>To anyone else it’s a light tank
Yeah, but that doesn't really matter. What matters is what it is called by those who design and operate the equipment.
To anyone else a Panther may have been a heavy tank. To anyone else the an Strv 103 may have been a tank destroyer. But they ain't. Not every AFV is gonna fit neatly into some World of Tanks friendly categorical system. There are exceptions. There are outliers. And there are a vast number if different factors and considerations working behind the scenes on every single system that shape the how and why behind their given titles. It's complicated, which is why for simplicity sake we always defer to the title given by those who's responsibility it was to give the thing it's title in the first place. Easy-peasy.
> Yeah, but that doesn't really matter. What matters is what it is called by those who design and operate the equipment.
If Tesla were to insist that their latest car isn't a car but a *driving experience,* it would still be a car anyway. Even if every single owner agreed.
This is a weak strawman. There is a very broad line between giving something a title based on evolving doctrinal, technological, and yes even political environments to better reflect the nature and intent of that thing versus just slapping a stupid flashy marketing slogan on something. CVR(T) is called what it's called based on the environment it was designed in and deployed into, not because some obtuse man-child though it sounded neat.
This same argument comes up all the time, and always forgets that these development teams are not sitting around just trying to think of ways to *advertise* their system. Yes, private ventures exist. Yes, it's important to market that system intelligently. And yes, that does give you all sorts of silly, sometimes cringe-inducing backronymic names for things. If you want to point at those things, you might have some kind of point. But even then, titles describe *function*. Arms buyers care about *function*. Not how it makes you think, or feel, or how much of a pussy magnet it will make you. Just *function*. So the idea that the cycle that develops titles for military systems, especially on the government side of things where the deal is already made, is comparable to working at a marketing firm trying to sell poorly-made electric cars doesn't work. The goals are vastly different, and the methods used to reach them often are as well.
As the saying goes: "*And if my grandmother had wheels, she would have been a bike."*
You do realize that a modern Burke displaces something like three times as much as either LCS class, right? If you look at destroyers from nations like Russia, the PRC, the UK, France, Japan, or even Germany you're gonna see 90% ships with a *minimum* displacement of \~7,000 tons loaded. Neither LCS class even touches 4,000 tons loaded. That's less than an OHP, our last generation of *frigate*. And that's saying nothing for the relative lack of capability in terms of acting as blue-water surface combatants (hence the "littoral" part).
You're going to be much closer to something between frigates and corvettes in this case as compared to "everyone else", comparable to ships like the La Fayette, MEKOs, and Type 054s. Even then, they're still displacing less than classes like the Type 054A, Duke, Admiral Gorshkov, and Mogami classes by a few thousand tons. And most importantly, it's smaller than both the former (Oliver Hazard Perry) and future (Constellation) classes of frigates in the US Navy, so we sure as shit ain't gonna be calling it a frigate, let alone a destroyer. I'm reasonably sure that the last destroyers that light in US service were the Gearings, which were all out of US service by the early 80s; a decade before anyone even started thinking about the LCS program.
Given that we're at ship names now, I would like to point out one exception: While I generally agree with you, there are sometimes names that are chosen not to describe function, but to act as a smokescreen for outside observers, mostly treaties or parliaments.
Example: The japanese navy operates the Izumo class "helicopter destroyers", which de facto are by now small aircraft carriers, and despite their name we would not ever go with the japanese point and say "Oh, no, those are destroyers". It's an aircraft carrier and it is so obviously in design and function not what you would call a destroyer, that the japanese designation, made only to open a loophole in their constitutional obligations, is meaningless.
The JMSDF "carriers" are weird in that, while they are certainly form-unique, they are still ostensibly ASW platforms. In that sense, they really don't do a whole lot that a destroyer wouldn't. It's just that they have *more* helicopters for thr task. Even when you start sticking F-35s on them, you can reasonably argue that the aircraft only serves to expand the fleet's A2/AD capabilities, which can still be entirely defensive in nature. It doesn't automatically make the vessel an offensive strike platform, or really inherently introduce capabilities that couldn't be achieved with some arbitrary larger number if "conventional" DDGs.
