Light tanks for the beligerents

[yulzari]

Perhaps we need to revisit why one would want light tanks if you can have heavier more combat capable ones. What would they need to fight? If a light tank is part of an army with period MBTs then it only needs to fight infantry and individual anti tank guns in order to progress it's reconnaissance duties. If it meets stronger opposition then it's duty is to run away and report that.

WW2 British higher formation reconnaissance policy was to mix low visibility small scout vehicles with supporting support fire from larger ones and to have a small organic infantry element. A lightweight mobile all arms arrangement.

Light tanks were the reconnaissance arms of armoured regiments; having superior mobility to the battle tanks to find the main strength of the enemy. But then to leave engaging that main enemy to the larger battle tanks once the enemy had been found and their positions understood.

I fear that we are trying to make a more combat capable light tank where a larger one would be more suitable, not a light tank that can do a light tank's duties better.

 

[psteel]

You've got it the wrong way around; operational requirements define what tactical capabilities you need to pursuit. Tactical requirements will ALWAYS be secondary to operational requirements. Fixating on specs of Tanks will not help if you can't find or give battle to your enemy in a fluid battle. You need recon forces to find the enemy and apply force where it's needed the most to break your enemy. Airburst in WW-I is irrelevant since this was mostly static warfare. It was not until late in the WW-II that allied 'called in' artillery was able to deliver timely barrages with fuse set ammo to burst overhead. It was the exception rather than the rule.

Germans tried to get around this by bouncing shells ahead of target in the hopes it would burst over the target. That took allot of skill that was in short supply at the lower ranks as the war progressed. It takes allot of planning to establish artillery fire patterns on an enemy position and can't be done in a fluid battle without great difficulty. Which again requires high skill levels, something in short supply for most armies as the war progressed? Therefore it is not relevant either.
Generalizing from a specific case [the occasional Polish AT ambush] to a broad war-wide case, a is flawed approach. Better to go the other way and look at data and distill that into basic lessons.

 

[Shortround6]

Light tanks changed from being period MBTs to being reconnaissance vehicles in about 1-3 years depending on army. Or changed from infantry support tank to reccon or security vehicle in that time. The German, British and Russian armies used light tanks in 1939-41 to make up numbers and "flesh out" units when there were not enough medium/cruiser tanks. They suffered rather badly doing this and were assigned reccon duties as more of the larger tanks showed up. Some armies didn't quite get the message. The U.S. Built about 25,000 of the M3, M5, M8 family. Many of them after they had no clear role or at least built way more than needed for the roles they could play.

 

[tomo pauk]

...

2 man turrets could come two ways. Gunner and commander/loader and commander/gunner and loader. The latter meant you needed fewer "skilled" tank men but it also meant poorer tactical co-operation between tanks or the units. Again the benefits of operating "unbuttoned" are rather diminished by the commander having to spend so much time with his head inside the turret in order to do his "second" job. T-34s could operate unbuttoned with that big hatch folded up but with the tank commander operating as the gunner it didn't really add anything to the ability of the tank.
3 man turrets are were the ability to operate unbuttoned really show up.
The Czech tank is about the only light tank to have that ability. A few British light tanks do but that is because they are armed with Machine guns and the commander is not needed every few seconds while firing to reload the gun. Of course the 12.7 Vickers can't really hurt anything heavier than a MK II either.

I'd like to return on this part.
Those '99%' of the time the tank was operating (un-buttoned), would exclude fighting vs. ground targets? The tank still can be attacked by enemy air force, being miles from the front line. A tank crew can have its DP gun elevated somewhat, ready to pounce an enemy plane - something like US tanks had (HMG), but better. Commander will be buttoned up when it's time to engage ground targets, or when the enemy ground fire is judged as incoming.
The magazine-fed 20-25mm (for under-10 tonner; 30mm for German under-15 tonner?) might be the best solution for a two men turret of a light tank. Aimer can have between 10-60 shots to dispose with the enemy, prior re-loading, plus the MG, if the target is suitable. If we're going for a two men crew and a single shot weapon, maybe it's the best if both crew members can load the gun. Not as good as 3-men turret, that's for sure.

Perhaps we need to revisit why one would want light tanks if you can have heavier more combat capable ones. What would they need to fight? If a light tank is part of an army with period MBTs then it only needs to fight infantry and individual anti tank guns in order to progress it's reconnaissance duties. If it meets stronger opposition then it's duty is to run away and report that.

WW2 British higher formation reconnaissance policy was to mix low visibility small scout vehicles with supporting support fire from larger ones and to have a small organic infantry element. A lightweight mobile all arms arrangement.

Light tanks were the reconnaissance arms of armoured regiments; having superior mobility to the battle tanks to find the main strength of the enemy. But then to leave engaging that main enemy to the larger battle tanks once the enemy had been found and their positions understood.

I fear that we are trying to make a more combat capable light tank where a larger one would be more suitable, not a light tank that can do a light tank's duties better.

