• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Future Armour

IKnowNothing

Member
Reaction score
117
Points
530
I use the term light tank to distinguish from an MBT.

I mean it sounds cool but again, whats the capability it provides that another system can't do as well? And if you have an MBT would you not use that instead of a light tank, and/or put your resources into MBT instead?
But that's what I'm challenging, whether a Lynx120 needs to be distinguished from an MBT, or whether it should be viewed as an MBT at the light end of the accepted spectrum. 50 tonnes, state of the art protections systems, 120mm gun.

Type 10 44t
K2 55t
T-90 46t
Armata 55t
Leclerc 55t
Ariete 54t
Oplot 51t
Type 99A 55t


Lighter than Allied contemporaries, not particularly light globally.

In the short term it doesn't provide capability that the Leopard doesn't do as well. In the long term (this is the "Future" Armour thread), looking at the prospect of kitting out a fully tracked heavy brigade, and being faced with either upgrading and expanding or replacing the Leo fleet to do so
-increased strategic mobility
-reduced domestic infrastructure requirements
-increased maintenance and sustainment ability (common chassis with IFV)
 
Last edited:

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
10,565
Points
1,160
Based on the only two criteria that matter for armored fighting vehicle categorization the LAV 6 is clearly an IFV.


What are our community thoughts on light tanks...

Seems that there are a few new light tanks coming on the market recently. Lynx 120mm, CV90120, Griffin.

Looking at Ukraine which (no big data yet) is showing that artillery, ATGM and UAV's are the main enemy of tanks, I can see an argument for light tanks. Light tanks are harder to detect with smaller cross-sections and in some cases (CV90120) heat signatures. They are easier to hide from observation, likely have better tactical mobility due to their lighter weight, and certainly have higher strategic mobility.

Light tanks can take active protection systems no differently then MBT's. In the case of guided artillery, ATGM, and UAV attack having hard-kill active protection (smoke is also active protection) only needs to stop one or two rounds before the light tank can maneuver or hide.

If you armour their turret similar to an MBT (Lynx 120 seems to be doing this with cheek armour that matches the Leo's) then you can engage from a hull-down position with no difference in protection to an MBT.

One of the things we fail to consider often is the survivability onion,

View attachment 70770

Arguably light tanks are better at all the categories than the last two (penetrated and affected).

The question is what capability is a light tank bringing? The Griffin is for air/rapid mobile forces and uses its 105mm as a direct fire capability to engage fortified positions or light armour. The 120mm armed light tanks are more capable against enemy heavy armour, and can obviously do the same role as a Griffin. RECCE tanks perhaps? Or are these capabilities better done with ATGM turreted IFV?

This is not to say that MBT's are not a necessary capability, but that light tanks may more of a role in the future going forward.

Based on this definition, if your Army isn't fielding 'Light' or Airborne Forces, you don't need light tanks:

The U.S. Army soon could have a new light tank​

The Mobile Protected Firepower program winner could provide the U.S. Army with a next-generation lightweight, air-mobile armored combat vehicle.

"The MPF vehicle -- essentially a light tank -- will equip Army light infantry and airborne units that do not have a tracked armored combat vehicle."

 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
844
Points
1,060
We have an opportunity here to look over all their equipment and counter measures for faults we can exploit.
Then we can then build a light tank that can overcome those particular obstacles + 50%, then concentrate on making everything lighter.
There's all kinds of trade offs. I doubt we'll ever have anything resembling 100%. Everything out there can be killed. Whether you're inside or outside a tank. Other than the fact that every idiot with a pistol has to shoot at a tank, I don't think a crewmen's risk is really much different that any other battlefield trade. Our demise is just more spectacular than most. And we vaporize in less than a second. Cavalry panache to the end. 😂
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
2,891
Points
1,040
Don’t buy from Franco-Germany…
This is a Rhinemetal private development with 130mm, similar to how they developed the Lynx IFV.

Some think it's in response to dissatisfaction with the Main Ground Combat System program that is a French-German combined effort.

Some interesting details on The Drive which is usually pretty good with their info.

Some interesting features, autoloader and 3 crew, with an option for a 4th crew (platoon commander?). UAV/loitering munition launcher. APS, lighter than the current Leo 2.
 

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
676
Points
1,060
Interesting that it is in competition with the Franco-German project

Also the drive article says it uses the same powerplant which I took to mean the MTU 873. I wonder why not the 883 Europowerpack?
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,554
Points
1,090
This is a Rhinemetal private development with 130mm, similar to how they developed the Lynx IFV.

Some think it's in response to dissatisfaction with the Main Ground Combat System program that is a French-German combined effort.

Some interesting details on The Drive which is usually pretty good with their info.

