-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Best Light Tank is a bit tricky on to categorize considering Medium Tanks really shined leaving many nations to dedicate Light Tanks to act as Medium Tanks because there was nothing else available in the TO&E.
Early War, you can make a case for the Ha-Go or L6/40 seeing that it was an effective platform on its own right in addition to the Pz IIs or Pz Is. For the Allies, the M2 Light Tank also was a neat tank before being upgraded to the M3/M5 standard as well as the ubiquitous Light Tanks of the British Empire that did garrison duty across the globe. The Soviets is a bit of a mixed bag since they had the best Light Tank of the 30s, the T-26, that should also take the crown if you consider Kalkin Gol and the Spanish Civil War as a performance metric clearly being superior to the Light Tanks of its opponents. However, this then becomes a toss up with the BT series of tanks but this largely become a debate on intended role and whether or not you accept a BT as a "Light Tank" or really as a Fast or "Cavalry" Tank which would place it between a Light Tank and Medium Tank category. I personally omit the BT as a "Light" but for folks that include it as a Light Tank then some serious consideration should be taken as this was one of the better tank designs of the 30s coming close to the T-26. This is also part of the reason why I omitted France earlier because some of the classed Light Tanks were intended as Cavalry Tanks having large turrets compared to the single turret infantry support tanks that largely did the role of the FT tanks of WWI but with modernized equipment. If we want to striclty say "Light Tank" for the French then the purpose built R-35 or AMR series would be good but only in the roles they intended to perform.
Mid War, I would say the top Light Tanks would be the US M3 Light Tank, partly because of lend-lease and partly because it was effective anywhere and everywhere so long as it was not being used as a Medium Tank. The Soviet T-60/70 were a considerable close second given the effectiveness of the design. The Panzer II falls out as it largely became ineffective as did many of the light tanks listed above as "early war" seeing the clear need to have Medium Tanks at the Front.
Now there is a toss IF you bring chassis adaptability of Light Tanks being used in other roles, like mobile AT or Artillery, then you could build a case for the Panzer II or T-60/70 given the numerous chassis usage for other purposes. The most effective being the mechanization of Artillery which did a long way to make the mobile armor arms of any army much more adaptable and effective.
Later in the War, then the best tank does become the US M24 Chaffee considering the vast upgrade in FirePower a "Light" Tank received really stands out from the late-war crowd.
Early War, you can make a case for the Ha-Go or L6/40 seeing that it was an effective platform on its own right in addition to the Pz IIs or Pz Is. For the Allies, the M2 Light Tank also was a neat tank before being upgraded to the M3/M5 standard as well as the ubiquitous Light Tanks of the British Empire that did garrison duty across the globe. The Soviets is a bit of a mixed bag since they had the best Light Tank of the 30s, the T-26, that should also take the crown if you consider Kalkin Gol and the Spanish Civil War as a performance metric clearly being superior to the Light Tanks of its opponents. However, this then becomes a toss up with the BT series of tanks but this largely become a debate on intended role and whether or not you accept a BT as a "Light Tank" or really as a Fast or "Cavalry" Tank which would place it between a Light Tank and Medium Tank category. I personally omit the BT as a "Light" but for folks that include it as a Light Tank then some serious consideration should be taken as this was one of the better tank designs of the 30s coming close to the T-26. This is also part of the reason why I omitted France earlier because some of the classed Light Tanks were intended as Cavalry Tanks having large turrets compared to the single turret infantry support tanks that largely did the role of the FT tanks of WWI but with modernized equipment. If we want to striclty say "Light Tank" for the French then the purpose built R-35 or AMR series would be good but only in the roles they intended to perform.
Mid War, I would say the top Light Tanks would be the US M3 Light Tank, partly because of lend-lease and partly because it was effective anywhere and everywhere so long as it was not being used as a Medium Tank. The Soviet T-60/70 were a considerable close second given the effectiveness of the design. The Panzer II falls out as it largely became ineffective as did many of the light tanks listed above as "early war" seeing the clear need to have Medium Tanks at the Front.
Now there is a toss IF you bring chassis adaptability of Light Tanks being used in other roles, like mobile AT or Artillery, then you could build a case for the Panzer II or T-60/70 given the numerous chassis usage for other purposes. The most effective being the mechanization of Artillery which did a long way to make the mobile armor arms of any army much more adaptable and effective.
Later in the War, then the best tank does become the US M24 Chaffee considering the vast upgrade in FirePower a "Light" Tank received really stands out from the late-war crowd.
My guess is the anything German or French, armor/effectiveness wise. However if you judge it by the cost and the result it got, definitely Soviet or American.
You need to set catagories, say best french tank, best German light armor tank, Best heavy tank ect... otherwise these threads are just pointless, its like saying music X is better than music Y.
You need to set catagories, say best french tank, best German light armor tank, Best heavy tank ect... otherwise these threads are just pointless, its like saying music X is better than music Y.
We got moved
Now this thread is pointless as protest to the Panther Hate thread!
Don't worry, you aren't the only ones dissapointed with the move of HOI4 threads to the history forum. It seems to me that your definition limits the discussion to 'Best rubbish tank of the war'. I would also suspect that Japanese produced the best light tank due to their theatre of operations.
