Talk:Tankette

M50 Ontos not a tankette
I don't know who put the M50 Ontos on the page and called it a tankette, but that is obviously incorrect. While it does have paper-thin armor, its weapons do not fit into the tankette designation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:245:C101:6BCC:5807:AD7D:9DDA:BB34 (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of the Wiesel
Several people have attempted to delete the mention and image of the Wiesel AWC from this article, noting that it is not a tankette. Apart from the fact that there seems to be little exact definition as to what EXACTLY defines a tankette (Turretlessness? Size? Weight? WWII or earlier?) what they note seems limited to a 'They aren't called tankettes!'. This is correct AND noted here in the article. I have even increased the clarity of these qualifying statements.

However, the connection between a tankette and the Wiesel is clearly apparent to anyone who isn't on set on a narrow view - deleting the Wiesel here makes as much sense as not allowing a mention of Russia (Russian Republic) at the end of the article about the History of the Soviet Union, on the argument that "The 'Russian Republic' is a different thing from the Soviet Union, and only came along later!". The connection is there. As long as there is no misrepresentation of the Wiesel as being considered a typical tankette or something, it certainly should stay! MadMaxDog 07:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "The connection ... is clearly apparent to anyone who isn't on set on a narrow view"—them's wiesel words, I'm afraid. Please find a verifiable source to support your ideas about a "renaissance of a similar concept" before reintroducing modern airborne AFVs to this article.


 * The USSR–Russia analogy is false. The Russian Republic was the dominant part of the Soviet Union, and as an independent state came directly from it.  The Wiesel is built for the airborne AFV role which didn't exist a half century earlier when tankettes became obsolete.


 * This article is about tankettes. —Michael Z. 2008-05-29 05:02 z 


 * This article is about tankettes and may thus mention related concepts. Ingolfson (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In addition


 * A - Regarding your #1, that is not an an argument that's made in-article, so you can disregard it.
 * B - Regarding your #2, that is - wrong. T-27 tankettes were used experimentally as airborne AFVs in World War II. See first reference and various other sources.
 * C - On top of that, the Wiesel fits the definition of a tankette as a light, tank-like armoured fighting vehicle intended mainly for reconaissance, as per the references. How about YOU provide references for your claim that a related concept is NOT related? According to two three (now four) references (three defining tankette, one defining the Wiesel) they share everything except the name, and the historical datum. It is now on you to provide contradicting referenced that say that "tankette" MAY NOT be used for a modern version of the concept.
 * D - Lastly, it is a RELATED concept, not a tankette, and is stated as such in three different places in the article. Don't be unreasonable because the mere mentioning of relatedness offends your nomenclature sensibilities. Ingolfson (talk) 07:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, there we go (again). Another reference. This time explaining that tankette was simply the "the contemporary [1930s] term for lightly armed and armored tracked combat vehicles". Again, the Wiesel fits the definition, simply the term itself is not commonly applied anymore. It can therefore certainly be included in this article because this article does not claim that the Wiesel is CALLED a tankette. PS: This reference is from a US Army Major, written in 2000. The ref also includes more info on the Soviet experiments with tankettes as airborne forces. Ingolfson (talk) 08:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I support the inclusion of the Wiesel 1 and the Wiesel 2 tankettes - and additionally I am sure there are more tankettes around to be included in the article, like the American M50 Ontos, which also fits perfectly into the tankette category. Alexey Topol (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The Wiesel seems pretty closely analogous to the whole CVR(T) family, come to think of it - perhaps we need a section discussing "modern light tanks", or something. Shimgray | talk | 21:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, this fighting over names is unscientific - we should focus on definitions only. Take the armored personnel carriers as a related example: There are numerous new fashionable designations for this type of machine, like IFV (infantry fighting vehicle), AFV (advanced fighting vehicle), ICV (infantry combat vehicle), etc. Seems like Americans got a knack for such silly abbreviations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexey Topol (talk • contribs) 22:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Shimgray, a light tank is heavier than a tankette. I would draw the line at around 6 - 7 metric tons maximum for a tankette, and a light tank from 8 tons upwards. Alexey Topol (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

An addition by anonymous
Removed until it has references and is shown to be not copyvio ("built the tankette shown above in his garage" makes me suspicious, there is/was no such image on the article):

A theory was put forward by the great French tank enthusiast General Estienne, who helped design France's first tank and a proponent of the light tank, of the idea of skirmishers armed with light tanks rushing an enemy position. The idea was that the massive onslaught by a high speed, protected group of soldiers would be unstoppable in action. Col. (Later Major General) J.F.C. Fuller revived the idea after WW1 and a debate began. Major (later Lt. General) Sir Gifford Le. Q. Martel undertook the idea and in 1925 built the tankette shown above in his garage. The engine came from a Maxwell and the axel came from a Ford truck. The tracks came from the Roadless Traction Company. The body was made from wood. After a demonstration to the War Office, authorization was obtained for Morris Commercial Motors to build 4 test models. The first was delivered in 1926. In 1927 eight more machines were ordered and were to be used as scout machines of a new experimental force being formed. The idea was dropped shortly after that period as it was found that a single man had difficulty operating these machines and firing a weapon at the same time. One machine was tested with a single rear tire for steering.

Ingolfson (talk) 07:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

List of tankettes
I imagine this could get contentious, since there is no solid definition of a tankette. Nevertheless I have deleted the French supply tractors Lorraine and UE from the list of examples. Neither was designed to be used as a tankette. Indeed the French Army rejected the idea of mounting weapons on the UE for precisely the reason that it might lead to misuse as a tankette. Since both vehicles were usually unarmed and had other tactical roles they probably shouldn't be listed....even though it is possible both might have been used as tanks at times.

As for the AMR 33 de-listed by someone else, well, I am not sure. It fits the definition in the article. It has less armament than, say, an Italian L3/33.

I look forward to others' thoughts. DMorpheus (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds okay as an argument to me... Ingolfson (talk) 10:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good definition to me - a tankette is intended for combat use. A tractor is intended for transport of goods and pulling sleighs, trailors and other vehicles. While a tractor might drive up to the front-lines, it is not intended for fighting. Tankettes are. Another note about terminology: The official classification of the Wiesel in the German army is "armoured weapons carrier" - a non-sense newspeak term which could equally be applied to a Leopard 2 MBT, or an uparmored supply truck! So we should not get focussed on what certain people or institutions, armies or manufacturers might call it, but look at the characteristics of the machine and then decide whether it fits the definition of a tankette, or not.   Alexey Topol (talk) 23:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed edit by 24.184.252.163 (In games section)
Removed "In Games" section. That a single game has a tankette as a unit is not particularly noteworthy. Instead, consider linking to tankette from the game article page itself (which currently does not exist, underscoring the lack of significance of the removed reference).

Contingency (talk) 03:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)