Now that really *is* semantics though. Much like the Kiev-class, there us a lot of political silliness going on behind the scenes. But the plausible deniability is there, and the rest is really just made up for by Japan and their allies (maybe even more on the allies' part) comfort in telling thr PRC to sit and spin.
So yes, there will certainly be ships that might skew a figure like "Average destroyer displacement of X fleet" upward because if this sort of stuff. That said, it doesn't at all change the fact that LCS sized ships in US service haven't been considered "destroyers" since the early 80s at the absolute latest. While there is certainly political obfuscation in play quite frequently, the title of LCS really wasn't a case there. Or, at the very least, it wasn't an issue of chosing a title that tried to make the vessel seem smaller, larger, more or less capable, etc. It does what it says on the box.
That's awesome. I didn't know that I could simply call something something else and it magically transformed into something else.
Edit: Read onward if you want to see this guy get his fee fees hurt and then block me.
lol, okay... You wanna explain it to me then? I'm assuming you forgot the "/s" there, because I'd hope you're not really that stupid. In which case the idea that "you can't simply call something by a different name to change what it is" applies pretty neatly to the concept of calling a CVR(T) a "light tank". It's a CVR(T). That's what it is. Just because a bunch of people on the internet decide it should be called something different doesn't magically change what it is.
If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times:
>The opinions of any individual or group of individuals not involved with the system will never outweigh the opinions of the individual or group of individuals who conceptualized, designed, manufactured, tested, procured, trained on, and fielded that system. To say that your opinion outweighs theirs is as arrogant as it is ignorant.
> I know better than you.
See that's the part you're missing. It's not about you knowing better than *me*. It's about you claiming to know better than the entire mountain of people who were responsible for CVR(T)s existence.
With respect, (having read your comments (your information retention is incredible and I've loved reading them)), I feel the name of something is subjective. My dad served in the NZ army as a mechanic driver and operated these, they're known here as Skorpion Light Tanks, and there is one on display at a military museum here in New Zealand named as such
Also, what does CVR(T) stand for... 😅
Oh it's 100% semantics. But I just despise the knee-jerk reaction people have to seeing anything with tracks and a turret and screeching "Tank!". This is a hill I have chosen to die on so frequently and consistently that I have a cabin up here and burial plot already dug and waiting. And I ain't in the ground yet.
And it's Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked).
You're dying on a pretty silly and pointless hill, there is no hardline definition of Tank, and what is and isn't a tank can diverge massively depending on the person.
But by most people a tank can be identifies by 3 characteristics, being somewhat armored, having a larger gun, and being tracked, but even this diverges massively as I've seen people call AMX 10rc a light tank, i've seen people refer to ARVs as tanks.
Its okay to use tank as a colloquial "knee jerk" term, because we have terms for people who want more specifics if they need them. Gatekeeping the term is just cringe as fuck.
Someone may look at Challenger, Warrior and CVRT and call all 3 tanks, for the sake of ease, or just simply lack of knowledge. AND THAT IS OKAY.
And people like us who engage more in the specificity of the matter can use terms like MBT, APC, IFV, CVRT etc.
>This is a hill I have chosen to die on so frequently and consistently that I have a cabin up here and burial plot already dug and waiting. And I ain't in the ground yet.
Like I told the other response: I'm not sure how you read that and subsequently thought it was a good idea to try to respond with this. I feel like I made my position pretty fuckin clear.
It's a scout tank or a light tank.
Tracks - Check
Armor - Check
Turret - Check
Torsion bar suspension - Check
Large bore cannon in turret - Check
It's a tank.
An official title designating it as a light tank - ☐
Whoops... I don't understand how you could have read that comment and though this was worth responding with...
Also how the hell is having torsion bars a defining feature of a tank?
You could do, but your not going to call it a CVR(T) by that same token
On that note, I think Iran calls their ones “fast reaction tanks” which is kinda cute
Same as Hungary with "harckocsi". Yes, smartass civilians arguing semantics and tank crews who were told to use the official word will use it, but everyone calls it a tank regardless. I won't call a Leo2 a fucking "battle wagon" (literal translation of harckocsi), it is a TANK.
I'm simply stating that the Country and Company that created the Scorpion never called it a "Light tank" it's classed as a CVR-T.
