tankettes

what when wrong?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They are cute. I wish I had one.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    same

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >'sup

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    20s truck hunter used against late 40s heavy tanks. it's like trying to combat a battleship with a trireme

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They WILL return one day in drone form.
    >Literally prove me wrong homosexuals

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous
  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Under armoured, under gunned under powered. Most only had machine guns.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Mak new ones with a mg and a javelin bolted to it

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        that's what the weasel is.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I want the version with the TOW missile launcher and an M2 somehow added on for mine.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Wasn't upscaled to a form factor allowing a proper sized crew, something that could be a cheap, fast, organically embedded sub-assault gun for infantry doubling as an ammo carrier/open top APC benches in the back, with a better/longer range radio. 50 cal & 20mm for anti-material purposes. Universalize the chassis to have mobile mortar carriers. Pretty much this

          >when
          their main benefit, they could go where no other vehicle could go, was rendered obsolete by advancing technology
          they were also simply left behind in the eternal arms race and couldnt survive in any niche

          >scouting
          they showed a preference for armor and firepower even in a role where it was not that important
          if the M5 stuart was considered too light even for the light role, what chance does the type 97 have?
          even light wheeled vehicles like the M8 greyhound were just as armored, just as well armed, and equally as fast

          >expeditionary roles
          quickly rendered obsolete by advances in logistical capability
          once it becomes possible to send an M4 sherman into the jungles, you would rather do that
          the single M4 at tarawa did more work than 4 M3 stuarts, and from that point on the extra work and cost to send even a few medium tanks was a better deal than any number of light tanks

          the tankette, and even light tank, only existed in this role when the only other option was no armored vehicles at all
          but it soon became possible to send tanks anywhere on the planet, even on the tops of mountains

          the last vestige of tankettes was in the airborne role, where the physical constraints of air travel meant that hyper-light tanks were the only option
          but these were always "nice to haves" rather than essentials, so when budget cuts come the airborne tankette is the first to go
          priorities have generally shifted to airmobile rather than air droppable vehicles, where the airdropped force simply has to hold out long enough to allow cargo planes to offload real tanks

          >the last vestige of tankettes was in the airborne role, where the physical constraints of air travel meant that hyper-light tanks were the only option
          >but these were always "nice to haves" rather than essentials, so when budget cuts come the airborne tankette is the first to go

          Essentially-- war of maneuver and emphasis on mechanized infantry everything lowered their utility. Now with disperse or die and automation, something cheap but that lends additional firepower on the line of contact as needed is useful again, given tanks not being able to loiter as proper Infantry Tanks again without getting droned (or treated as disposable, like piecemeal Russian assault teams). Smaller, cheaper, and faster in volume is more important in general-- tiny drone mortar carriers will prove more useful in these trench breaches than full sized artillery once they're in play.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Now with disperse or die and automation
            force concentration is still king
            ukranian brigades have increased in size from concentration until they are now effectively divisions
            while russians abandoned the small BTG in favor of traditional division sized elements
            dispersion makes you weak everywhere

            >Smaller, cheaper, and faster in volume is more important in genera
            opposite has proven true
            weapons are only getting larger, more armored, and more protected to cope with faster, more accurate artillery

            tankettes have zero use in the modern battlefield outside of extreme niches like airborne

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          kawaii

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Against unarmored infantrymen that would have been PLENTY; unfortunately, actual tanks also exist.
      Then came antitank rifles and man portable rockets and that was the end of that.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the better question is what went right.
    except for the weasel. the weasel is the best tank ever designed.
    no I won't elaborate.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >what when wrong?
    I feel like PrepHole has become mostly ESLs in the last 5 years. Every board has a handful of dogshit half-baked threads in broken English like this.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      it's become weird board culture. like the
      >is coffee good for you
      thing, but specific to /k/, like it's breaking down some aar that no one asked for and isn't actually anything like an aar, because it isn't after, and there was no action. I agree that it's turned to shit, but this doesn't strike me as a specific example of that. just moronation.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Nope. He's EFL. EFL's, especially Muttlanders regularly make grammar mistakes for similarly sounding words, such as when/went, there/their/they, should of/should have etc.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >EFL’s regularly make grammar mistakes
        >EFL’s
        Looks like you’ve outed yourself as one.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          English First Language

