Were tankettes really so bad? I think they're neat.

Were tankettes really so bad? I think they're neat.

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 just sacrificed too much capability for their small size to ever be really effective.
    >Often not even .30 caliber resistant
    >Rarely carry anything more than a 20mm, and even then probably not
    >Not extremely swift
    >Miserable crew space considerations

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They don't sound great when you compare them to an actual tank, but if you think of it as power armor for individual soldiers, it's pretty ahead of its time.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >but if you think of it as power armor for individual soldiers, it's pretty ahead of its time
        That's what they thought when they bought them, and it turned out to be not true at all

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      you forgot to mention that the cv 33 cost almost as much as a panzer 2.

      https://i.imgur.com/RP6XwN2.png

      Were tankettes really so bad? I think they're neat.

      Anyway, the concept is not entirely moronic.
      Let's say you are facing infantry, and you have one of this thing on a hill, working as a mobile machine gun nest...the problem is of course, that in real life you don't face ww1 men charges but complex manuvers with tanks and aircrafts.
      And as mention this thing isn't really that much bulletproof either.

      Big fat waste of money.

      There is a reason we called it "the tuna can"

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Well thicken the glacis plate, put on some applique side armor, and up gun it to 20mm. Wala.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >the cv 33 cost almost as much as a panzer 2.
        Pantsu 2 was basically a tankette though.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah but at least it was slightly roomier and came with a proper autocannon.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >the problem is of course, that in real life you don't face ww1 men charges but complex manuvers with tanks and aircrafts

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      haha flamethrower goes pshhhhhhhh

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >rifles penetrate up to 2" of the materials they were made of
    seriously bad, and I don't mean the bullet had to pass through, just the fractured metal armor bits that came at the guys inside was enough to puncture skin and cause a bleed out

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Anti-spall chain mail for tankers is a thing.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    italian or arab

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It is not about the look, it is about the capacity of forming a peaceful and coherent society.

      As an Italian I must admit we were inferior in this than the continental europeans.

      If black people were as orderly and peaceful as the japanese no one would have given them the shit they got. You guys psyopsed yourself in thinking you are racist, no, you are just human beings who want to live a peaceful meaningful life, and you know that certain kind of people (based on a pattern recognition) are less likely to do so than others.

      Now you depressed me.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        black features are universally considered ugly. I'd still hate them if they were purple, yellow or green.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          well you'd dislike them
          but if they kept to themselves and formed an ordered but ugly society would you hate them? it seems like a stretch

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Don’t care
      sex

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      that's a man

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Arab. Being Brazilian has attuned me to these exact same situations. Also, why do people meme on Italians for being like this and not Spaniards for the same reason?

      https://i.imgur.com/RP6XwN2.png

      Were tankettes really so bad? I think they're neat.

      They need to make a comeback with our modern capabilities. The Wiesel and CVR(T) are proof it can work.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        no thinks of spain. not even the spanish

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        wrong
        https://www.instagram.com/carla.18_/

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    That looks like a toy he made for his kids

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous
  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Engine development in the 30s was just not at the point to make a concept like the tankette viable. That was the main thing holding them back.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Pre and Early-WW2 when AT guns were .50cal to 20mm boltaction rifles, a lightly armored fast tankette could survive and deliver effective attacks on unarmored infantry.
    Once the shaped-charge warhead and rocket/recoilless weapons to fire them that were man-portable arrived they were doomed.
    Except for niche roles like fast light recon or AT-ambush like Weisel /k/utie.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    they're neat, but you're not saving much hours/resources over building an actual tank for a fraction of the capability
    as shitty as the m13/40s are they'd shit all over the tankettes and weren't that much more expensive to make
    i just don't see the point of them at all

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    its basically just a shitty scout car. I prefer the sand sled

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Scoutcars got wheels.
      With tracks, you can go anywhere.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There are just much better ways of moving machine guns around

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the Universal Carrier was the minimal size to be successful

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I bet the Machine Gun battalions that got them preferred driving them around compared to carrying their machine guns

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I like the idea of airdropped tankettes that accompany paratroopers. Have an hmg and/or grendade launcher.
    Maybe a cannon. Focus on havoc and anti-infantry

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's called a Wiesel.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        We need more and better ones

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      power armor > tankette

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        tankette = power armor

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This has been done before. The ASU-55 and ASU-85 were paper mache assault guns that could be thrown on an eternal flight out the back of a soviet transport.

      The smol Sheridan could be delivered at low level by LAPES with only only a 25% of having a drogue chute fail, overrunning the grass runway and hitting a pine tree at 150 mph like you exist inside the ARMA 2 physics engine. The Wiesel and CVRT are both air deployable via transport helicopter.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What was the doctrine for tankettes? Did they just pretend they're horses and play like cavalry?

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Tankettes being used a primary form of armored attack is a bad idea. Using them to mount heavier weapon systems and act as a support element is a bit more sane.

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