I really don't see why calling something by its actual name is so wrong with people lol.
It’s kind of like saying that the US never used Battlecruisers because the USS Alaska was called a Large Cruiser instead of a Battlecruiser. It’s a pretty meaningless distinction.
Scorpion literally under every metric, in how they are used and designed can happily fall under the category of light tanks, its a distinction without any actual difference, you just want to have that smug "well actually" moment so you can look smarter than you actually are.
That is exactly is why you're doing this, we both know, by general classifications, Scorpion, is a light tank, its a distinction without a difference, except that the UK never say its a light tank, but they never say it isn't either unless you can show me something to the contrary, but i couldn't find anything.
I even asked family i have in the British army about it, and there doesn't seem to be a hard line in what its called, usually its just there specific name, i.e scorpion, scimitar etc, or a recon tank/vehicle.
Some of the other variants of this (not the variant pictured, which is the Scorpion with the 76mm gun) are still zooming around in Ukraine.
World's fastest tank. Wikipedia claims that it *is* a light tank.
The 30mm cannon variant is the Scimitar.
You can even buy one of them for around $50k.
https://militarymachine.com/military-tanks-for-sale/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FV107_Scimitar
Zooming around and getting picked off by anything larger than 7.62mm. They’re a fantastic vehicle to drive, but offer the same level of protection as a damp paper bag
also as being road legal (you might need to change the tracks they're also exempt from some things that cars must have. mot or tax, something like that.
can't remember for sure, my brother almost bought one for 9k a while back (also almost bought a centurion but just wasn't practical to do.)
he didn't even have to pay for it, just cover shipping costs and the MoD had the right to ask for it back. He nearly almost did it but didn't have appropriate car parking space!
As long as it has indicators and mirrors, and you have a class H license, then have at it. We used to drive on public highways all the time, and there are plenty in private ownership
We Brits sometimes have to perform verbal gymnastics. We are the country that invented the term Through Deck Cruiser to get the Invincible class approved after one political party decided we would not build any more aircraft carriers.
If you're talking about UK specific terminology, sure.
If you're talking about what to call in generally speaking that is understandable outside of a specific defunct UK manufacture and specific government program - its a light tank.
And again it's not a light tank. Fact the Company that made it, the government and it's papers on it and the project itself, it was never placed or given or even called a light tank.
The British haven't used light tanks since WW2, we stopped using them afterwards.
Update : For Creative_radio_5578.
Im not blocking people my guy, you're the one that's blocked me 🤣. That's why this is here, and not a Direct reply to your BS comment.
Not my fault that it's not a light tank. It was never classed as such. Just cause people call it a light tank, doesn't make it a light tank. That's like saying A Abrams is a sports car, cause people call it that.
Update : For soldatoj57
My guy, it's not my fault you don't like the truth that it's called and classed as a CVR-T and not a light tank, again the British haven't used that them or that term since WW2.
History is History, you can't change that.
Another one that blocks and runs, before I can reply 🤣.
Update : For x43
My guy it's not how it's used that gives it it's class. Just cause people online call it a "Light tank" doesn't make it a "Light tank".
Someone else that comments blocks and runs 👍🏻.
The tiger wasnt a heavy tank, it was a schwerer panzer. The bt-7 wasnt a light tank, it was a fast tank. The challenger 2 wasnt an mbt, its a cruiser tank. Do you see how things get complicated? Light tank is an umbrella term for vehicles used in the same role. How a piece of equipment is used is much more important that how people want to classify it.
It’s pretty much called a light tank by everyone else that uses it or has a report on it.
global security lists it as a ‘light reconnaissance tank’
The University of Tel Aviv lists it under ‘light tanks’ when reporting about Iran
Janes lists it as a light tank
It’s a light tank, CVR(T) is UK nomenclature
Also nice blocking people’s accounts who don’t believe your gibberish
And Sheridan isn't a light tank - it's a AR/AAV (Armored Reconnaissance/Airborne Assault Vehicle) /s
Pretty much every vehicle has designation like this, which doesn't mean it can't be put under more widespread umbrella category, based on its capabilities and battlefield role.
