KEKEKEKEKE TANKETTE RUSH! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

Perturabo -> KEKEKEKEKE TANKETTE RUSH! (5/1/2012 10:19:11 PM)

I remember reading about armoured warfare concepts from the interwar years and one of them included complete mechanization of army, including giving infantry soldiers tankettes. I wonder how such a "tankette infantry" would perform.



Terminus -> RE: KEKEKEKEKE TANKETTE RUSH! (5/1/2012 11:22:05 PM)

Ask the Italians. Or the combatants in the Spanish civil war. Or the Poles.



Mobeer -> RE: KEKEKEKEKE TANKETTE RUSH! (5/2/2012 12:04:09 AM)

Or the US Army? Does a Bradley count as a tankette, given a lack of troops and excess of firepower?



Terminus -> RE: KEKEKEKEKE TANKETTE RUSH! (5/2/2012 12:23:33 AM)

No. No, it does not.



Perturabo -> RE: KEKEKEKEKE TANKETTE RUSH! (5/2/2012 12:37:27 AM)

AFAIK the Poles have found them quite useful, especially the few that had super heavy machine guns.

Still, none of these involved using tankettes as it was originally intended. In case of the Polish, the largest size of a tankette unit was a The idea of tankettes didn't come from a "future tank" project, but a "future soldier" project. It had more in common with the later idea of powered armour than with further development of tanks. I meant using them en masse as "future infantry" units, not as recon tanks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobeer

Or the US Army? Does a Bradley count as a tankette, given a lack of troops and excess of firepower?

More as a medium tank by the WWII standards.



Sarge -> RE: KEKEKEKEKE TANKETTE RUSH! (5/2/2012 1:05:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobeer

Or the US Army? Does a Bradley count as a tankette, given a lack of troops and excess of firepower?



US Army along with the Bradley have performed exceptional over the last decade, you have any experience on the contrary with either?



junk2drive -> RE: KEKEKEKEKE TANKETTE RUSH! (5/2/2012 1:45:38 AM)

Sarge I don't think he was questioning the effectiveness of a Bradley, but questioning if it fits the "tankette" category.



Lieste -> RE: KEKEKEKEKE TANKETTE RUSH! (5/2/2012 2:03:35 AM)

Course it isn't.... bloody great huge thing - as big as a Tiger...

Tankettes are smaller than 'super-minis' - and they would be IMO useless as 'infantry' - there are a lot of places a man can move that a tin-can can't follow - totally ignoring the fuel burden for each/every 1-2 men having their own 'tank'...

They can't hide as well as infantry, are usually as vulnerable (it takes more armour than these carry to make them immune to LMG (AP) fire, and even if you uparmour them, they will still be vulnerable to HMG or ATR type man-portable weapons, plus artillery at 'normal' blast radii - the probability of being hit by fragments is 50% over much lower distances than the lethal range, and being a bigger target, which can't go to ground the tankette will be hit far more often, mostly offsetting any marginal improvement in survivability due to thin armour).




Mobeer -> RE: KEKEKEKEKE TANKETTE RUSH! (5/2/2012 7:36:55 PM)

Sarge, I wasn't criticizing the Bradley, more questioning if the concept of mechanized infantry today fits with the interwar concept of mechanizing all infantry by providing tankettes. It seems to me that there are parallels, for example troops in tankettes and troops in Bradleys need more fuel than soldiers on foot. Where I am less clear is whether the tankette infantry were ever expected to dismount.



GaryChildress -> RE: KEKEKEKEKE TANKETTE RUSH! (5/4/2012 2:26:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

I wonder how such a "tankette infantry" would perform.


Probably as efficiently as if each man in an infantry unit simply took a barrel of oil, dumped it on the ground, then went off and fought a battle on foot.



PipFromSlitherine -> RE: KEKEKEKEKE TANKETTE RUSH! (5/4/2012 4:37:16 PM)

Would a mechanised exo-armour suit count as a Tankette? I have no doubt there is a ton of research going on into it already, just waiting for a small enough power source to power it all.

The "now you need oil and other supplies, verses MREs" point is a great one that most people would probably overlook. There is a lot of smarts on these forums.

Obviously the fact that the longest thread is about boobies from Australia is just an anomally [:)].

Cheers

Pip



Orm -> RE: KEKEKEKEKE TANKETTE RUSH! (5/4/2012 7:32:55 PM)

quote:

Obviously the fact that the longest thread is about boobies from Australia is just an anomally .

It is just a sign of boredom.

Edit: And the fact that in such threads I can make stupid posts that I dare not do in the serious threads.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.53125