Is there a dumber tank class than light/scout/reconnaissance tanks?>UMMM YEAH IT'S GOOD TO DRIVE UP INTO ENEMY TERITORY IN THIS BIG ASS LOUD ASS TANK>HUH? ENGINE SMOKE? ENGINE SOUND? FUGGEDABOUDID>VISION FROM INSIDE IT? UMM YEAH I'VE GOT ONE PERISCOPE THAT'S WHAT I NEED FOR RECONNAISSANCEWhy didn't everyone think about using a dirt bike or something? Why the fuck did they use light tanks?This applies to ww2/ cold war. We don't have lt's anymore thank god
They're often airmobile and have generally better armament than a dirt bike does. Armored recon is the only on-the-ground recon that actually matters in 2026; and its best done with IFVs, which I shouldn't have to say are just light tanks with a troop compartment.
>>65608369They are good for getting tanks in places you wouldn't expect a tank at. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
>>65608369reconnaissance-in-force
>>65608462>places you wouldn't expect a tank at.Damn I'm totally not expecting that huge loud ass smoke cloud to be a tank, must be a horse carriage
>>65608369Because they are also boats and if it can go where other tanks can't then when you get there you have a tank and they do not.
>>65608505Light tanks in general not the pt76. Read the fucking post
>This applies to ww2/ cold warPrior to long range, man portable anti-tank weapons a lightly armored and fast tank could, as >>65608462 points out, move through areas that armored forces wouldn't otherwise be expected. Enemy scouting forces can be hemmed in as they're unlikely to have anti-armor capabilities that are competitive at the range anything with more than a 20mm is going to dominate at, and probing the enemy with armored vehicles at the very least makes him dilute his AT assets
>>65608519Smoke and engine sound gives it away
OP is reeking heavily of autism, even compared to your average anon.
>>65608535So your scouts have got maybe a couple minutes warning, meanwhile your towed AT guns are a few hours away over broken terrain
>>65608545More than enough time.
>>65608550To do what?
>>65608552Hide, fall back, figure out how to take it out. It's a light tank not a heavy tank division. It can be taken out without at guns.
>>65608552>Hide, fall backSo in other words the enemy light tank has forced your scouts to retreat, limiting your battlefield intelligence and perfectly serving the role of screening the main force>figure out how to take it outThe plan is to come up with a plan
CVRT, road legal to highway speeds, the ammo (76mm) is the restricted item here.
>>65608511There are almost no light tanks that aren't amphibious dummy, they only reason they exist is because they are either amphibious, air portable or both. Additionally many nations (such as South America or mountainous regions) do not have bridges capable of supporting a heavier vehicle. If this isn't a troll thread you are dumb af and your shit is all retarded.
>>65608369You can't get an Abrams up a mountain (or even across some bridges) so the Booker (if it fucking existed) would've been an excellent choice, that's why China designed the Type 15, to fight in the Himalayas.
>>65608369>t. has not fallen prey to a SpPz 2 Luchs yet>>65608582>the ammo (76mm) is the restricted item here.but who is going to stop you? You are in a tank
>>65608609>Chaffe>Stuart>Luchs>tetrach>t70>AMX 13>t92>scorpion>walker bulldog>Matilda or was it valentine that was classified as light>Bt 5/7>Italian l6I can go on forever
>>65608644Bet?
>>65608369>retarded War Thunder player can only think of warfare on the tactical level>can't even imagine the operational level of warfare
>>65608681>Matilda or was it valentine that was classified as lightneither. the brits used cruisers and infantry tanks. they didn't do the light/medium/heavy thing.the soviets were the ones who classed the valentines as "light infantry tanks".
>>65608582>CVRTLove 'em.want a Scimitar for my garage
>>65608786
>>65608500You are dumb as fuck.
>>65608369>hurrdurr recce is sneaking aroundYou are the advanced element of an armored division, they sure as fuck know you're coming. In a light tank they have to use their tank guns or ATGMs to light you up, any weaker OPs you mop up yourself.
>>65608681So your defense is a list of failed Western designs that cannot compare to the abilities of a Shin'heung‽ You are eating weak soup my friend:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_1981_%22Shin'heung%22
>>65609445light tanks, at least in the US army, were never actually used for scoutingrecon got the M8 greyhound and just plain old jeepslight tanks were in armored divisions and held in a dedicated light tank battalion and were used at the div commanders discretion, so they were used for anything they could think ofin practice, they were usually deployed as screening elements and flank guards they were used as fire support vehicles, but that was more just because their medium tanks were already heavily committed to maneuver and this was more just them finding a job for them to do rather than something they were actually good at
>>65609696One example, no matter how good (or bad) it is, does not negate the fact that the vast majority of vehicles describable as "light tanks" are not, in fact, amphibious as >>65608609 suggests.