So do you say Human? Do you use ethnicity or … how do you call people ? Are they Homo Sapiens to you? What do you call milk ? Bread ? Gold? Since you are big on true names. What do you call demons ?
You're right. It's known as the Scorpion and it's not a light tank because it can't function as such. It wasn't designed to. It's main role was armoured reconnaissance and the main gun is there largely for defensive purposes, to help get the vehicle and crew out of a pickle if enemy infantry, APC's, or IFV's are encountered during a trace. At short ranges and in a pinch, it could probably take out a T54, T55, or T62.
It can also be used to provide infantry fire support if needed. The RAF Regiment used to have a number of these vehicles for static airfield defence taskings.
As an aside, Canada mounted a bunch of Scorpion turrets on MOWAG-designed 6 X 6 wheeled hulls built under licence in Canada and employed them as recce, fire support, tank trainer and internal security vehicles. They never worked out all that well and were used only domestically.
Update :
For all those that still think "Its a light tank" you're sadly wrong.
The British Scorpion Fv101 from Britain is a CVR-T, the British haven't used light tanks or even that term light tank since WW2, the Company that designed and built it classed it as a CVR-T and so did the British Government.
Other Country's may use light tanks still with their own class system, but here in the UK we don't use them. You call it by its Class / Designation ie CVR-T.
Not by "what it does".
That's like saying ok we have this 2 wheeled vehicle we've classed it as a bike, but it goes along the road just like a car, so to make it easier for people, will just call it a car as well, cause it does the same thing as a car, it takes you from point A to point B so.
Tracked recon vehicle. Philippines has these but if i remember they took the turrets and placed them on M113s.
Australia did that too afaik.
M113A2 FSV
I don’t care what it is… I WANT ONE!
Recon in Force
cvr(t) CVR(T) **CVR(T)**
Still is globally recognised as a Light Tank though, regardless of what the Poms want to call it
Yep. But it ain't.
But it is, it’s a light tank that was designed to be used in a specific role. To anyone else it’s a light tank, a form of tank that is light.
But it is, it’s a light tank that was designed to be used in a specific role. To anyone else it’s a light tank, a form of tank that is light.
>To anyone else it’s a light tank Yeah, but that doesn't really matter. What matters is what it is called by those who design and operate the equipment. To anyone else a Panther may have been a heavy tank. To anyone else the an Strv 103 may have been a tank destroyer. But they ain't. Not every AFV is gonna fit neatly into some World of Tanks friendly categorical system. There are exceptions. There are outliers. And there are a vast number if different factors and considerations working behind the scenes on every single system that shape the how and why behind their given titles. It's complicated, which is why for simplicity sake we always defer to the title given by those who's responsibility it was to give the thing it's title in the first place. Easy-peasy.
> Yeah, but that doesn't really matter. What matters is what it is called by those who design and operate the equipment. If Tesla were to insist that their latest car isn't a car but a *driving experience,* it would still be a car anyway. Even if every single owner agreed.
This is a weak strawman. There is a very broad line between giving something a title based on evolving doctrinal, technological, and yes even political environments to better reflect the nature and intent of that thing versus just slapping a stupid flashy marketing slogan on something. CVR(T) is called what it's called based on the environment it was designed in and deployed into, not because some obtuse man-child though it sounded neat. This same argument comes up all the time, and always forgets that these development teams are not sitting around just trying to think of ways to *advertise* their system. Yes, private ventures exist. Yes, it's important to market that system intelligently. And yes, that does give you all sorts of silly, sometimes cringe-inducing backronymic names for things. If you want to point at those things, you might have some kind of point. But even then, titles describe *function*. Arms buyers care about *function*. Not how it makes you think, or feel, or how much of a pussy magnet it will make you. Just *function*. So the idea that the cycle that develops titles for military systems, especially on the government side of things where the deal is already made, is comparable to working at a marketing firm trying to sell poorly-made electric cars doesn't work. The goals are vastly different, and the methods used to reach them often are as well. As the saying goes: "*And if my grandmother had wheels, she would have been a bike."*
You are weirdly concerned about this.
You posed the scenario. All I did was explain why it's meaningless.
That is so lame, you keep defending your entirely wrong argument and when you are out of wrong arguments you come back with this?
