Originally posted by dkhoo:
This idea is completely incorrect. Light tanks and MBTs each have their roles in battle. While a light tank will certainly not survive an engagement with an MBT, there are many things that it can do better:
1. There will be more of them for the same price. This means that they will be available for many more missions which it would be a waste to send MBTs on, such as convoy escorts or infantry support. They can also be everywhere on a battlefield, while MBTs need to be carefully hoarded.
Malaysia also has light tanks
2. They are smaller and can go more places than the MBTs (especially in closed terrain). Some are even parachute-droppable or helimobile. The first rule of a gunfight is to have a gun. If your huge MBT cannot get to the battleground, who cares how powerful it is?
Nope light tanks cannot be Heli dropped...not our's anyway....they can only be Air lifted in small numbers(2 per plane)So it does not really matter.And the 1st rule of gun fight might be to have a gun but if you do not live long enough to use it then it doesnt matter does it?
3. They can perform the majority of armor missions as well as an MBT. The only armor mission they are worse at is antitank combat. They can support the infantry, exploit breakthroughs, perform assaults, raids and economy of force missions just as well or better than MBTs.
Tanks are not meant for infantry support the French and British learnt that the hard way in ww2.Tanks are meant as a spearhead....
Well maybe tanks can be used as moblie "bunker" but nothing much else......light tanks are way to vulnerable
4. They are logistically easier to support. This means they can keep up a higher tempo of operations all else being equal. Again, this leads to more missions completed, and more tanks on the ground.
This leads to light tanks and MBTs having totally different jobs in war. MBTs cannot do everything a light tank can, and vice versa.
Not gonna argue here.....you're right
Do not forget how the Germans used tanks. The light tanks were used when they were in the Blitzkrieg years, while the heavy Tigers only came out when they were defending against the final Allied push.
No the Germans were desperate for a heavy tank as their Pz IV were out gunned and out armoured by the Russian tanks(T-34's?)
The tried to up armour and up gun their Pz IV's but that did little other then make their tanks underpowered.The Tank that was really good was their Panthers which were fast too.
Due to their great power but small numbers and high logistical cost, MBTs need to be marshalled to centres of gravity, either striking en masse at the opponent's, or defending one's own. Given the local terrain, using MBTs on the attack is very difficult, so the latter role is more likely. Light tanks should instead roam the battlefield in packs, attacking flanks and targets of opportunity, only occasionally gathering to exploit breakthroughs or strike vital targets. Light tanks will probably be on the attack in the local terrain.
Yea and there are concerns about MBT's not being able to bridge due to their weight......
Of course, the other part about this region not having MBTs is also wrong. One country has had them for 30 years: Singapore. 
Well i would agree with you if the rules werent that if it aint official it doesnt exist more then a rumour.Thats why i did not bring that up.
