As we all known, good tanks have a good combination of fire power, mobility, and armor. In my opinion, the true nature of tank warfare is mobility. One can move so fast that no armor is needed. It would rely on concentrated fire power rather than working along. Its target should be the track of the enemy tank rather than its armor. First immobilizes the enemy tank, then use AT guns to finish the job. With unmatched mobility, extremely light armor, and only enough fire power to immobilize the enemy tank from a long distance, it should be very fuel sufficient as well as cheap and easy to mass produce.
The reason I came up with this idea is by comparing the Mongolian horse archer tactic with tank tactic. Their horse archers are extremely light, the European knights couldn’t even catch them. They will try to separate their enemy force and concentrate their own. The Mongol horse archers first shoot the horses of the enemy knights, and then their lancers come and massacre the immobilized knight. I am also playing a game called the Company of Heroes. When I deploy the German Ostwind flakpanzers, the enemy tanks and AT guns couldn’t even hit me because I never stop moving, even while I was firing. But when deploying heavy tanks, it’s basically an exchange of fire with the enemy.

Interesting, I like the idea of Mongol inspired armour, perhaps built by Lamborghini but...
Doesn't this assume the likelihood of 'pure' tank vs. tank combat over ideal terrain? Something that hasn't tended to happen in the real world despite the predictions of the first war tank evangelists. What of the supporting enemy infantry and how is your own infantry carried forward?
I see another issue with "only enough fire power to immobilize the enemy tank from a long distance", doesn't that mean the 'BFG' as carried by MBT's these days? BFG's are heavy, if the opposition are using 'conventional' heavily armoured vehicles then really heavy BFG's are required, a track-shot sounds nice but still leaves a rapidly traversing powerful gun able to respond. Maybe some other weapon system is mounted on the fast tanks? Such systems have proved problematic in the past, the M551 perhaps fits your strategy but proved problematic in reality.

Not entirely sure this is a 'new' idea, more like 1930's doctrine? I suppose you've basically got an early war Blitzkrieg strategy there, light guns and fast advances; but how sustainable is it when the opposition recovers from it's surprise and combat situations begin to thicken up /slow down?

I'm sounding a bit negative here so I'll ask how the new force would work against heavily defended and dug in areas where an assault is the only real choice, would they be up to it? And how do they perform when in the defense?
[img]graemlins/salute.gif[/img]
Cheers,
Adam.

__________________
It's only the Internet.

Good questions.
It’s not necessarily restricted by “pure tank vs. tank combat over ideal terrain”. It can be tank vs. infantry, tank vs. artillery, and so on. They are going to be armed with machine guns of course; their main guns can also be used against infantry. They are basically immune to infantry since they should be able to fire from great distance. It’s going to be very hard for the AT guns and the bazookas to hit them because they are constantly moving.
After immobilizing the enemy tank, your own tank should move out of its range so avoid it form getting hit.
True, it has some similarities with the 1930's doctrine, but not entirely the same. My idea for it is completely indirect assault. While the back them, the tanks were meant for direct assault; that was the reason why they had thick armors.
By the time your enemy realizes what’s going on, and begin to research, develop the new tanks, reorganize factories, mass produce, and train sufficient crews, the war should be over already.
Dug in doesn’t work now because we have more advanced air weapon. Again, my idea for it is meant exclusively for indirect assault. When defending, you should retreat in deferent directions in attempt to lure the enemy into chasing after you separately. Then rally together, surround and destroy them one at a time with concentrated firepower after they have tired themselves from chasing, and far apart from each other.

Well, let's see:

The US, British, and Russians tried exactly that to some extent in the years just before WW 2. The US Christie tanks definitely emphsized speed and firepower. In Britian, they went with the cruiser tanks culmunating in such designs as the Crusader and Cromwell. Russia developed their BT series from the Chirstie designs which emphsized firepower and speed too.
In every case (except the US Christies which saw no combat) the lightly armored high speed "eggshell with a hammer" lost in combat. The problem is always the same. With the existing WW 2 era automotive technology there is an upper limit to how fast a tank can be made to go. Additionally, the suspensions of the period further limit the speed over anything but the smoothest terrain.
As far as using maneuver to take an enemy, at some point you are going to have to fight. When you do have to, all the speed in the world comes to a crashing halt. Operations slow down dramatically. Now, lack of protection becomes a liability. The British tried to get around this dilemma by producing the infantry tank to supplement the fast crusier. The Soviets tried the same formula with the "breakthrough" tank like the T 35 or KV 1. In both cases, the specialization worked against them rather than for them. Each tank in its own special environment worked very well. But, all too often it was found out of that enviroment and now easily destroyed.
Speed also does not equate to stealth. Nor will it protect a tank against weapons with great range. The maneuvering around a flank fast column need only run into, say, a pair of 88mm guns to become so much burning wreckage; their speed being insufficent to outrun those armor peircing rounds.
On the whole, history shows that this concept was superceeded by the introduction of the main battle tank. Here was the 'all-rounder' capable of fufilling most, if not all, tank roles.