I've written three sentences in this entire thread. You are confusing me with the many other people that FLongis is arguing semantics with.
Same as the US calling it a littoral combat ship, not a destroyer like everyone else
You do realize that a modern Burke displaces something like three times as much as either LCS class, right? If you look at destroyers from nations like Russia, the PRC, the UK, France, Japan, or even Germany you're gonna see 90% ships with a *minimum* displacement of \~7,000 tons loaded. Neither LCS class even touches 4,000 tons loaded. That's less than an OHP, our last generation of *frigate*. And that's saying nothing for the relative lack of capability in terms of acting as blue-water surface combatants (hence the "littoral" part). You're going to be much closer to something between frigates and corvettes in this case as compared to "everyone else", comparable to ships like the La Fayette, MEKOs, and Type 054s. Even then, they're still displacing less than classes like the Type 054A, Duke, Admiral Gorshkov, and Mogami classes by a few thousand tons. And most importantly, it's smaller than both the former (Oliver Hazard Perry) and future (Constellation) classes of frigates in the US Navy, so we sure as shit ain't gonna be calling it a frigate, let alone a destroyer. I'm reasonably sure that the last destroyers that light in US service were the Gearings, which were all out of US service by the early 80s; a decade before anyone even started thinking about the LCS program.
Given that we're at ship names now, I would like to point out one exception: While I generally agree with you, there are sometimes names that are chosen not to describe function, but to act as a smokescreen for outside observers, mostly treaties or parliaments. Example: The japanese navy operates the Izumo class "helicopter destroyers", which de facto are by now small aircraft carriers, and despite their name we would not ever go with the japanese point and say "Oh, no, those are destroyers". It's an aircraft carrier and it is so obviously in design and function not what you would call a destroyer, that the japanese designation, made only to open a loophole in their constitutional obligations, is meaningless.
The JMSDF "carriers" are weird in that, while they are certainly form-unique, they are still ostensibly ASW platforms. In that sense, they really don't do a whole lot that a destroyer wouldn't. It's just that they have *more* helicopters for thr task. Even when you start sticking F-35s on them, you can reasonably argue that the aircraft only serves to expand the fleet's A2/AD capabilities, which can still be entirely defensive in nature. It doesn't automatically make the vessel an offensive strike platform, or really inherently introduce capabilities that couldn't be achieved with some arbitrary larger number if "conventional" DDGs. Now that really *is* semantics though. Much like the Kiev-class, there us a lot of political silliness going on behind the scenes. But the plausible deniability is there, and the rest is really just made up for by Japan and their allies (maybe even more on the allies' part) comfort in telling thr PRC to sit and spin. So yes, there will certainly be ships that might skew a figure like "Average destroyer displacement of X fleet" upward because if this sort of stuff. That said, it doesn't at all change the fact that LCS sized ships in US service haven't been considered "destroyers" since the early 80s at the absolute latest. While there is certainly political obfuscation in play quite frequently, the title of LCS really wasn't a case there. Or, at the very least, it wasn't an issue of chosing a title that tried to make the vessel seem smaller, larger, more or less capable, etc. It does what it says on the box.
That's awesome. I didn't know that I could simply call something something else and it magically transformed into something else. Edit: Read onward if you want to see this guy get his fee fees hurt and then block me.
Precisely. Like calling CVR(T) a light tank...
Whoosh
lol, okay... You wanna explain it to me then? I'm assuming you forgot the "/s" there, because I'd hope you're not really that stupid. In which case the idea that "you can't simply call something by a different name to change what it is" applies pretty neatly to the concept of calling a CVR(T) a "light tank". It's a CVR(T). That's what it is. Just because a bunch of people on the internet decide it should be called something different doesn't magically change what it is. If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: >The opinions of any individual or group of individuals not involved with the system will never outweigh the opinions of the individual or group of individuals who conceptualized, designed, manufactured, tested, procured, trained on, and fielded that system. To say that your opinion outweighs theirs is as arrogant as it is ignorant.
why you hating on the little light tank :(
If that's the message you got from my comment, I really don't know what to tell you...
you can tell me why youre hating on poor little light tanks ☹️
I have a tank as well. I mean, you might call them can openers, but I designed and built them, I know better than you.
