Tankettes

Have you considered speed? the Matilda I was an infantry tank not a tankette, one close equivalent were the 80mm armoured monstruosities on Pz I chassis the Germans produced in very small numbers.

View attachment 14417

 

Hi TOS

Absolutely you are right about speed - the matilda was only brought up to test the definition of tankette we are working with - it gets harder when you consider the early ones because of course they were about the same speed as the matilda or less, but in contemporary terms it is too slow.

What is your view on the standard Pz 1s - especially the early turretless versions and maybe the command versions could all perhaps be considered tankettes?

- hoping also you might be able to shed some more light on the Ansaldo MiAs - in particular am looking for a date approx when it was proposed?

Many thanks in advance

 

Reposted as new post instead of edit to keep sequence

The MIAS and MORAS were 1935 the first had an MG (MItragliatrice ASsalto) and the second a breech loading mortar (MORtaio ASsalto), they are at the low end of the tankettes definition and were intended as "breaktrough" vehicles!!!! No way the could do the acrobatics of the CV without toppling over !!!. The concept was really a self propelled body armour, and the justification for refusing them was it makes no sense to "put only one man under armour", the ufficio storico book those pics come from litterally describes then as a sort of tracked and armoured lawn mower.

Dont'think you can move attacments from a post to another so just linked it

Attachment 14417

 

Thanks a lot - actually this is where we have quite a difficulty with the tankette definition - the early concept was precisely the mobile body armour you describe, then it seems to have changed to being a 1 man tank for largely financial reasons, then by the WW2 period it appears to have changed into a different concept for practically every nation involved. We also have the post ATGW tankette revival where it seems mostly to do with size and concealment although some cost issues are influential as well i'm sure. hopefully with enough input into this thread we can come up with a definition that works for all periods.

 

It's probably easiest just to use the very simple definition 'teeny little tanks' isn't it?
Anything smaller than a Panzer 1 maybe?
Otherwise you get sucked into weird semantic classifications that never allow for certain 'sports' of the breed.

 

Hi Adam

I'm going to wait until we have a few more views proposed before i figure out where I think the line is - not sure where Alex stands at the moment on this - I was thinking that we could maybe define them better using the ratio of the budget actually spent to the budget required to produce something useful with maybe a .25 or less making it a tankette, but i'm sure there would be exceptions to that too

 

I like the 'budgetary' definition, as they certainly spring from the bargain bucket on the whole.

Trouble is; finding actual figures on production costs for any vehicle is tricky, defining what a sensible result should cost is trickier, and if we're choosing things by sheer fiscal mean-ness then almost any nation's (Excepting perhaps Germany & Czechoslovakia) interwar tanks would probably qualify.
Fletcher's often referred to the A11/Tilly1 as basically what you get if you spend no money on a tank, and it's not a Tankette.

~A

 

Fair enough point - back to the drawing board

What about a negative definition?

Not unarmoured
Not armoured more than for shell fragments/rifle calibre rounds max
Not more than 2 crew and not suitable for anyone over 1.40m tall
Not solely wheeled
Not mounting a gun bigger than a 20mm cannon
Not having a 2-man turret
Not primarily a carrier
Not primarily a tractor
Not larger than a Pz 1a
Not having powered turret traverse, heated seats, stereo or any other unnecessary bells and whistles
Not very useful

I'm sure that's still not quite right

 

I think I might finally have found the first tankette:2Xpray::2Xpray::2Xpray:

The Russian Vezdekhod Alexsandr of 1915 - 1 man machine, 1 prototype apparently made with 10hp engine, but was rejected for being quite rubbish (still possible later propaganda influence on some data)

Russian Vezdekhod WW1 Singletrack AFV

In fact pretty sure it must be mostly true; the designer was later killed by the NKVD for making something rubbish and keeping most of the money

"it can achieve a speed of (16.57 mph). In addition, Vezdekhod can ascend a slope of 40 degrees inclination, cross a trench three metres wide, and a vertical obstacle of 3/4 metre. All significant holes and rough surfaces were crossed wherever tests were carried out. Vezdekhod steers easily during fast motion, and turns very satisfactorily. In all, Vezdekhod crosses terrain and obstacles impassable to conventional motor vehicles."

Ok I will get back closer to WW2 tankettes now lol

 

Don't get me wrong. I love tankettes! And I don't care about others
Glad there's more people who like tankettes!
Anyways, I will go to the outdoors military museum in my town [when I get some spare time] and they actually have a couple of tankettes there, CV 33, TKF/TKS, and some others I think. Those are rare enough to see, so I am very proud and glad to be able to see them
And ofcourse, I will take LOTS of pictures, detailed
Nigel,Von Poop, Ulrich, Old soldier and others, cheers for all the feedback and infos!

 

Tankettes are certainly an interesting thing. Obviously not meant for combat with tanks, wouldn't they have been useful as an 'armored machine-gun' sort of thing? Very low profile, mobile, and armored, able to carry a bigger gun then a person could (and more ammunition) I would have thought they'd be more used amongst infantry. Hard to take out due to armor, mobile, packing a punch, enemy infantry would certainly take casualties against it.

 

Absolutely Muss! You just said the whole point behind tankettes. I sure wouldn't like to face a tankette, without armor support or anti-tank weaponry. Again, sometimes even light armor support wasn't enough

 

Don't forget about the famous Bren Gun Carrier these proved that there was definately a place for such lghtweight tanks. On a side note, what a great toy any of them would make lol



Sorry, just realised his thread is primarilly about lightweight fighting vehicles, I' sure the Bren Carrier has filled that role, but probably far better known for being a carrier type vehicle, still I'll leave the pic up just for comparison, Kev.

 

Just to show what a tankette can do in the right hands, heres a picture of one of the Pz IVs taken out by Roman Orlik in his 20mm armed TKS.

 

I would say you can't make a post about tankettes without including the most successful tankette in history, the FT-17. I think I would also consider the Goliath a Tankette, what do you guys think?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...2,_Jugoslawien,_zerstörter_jugosl._Panzer.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mini-tanks-p012953.jpg

 

I think we are straying into the grey area of what is and what isn't a tankette again - Maybe Alex can give us a ruling on this, but I think of the FT more as a light tank, and the UC as a carrier/APC.

Thanks for bringing up the debate and great pictures - I can see we are going to have a long thread deciding what is a tankette

Maybe we need a master list that we can all vote on - anybody know how we might be able to do that? I haven't figured that out yet, will keep looking.

Incidentally I found a better picture of the Mexican CTVL - it looks a lot more serious in this this photo

 

The goliath - I think is debatable as you couldnt get in it, but the heavy Borgward version of the demolition tank had a drivers seat so maybe should be counted.

I still say it's not a tankette though.

 

Maybe you are right about the FT, it weighed over 6 tonnes and the Tks weighed only over 2 and the Italian L3/35 only 3. The FT did have only one primary armament and only a two man crew though.

Wiki defines the tankette as a type of lightly armed and armored tracked combat vehicleresembling a small tank roughly the size of a car, mainly intended for light infantry support or reconnaissance, talk about ambiguous

 

I really hope we can come up with a better definition than Wiki and submit it to them with this thread as evidence eventually, so everybody please keep putting your ideas in.

As to the one primary armament definition.... personally don't like it much - most tanks have only one primary armament

The weight is a good point - but where should the line be? I think about 3.5 tons but there are a few vehicles which fall the wrong sides of that line so maybe 5 tons is a better divide? - any views?

 

5 tons as cutoff definitely sounds good, it covers all the examples wiki has for tankettes