The term 'light tank' is insideously misleading to the
ill-informed of the reality of the capability of a 'light tank'.
The correct term to use is 'tank destroyer'
Properly defined, 'tank destroyer' is described, in essence, as an
anti-tank weapon, usually gun-based, mounted on a mobile platform.
The weapon may or may not be under armour, e.g. M-50 Ontos
(6-barreled 106mm recoiless weapon system on air-droppable tracked
chassis - 1950s-era). Even if under armour, the weapon may or may
not be traversable/turreted, e.g. Jagdpather, Marder (German tank
destroyers - WW2 era).
Tank destroyers are solely designed to defeat enemy armour (up to
MBT-class) but yet are not as protected nor as sophisticated as the
MBTs. In this perspective, all 'light tanks' are in fact tank
destroyers simply because they will never be able to survive a
direct hit from enemy tanks.
So I say this for the ppl who may be awed by the armour that we
have or may be intending to acquire - the AMX13SM1, M8 AGS or any
other 'light tank' that may be indigeously conceived - do
not get too excited. Armour will always have to bear the
heavy burden of having their new 'light tanks' decimated in the
face of heavy armour on the opposing side.
The only plausible argument by them would be the informed
application of proven tactics of maneuver-on-contact by armies
which had been out-numbered, out-gunned and under-armoured, like
the IDF during the 1967 & 1973 wars.