I wonder what an amphibious MBT would look like.Probably the size of a goddamn house
>>65608535>>65608545there also seems to be confusion over how light tanks were used in the first placeat least in the US, light tanks were not actively sneaking behind enemy lines, they were primarily used as flank guards to slow down enemy counter-maneuvers while also informing commanders of the capabilities of the enemy force attempting itthis also led to ad hoc light cavalry action like skirmishing, where they could conduct recon by fire, trying to test enemy disposition by seeing how they react to their attacksthe mechanized cavalry troop were issued a mix of light tanks, scout cars, and jeepsbut cavalry troops rather descriptively named the scout car equiped troops as recon troops and the light tank equipped troops as light tank equipped troopscavalry troops had roles aside from pure recon and were equipped for other, more overt actions, and so were equipped for multiple roles
>>65608644The US light tank program is a generations-wide humiliation ritual for engineers. I don't even care the Booker isn't as good as the Jap tank in the same weight class, we needed it some time before 9/11.
>>65608878Vast majority of British pre-war tank inventory was light tanks, which were basically just mobile machine gun nests>>65609706Fair, OP's pic made me think more of armored recon in general in Soviet context.
>>65608392>Armored recon is the only on-the-ground recon that actually matters in 2026By that logic tehy should go back to this thing here, a lightly armored recon vehicle that can go 100 kph forwards and backwards because it has two drivers, just make the gun turret stabilized and add machine gun rws to shoot drones.
>>65610293>OP's pic made me think more of armored reconOP'S pic is specifically amphibious, to cross rivers and give landing forces a mobile gun that can sorta-kinda survive MG fire.On a battlefield where every infantry squad probably has an RPG/panzerfaust/LAW/etc., I don't know how good this concept would have worked in contact with NATO forces.
>>65610300Luchs 2 was great, a Luchs 3 with stabilized dual-purpose gun, APS, drone bay and an integrated cope cage would do wellbonus points for EW capabilities
>>65608369Try educating yourself on how armored recon works before confidently spouting nonsense, you clueless retard.
>>65610309I mean, the thing was fuckhuge but could go fastand your probably need a bigass engine to power EW etc.I don't know if the concept of an onboard drone operator will work out. It sounds good in theory, but it has not really been tested.
>>65610305at the time it was made, a LAW would be able to easily defeat it but they would have used their machine guns and dismounts to keep them from getting close enough to use themit was leopard 1 logic, theres no way to actually have enough protection to stop a LAW while being that light, so they wont bother and just stick to small arms protectionLAWs are short ranged enough that you can keep them at bay with the MGs and they were only intended to hold out long enough for more heavily armed units came in to relieve pressure
>>65610330it would be a little drone construction bay where you join movers to mission payloads, do a little on-the-fly programming, load batteries or fuel cellsthen when you're at the edge of where you can reach before you get swarmed with fpvs, you tell your drone operators to dismount and take their toys with them
>>65608369>OP is such a coward that he MUST have COMPLETE PROTECTION from ALL POTENTIAL THREATS to feel safeYou'll understand when your balls drop.
Oh that explains this thread>>65610170It's just a guy being angry at these kind of vehicles.
>>65608500It worked in Vietnam. a unit of PT-76es overran a Special Forces base because they didn't think the NVA had any tankshttps://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lang_Vei
>>65610508Because they were high as fuck on shrooms and listening to loud rap music instead of listening for tank engines
>>65610293right. light tanks and tankettes were evolutionary ideas for them during the interwar period and tied into thoughts of having little crappy cheap tanks for the colonies. but by the time the war kicked off british doctrine had moved beyond them and their roles were given to other vehicles. scout cars, armored cars, universal carriers, cavalry tanks, etc.
>>65610780Not crappy cheap tanks for colonies but tanks that would work in colonies.They built generalist light tanks that would work in amy environment and were easy to transport and maintain. Price wasn't an issue.You wouldn't want a Churchill in Burma
The US carried out scouting missions in Bradleys during the First Gulf War. Turns out you can send light armour on recon in force missions as long as you got good guns (or missiles as in the Bradley's case)
>>65610881Bradleys are ifvs not tanks
Fact of the matter is that a light tank is the preferred option for when you want armor and firepower in places that the average MBT couldn't dream of going, and the ability to scout in treacherous terrain and come back alive is a nice bonus.
>>65608369>Is there a dumber tank class than light/scout/reconnaissance tanks?Yes, heavy MBT.Example: Challenger 2.>ProofsWatch and see it for yourself.
