Worst tank of WW2?

Surprisingly sacramouch, though the tankette itself was never any good, some of them performed well for their condition. Perhaps it was thanks to the crews, but I have always admired and respected the L6/40 after I read what it accomplished in the face of great odds. That is not to say what it accomplished proved vitaly crucial to the war effort, its only that it could accomplish something In the face of great odds when it should have just crumbled down.

 

Hi Dan
Just for the reasons quoted really; I have read in several sources that the Crusader was very poor in a lot (most?!) aspects, but the reference I gave was quite complete so I just quoted that. I certainly know of no other tank which was so bad there was a Government level enquiry!

Skua - I dont have any further details on the enquiry unfortunately, but I can give you more details of the book I found this in if you like?

Also - thanks for welcoming me everyone

 

Please expand on thsi Desertwolf- although we should separate the quality of the design from the value of the crews employing it. In Irvng's"On the Trail of the Fox", Rommel cites Northern Italian officers and cres that were eager for a fight and demanded to be assigned dangerous missions despite their equipment, which he describes as "far worse than what we had in 1939" (probably an allussion to the PzKw1)- Wish l coud remember that Itaiian film in which an L6/40 appeared...while moving on level ground, it swung back and forth like a rocking horse...

 

I cant remember any details unfortunatly, but I remeber reading that 5 L6/40s stood their ground against british tanks (A13s i believe) to allow their comrades to escape. They gunned down some British infantry before they were oblterated, but their heroic action saved alot of Italians from captivity.

 

There's David Irving again...

 

I should remind yiu that he is most accurate when transvcriing comments from Rommel, particularly since he enjyed free access to the Rommel family papers, aside from that similar satemements regarding the Italians appear in other works, including Desmond Young's "Rommel the Desert Fox"...

Dewertwolf, some friends of mine began an "Oral History Library" back in the 1970s. They'd interview veterans of WW2 from both sides, andwould ask specific questions about equipment, battles etc. Unfortunatel, the idea was a good one, but it came a bit too late, as some of the old timers were rather fuzzy in their details, but l'll include two statements which have certain relevance.

1) Vincenzo Ruggieri-(inerviewed Brooklyn, New York, 14 Au. 1979)-Vinny was a crewman aboard L3s, L6s and M13.. OF the L6 he observed " latta di sardine, che oscillavanno come un tranvia de due -piattaformi che va in discesa " ( sardine can which rocked like a double-decker tramway going down hill)


2) William B, a former captain with the 8th Army in North Africa and Sicily (and a mine of information regarding weapons, capabilities, etc..)- (Interviewed Mineola, Long Island, New York, 20 June 1981)-

"Itaian equipment was simply awful, their artillery dated back to WW1, and in some cases was even older-many Skoda guns taken from the Austrians ..THeir tanks? mechanically unreliable , their engines were very sensitive to sand-and their main guns had a tendency to jam.. Their puny little tanks were even inferior to our Bren gun carriers-and their so-called"medium tanks" were so inadequate that the cres often placed sand bags on the hull to insure a modicum of protection. The guns of may captured M13s were often riddled by rifle-caliber bullets.Yet, despite these defficiencies, units like the "Ariete" and "Centauro" divisions fought well.."

 

Sacaramouche, thanks for the info. It is indeed true that the Italian equipment was disastorous like many historians know, but the whole reason why I like the L6/40 is because it accomplished quite alot although it was a dreadful design.

 

Desrtwolf, don't you mean "Scaramouche" hahahah!

 

oops!!!

Sorry about that scaramouche!!!

 

Desertwolf: this might interest you :ref: The Memoirs of cnel. Hans von Kluck (Praeger Books, New York, 1989) p.97
"Some days later Rommel's HW informed me that l was to be sent an Italian recce squadron, the "Nizza". At first l was not very pleased, as l had no great opinion of Italian weapons and morale. They duly arrived well spread out and apparently still at normal fighting strength....They were proud Piamontese and Venetians. They wanted to show that they kew how to fight...I inspected their armored cars and weapons. "More "Sardine tins' said our men who were standing around inquisitevly. Indeed, the equipment didn't even approach the standard of that which we had at the star of the Polich campaign. It was hopelessley inferior to the British Humbers and anti-tank guns, and yet the Italians wanted to be sent into action at the front"

 

Very interesting Sacaramouch, the Italians were not all cowards as many people thint they are, rather some units performed remarkably well inspite of inferiority in machines and equipment. The ariete is promininent among this units in North Africa.

 

It is indeed surprising to see their morale soaring, even though they must have known they were sent in the field with inferior equipment and generally were badly led.

 

That's what our late and lamented friend Willy (whom l mentioned in an earlier post) kept repeating until he was blue in the face...and the same emerges from the papers and memoirs of many German senior officers..
An any rate, this might make a good topic under separate heading
Best regards!..

P.S.: The L.6 is still an ugly piece of junk hahahahahaha!.

 

Indeed sacramouch, I fully agree with you that the L6 is not a good tankette, but that doesnt mean I dont adore it !

 

Desertwolf-today l came accross a book published in England recently by Ian Walker, it is called "Iron hulls, Iron men"-it deals with the performance of the Italian armored divisions in Africa-lit contains some very interesting photos (some are stills from German WW2 newsreels)-and it confirms what you and l have noted about the Italians and their performance..thus, the author explains, the title...
Best regards!

 

Thanks for that info sacaramouche!

It is really to bad I cant find many detailed books about WW2 where I come from. However, I am very lucky to have found a book in arabic about the Italians at war. The book praises the Italians courage quite highly although it does refer to their equipment as 'peices of junk best found in a bazaar'. I dont think they were that worthless though!

 

This is the Italian site l mentioned-You could probably order that Ian Walker book from Amazon .com or Barnes and Noble?

http://bunker.altervista.org/diariorommel.html

Most Italian equipment was badly designed or simply obsolete: some exceptions: The Beretta 1938A sub-machine guns, the Breda 20 mm mod. 1935 A.A. piece,(which were highly valued by British and Germans alike) their 76 mm and 90 mm A.A. guns. Their heavier ordenance? mostsly obsolete if not right down ancient..Mind you; their 150 mm L.40,5 mod, 1935 field gun, the 150 mm L.19 mod. 1937 and the 210 mm L.222 mod. 1935 howitzers were modern; accurate and hard hitting.;but they were simply too few and too late to affect the outcome..As far as their tanks: worthless; and they could have manufatured German vehicles under license, but nationalist pride prevailed...

 

All the facts about the equipment youve mentioned are quite correct, but you forget the dreaded semovente assault guns. Never underestimate those machines .

 

The best of a bad lot...

 

The semovente were good for their time.