# Best/favorite WW2 Light tank



## Danielmellbin (Jun 24, 2008)

Well - light tanks are rarely discussed - people usually just drool over a shiny Tiger (myself included ). But the light were essential to armoured warfare - not only for recon - but also to fill in the gaps in the "poorer" armies.

Anyway - my choice is the Pzkw II - a mediocre machine that managed to hold its own against vastly superior tanks in France, Africa and Russia. Its followed closely by the Stuart (infantry-mower) and Pzkw 38(t) (the reasons Juha mentions).


----------



## Juha (Jun 25, 2008)

I voted for
M24

and PzKw 38(t) a light tank which was able to substitute medium PzKw III in many German PzDs up to 1942. ie light tank with firepower of a medium tank in 1939-40 with a good mobility and reasonable protection.

Juha


----------



## Mitya (Jun 25, 2008)

I vote T-70. Because no T-80.


----------



## Bigxiko (Jun 26, 2008)

For me it's the Pzkw II


----------



## starling (Jun 26, 2008)

had a look see,and went for the m24.i think he looks good.yours,starling.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Jun 26, 2008)

Panzer 38(t) for me. The best light tank at the beginning of the war and capable up until 1942.

M24 is probably the best performance wise but it came too late and was kind of anachronistic anyways.


----------



## Soren (Jun 26, 2008)

Jagdpanzer 38(t) Hetzer, no doubt about it.


----------



## Th!rdeye (Jun 26, 2008)

I just love the look of the Chaffe. Also it was a fast little bugger and did ok in the various battlefields.


----------



## Soren (Jun 26, 2008)

The thing about the M24 Chaffee is that it weighes more than any other light tank and is close to the Panzer IV in weight actually, and the Panzer IV is both far better armed armoured, and so is the Jagdpanzer 38(t) Hetzer which infact is 3 tons lighter than the M24 Chaffee.


----------



## Juha (Jun 26, 2008)

Soren
JgPz 38(t) wasn't a light tank as its designation shows. A different kind of animal. A compact and effective A/T vehicle, I agree but the poll is on light tanks.


----------



## Soren (Jun 26, 2008)

Eerr, it's lighter than the Chaffee by some 3 tons Juha...


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jun 26, 2008)

Soren said:


> Eerr, it's lighter than the Chaffee by some 3 tons Juha...



Yea - but its not a light tank - its not even a "tank"... Its a selfpropelled antitankgun...


----------



## Soren (Jun 26, 2008)

Sorry Daniel but it is a tank, anything that is armoured, rides on tracks and carries a gun is a tank. There's a reason it's called a Jagd*panzer* 

As defined a tank is an armoured fighting vechicle on tracks, nothing more.


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jun 26, 2008)

Soren said:


> Sorry Daniel but it is a tank, anything that is tracked and with armour a gun is a tank. There's a reason it's called a Jagd*panzer*
> 
> As defined a tank is an armoured fighting vechicle on tracks, nothing more.



true - whence the brackets I put on tank


----------



## Soren (Jun 26, 2008)

Well then I don't see how it doesn't qualify if the Chaffee does ?

The Hetzer is lighter than the Chaffee you know, by some 3 tons.


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jun 26, 2008)

Light tanks' purpose: recon and and occasional infantry support - rarely tank vs. tank combat. (some LTs where used in the medium tank role early in the war due to lack of tanks and/or lack of armoured warfare experience)

SP-AT's purpose: Destroying tanks

The hetzer would be a deathtrap as a recon vehicle - and recon was the main purpose of light tanks. It doesn't make sense to compare the hetzer to light tanks - rather with other TD's (Jagdpanther, Deacon, StuG's, SU's and so on...).


----------



## Soren (Jun 26, 2008)

The Hetzer could was used as infantry support as-well. 

As for recon work, well do you need a 75mm cannon for that ? No, it is then better to have a fast firing 20 - 40mm auto cannon and some MG's. The 75mm gun is too slow firing.

And ideal light recon tank would be the Pzkpfw. II Ausf.L Luchs with its 20mm KwK38 L/55 auto cannon firing at a very fast (for a cannon) 420-480 rpm, and then 2x MG-34's. It weighed a mere 13 tons and had a very fast 60km/h top speed. A much better recon vehicle than the M24 Chaffee.