Some interesting features, autoloader and 3 crew, with an option for a 4th crew (platoon commander?). UAV/loitering munition launcher. APS, lighter than the current Leo 2.

I'll take 500 for the CAF
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
2,891
Points
1,040
Lol, when has the CAF ever failed with a first of class/orphan fleet that no one else has? I can't think of a single example... ;)

Though you could look at the CF-18 as that sort of leap of faith. I know a few pilots from the switchover to CF-18s and the whole fighter world in NATO thought we were crazy to buy a navy aircraft for a land-based fighter.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
2,891
Points
1,040
Matsimus, Canada's favourite RCA YouTuber strikes with his expose on the Panther K51

Edit:
Rhinemetall page on the tank
Rheinmetall

This part really stood out to me:

Controllability and networking: The KF51 Panther features an innovative operating concept. It is basically designed for a three-person crew: the commander and gunner in the turret and the driver in the chassis, where an additional operator station is available for a weapons and subsystems specialist or for command personnel such as the company commander or battalion commander.

Designed in accordance with NGVA standards, the tank's fully digital architecture enables seamless integration of sensors and effectors both within the platform as well as into a networked "system of systems". Operation of sensors and weapons can be transferred instantly between crew members. Each operator station can take over the tasks and roles from others, while retaining full functionality. Since the turret and weapons can also be controlled from the operator stations in the chassis, variants of the KF51 Panther with unmanned turrets or completely remote-controlled vehicles are also planned in the future.

The idea that the fourth crew member could be looking out using an RWS or another sensor (say UAV feed etc...) has the potential to really up the game of an MBT. You could conceivably have the loitering munition being controlled by person four while the gunner and commander are fighting a different target. Or instead of controlling the tank, the company commander can focus on commanding the company instead of fighting his own tank.
 
Last edited:

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,710
Points
1,140
I meant never by from France and/or Germany ;) @Underway
It’s neat - I give it that, but honestly anything tied to Germany these days is simply a boat anchor.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,421
Points
1,040
Matsimus, Canada's favourite RCA YouTuber strikes with his expose on the Panther K51

Edit:
Rhinemetall page on the tank
Rheinmetall

This part really stood out to me:



The idea that the fourth crew member could be looking out using an RWS or another sensor (say UAV feed etc...) has the potential to really up the game of an MBT. You could conceivably have the loitering munition being controlled by person four while the gunner and commander are fighting a different target. Or instead of controlling the tank, the company commander can focus on commanding the company instead of fighting his own tank.
I also like the idea of a platoon or company commander that doesn't have to fight his tank but can concern himself with fighting the platoon or company. My understanding is that this fourth position is in the hull - it would be interesting to see what tools are available from there.

Considering this is a fresh design it makes me wonder why they didn't go for a front mounted engine. If the engine were in front it would open up a whole range of variants from IFVs to SPs. My only thought is that heat shimmer from the engine could throw of the optics. Don't know. 🤷‍♂️

🍻
I meant never by from France and/or Germany ;) @Underway
It’s neat - I give it that, but honestly anything tied to Germany these days is simply a boat anchor.
Rhinemetall manufactures outside the country as well, but then you'd lose the advantage of that highly skilled machinist culture that they have. 😉

🍻
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,710
Points
1,140
I also like the idea of a platoon or company commander that doesn't have to fight his tank but can concern himself with fighting the platoon or company. My understanding is that this fourth position is in the hull - it would be interesting to see what tools are available from there.

Considering this is a fresh design it makes me wonder why they didn't go for a front mounted engine. If the engine were in front it would open up a whole range of variants from IFVs to SPs. My only thought is that heat shimmer from the engine could throw of the optics. Don't know. 🤷‍♂️

🍻

Rhinemetall manufactures outside the country as well, but then you'd lose the advantage of that highly skilled machinist culture that they have. 😉

🍻
Even if RM USA built it, it would be stuck to a lot of German IP, and thus stuck to what the Germans would allow with the vehicle.
I can tell you some stories about what the German government likes to tell nations about where and how they can employ those weapons…

WRT Front engines, they are generally hard to change quickly.
They require access doors and generally trade speed of repair for most mass to the front to absorb incoming fire. They also have smaller access doors and require a lot more effort to disconnect and wiggle out
They also generally have thinner upper glacis plates than rear mounted - as no one needs to be opening the front on rear engine systems.