The catch was that many countries were ill capable to build tanks above certain tonnage, and even the most industrialized nations relied to 6-15 ton tanks to double as MBTs. Poland, Japan, Italy - they all made their mark in ww2, yet anything above 15 tons was almost impossible for them to churn out in significant numbers. It was judged that even a 'bad' tank is better than no tanks at all, all belligerents were thinking in those lines. Eg. the German offensive vs. West in 1940 was won, among other stuff, by light tanks.
Light tank (disregarding the operator's nomenclature) was in great demand, for fighting, and prior 1943 it was comprising the bulk of the tanks in use, worldwide. So a better combat capable light tank would come in handy. Once it's past it's prime, it can serve as recon, os a pltform for other duties.

 

[psteel]

As I said before the Germans learned that 'this year's MBT is next year's recon unit. This worked well for the Panzer Regiments and Battalions. Mean while the need to fight for information forced the Divisional SPAH battalions to shift from using only wheel Armored Cars to using a mix of armored cars and Panzer grenadiers on SPW in order to fight for territory they reconnoitered. Since the Germans built there combat units on an organic format, these SPW units included Infantry gun/SPWs and PAK/SPWs along with Flame APC Mortar APC units.

However there was always a need to give a basic amount of armor to the far more numerous infantry divisions and korps, otherwise the Panzer Korps would have to be constantly diverted to fur fill defense tasks and provide basic 'combined arms' for these divisions. This could not be done my mass production of medium tanks, but a sufficient investment in light tank chassis used as cheap Panzer Jagger through the middle of the war and later Jag Panzer AFVs.

 

[tomo pauk]

As I said before the Germans learned that 'this year's MBT is next year's recon unit.

Maybe this should not be taken literally?

 

[Shortround6]

Not in any way, shape or form.

The Pz I was never intended to be a MBT, even though it was used as one. with only a radio receiver and no transmitter it may have helped beef up a recon unit but could not perform good recon on it's own ( singly or in a group) and had a number of liabilities with few vertues. As noisy as most other tanks, not very fast, limited obstical climbing or ditch crossing capabilities, no great range.
The Pz II was an interim MBT or training vehicle depending on who you believe. While noisy, slow, and short ranged it at least had a radio transmitter, a bit better ditch crossing ability, better armor and a better gun set up. Even it's one machine gun was better than the Pz I dual machine guns making it a much better though far from ideal recon vehicle.
The Pz III was rarely, if ever, assigned to recon units no matter how old it got and the same could be said of the Pz IV. Some adhoc missions may have included them though.
Using old light tanks for recon means more fighting for the same information. The British liked armored cars for recon because, while obstacle and ditch crossing ability are minimal, they were much quiter and could sneak around better, they were also faster and many British cars, like many German ones, could be driven at high speed in reverse to get out of trouble.
The clatter of all metal tank treads would alert the dumbest lookout that something was up. Modern tracked recon vehicles often use not only rubber pads on the tracks but rubber bushing between the track links.
The Germans did find in Russia that between the snow and the mud there were times that even an 8 wheeled armored car would get bogged down and a tracked vehicle would not. So there are certain circumstances that make one vehicle better than the other. Neither type was best at all times. The Russian's finally figured that if you were going to have to " fight for information" you might as well do your recon with T-34 tanks, rather than light tanks that would have to pulled back at first contact anyway.

 

[psteel]

All Panzer units assigned the lesser Panzers lesser models to both their Regimental and Battalion Recon platoons.

 

[tomo pauk]

I've just checked out: the Pz-38(t) was featuring a 2-men turret, not 3-men one.

 

[psteel]

I've just checked out: the Pz-38(t) was featuring a 2-men turret, not 3-men one.

Yes but when the Germans got them they removed some ammo from the turret and 'shoe-horned' a loader in its place.

 

[Vincenzo]

that was the Pz 35 that was 1 man turret

 

[Shortround6]

The Czech Pz 35 had a two man turret in German service. It is claimed that originally the turret was crewed by one man but the basic design leaves questions unanswered. It the commandeer gunner Is on the left side and the machine gun is on the other side of the 37mm gun from him how does he aim and fire (not to mention reload) the machine gun in it's independent traverse and elevating mode in the ball mount? Th hull machine gunner is also on the left side of the tank and would have to squeeze between the commander and the driver in order to reach the right side of the turret in order to take over the machine gun?

Captured French Somua 35s and Renault 35s had one man turrets.

I have reread Wiki's description of the Czech Pz38(t) And it makes little or no sense. It says the Germans added a loader and deleted 18 rounds of ammo, but says the commander had to aim and fire the gun, which I don't doubt given the size of the turret and the position of the commanders cupola and the gun sight. But if the commander is aiming and firing what is the other turret crewman doing? ONLY operating the turret machine gun when it was not coupled to the main armament? If he was loading the main gun why do you need ANOTHER loader?