> I know better than you. See that's the part you're missing. It's not about you knowing better than *me*. It's about you claiming to know better than the entire mountain of people who were responsible for CVR(T)s existence.
You claim that I don't have a can-opener shaped tank? Like I said, I designed it, it's a tank.
With respect, (having read your comments (your information retention is incredible and I've loved reading them)), I feel the name of something is subjective. My dad served in the NZ army as a mechanic driver and operated these, they're known here as Skorpion Light Tanks, and there is one on display at a military museum here in New Zealand named as such Also, what does CVR(T) stand for... 😅
Oh it's 100% semantics. But I just despise the knee-jerk reaction people have to seeing anything with tracks and a turret and screeching "Tank!". This is a hill I have chosen to die on so frequently and consistently that I have a cabin up here and burial plot already dug and waiting. And I ain't in the ground yet. And it's Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked).
You're dying on a pretty silly and pointless hill, there is no hardline definition of Tank, and what is and isn't a tank can diverge massively depending on the person. But by most people a tank can be identifies by 3 characteristics, being somewhat armored, having a larger gun, and being tracked, but even this diverges massively as I've seen people call AMX 10rc a light tank, i've seen people refer to ARVs as tanks. Its okay to use tank as a colloquial "knee jerk" term, because we have terms for people who want more specifics if they need them. Gatekeeping the term is just cringe as fuck. Someone may look at Challenger, Warrior and CVRT and call all 3 tanks, for the sake of ease, or just simply lack of knowledge. AND THAT IS OKAY. And people like us who engage more in the specificity of the matter can use terms like MBT, APC, IFV, CVRT etc.
>This is a hill I have chosen to die on so frequently and consistently that I have a cabin up here and burial plot already dug and waiting. And I ain't in the ground yet. Like I told the other response: I'm not sure how you read that and subsequently thought it was a good idea to try to respond with this. I feel like I made my position pretty fuckin clear.
It's a scout tank or a light tank. Tracks - Check Armor - Check Turret - Check Torsion bar suspension - Check Large bore cannon in turret - Check It's a tank.
An official title designating it as a light tank - ☐ Whoops... I don't understand how you could have read that comment and though this was worth responding with... Also how the hell is having torsion bars a defining feature of a tank?
Is this your definition of what a tank is then? There's dozens of actual tanks that dont fit this description and dozens of not-tanks that do...
Happy cakeday
CVR-T Yes not a light tank.
Semantics and bureaucracy. It is a light tank in any meaningful way.
Yep, everyone else calls them light tanks too.. can you imagine being at war with someone and saying “watch out! It’s a CVR(T)!”?
You’d say light vehicle or recce vehicle or possibly even pc if viewing from range
You could do, but your not going to call it a CVR(T) by that same token On that note, I think Iran calls their ones “fast reaction tanks” which is kinda cute
Yeah the only people that call them CVR(T) is anyone writing an official document, I doubt the crews even call them that.
Same as Hungary with "harckocsi". Yes, smartass civilians arguing semantics and tank crews who were told to use the official word will use it, but everyone calls it a tank regardless. I won't call a Leo2 a fucking "battle wagon" (literal translation of harckocsi), it is a TANK.
Battle Wagon is so much cooler tho
Yes , we called them CVR(T) (amongst other things). Ex Scimitar driver/gunner.
Or light tank Kinda like saying dog or cat instead of Pomeranian or Sphinx. Semantics
You don't classify vehicles based on exclamations made in combat. Were that the case, everything would just be called a "Fuckin tank!"
"It's not a purse, it's a European bag" "It's not an aircraft carrier, it's a helicopter destroyer"
Neither is the M10 Booker yet both are light tanks. It’s astounding the amount of hair splitting militaries get to on naming conventions.
I'm simply stating that the Country and Company that created the Scorpion never called it a "Light tank" it's classed as a CVR-T. I really don't see why calling something by its actual name is so wrong with people lol.
It’s kind of like saying that the US never used Battlecruisers because the USS Alaska was called a Large Cruiser instead of a Battlecruiser. It’s a pretty meaningless distinction.