One often accepts that in a SPG/SPA because they are not designed for direct combat - they generally end up being accepted for IFV’s as the rear is taken by troops. The Israelis are the only one doing AFV’s like that - they seem to accept the longer repair aspect for the added mass up front to try to protect the crew better.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
2,891
Points
1,040
Even if RM USA built it, it would be stuck to a lot of German IP, and thus stuck to what the Germans would allow with the vehicle.
I can tell you some stories about what the German government likes to tell nations about where and how they can employ those weapons…

WRT Front engines, they are generally hard to change quickly.
They require access doors and generally trade speed of repair for most mass to the front to absorb incoming fire. They also have smaller access doors and require a lot more effort to disconnect and wiggle out
They also generally have thinner upper glacis plates than rear mounted - as no one needs to be opening the front on rear engine systems.

One often accepts that in a SPG/SPA because they are not designed for direct combat - they generally end up being accepted for IFV’s as the rear is taken by troops. The Israelis are the only one doing AFV’s like that - they seem to accept the longer repair aspect for the added mass up front to try to protect the crew better.
Canada generally buys the IP because we want full control over our own gear. Which doesn't always go well with the contractor (Colt Canada has numerous examples, FREMM frigates, CF-18 initial purchase etc...). Not to share the info mind you or make our own industry selling someone else's IP.

Front engines likely unbalance the tank. Armour up front and engine in back means the pivot point of the tank is under the turret. Engine and armour up front means the tank tips into ditches or has a harder time going over obstacles.
 

Ostrozac

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
282
Points
930
I mean it sounds cool but again, whats the capability it provides that another system can't do as well? And if you have an MBT would you not use that instead of a light tank, and/or put your resources into MBT instead?
The niche of a light tank is that it lets you have a tank in places where you can’t logistically support MBTs. CVR(T) in the Falklands, Sheridan in Panama, that sort of thing. If you’re trying to up the firepower of your light forces, that‘s probably fine, but it’s ultimately still a niche role. And it’s not an MBT, so don’t ever try to use it like one.
 

Spencer100

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
568
Points
1,040
Even if RM USA built it, it would be stuck to a lot of German IP, and thus stuck to what the Germans would allow with the vehicle.
I can tell you some stories about what the German government likes to tell nations about where and how they can employ those weapons…

WRT Front engines, they are generally hard to change quickly.
They require access doors and generally trade speed of repair for most mass to the front to absorb incoming fire. They also have smaller access doors and require a lot more effort to disconnect and wiggle out
They also generally have thinner upper glacis plates than rear mounted - as no one needs to be opening the front on rear engine systems.

One often accepts that in a SPG/SPA because they are not designed for direct combat - they generally end up being accepted for IFV’s as the rear is taken by troops. The Israelis are the only one doing AFV’s like that - they seem to accept the longer repair aspect for the added mass up front to try to protect the crew better.
I bet if Canada stepped up first and said build it here you could get away from any large German problems. It was developed in house and Rheinmetall has a Canadian operation. Put a USA powerpack and whatever crazy armour steel composition ceramic they use. That would just leave the main gun as German controlled item. Plus being a first consumer would get you the IP too. But it would never happen in Canada. Better idea would be an all electric drive with no CO2 emissions.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
2,891
Points
1,040
Was watching a vid on the Panther from a German Leopard 2 tanker. He noticed a few interesting things.

Commander is on the left and gunner is now in the old commander's position. This is because the ring of commander periscopes are on the left now (vice the right in the Leo 2).

1655247159699.png

The drivers hatch looks identical to the Leo 2 drivers hatch, and there is a camera on the front of the tank to assist the driver.
The turret hatch is square formed and not round and folds up to the side.
1655247313666.png
This is a significant disadvantage when driving with the hatch up as it gives you a large blind spot to the right side of the tank, forcing the commander to rely on the cameras in that area to see.

The coaxial 50 cal is an excellent addition as with a 130mm you don't want to waste any rounds on soft targets like trucks, and a burst from the 50 cal will take care of that problem for you without overkill.

Video here:
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,710
Points
1,140
I bet if Canada stepped up first and said build it here you could get away from any large German problems. It was developed in house and Rheinmetall has a Canadian operation. Put a USA powerpack and whatever crazy armour steel composition ceramic they use. That would just leave the main gun as German controlled item. Plus being a first consumer would get you the IP too. But it would never happen in Canada. Better idea would be an all electric drive with no CO2 emissions.
Sadly that isn’t how ITAR etc work.
The IP itself stays with the developer nations. That is why multinationals have SSA’s in place to firewall things. So data stays put (or major fines and jail terms occur)

If you look at German designs or co-design system - the German Government are denying transfers of even some old gear.

Also, no one is going to let Canada build a tank they designed. No us, not the Uk etc.
Your needs are like 1/2 month of production.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
2,891
Points
1,040
Also, no one is going to let Canada build a tank they designed. No us, not the Uk etc.
Your needs are like 1/2 month of production.
I think you underestimate our ability to stretch projects out beyond any reasonable timeframe!
 
Top