My actual answer would be - none of them. The idea of a light tank was a conceptual and developmental dead end. Between the wars it was hypothesized that such a thing as a 'light' tank would be a useful thing to have - and it WAS useful in WWI when a heavy tank was a barely mobile pillbox. However actual combat experience rapidly made it clear that nothing that could be classified as a 'light tank' was actually worth having on a battlefield. They were only used until pre war stocks got used up, or better models could be developed and put into mass assembly. At best they would be put to use in a region or theater where the enemy was unlikely to have tanks or serious anti-tank weaponry, and there they were at least of marginal utility. Early in the war the Germans appeared to have some success with them, but that was only because they were overwhelming unprepared enemies with a combination of surprise and massive numerical superiority. Once these twin advantages were no longer available their light tanks were just like everybody elses - cannon fodder.
Japanese light tanks been very useful and sucessful in the pacific for Invasions and traverse in jungle. The Stewart was also rather sucesfull there. In Europe tho Light tanks had no role, not even scouting.Like you said, dead end.
The "best ones" in Europe been certainly the PzII and the T-26.
Now this is something I find interesting. The T26 was not a very good tank - it was ineffective in every technical and operational way possible. That it would ever make the top of a 'best' list merely highlights the pointlessness of that list in general.
Didn't StephenT write a very nice discourse on the development of tanks in the inter-war and early war years, relating how ineffective the idea of a light tank was?
Yeah well the T-26 was kinda obsolete in 1941 since it was supposed to be a battle tank afaik
. It was a good design tho.
'Best rubbish tank of the war' not at all!
There was a Panther Hate Debate thread in the HOI IV forum and this was to be a nice 'which and why' for light tanks thread. Poke a bit of fun! Light tanks & Armored cars played an important role in WWII (only tanks for this thread). What was a main battle tank in 1939 like the 38t became a light tank later because MBT got heavier. So I wanted to stick to truly light (mostly MG armed) tanks & tankettes to keep it clearly away from 75mm armed tanks like the M24. I don't believe in 'obsolete' weapons. Their roles change.
So best can be: biggest impact, smallest, coolest, most reliable or most MGs. Whatever reason you think a light tank was the best!
There was a Panther Hate Debate thread in the HOI IV forum and this was to be a nice 'which and why' for light tanks thread. Poke a bit of fun! Light tanks & Armored cars played an important role in WWII (only tanks for this thread). What was a main battle tank in 1939 like the 38t became a light tank later because MBT got heavier. So I wanted to stick to truly light (mostly MG armed) tanks & tankettes to keep it clearly away from 75mm armed tanks like the M24. I don't believe in 'obsolete' weapons. Their roles change.
So best can be: biggest impact, smallest, coolest, most reliable or most MGs. Whatever reason you think a light tank was the best!
Precisely my point - they were used in places where enemy anti tank guns and tanks were scarce or nonexistent. The Pacific Islands are a perfect example of this. For use as semi mobile armored pillboxes, ad hoc bulldozers and portable covering fire light tanks could do the job there. In some ways they worked better since they were narrow for tricky trails and light for easier transport by sea (both sides had to bring everything in by landing craft in many cases)
If we're talking about "success" then the Japanese Ha-Go wins easily for having been instrumental in the Japanese conquest of Malaya and Singapore - a campaign that the Japanese really should never have won but did so anyway in large part due to their excellent employment of these tanks.
In Europe the Panzer IIs participated in the early Wehrmacht campaigns were never quite as good as the Mk IIIs, the Mk IVs, and the Czech tanks.
There is no problem in discussing the relative merits and drawbacks of various technologies used in WW2. However, trying to limit the discussion by imposing false limitations is (in my opinion at least) disingenuous. It would be better to discuss which technical contraption was better for a particular role in warfare.
Light tanks were used in a variety of roles, where the various technical characteristics would have different merits. The best example is the Japanese Type 95 Tank of the Japanese. It weighed about 7.5T which is less than a significant number of the armoured cars used in WW2. However, in the terrain of Malaya and Burma, a combination of the light weight, and natural terrain meant that they were able to 'fillet' the Commonwealth forces, smashing through road blocks and cutting off lines of retreat. By far the most effective jungle(?) warfare tank of the war was the Type 95 (note that it was armed with a real gun, not just an MG).
When you consider armoured reconnaissance (the original role of the light tank), the light tank proved pretty useless in comparison to armoured cars. Tracks added additional mechanical complexity along with additional weight for a role which armoured cars could be used.
Also, why do you limit your self to MGs as the main armament. The whole point of a tank is to kill the enemy. If your aim isn't to kill the enemy, you shouldn't be using a tank.
You just made my day. A German admitting that something of British Design is good
(just kidding).
Even a blind chicken soemtimes finds some grain like we say here in GermanyYou just made my day. A German admitting that something of British Design is good
The T-26 may have been an excellent design in the early 1930s, but was hopelessly out of date by the time it entered WWII in 1941. That may make it a good tank, but NOT a good "WWII" tank. The BT series was either too heavy for a "light" tank, or too light for a "medium" tank; its performance against German medium tanks was notably bad, probably related to crew training, operational doctrines, and other issues not related to the tank itself. I've seen photos of abandoned BT-7s scattered across a field with the twin top hatches standing open, giving it the nickname of "Mickey Mouse". Use of the later T-60/70 light tanks was similarly inept for the most part, and overshadowed any possible merits of the vehicle itself.
The Panzer II was envisioned as being a "general purpose" tank, while the heavier Mark IIIs dealt with opposing armor, and the Mark IVs delivered HE where needed to support the infantry or suppress AT emplacements. In that role, the PzKw. II was very adequate, but nothing spectacular, until the increasing weight of anti-tank firepower on the battlefield made it too vulnerable. "Schwerepunkt" tactics relied on the heavier tanks at the front of the formation to absorb most of the AT fire, essentially "armoring" the lighter vehicles until they could bring their firepower to bear effectively.
The Panzer I was relegated to training and anti-partisan duty fairly soon after its introduction, and many were converted to command vehicles or SPGs of various types. That's not what I would call a "best" light tank.
The Czech "38" model (I don't know the Czech designation, only the German: PzKw. 38(t)) was a particularly commendable designs. In its various successful SPG variations (Marder, Hetzer, etc.), the Czech chassis continued in production for the entire war, so that has to speak volumes for the soundness of the design. This has to be a serious contender for "best" light tank of WWII.
The Polish 7TP gets little attention, despite a fairly solid performance under terrible circumstances. I don't know enough details to comment further.
The Italian Ansaldo CV-33 saw service from 1935-36 in Ethiopia until 1942, when Hungary replaced the last remnants of its purchased Italian "training tanks" in Russia, where they were reluctantly deployed because their domestic Toldi and Turan tank programs were unable to provide enough vehicles in time. By that point, the Hungarians recognized the true value of the tank, instructing the crews to bail and run if enemy tanks were sighted, rather than stay in the vehicle. It may have been a solid tankette design, but was a pitiful excuse for an actual tank.
The Swedish (Landswerk) designed and Hungarian upgraded Toldi I, II, and III light tanks served in both Yugoslavia and Russia, and were claimed to be solid and effective while they lasted (most were operated long past their rated operational life). Adequate, and roughly comparable to the Panzer II in many respects, but a couple of years too late, so not a "best" design.
Then there is the American Stewart. It was heavy for a "light" tank, but its armor made it tough enough to use for infantry support work. The high profile made it more vulnerable to AT guns and other tanks, but also gave it a better line of sight and fire in return. Overall, I'd rate it very highly for its performance in its intended role.
I've seen pictures, cut-away drawings, and specs on the Japanese tanks, but little in the way of information on their actual performance. I can't rate them.
The Panzer II was envisioned as being a "general purpose" tank, while the heavier Mark IIIs dealt with opposing armor, and the Mark IVs delivered HE where needed to support the infantry or suppress AT emplacements. In that role, the PzKw. II was very adequate, but nothing spectacular, until the increasing weight of anti-tank firepower on the battlefield made it too vulnerable. "Schwerepunkt" tactics relied on the heavier tanks at the front of the formation to absorb most of the AT fire, essentially "armoring" the lighter vehicles until they could bring their firepower to bear effectively.
The Panzer I was relegated to training and anti-partisan duty fairly soon after its introduction, and many were converted to command vehicles or SPGs of various types. That's not what I would call a "best" light tank.
The Czech "38" model (I don't know the Czech designation, only the German: PzKw. 38(t)) was a particularly commendable designs. In its various successful SPG variations (Marder, Hetzer, etc.), the Czech chassis continued in production for the entire war, so that has to speak volumes for the soundness of the design. This has to be a serious contender for "best" light tank of WWII.
The Polish 7TP gets little attention, despite a fairly solid performance under terrible circumstances. I don't know enough details to comment further.
The Italian Ansaldo CV-33 saw service from 1935-36 in Ethiopia until 1942, when Hungary replaced the last remnants of its purchased Italian "training tanks" in Russia, where they were reluctantly deployed because their domestic Toldi and Turan tank programs were unable to provide enough vehicles in time. By that point, the Hungarians recognized the true value of the tank, instructing the crews to bail and run if enemy tanks were sighted, rather than stay in the vehicle. It may have been a solid tankette design, but was a pitiful excuse for an actual tank.
The Swedish (Landswerk) designed and Hungarian upgraded Toldi I, II, and III light tanks served in both Yugoslavia and Russia, and were claimed to be solid and effective while they lasted (most were operated long past their rated operational life). Adequate, and roughly comparable to the Panzer II in many respects, but a couple of years too late, so not a "best" design.
Then there is the American Stewart. It was heavy for a "light" tank, but its armor made it tough enough to use for infantry support work. The high profile made it more vulnerable to AT guns and other tanks, but also gave it a better line of sight and fire in return. Overall, I'd rate it very highly for its performance in its intended role.
I've seen pictures, cut-away drawings, and specs on the Japanese tanks, but little in the way of information on their actual performance. I can't rate them.