This video is 2 days old at the time of this comment, and claims the M-24 Chaffee is still in service in several countries. It was actually retired by Uruguay, the last active user, 3 years ago. This is what happens when some "RU-vid professor" doesn't do any research other than looking up and quoting directly from wikipedia, which will accept inaccurate entries from any unqualified idiot, and are rarely updated.
Wait a minute ,this portion doesn't contain > M 41 walker Bulldog > Type 62 light Tank > Type 63 Light Tank > Sheridan Light Tank > Doosan K105 Light Tank > Kaplan Harimau Light Tank
@@Alwindar1 Yeah, i kinda got confused with their classification. The weight is 45-48 tons which is in the same level as the Japanese Type 10 MBT so why would they call it a light tank?
AMX-13 and PT-76 . Both Served Indian Army and IDF ( PT-76 captured ones) for many good years till the 90s-2000s. M24 Chaffee's Good too. But You know It's outdated. At by The time M41 Walker bulldog Arrived too late for paxtan.
I personally think we need a light tank again as I think they will be crucial in the next Big conflict as we need something we can air life like the scorpion (Britain)
@@banger2998 Yhe Puma and Lynx IFV costs $9-10million per unit. Their weapons can't compete against MBT. They have rockets that are effective only up to a certain range and can be easily defeated by soft and hard kill protection systems. Their ammo is also limited and they are large bulky targets. K21, Bradley, and Warrior are subpar IFVs that are only designed to fight against other light vehicles and have outdated missiles as well as protection systems. They are slow and bulky as well. Please do some research before just saying random names of "modern" IFV. Average 105-120mm cannons can outrange any IFV by thousands of meters. They can also carry more ammunition, and are easier/cheaper to produce and maintain.
@@banger2998 Can a MBT be less than 30ton? You seem to forget the main point of light tanks. Its not because of their speed, its because of their weight. It allows them to go to places a heavy 50ton mbt cant. It lets them cross bridges without needing specialized bridges, and allows them to be transported easier and faster too. IFV have completely different roles to light tanks because Light Tank is also a role, not just because of their weight class. Some IFVs can be used as a Light Tank but that depends on the country. The Light Tank role, as Ive said earlier, is similar to MBT role except that they can travel to more compromising terrain. They deal with the same enemy as MBT does, and avoid tank direct fire as possible. So in other words, they are basically tank destroyers relying on concealment and ability to go to locations most other tanks cant go. Modern example of Light Tanks are Cv90120, Type 15, Sprut SD, and the MPF light tank, and more from France and other countries.
The GDLS ASCOD II is a light medium tank with a turret of Italian Leonard HITFACT 105mm gun or the Elbit system turret SABRAH 105mm gun. future operator is the Philippines army select the ASCOD II SABRAH 105mm using the elbit system turret
Only VT5/15 is a real tank here, and the others are only equipped with Anti-tank gun on the armored roof. And in the subsequent versions of the Type 15 tank in China, it is unmanned and the tank is truly consumable. In the face of heavy Man-portable anti-tank systems, there is no difference between M1A3 and 15 tanks. Only the number of mobile firepower is the future. China needs to produce at least 5000 units of 15 unmanned tanks as a consumable reserve.
En mi opinion, el Sabre es una reiteracion del Scorpion, y el Shaffee esta fuera de este contexto, creo que el (Ikv91 y el M551 Sheridan) tienen mas, un espacio merecido en esta lista, saludos.
The Saber is a reiteration of the older Scimitar, which was a variant of the Scorpion. There were also personnel carrier, antitank missile, armored ambulance, and command versions of the Scorpion. All had different names that started with "S". The M-551 Sheridan doesn't easily fit into any category. It was sort of an air-mobile tank destroyer pressed into service as a tank in Vietnam. The reason I say this is because a light tank should have a usable gun. The Sheridan did not. It had a 152mm gun meant to fire either a high explosive antitank round or a Shillelagh guided antitank missile. The vehicle was so light that firing the gun with the antitank round knocked the missile guidance system out of use almost every time.
