Why didnt the idea of fast small light tanks emulating horse cavalry take off?Wouldnt like 100 of these things charging like a horse cavalry charge formation work just as well as horse cavalry did in the olden days?
>>65337686I mean broadly speaking thats what tonks still do. They use their speed and firepower as a maneuver asset to rapidly seize and control objectives. The problem is that just like horses, the terrain and mission might not be exactly suitable for that kind of operation. Charging a shitload of tanks straight into a prepared defensive position didn't work at Kasserine in 1943 just like charging a shitload of horses into a prepared defensive position didn't work at Balaclava in 1854. That's why combined arms warfare is a thing now.
Until they run into something that can kill tanks, I guess so?The problem is that by the time you could feasibly field armour in that kind of quantity, there's a lot of shit on the battlefield that could kill a light tank and kill it quickly, which means your light tanks would get absolutely massacred just like horse cavalry were when they charged machine guns.
>>65337686they pretty much did thoughyour picture was a tank intended to do that
>>65337686"fast" is an extremely relative term, because going as fast over open terrain as you can go over a parade ground is a recipe to throw a trackthey hardly ever had 100 of the things in one place at one time, and this was generally true for all tank types, because:the logistic tail for tanks, any tanks, is a huge pain in the asswhat light tanks were envisioned for was radically different than what they ended up being good at, ironically light tanks were most useful for infantry support instead of as a cavalry asset, and medium tanks were better in a cavalry role (outside of combat, infantry elements liked having access to tractors that could drag shit out of ditches, which light tanks are pretty good at unless the thing they are trying to drag is heavier than they are)the fact that light tanks were most useful in an infantry support role meant that eventually, someone got the bright idea of putting a big ass metal box on the back, and putting the infantry inside them, so the successful vehicle designs with the firepower and armor that's roughly on par with light tanks, are called infantry fighting vehicles now.
>>65337686Cost
>>65337714When I was asking this question this did pop into my head but I figured there's no Machine anti tank weapon that can spit out anti tank rounds like a Maxim Machine gun could in ww1 so I figured it might be a non issue and anti tank infantry wasnt gonna stick around to pick off one or two tanks and gain the attention of the other 30 tanks its charging with.Unless there actually is a weapon that could spit out anti tank rounds and i just dont know about it
>>65337719Did it? The brits dropped that whole specialization for tanks and just went with one medium tank workhorse supported by infantry like everyone else right at the end of ww2 right?
How can a man go forward with the cavalry without infantry support? What is the matter with you?
>>65337686Crusader III looks so cool.
>>65337817yeah, but interwar and early war stuff is all over the place because nobody knew what war would look likesoviets thought the cavalry tank idea was a sweet idea too and adopted the bt series en masse only to later abandon the concept once it got rekt
A light tank still requires armor, an engine, fuel, ammo, a trained crew, etc. It's not going to outnumber a country that focuses on tough medium sized tanks by a significant number, and those medium sized tanks are going to assrape the light tanks when they fight. Not to mention that its 100% possible to make a tank that has high mobility AND is able to rapidly exploit openings in the enemy's defenses and pull of complex flanking maneuvers, like the Sherman.Also the idea of "small light tanks emulating horse cavalry" kind of did take off with IFVs.
>>65337898The Brits were driven into the sea by tankettes and the French surrendered in front of them, so it wasn't like it appeared as if the concept had legs and a future.
>>65337904*has good armor and is able to do all that
>>65337905the design work and production of cavalry tanks was already in place when the shooting started tho
>>65337809For light tanks, autocannons are exactly that: the Bushmaster has enough oomph to punch holes into T-55s and lighter from any angle but the turret front.
>>65337858Cause the cavalry are used to flank. The infantry are busy fighting infantry
>>65337686It turns out that the lack of vision and general limitations of suspension means going actually offroad (not just a dirt track) limits your speed fairly dramatically.|Especially during ww2 it was said a slow ass tank like the matilda generally got the same cross country speeds as any other tank just because you can't just blindly blast across terrain you don't know, any footage of tanks going fast offroad was usually on areas prepared for it.
>>65337686You see there's nothing wrong with what you said. The issue is that British tanks sucked
Tanks in the early stages of World War II generally had poor communication capabilities, making the bidirectional radios installed in German tanks a significant advantage.
>>65337686they are called armored cars and they're still around
>>65337686What is the plan for when the charge is succesful? Have the TC hit them with his sword?
76mm gun 50mph.Isn't taking a Tiger on no matter what your time machine can organise.