>>65611174What separates the Abrams from the Challenger is that it has a good engine and not shit gun. Both are absolute units but while the Abrams may collapse a bridge under its weight it can still go vroom.
>>65611188>the Abrams from the ChallengerAlso better ammo storage in the abrahams.
>>65610300>>65610309>>65610330
>>65610293>armored recon in general in Soviet context.soviet recon was conducted by the wheeled BRDM-1 and 2sthe PT-76 was pretty much an outlier in that regard, its use as a recon vehicle was almost accidental, since it was designed as more of a traditional skirmishing vehicle in the same vein as the M5 stuart of WW2 but was simply pressed into the recon role because it was the best they had at the time
>>65608369That thing is such a useless piece of shit in GHPC.>Range stadia? What's that? Just shoot until it hits something cumrade))))))
>>65612407It was designed as a support tank for paratroopers meant to replace the ASU assault guns
>>65612529>for paratroopersthe PT-76 predates the ASU-85, in fact the ASU-85 was based off the PT-76the PT was designed as a replacement for the T-60/70 series of light tanks which were already obsolete before WW2 ended
>>65611135IFVs took over the light tank role as they were the merging of APCs and light tanks. the Bradley CFV was specifically built to do more of the later role than the former.
>>65611174Weirdly edited video. >driving along>cuts to footage of abandoned tank with the roof open and the crew long gone>demolition team destroys the abandoned tankIf anything it is more a demonstration of how both Russian and Ukranian tank crews habitually abandon their armour the moment they see a shadow and leave every hatch open.
>>65612579are they just supposed to patiently wait there while AAA sends out someone to fix the broken track?TM-62 AT mines are everywhere and while they don't usually breach the hull of a modern tank they will leave it immobilized and unable to fight in a heavily monitored killzone. so if you don't want to get sagger'd you fucking bail and let the engineers and armored recovery people sort it out.
>>65612590at least close the lid so it cant be easily demo'd from inside.
I dont care if its a shit tank. I think its cute and I wish I had one
>>65612610yep I had the Tamiya remote-control battery 1:35 scale model
>>65612610>>65612624and one of the few autobots who turned into a military vehicle
>>65612591i don't think that matters much. if a drone can drop a grenade down a hatch it can drop one to kill the guy hooking up the recovery cable. a lot of things need to happen for that bit of armor stranded out there in no-man's land to be recovered and there is no guarantee that any of that happens.what we don't see is video of the guys with the AT hole-punchers and whatnot that take out the buttoned up armored vehicles. they, inconveniently, don't have a built-in video system that is easily shared on the internet.
>>65611679yea something like that but add another pair of roadwheels so you can fit the mission bay in the backwhat the fuck is that thing anyway
>>65608369One of the biggest issues the Germans ran into against the US in particular in Europe was the absolute spam of armored recon units screening divisions. Against the Soviets and the bongs they’d always enjoyed the ability to blitz through with no resistance to speak of due to lack of integrated fire support, outmaneuvering and hitting bong and Russian formations faster than their local command and control could cycle units around. This failed near utterly because it became near impossible for them to be able to get the jump on allied units while taking any offensive posture. Every tank they came across would have a radio, they wouldn’t be able to just bypass armor, even light armor, since the 37 could still take out most any German tank from the side or rear and the 75 on a handful of the late war light tanks could take out any German AFV from the flanks, so any pockets of light armor would have to be dealt with. And these formations were generally highly mechanized, with their own armored cars, half tracks, HMGs, and towed AT in abundance. These formations were supposed to be well armed enough to probe the enemy lines, mobile enough to not get tangled up, and armored enough that they couldn’t be ignored. By the time German armor (inevitably) would break through or pin and maneuver around these screening elements reserve formations and tank destroyers could be moved into into place to block and blunt axis advance while armored divisions could be reoriented to collapse on the now bogged down and identified enemy thrust. Force recon doesn’t get nearly enough credit in ww2. One of the only ways to figure out where the enemy line was, was to walk around until you found it. If you were in an armored box there’s a chance you might actually get back to HQ after finding it.
>>65609706>>65610198Ah I see a knower was already present
>>65612710>since the 37 could still take out most any German tank from the side or rearit could, theoretically, defeat a panzer IV from the side at roughly 500m with a perpendicular anglebut the margin is error is so low that the 5mm skirt could be the wafer thin mint that stops a penetration, and if you are engaging them with even slight angling then the range with which you need to defeat the armor goes way downagainst the panther, then the stuart is going to have to hit the zettai ryouki between the tracks and upper side hull to stand a chance
>>65612718In 1942, sure. By 1944 they were using the M6 gun and APC ammunition that could punch through a Panther’s side hull at over 500m and through a Panzer IV at basically any range. And you should also take into account that almost all tank engagements in Western Europe occurred at 400 meters or less, anyways.