zorawar India's light tank should be second its better than the Chinese one as it can operate at a higher level in the mountains and is lighter and faster and longer distance with the same fire power and ammo and has more electronic communications and radar .The capabilities of the new light tank will also be enhanced by artificial intelligence, integration with swarm drones for increased situational awareness, loitering ammunition for high lethality, and an active protection system.and explosive armor
Wherever you heard that, it is partly incorrect. PT-76s did not destroy US tanks during the Vietnam war. 14 (possibly 15) PT-76s were destroyed by US forces during the war. 3 by a single recoiless rifle guarding the Lang Vieh special forces camp and 1 by shoulder fired antitank rockets (before the camp was overrun), 3 by US tanks, and 7 (possibly 8; sources differ) by missile-armed US helicopters. There was only a single tank-against-tank battle between North Vietnamese and US forces during the war. A PT-76 damaged 1 US tank (which was immediately put back into fighting condition) during a nighttime fight in which 2 PT-76s were destroyed. The 3rd PT-76 that was destroyed by a US tank had been done earlier by indirect fire, with an aircraft spotting the shots, an extremely unlikely method of tank engagement. The PT-76 was hit without a chance to shoot back, as the crew didn't even know they were going to be in a fight. Viet Cong and People's Army of Viet Nam did certainly destroy American tanks during the war, and I don't mean to put down their efforts, but it wasn't the PT-76 that was getting the kills.
@@mikearmstrong8483 wherever you took that either your source propaganda or you lie. PT-76 destroyed a few american tanks during Vietnam war. On 3 of March, 1969 12 North-Vietnamese PT-76 attacked American camp Benhet. One PT-76 hit American M-48 Patton to the turret and it was destroyed. So, at least one American tank was destroyed by PT-76. At the end of 1973 South-Vietnamese tank brigade including 130 American tanks M-41 and M-48 attacked North-Vietnamese positions that defended sea port. One PT-76 (board number 704) destroyed 5 American tanks and damaged two of them, but after also was destroyed. it was first combat case of PT-76 tank ace. By the way both South-Vietnamese and American propaganda always wildly lied and lie. And only naive people believe it so blindly. Sometimes South-Vietnamese declared North-Vietnamese army tanks losses more that North -Vietnamese units had tanks.
@@mikearmstrong8483 By the way, even T-34-85 managed to destroy a few American M-41 and M-48 during Vietnam war. If you are interested I can provide dates and places where it happened.
@@AlexanderTch The 3rd March 1969 battle that you refer to; the M-48 was NOT destroyed. It was hit on the turret, killing 2 men. Replacement crew were immediately found and the tank was back in action before the end of the battle. That was the ONLY tank-on-tank battle between US and NVA forces during the entire war. Whatever destroyed ARVN tanks, I really don't care. Edit: The turret hit mentioned did not penetrate the M-48s armor. It killed the tank commander who was standing up in his hatch, and the company commander who was standing on the tank next to the turret.
@@AlexanderTch Considering the gun on a PT-76 was completely incapable of penetrating the frontal armor of an M-48, I think the claim of a single PT-76 destroying 5 M-48s in a single engagement is BS propaganda, but I will do you the courtesy of researching that to see if there any possibility of truth. As for the M-41, a Vietnamese 12 year old with a slingshot could probably knock out one of those.
@@henryvagincourt4502 It all depends on definitions. The CV90 family includes a base unit APC. When light main weapons are added, the vehicle becomes the IFV, designated CV90/XX, the XX being the size of the armament, for example the CV90/40 has a rapid fire Bofors 40mm gun. The CV90/120 is in most respects a light tank, its 120mm main gun being a cut down copy of the Rheinmetall 120mm gun in the Leopard 2 and the Abrams. This iteration of the CV90 has no room for infantry and enhanced armor. It might be the weight (+/- 40 tons in the Cv90/120) rules it out as a true "light" tank.
