Italian tankettes

[chuckfourth]

Hi
As a great fan of deploying Italian celere battalions on the eastern front, Ive noticed a few things about Italian tankettes.
Firstly unit 501 CV-35 [37] apparently was never manufactured,
see
http://www.vojska.net/eng/world-war-2/armor/l3-35/
and
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/italy/ta...v-33-cv-35.asp
Looking at the other tankettes I can find no evidence that these other configurations existed either,
unit 2 CV-33, unit 368 CV-29 Ricerca and unit 369 CV-33 Ricerca. The 6.5 mm MGs were all fitted singly these have pairs of 6.5 MGS.
unit 503 CV-38 [20]. Can't find anything for a 20mm AT gun plus a MG.
unit 504 CV-38 CC. only a single 20mm AT was fitted not 2.
unit 505 CV-38/Brixia. possibly a brixia motar could be carried but it would probably have to be dismounted to be used.
unit 506 CV-38 [13.2]. only one 13.2 MG was carried not 2.
Also for unit 500 CV-35 [20] I dont know if ayone can confirm this one way or the other but Im guessing it probably had a sight and so may deserve better than 10 for range.
also of interest
http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/I...lianTanks.html
I also noticed that British unit 298 Mk VIb could have a .5 vickers and a 303 rather than two 303's.

[narwan]

As you are likely to know most of the tankette conversions you mention here were field modifications done by the units deploying them. This was done to add some firepower and/or AT capability to the tankettes. Mainly in theatres were other, heavier, armor was in short supply or altogehter unavailable. Many of the modifications available in the game have their origin in Italian East Africa. The Italian forces there were cut off from Italy at the start of the war. The had a couple of medium tanks but only a handful. They did have quite a few tankettes and some of these were 'upgunned'. The CV-38/Brixia for example is an actual field modification from IEA.

As field modifications these variants are not well documented. Field modifications from remote area's like Italian East Africa are even less well documented, especially for tankettes which is a type of AFV that has not exactly captured the imagination of many enthusiasts. What is available is almost exclusively in Italian sources. Did they have either a gun or an mg and not both? Could be, hard to find out. The original designer of the Italian OB had (Italian) sources which resulted in the current configurations. And a problem with field modifications is that often no two vehicles are exactly alike.

This has been an issue during playtesting actually and the choice was made to leave the field modifications in as they are, even if these consisted of just a few vehicles in reality. Just think of these as possible modifications that could be made quite easily and which at different times were made. Gives players something extra to play around with. As far as I know the AI will pick regular tankettes for it's forces, not 'conversions'.

I doubt very much additional variations will be added or that the current ones will be modified.


The range for tankettes is deliberately low. This not due a lack of sights but because of the very low profile of these vehicles with the weapons being mounted relatively low. That means the view for the crew is very, very limited and that is reflected in the range for the weapons.

Narwan

[PatG]

narwan said:
<snip>

The range for tankettes is deliberately low. This not due a lack of sights but because of the very low profile of these vehicles with the weapons being mounted relatively low. That means the view for the crew is very, very limited and that is reflected in the range for the weapons.

Narwan

I'm not sure I agree with that logic. We have an Italian tankette at the war museum here in Ottawa (a CV-35 I think) and while it is a tiddly little thing its MGs are definately higher than a tripod mount MG. If the range reduction is because of height, then a similar if not larger reduction should apply to tripod weapons on the ground (not to mention universal carriers etc). If it is a question of reduced visibility through a vision slot, then reductions should apply to the Matilda, PzKw I, etc. Not slagging the deisgners just trying to get a sense of the logic and if it is applied across the board.

[Marek_Tucan]

When speaking of tankettes, just found an interesting factoid about Czechoslovakia (yea, I know, we're dealing Italians here, but bear with me ) vz.33 tankettes - the MG mounted in front of driver was fixed, firing right in front of tank and hitting ground at 300 meters.
Tried to simulate this in my Czechoslovakian OOB (will publish when ready, most likely after next week's vacation) by using MG with range of 6 and 0 accuracy.

[PatG]

I suspect it was set up to maximize the danger space. This type of weapon would be an ideal candidate for enforced area fire. There are other weapons like the typhoon rockets welded to Sherman turrets that would benefit from enforced area fire. Sadly it's probably a code thing and we ask to much of the coders already.

[Marek_Tucan]

fraid so... Now trying to figure how to raise the suppression effect of bunker machineguns as they also don't have the area fire effect... And without it they are virtually useless against large infantry assaults which they were designed to stop Also the wild blindfire inaccuracy bothers me in that area

[chuckfourth]

Hi Narwan
"possible modifications that could be made quite easily" I beg to differ, adding a second 20mm cannon would be impossible in the field, it has to be mounted so one man can fire both, it isnt a matter of just welding it on somewhere. Why would you bother to add a second cannon anyway? A vehicle this size would barely be able to carry enough ammo to make one cannon worthwile. Same can be said for the other modifications, there is only one gunner, adding a second weapon makes no sense he can only operate one at a time, I think they are typos.
also when you say stuff like
"with the weapons being mounted relatively low. <.....> that is reflected in the range for the weapons"
which is so obviously wrong
could you please preface these kinds of statements with "I think" or "maybe" so we mnow this is an opinion not a "fact"
Best Regards Chuck

[chuckfourth]

Hi Pat G
It does look as though sights are the reason for the short range which I accept for the twin 8mm, the fore-sight used seems to be a lump of metal about the size of a thumb. However I cant be sure without a picture but Id put good money on the 20mm cannon coming with something a bit better. So I would think the standard 30 range would be better than the current 10 for this weapon.
I also notice that the cv carrying the 13.2 mm MG has a range of 20. Now in the old days (v6 of the game) there were quite a few guns with 20 range for example from the British OOB units 001 Mk IIa, unit 002 Mk VIc (coaxial gun that is) and unit 126 Rolls Royce A/C. Like the CVs these are very early war vehicles and probably had very poor or no sights at all which is why they got range of 20. After v6 it seems all these weapons just got allocated the same range as the tripod MGs for some reason. To me it looks as though the the Itlaian 13.2 MG (weapon 231), missed out at this time and should have a range of 40 not 20. Personally I would prefer the weapons that used to have range 20 to get that range back again, as i think this better reflects there rudimentary sights.
Best regards Chuck

[narwan]

chuckfourth said:
Hi Narwan
"possible modifications that could be made quite easily" I beg to differ, adding a second 20mm cannon would be impossible in the field, it has to be mounted so one man can fire both, it isnt a matter of just welding it on somewhere. Why would you bother to add a second cannon anyway? A vehicle this size would barely be able to carry enough ammo to make one cannon worthwile. Same can be said for the other modifications, there is only one gunner, adding a second weapon makes no sense he can only operate one at a time, I think they are typos.
also when you say stuff like
"with the weapons being mounted relatively low. <.....> that is reflected in the range for the weapons"
which is so obviously wrong
could you please preface these kinds of statements with "I think" or "maybe" so we mnow this is an opinion not a "fact"
Best Regards Chuck

Thanks for your OPINIONS Chuck. They will undoubtedly be considered with the appreciation they deserve.