tank weight class consensus

[FletchRDG]

I have recently been reading into classes of tanks (light, medium, heavy and super heavy). I was curious how much fluxuations between various armed forces.

For example:

The British Royal Armoured Corps has the Fv107 Scorpion Scimitar Mk2 CVR(T) is a light tank and best suited to its reconnaissance role. With a battle weight, according to osprey new vanguard (issue 13 Scorpion reconnaissance vehicle 1972-1994 by Chris Foss and Simon Dunstan pg.28) of 7.8 tons. Or according to Jane's tanks and combat vehicles guide(2nd edition) by Christopher F. Frost the Scimitar CVR(T) is 8.073 tons (converted 8,073kg to tons) (pg.92).

So I am guessing that this tracked vehicle is a present benchmark to class it as a "light tank". Although British tanks from WW1 like the Mk A Whippet and Mk C Hornet were classed at the time as "medium tank" that only had machine guns as its main armament, they also only had riveted boiler plate armour. It is a muddied area of thought in terms of the theme of this thread.

The Warrior MCV (or IFV) has a combat weight of 28 tons (28,000kg) (Jane's tanks and combat vehicles guide(2nd edition) pg.200). As this is a tracked medium armoured vehicle with a turret and and the same armament as the Scimitar, it could be classed as a an basic/intermediate medium tank. By that I mean because of its role as a battlefield taxi/fighting platform, as well as its armament it could slip into 2 roles with ease. Providing transport and a fire base for sections and also reconnaissance applied with slightly thicker armour then its Scimitar CVR(T) counterpart.

Then there is the Challenger 2 MBT. With a combat weight of 62.5tons (Jane's tanks and combat vehicles guide(2nd edition) pg.86) (Osprey New vanguard Challenger 2 Main Battle tank 1987-2006 pg.28). But in recent years it has had an added 8tons approximately to its already strained weight. Having the addition of the new Enforcer RWS as well an updated/upgraded applied armour package, could be even pushing from heavy to a basic super heavy tank.

So, projecting this kind of idea on to other forces across the globe, is there much difference in other forces? and could there be a consensus on a global scale about what would constitute a vehicle being classified in certain classes?

disclaimer: I could be wrong about the armour within the British Army and would welcome any correcting/putting straight on issues I have brought up.

Edited August 26, 2013 by FletchRDG

[hoggydog]

I don't think many modern armies classify their vehicles by weight in the same way as was done in the two world wars and early cold war period. When the Main Battle Tank evolved from roughly combining the mobility and armour of a medium tank with the armament of a heavy tank. it made the previous tanks classified by weight obsolete.

also be aware of different design philosophies when it comes to tanks

for example both the US M1 and the British Challenger series top the scales at 60t+

their Russian developed equivalents the T series don't really go above 45t

all are considered Main Battle Tanks due to their role on the battlefield.

Edited August 26, 2013 by hoggydog
minor error

[FletchRDG]

So its essentially an evolution from weight based classifications to role based classifications. The redundancy being that any armament could really be applied to any platform (though probably not every combination will work) to suite a desired role.

[hoggydog]

In a rough generalisation yes, just because a vehicle has tracks and a turret mounted weapon does not make it a tank of any weight.

ie Scimitar would normally be classed as a tracked reconnaissance vehicle not a light tank

Warrior would be an APC/IFV not a light or medium tank

Challenger 2 is a Main Battle Tank not a Heavy or Super Heavy Tank

[FletchRDG]

My dad (RIP) always said a Scimitar CVR(T) wasn't a tank lol my dad being in the RDGs at the time. I was corrected lol

But as my FMP (Final Major Project) at university, Im writing an illustrated book of the fundamentals about tanks. Just things that are already in the public domain. Kind of like tanks for dummies type of thing. I want to illustrate general tank anatomy (no specific tank design), ammunition types and the physics behind it, history (based on British tanks due its birth place) and how its grown from the start to where it is at present and where it can go in the future.

Im still finding new things and Ive been studying tanks since I was 14. The thing that always got me was the weight/role debacle. Reading history it just confused me a little because there are still light tanks not necessarily in the BA. For example the Thai Stingray light tank.

[Gibsonm]

The weight vs role thing is due to historical context and a bunch of other variables such as how countries named their vehicles (country A's light tank is country B's medium tank).

If you want to superimpose some universal standard on it well of course it going to be complex.

In the Second World War, the Tiger II weighed about 70T and was classified at that time as a "heavy", because most of the opposition it faced at the time had either a smaller gun or less armour or both.

Now Challenger 2 weights about the same and is classed as a "Main Battle Tank"

Weight based classifications were one way to codify vehicles and are now gone. Hence the term "main".

UK's MBT weighs about 63T, Russia's MBT (say T-90) weighs about 48T.

Same role, vastly different weight.

CVR(T) Scimitar isn't a tank, nor is Warrior.

Edited August 26, 2013 by Gibsonm

[FletchRDG]

The reason I ask really is because there are a few countries that still hang on to certain terms. Im guessing weights were completely dropped after the 80s considering tanks like the M41 Walker Bulldog, M551 Sherdan, the Stridsvagn 103 "S-Tank", the Norinco type 63 Amphibious Light Tank, the Steyr SK 105 light tank, TAM, FV101 Scorpion 90, AMX-10 PAC 90, Stingray and Close Combat vehicle light were still being designated but are still in service in some form or other.