Your buggin the some of thease tanks are faster and more reliable if you think about it tracks are amazing this day age they go down the road 60mph and tank is only 2wheel drive drive train with a tough track watch those british tanks flying down highway blowing doors off their heavy attack trucks at 40mph
In China, yes. The enemies of ztq15 are mainly swampy and jungle Southeast Asia (impossible) and India (very likely) occupying a lot of plateau terrain. India lacks agile modern armored vehicles/light tanks, and the deployment of main battle tanks (even if it is difficult to support logistical maintenance and maneuver) becomes the only option. In order to face the t72/t90 directly, the ztq15 chose to greatly increase the frontal armor and sacrifice the side armor. It can almost achieve the same protection ability as the old ztz99 on the front, but almost no protection on the side, and upgrade the artillery and on-board computer and engine. , these all add to the weight of the ztq15. Although the weight of the ztq15 is heavier, this is to deal with the special battlefield - the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, and the frontal threat of the main battle tank (even if it is an old-fashioned one). Compared with its main enemy, it is indeed a small man.
ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Ca7irqGcFwI.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Ca7irqGcFwI.html And the unmanned light robot - the Alpar tank?
You're wrong, the Sprut is a light tank designed for paradrops with the VDV. It's armament is designed to be modular where some versions have a "tank destroyer" calibre gun or a mortar system. The term tank destroyer is very ambiguous these days and while half the tanks on this list would qualify as tank destroyers in Cold War era, actual tank destroyer role these days is relegated to ATGM platforms.
It had a very good firepower and versatile option to deployed, but if your looking for a heavily armored tank then look for T90M or T-14 [Main Battle Tanks]
I'll bet that type 15 is amazing china make some dam reliable low coast macheanery I hate to admit it amarican farmer some of their tractors we bought almost as a gamble the price was right ye their chincy creature comfort but the motor and drive train and up keep is amazing barely ever break and the parts are cheep easy to fix
@@dc-4ever201 Yes, it gets confusing. Because Ajax didn't have a Scimitar or a Saber; he had a large club, and was attempting to replace (well, kill actually) Hector.
Theas small tanks are awsome the us started with shermen but the British tool it to next level 3 small tanks are better then 1 big tank the way wars are today I think small tank will be better tank if they are reliable
does the author of the channel really consider a Chinese tank weighing 33 tons to be a light tank? Soviet t55.t 62 tanks weighing 36 tons were considered medium tanks, and the T-64A weighing 38 tons was classified as the world's first main battle tank, that is, a tank combining the armament and armor of a heavy tank and mobility and specific power per ton of weight from an average tank. And all these tanks had anti-shell booking. A light tank, by definition, cannot hold anything larger than 50 mm, and even less with modern guns and shells.
Light tanks of lttle use in a modern army but still of use in some third world situations though even the ubiquitous RPG-7 can see them off. The exception is the British Scorpion, Scimitar variant actually, because its primary use is as a recce vehicle not as a tank but the British themselves moving onto more advanced modern recce solutions in the near future. Germany has introduced the Wiesel AFV which is an air transportable retro tankette thing but to me looks like an anachronistic rehash of a failed concept and a liability on a modern battlefield.
Built by Cadillac Gage lost to the M8 which in turn was cancelled now its refurbished in competion with the Griffin for the mobile protective firepower for the airborne guys
"A light tank is a tank variant initially designed for rapid movements in and out of combat, to harass and outmaneuver heavier tanks." "The Type 15 is designed to fulfill the requirement for a lighter, more mobile modern tank that can effectively operate in highland/plateau, woodland and water-rich regions where the heavier Type 99 and Type 96 main battle tanks might have difficulties traversing." Wikipedia
@@bibinthomas5282 And those are by what standard? M26 Pershing were initially a heavy tank but later reclassified as a medium tank due to change of standard. IS-2 weighted around 40's tons so it's a medium tank, right?
You are ignorant or intentionally giving deficient information, as always. Please seach properly and do this kind of comparison. You miss "Kaplan" or "Harimau" lightweight tank.
@@ActiveChildGunner87 Tanks are not devided as light, medium and heavy. Medium tanks are using for fire support and help for main battle tanks (mbt). Yes harimau is medium tank but don't confuse! All tanks in this video are medium tank. Armored fighting vehicles are light, such as Stryker.
