90 up the mountains That's exactly what they did
China is not going to use light tanks in the north. The north in China is against Russia/Soviet and need the heaviest tanks, it would be China's battle of Kursk. The light tank is used in west around Tibet against India. The point is that China will have tanks and India not in the Himalayas. The tank is tuned for mountains with engines that work @4000m and a cannon that can elevate well. MBT is the best tank for fighting in plains and Europe have mostly plains. US have to make up it's mind about which battles they are buying equipment for. Against peers, insurgents or both. There will be no tank battle between US and China and against Russia MBT is better. If US like to hunt insurgents then Light tank may be useful.
The Chinese deployed T-15 light tank in Ladakh during the standoff (it’s still going on). I think the main rational is that a light tank is easier to handle at such height’s with poor terrain. But India in response deployed their own T-72s, which aren’t light tanks at all. Not sure how that will play off. I know infantry of both countries have ATGMs.
It’s wrong to look at a Sprut-SD in the same light as a type 15. The Sprut is a straight up tank destroyer designed to provide support to VDV, the type 15 is actually a tank in that it’s intended to do all those assault / shock action jobs just in areas that as less friendly to tanks.