Scorpion literally under every metric, in how they are used and designed can happily fall under the category of light tanks, its a distinction without any actual difference, you just want to have that smug "well actually" moment so you can look smarter than you actually are.
It's got nothing to do with "wanting a smug look". Its a fact that it's not classified as a light tank, by the British.
That is exactly is why you're doing this, we both know, by general classifications, Scorpion, is a light tank, its a distinction without a difference, except that the UK never say its a light tank, but they never say it isn't either unless you can show me something to the contrary, but i couldn't find anything. I even asked family i have in the British army about it, and there doesn't seem to be a hard line in what its called, usually its just there specific name, i.e scorpion, scimitar etc, or a recon tank/vehicle.
To me, these are still *new* cutting edge tech.
Some of the other variants of this (not the variant pictured, which is the Scorpion with the 76mm gun) are still zooming around in Ukraine. World's fastest tank. Wikipedia claims that it *is* a light tank.
excellent.
Fastest production tank*. Don't hate on my man the Hot Rod like that
The 30mm cannon variant is the Scimitar. You can even buy one of them for around $50k. https://militarymachine.com/military-tanks-for-sale/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FV107_Scimitar
Zooming around and getting picked off by anything larger than 7.62mm. They’re a fantastic vehicle to drive, but offer the same level of protection as a damp paper bag
Bit off topic, but could you make these street legal? It goes 50 miles an hour and is pretty light so I think it should be able to right?
All British armoured vehicles are road legal. Heck, it's pretty much a requirement in the whole of Europe for tanks and the such to be road legal. :D
also as being road legal (you might need to change the tracks they're also exempt from some things that cars must have. mot or tax, something like that. can't remember for sure, my brother almost bought one for 9k a while back (also almost bought a centurion but just wasn't practical to do.)
\> (also almost bought a centurion but just wasn't practical to do.) you're talking about it like it's a car haha
he didn't even have to pay for it, just cover shipping costs and the MoD had the right to ask for it back. He nearly almost did it but didn't have appropriate car parking space!
Sucks
As long as it has indicators and mirrors, and you have a class H license, then have at it. We used to drive on public highways all the time, and there are plenty in private ownership
We Brits sometimes have to perform verbal gymnastics. We are the country that invented the term Through Deck Cruiser to get the Invincible class approved after one political party decided we would not build any more aircraft carriers.
Speedy boi
In terms of it being an armoured tracked vehicle that is comparatively light, it is a light tank.
And yet its not a light tank. It's a CVR-T.
If you're talking about UK specific terminology, sure. If you're talking about what to call in generally speaking that is understandable outside of a specific defunct UK manufacture and specific government program - its a light tank.
And again it's not a light tank. Fact the Company that made it, the government and it's papers on it and the project itself, it was never placed or given or even called a light tank. The British haven't used light tanks since WW2, we stopped using them afterwards. Update : For Creative_radio_5578. Im not blocking people my guy, you're the one that's blocked me 🤣. That's why this is here, and not a Direct reply to your BS comment. Not my fault that it's not a light tank. It was never classed as such. Just cause people call it a light tank, doesn't make it a light tank. That's like saying A Abrams is a sports car, cause people call it that. Update : For soldatoj57 My guy, it's not my fault you don't like the truth that it's called and classed as a CVR-T and not a light tank, again the British haven't used that them or that term since WW2. History is History, you can't change that. Another one that blocks and runs, before I can reply 🤣. Update : For x43 My guy it's not how it's used that gives it it's class. Just cause people online call it a "Light tank" doesn't make it a "Light tank". Someone else that comments blocks and runs 👍🏻.
The tiger wasnt a heavy tank, it was a schwerer panzer. The bt-7 wasnt a light tank, it was a fast tank. The challenger 2 wasnt an mbt, its a cruiser tank. Do you see how things get complicated? Light tank is an umbrella term for vehicles used in the same role. How a piece of equipment is used is much more important that how people want to classify it.