>>65612725>By 1944 they were using the M6 gun and APC ammunitionoh yeah, i forgot all about thati assumed they used M74 the entire war
>>65612738They did, but most of that went to the pacific after it became abundantly clear its propensity to ricochet was only slightly less of a problem than its poor penetration on the whole. And I should point out either way, even with M51 shell the Stuarts were referred to as “obsolete” in the offensive after a few commanders tried to use them as spearheads, so me saying they could potentially take out a Panther should be contextualized. They were light tanks with 37mm guns, they couldn’t be ignored, but they could and did give enough advance warning and slow the German assaults and counterattacks down enough for better armed and armored forces to react. The whole reason they were screening units is because the tanks were kind of bad at their original role at that point. But also to keep to OP’s question the reason armies kept them around after ww2 and in particular why the US got light tank fever is for how well light tanks worked as screening forces. The Walker Bulldog was what if your tank destroyer was also recce, which would have been a phenomenal vehicle in 1944. Too bad it came out in 1951 and immediately became the Stuart of the Cold War.
>>65612784It gets even worse than that. By the 70s, the Stuart had been modernized and upgraded under foreign service to use a 90mm gun and then-contemporary optics and sensors. The Walker Bulldog ended up being inferior to the vehicle it had replaced.
>>65612849Ah that’s more a consequence of the Stuart simply going on fire sale and being around earlier. The Bulldog also had its own modernization packages what it simply came down to was the MBT existed now. Any nations reliant on light tanks already had Stuarts. Anyone with the money and desire to have a 105 could just get an MBT. I think only the Italians and Belgians actually notably modernized their Bulldogs, and the ROC but I think they kept the 76mm. They were also up against the PLA who didn’t have any heavy armor though so that makes sense.
>>65610305If we are strictly discussing light tanks, as in (non-auto)cannon armed AFVs, those largely disappeared after and during WWII as the medium tank and later MBT took their role. Light armour and mass provides little benefit aside from air mobility and jungle operations when they figured out how to build good tank engines.In the interest of this thread, I would lump IFVs as a spirituak continuation of light tanks
>>65610300I love these things in arma.
>>65613859>I would lump IFVs as a spirituak continuation of light tanksthe M3 Bradley is a CFV, and it literally fills the same role as the walker bulldog and sheridan tank did, being issued to cavalry troops they arent just spiritual successors, they are direct replacements in the same units
>>65608369>the primary war making instrument: the nuclear "Rocket Force">conventional forces are only there to exploit the above, or create the conditions for the use of the aboveEverything and anything is meatwaveable and built to that design philosophy spec. They're more survivable than the Germans Hanomags, and that's more than enough.
>>65613876PT-76 is WAY post-WW2 though. Ironically enough the last users of the Sdkfz 251 were the Czechoslovak communists.
>>65611172the solution has always been to find ways to drag an MBT to a mountain top, not slim down the MBTthis makes expeditionary tanks temporary units that only exist to fill in capabilities before ultimately being replaced
>>65616356Having to build the infrastructure to lift a 70-ton giant where you need it only serves to negate its tactical mobility as its now has the footprint of an entire engineering corps on top of being limited to traversing improved avenues, leaving it predictable for avoidance and ambush.Better to have a tank purpose-designed for the environment that is free to pursue targets under their own power, even if their all-around utility is compromised.
>>65616586except that that has always been the ultimate solution, expeditionary tanks are just interim solutions until MBTs can be brought in-theatre
>>65616600Nah
>>65611172If an mbt can't go there you probably don't need armor and firepower in the first place.>>65616356>tanks on a mountainYeah buddy you surely need a heavy tank on a mountain slope because everywhere you go you'll find a mountain slope and all the important objectives revolve around mountain slopes
>>65608369The point of such vehicles is less performing the traditional roles of recon and more the "fight for intelligence", aka recon in force practises. It's the same reason the M3 Bradley exists and is armed to the teeth. Cold war planning assumed that the typical battle in Europe would be a "meeting engagement" between two rapidly moving columns widely spaced out, and so you wanted your most forward units to be very maneuverable but also heavily armed, stealth be damned. You had maybe an hour before your main force contacted the enemy's, so the end of the day you wanted your reconnaissance units in their positions on chosen ground and you wanted the enemy's reconnaissance to be a bunch of smoking husks. Hence the existence of fast, well armed light tanks in recon units. It is an outdated, obsolete concept today, but that's the kind of war it was built for.