----------



## Danielmellbin (Jun 26, 2008)

Soren said:


> The Hetzer could was used as infantry support as-well.
> 
> As for recon work, well do you need a 75mm cannon for that ? No, it is then better to have a fast firing 20 - 40mm auto cannon and some MG's. The 75mm gun is too slow firing.
> 
> And ideal light recon tank would be the Pzkpfw. II Ausf.L Luchs with its 20mm KwK38 L/55 auto cannon firing at a very fast (for a cannon) 280 rpm, and then 2x MG-34's. It weighed a mere 11 tons and had a very fast 60km/h top speed. A much better recon vehicle than the M24 Chaffee.



Yea - however - with only one remotecontrolled machinegun and very poor visibility it cannot have been a role it excelled at. All in all it was a tank detroyer not a light tank - same as a Jagdpanzer IV was not medium tank or a Jagdtiger was not a heavy tank.

On the other point - yup - that was my primary reason for choosing the pzkw II - but people might argue that the Pz38t and Chaffee would be more likely to get out of a run in with enemy armour.


----------



## Soren (Jun 26, 2008)

Danielmellbin said:


> Yea - however - with only one remotecontrolled machinegun and very poor visibility it cannot have been a role it excelled at. *All in all it was a tank detroyer not a light tank *- same as a Jagdpanzer IV was not medium tank or a Jagdtiger was not a heavy tank.



Don't you mean a tank destroyer but not a light support tank ? 

Otherwise we agree, infantry support was not a role it excelled at, it was designed purely to combat tanks, which is very apparent when one looks at it.



> On the other point - yup - that was my primary reason for choosing the pzkw II - *but people might argue that the Pz38t and Chaffee would be more likely to get out of a run in with enemy armour*.



Considering the very thin armor protection of the Chaffee, that would be highly unlikely. A Pzkpfw.III with a 50mm L/60 gun would easily turn knock it out at most distances, and the most numerous German tank, the Pzkpfw.IV, would blow it to smithereens with a single shot at any distance really.


----------



## timshatz (Jun 27, 2008)

Go with the Chaffe. Did what it was designed to do and was very heavily armed to do so. Also very fast and reliable. Never meant as an MBT or even a medium, it was designed from the start to be a recon tank. 

Shoot and scoot type of tank. If it's hanging around to get in a gun fight with another tank, somebody screwed up big time.


----------



## Soren (Jun 27, 2008)

The 75mm gun was a very poor choice of armament however, esp. for recon work. You need something which will keep heads down while you retreat, and the short slow firing 75mm gun won't, making it highly vulnerable to infantry which is what it most likely is going to stumble into.


----------



## Soren (Jun 27, 2008)

I'll go with the Pzkpfw.II Luchs

Spewing out 20mm projectiles at 900 m/s at a rate of 480 rpm that gun will certainly keep the enemy's heads down. And then there's the 2x 7.92mm MG34's ofcourse.


----------



## Juha (Jun 28, 2008)

Soren
M24 had also 3 mgs, in combat against infantry especially the co-axial and hull mgs were useful.

Not to underrate Luchs, but were was its second mg, one was co-axial and the other? 20mm automatic cannon wasn't a bad choice, the BW stunck with it after rearmament, but according to you, not to me, 75mm gun was excellent building burster, so excellent against buildings and barricades.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Jun 30, 2008)

Yes the 75mm gun was effective against buildings, however for recon work that is totally unnecessary, you'll need fast firing weapons for that, which the Chaffee's 75mm cannon is not. The 20mm KwK38 L/55 was ideal for the role, furthermore the Luchs itself was also extraordinarily fast, which is always a desirable feature for a recon vehicle. 

As for the 2nd mg on the Luchs, well I don't see it anywhere actually, but I suppose it could be mounted in the right side vision slot.


----------



## Juha (Jun 30, 2008)

Soren
according to specs Luchs only had one 20mm and one mg.