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >'s

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          English First Language

          >EFL

          English as a Foreign Language, IMO

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >'s

          It used to be common to pluralize acronyms with a 's. This is more a sign of being a boomer than an ESL.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous
    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >mostly ESLs in the last 5 years.
      No, it's mainly election tourists that arrived eight years ago. You're not an oldgay, you're a fricking tourist.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Technology and material sciences weren't mature enough to have a vehicle that was sufficiently mobile enough, armored enough, or armed enough to be useful in most situations.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I used to drive one of these around an Noah's Ark.

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The idea:
    >for only slightly more resource investment we'll give our infantry light armored support!
    The reality:
    >for most of the investment of real tanks we give the infanty what amounts to a mobile pillbox

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >when
    their main benefit, they could go where no other vehicle could go, was rendered obsolete by advancing technology
    they were also simply left behind in the eternal arms race and couldnt survive in any niche

    >scouting
    they showed a preference for armor and firepower even in a role where it was not that important
    if the M5 stuart was considered too light even for the light role, what chance does the type 97 have?
    even light wheeled vehicles like the M8 greyhound were just as armored, just as well armed, and equally as fast

    >expeditionary roles
    quickly rendered obsolete by advances in logistical capability
    once it becomes possible to send an M4 sherman into the jungles, you would rather do that
    the single M4 at tarawa did more work than 4 M3 stuarts, and from that point on the extra work and cost to send even a few medium tanks was a better deal than any number of light tanks

    the tankette, and even light tank, only existed in this role when the only other option was no armored vehicles at all
    but it soon became possible to send tanks anywhere on the planet, even on the tops of mountains

    the last vestige of tankettes was in the airborne role, where the physical constraints of air travel meant that hyper-light tanks were the only option
    but these were always "nice to haves" rather than essentials, so when budget cuts come the airborne tankette is the first to go
    priorities have generally shifted to airmobile rather than air droppable vehicles, where the airdropped force simply has to hold out long enough to allow cargo planes to offload real tanks

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They just needed the right circumstances to perform well. The Japanese tankettes did a perfect job in China where there was literally no threat larger than rifle fire for 90% of engagements.

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They are coming back, only as unmanned drones
    >ib4 it looks like the fren version of the Abrams

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Can be stopped by small arms

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Given how vulnarable even MBTs became to drones+artillery, wouldn't faster, lighter tanks be more practical? They would just be used to support infantry anyways, and would only need enough armor to protect against small arms and grenades.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Given how vulnarable even MBTs became to drones+artillery, wouldn't faster, lighter tanks be more practical?
      no

      >they would just be used to support infantry anyways,
      only the soviets still use tanks in an infantry support role

      > and would only need enough armor to protect against small arms and grenades.
      bare minimum is 30mm APDS and RPG-7 protection
      but ATGM protection is preferred

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >30mm APDS
        you do know that's going up to 40mm now yeah
        the minimum is moving

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    easily destroyed by small arms fire. cant do anything that armored cars and halftracks couldnt to better

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I mean it depends if your going to give paratroopers some armor it's a great idea give it some TOW missiles and a machine gun and you've got something that will help them out. It's never going to have the survivability of anything heavier but in a total war scenario air drop them in and let them harass the enemies rear lines would be a decent distraction if nothing else for the main forces.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >TOW missiles
        old hat
        it has to be fire and forget with option for external (networked) guidance in this day and age

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    is it legal to DIY one in the US without a gun, maybe just a porthole.

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Defense contractor jacking up the base prices for gun stablization and fire control so it has only been used for heavy gun and protected hull. Nowadays they should be cheaply made or derived from sensors and parts from RC planes, just one letter grade higher in actuator power and longevity and no concern over weight limit.

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >tankettes
    >what when wrong?
    What do you mean what went wrong? Nothing went wrong OP given they're still in use today.

    https://yewtu.be/watch?v=s8R5TvrZvh0

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I like them

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They at least had spirit

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *