Which is the best light Tank of the War?

[Delta107]

Which is the best light Tank of the War?

The M3 Stuart is way too heavy and had a gun that could penetrate armor.

Would it be the CV-33?

Lol I see you want to entertain me with jokes.

 

[Kovax]

Q: How many Ethiopian spearmen does it take to flip over an Italian CV-33?

A: Not many, as several CV-33 crews discovered to their dismay.

The Hungarians were apparently quite satisfied with the performance of the Machineguns on the 100-or-so CV-33s they purchased for training purposes, but less than impressed with the rest of the tank.

It's not exactly what I would define as a tank, more like a riding mower with an attitude.

 

[Culise]

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?

Yep, and a fascinating discussion it was. Assuming this is the one you're discussing, the thread as a whole was here: "Tanks - how did they develop so quickly between the two world wars?" He did posts on the UK, Germany, France, Italy, and Japan. The reason I'm not so sure is that he didn't really comment on how ineffective light tanks were in general; his comments tend to be either along the lines of light tanks simply being regularly forced into roles they were never designed for, or else highlighting certain issues particular to each tank (say, the Japanese Type-92's and Type-94's paper armor, the French general manpower/undercrewing issues, or the Italian L3's everything) rather than general to all light tanks.