On armament general, it depends mostly on doctrine of the army in question. Light tanks were not purely recon vehicles, other uses were for ex. flank security. Clearly UK, US and CCCP doctrines demanded at least some A/T capacity, look their vehicles, for ex US M3, M5, M24 and after the war M41 and M551; CCCP T-60, -70 and after war the PT-76 and British reliance on 76mm gun which was capable to fire HESH shells. Germans stuck the 20mm automatic cannon concept after the war, but UK and US had global commitments and CCCP its steppes. Germans maybe thought that in Central-Europe 20mm was the best choice, others that they needed something more powerful, at least in some areas outside Central-Europe.

And also 222 with its 20mm had some creditable A/T capacity in 39-41 timeframe and IMHO mostly because their experience in Eastern Front (Soviet T-60s and T-70s) but also partly because experiences in Desert also Germans flirted briefly with a heavier gun, 50mm KwK 38, in Puma and in planned up-gunned version of Luchs. IMHO what was best is almost always an ambivalent question, answer depends for what and in what circumstances. 

Juha


----------



## Glider (Jun 30, 2008)

If you want an off the wall idea, how about the Crusader AA tank, fast with twin or even triple 20mm in the turret.


----------



## starling (Jun 30, 2008)

i like the mk4 panzey,with the 37mm a.a gun,its nearly as good as the baiter 38t.starling. .


----------



## Soren (Jun 30, 2008)

Glider said:


> If you want an off the wall idea, how about the Crusader AA tank, fast with twin or even triple 20mm in the turret.



Might actually be a good choice.


----------



## Soren (Jun 30, 2008)

Juha said:


> Soren
> according to specs Luchs only had one 20mm and one mg.



Ok, but that doesn't subtract to its effectiveness however, the 20mm main armament fired so fast that MG's were unnecessary. However an additional MG could be mounted on the turret, which was then manned by the commander.



> On armament general, it depends mostly on doctrine of the army in question. Light tanks were not purely recon vehicles, other uses were for ex. flank security. Clearly UK, US and CCCP doctrines demanded at least some A/T capacity, look their vehicles, for ex US M3, M5, M24 and after the war M41 and M551; CCCP T-60, -70 and after war the PT-76 and British reliance on 76mm gun which was capable to fire HESH shells. Germans stuck the 20mm automatic cannon concept after the war, but UK and US had global commitments and CCCP its steppes. Germans maybe thought that in Central-Europe 20mm was the best choice, others that they needed something more powerful, at least in some areas outside Central-Europe.
> 
> And also 222 with its 20mm had some creditable A/T capacity in 39-41 timeframe and IMHO mostly because their experience in Eastern Front (Soviet T-60s and T-70s) but also partly because experiences in Desert also Germans flirted briefly with a heavier gun, 50mm KwK 38, in Puma and in planned up-gunned version of Luchs. IMHO what was best is almost always an ambivalent question, answer depends for what and in what circumstances.
> 
> Juha



Well we were discussing recon work here, for which you need a small fast vehicle which can get in and out fast while laying down as much firepower as possible, making sure the enemy doesn't get a chance to think before you're gone. The M24 Chaffee is outfitted more to fullfill the role of infantry support, not recon work.


----------



## Juha (Jul 1, 2008)

Soren
look at the title, we are talking on light tanks.
On speed, M24 was mighty 3km/h slower than Luchs. Which ot those two was better as recon vehicle, I have no oppinion.

Juha


----------



## Ramirezzz (Jul 1, 2008)

M24 is a pretty good tank ,but it barely saw combat - my vote goes rather to Stewart - reliable and good in its recce role.


----------



## Soren (Jul 1, 2008)

Juha said:


> Soren
> look at the title, we are talking on light tanks.
> On speed, M24 was mighty 3km/h slower than Luchs. Which ot those two was better as recon vehicle, I have no oppinion.
> 
> Juha



The topic is about light tanks, yes, but we were discussing light recon tanks, there's a difference. Don't try to muddy the waters.


----------



## Juha (Jul 2, 2008)

Soren
I haven’t tried to muddy the waters, I’m whole time wrote only on light tanks, which are the topic of this tread.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 19, 2009)

Voted for Honey and Chaffee.


----------