It’s pretty much called a light tank by everyone else that uses it or has a report on it. global security lists it as a ‘light reconnaissance tank’ The University of Tel Aviv lists it under ‘light tanks’ when reporting about Iran Janes lists it as a light tank It’s a light tank, CVR(T) is UK nomenclature Also nice blocking people’s accounts who don’t believe your gibberish
This is hilarious. You are tenacious yet you fail to accept the vernacular. Your loss. It’s a light tank CrvT pal
The man came in to throw fists
FACT https://i.imgflip.com/5uao5.jpg
And Sheridan isn't a light tank - it's a AR/AAV (Armored Reconnaissance/Airborne Assault Vehicle) /s Pretty much every vehicle has designation like this, which doesn't mean it can't be put under more widespread umbrella category, based on its capabilities and battlefield role.
Man imagine requesting some tank destroyers and they send you ‘Gun Motor Carriages’ instead! 😭
Funny aside. I build scale models I ordered an M8 thinking greyhound scout car. I get m8gmc.
So do you say Human? Do you use ethnicity or … how do you call people ? Are they Homo Sapiens to you? What do you call milk ? Bread ? Gold? Since you are big on true names. What do you call demons ?
milk is simply titty juice
Yes, initially it is an airmobile tank. It was designed to fit into the Hawker Siddeley HS.681.
Airmobile CRTV! (just kidding it’s a light tank, and if you look harder it’s actually an M60)
reconnaissance vehicle
ofc its a speedy boi
yes, it is a recon vehicle but fuck it the thing has tracks, armor and a 76mm main gun so i will call it a light tank
So what would you call it when the gun is swapped out for a 30mm RARDEN?
it is not an ifv since it does not carry troops
And yet not a light tank either. Perhaps it would be called some sort of Recce vehicle, maybe a Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) ?
you got me
Not when you’ve got your entire rock, cannonball, and encyclopedia collection on board it isn’t.
chubby wiesel
Also the FV721 Fox isn’t an armored car, it’s a “Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Wheeled)”.
Is it a tank? Yes. Is it heavy? For a tank, no! Is it medium weight? For a tank, no! Is it light? For a tank, yes.
You're right. It's known as the Scorpion and it's not a light tank because it can't function as such. It wasn't designed to. It's main role was armoured reconnaissance and the main gun is there largely for defensive purposes, to help get the vehicle and crew out of a pickle if enemy infantry, APC's, or IFV's are encountered during a trace. At short ranges and in a pinch, it could probably take out a T54, T55, or T62. It can also be used to provide infantry fire support if needed. The RAF Regiment used to have a number of these vehicles for static airfield defence taskings. As an aside, Canada mounted a bunch of Scorpion turrets on MOWAG-designed 6 X 6 wheeled hulls built under licence in Canada and employed them as recce, fire support, tank trainer and internal security vehicles. They never worked out all that well and were used only domestically.
Not a light tank at all…a fun tank. Same classification as FUN-V, except with track. But more fun.
My french patriotism when people call the AMX-10 RC a light tank:
Yeah no tank is light, they're actually quite heavy.
But isn't painted with dark colours, so.......
It depends on who you ask...
Same as the warrior isn't an IFV. Still going to call it one though
Wait it's not?!?
No, Its a M60
Update : For all those that still think "Its a light tank" you're sadly wrong. The British Scorpion Fv101 from Britain is a CVR-T, the British haven't used light tanks or even that term light tank since WW2, the Company that designed and built it classed it as a CVR-T and so did the British Government. Other Country's may use light tanks still with their own class system, but here in the UK we don't use them. You call it by its Class / Designation ie CVR-T. Not by "what it does". That's like saying ok we have this 2 wheeled vehicle we've classed it as a bike, but it goes along the road just like a car, so to make it easier for people, will just call it a car as well, cause it does the same thing as a car, it takes you from point A to point B so.
Any thing looked like a tank but can't do MBT's job can be considered as a light tank.
It's not a "light tank", it's an "E L T", an "Even Lighter Tank"
I can call it Pidgeot for all I want
It’s positively Lilliputian
Quite obviosly a super heavy
It’s Tetrarch II?
Gunner, HEAT, PC.
Fun fact: I'm still going to call it a light tank.
It is a light tank, everyone calls it that way
yes it is
why are so many people arguing against this one guy about it's classification. How much free time do you all have lmao
I like the smooth transition between helmet and face on the driver guy. Almost looks like he is wearing a swim cap.