I know that the Centurion was originally dubbed a "universal tank", taking the best aspects of light, medium and heavy tanks. Then soon after was re-dubbed a main battle tank. Probably because the British Army upgraded the Mk1 Centurions with the 20pdr guns with the L7 105mm gun, making the Conqueror heavy tank obsolete and was phased out within 2 years of service. Making the centurion the main gunned tank in the army.

The Warrior originally was called the MCV-80 or Mechanized Combat Vehicle but has been re-classed as an APC/IFV. There is no medium designation, I was just projecting WW1/WW2 weight classes as if they were relevant in the present tense.

The Scimitar CVR(T) is not a tank, it is a recce vehicle but I was going with the weight class and what it probably would have been if we were to carry on using weight classes.

But Hoggydog cleared up certain things for me. No need for a consensus due to the phasing out of weight classes in newer vehicles. General terms are being used more.

Thank you Hoggydog for clearing things up for me. I have the tanks and armoured vehicles visual encyclopedia by Robert Jackson, only as a visual and timeline reference, the info is somewhat wanting and does look like its been taken straight from wikipedia but visually and Chronologically correct.

I apologize if seems to be a stupid question. But In my defense Ive never served, I tried but was turned away so the only way I know about things like this are to ask those who do know.

[Gibsonm]

I know that the Centurion was originally dubbed a "universal tank", taking the best aspects of light, medium and heavy tanks. Then soon after was re-dubbed a main battle tank. Probably because the British Army upgraded the Mk1 Centurions with the 20pdr guns with the L7 105mm gun, making the Conqueror heavy tank obsolete and was phased out within 2 years of service. Making the centurion the main gunned tank in the army.

No its because they did away with the idea of multiple vehicle types. So instead of "Infantry", "Cruiser", "Heavy", etc. they just switched to "Main".

It was "universal" because it replaced its predecessors (Cromwell, Comet, Churchill, etc.) and just used one tank in multiple roles (also no doubt to simplify logistic support, expense, etc.).

Just like Centurion's replacement, Chieftain, was also a MBT, although when compared to Centurion its had a heavier gun, more armour, etc.

I apologize if it was a stupid question.

No such thing.

[FletchRDG]

Well I know Ive got a heap of books to read still lol it sucks not being able to use the real thing. This game as well as the odd army demo will be the closest ill ever get to using these machines. I have 17 more osprey new vanguard books to read yet, centurion is in there somewhere. And all are written by scholars/authors, some who lecture at Royal Military Academy Sandhurst and some are historians at the Bovington Tank Museum, also the home and host to the Royal Armoured Corps.

So is it safe to say weight classes were designated during WW1 up until the 60s, then a mixture/turn to role classes upto the 80s and then from the 80s to the present weight classes completely phased out?

[Gibsonm]

So is it safe to say weight classes were designated during WW1 up until the 60s, then a mixture/turn to role classes upto the 80s and then from the 80s to the present weight classes completely phased out?

Well I'd say its safe to say that weight classes were an arbitrary term used by academics and scholars until 1945 and abandoned after that.

As far as I know no one in uniform ever used that system (except maybe when talking to politicians).

For people in uniform a tank was a tank was a tank (with the possible sub categorisation of "Infantry", "Cruiser", etc.).

If someone in 7th Armoured briefed say 5 RTR that tomorrow they'd be facing Tigers, no one worried about "Tiger heavy tanks" as "Tigers" told the guys all they needed to know.

It wasn't like warships where international treaties like the Washington one specified that a cruiser had guns between X and Y and weighed so much, while a heavy cruiser had guns between Y and Z, etc.

[TankHunter]

Don't the Finns consider the CV90 as a light tank or some such?

[Hedgehog]

Don't the Finns consider the CV90 as a light tank or some such?

Which one?

CV90-120 might be classed as such.

But I would consider that as a recce vehicle.

(It has a pretty heavy armour package for a Recce Vehicle, but you wouldn't want to square off face to face against a T-72 in one.)

[FletchRDG]

well the CV90-105 and CV90-120(T) are considered to be light tanks:

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/cv90/

This Rheinmetall Marder is dubbed a "medium MBT" on the tank itself but the description says light tank:

http://www.desura.com/groups/tanks/images/marder-light-tank1

This is the Indonesian Defences OBRUM light tank project:

http://indonesiadefense.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/new-light-tank-technology.html

[Hedgehog]

well the CV90-105 and CV90-120(T) are considered to be light tanks:

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/cv90/

This Rheinmetall Marder is dubbed a "medium MBT" on the tank itself but the description says light tank:

http://www.desura.com/groups/tanks/images/marder-light-tank1

This is the Indonesian Defences OBRUM light tank project:

http://indonesiadefense.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/new-light-tank-technology.html

Well my personal view is this:

If you can't take a 40mm to the nose, its a Recce vehicle.

[Gibsonm]

This Rheinmetall Marder is dubbed a "medium MBT" on the tank itself but the description says light tank:

http://www.desura.com/groups/tanks/images/marder-light-tank1

Well its MICV or IFV (not an APC though) regardless of what is written on it.

[FletchRDG]

its just an odd classification, a medium MBT? lol but anyway I think those are the most recent to use such terms. It'll eventually change, it maybe just government ministers/senators and developers/manufactures holding on to the terms or being wrongly advised by people who aren't really in-the-know or are using seriously outdated terminology and haven't kept up.