What was the smallest AFV that could truly be called one in WWII? I don’t mean infantry carriers like the Universal or RCs like the Goliath – I mean a tank (or tankette, more likely).
I’m guessing it was either a Japanese vehicle or one of those little British infantry tank contraptions. Anyone know?
The smallest WWII tank, i believe, is the Hetzer. It’s the smallest tank that I have seen although I might be mistaken. If so someone may correct me.
I think the hetzer is way to big, think smaller.
how about the Marmon Herrington?
http://anzacsteel.hobbyvista.com/Armoured%20Vehicles/marmonherringtinph_1.htm
The Pz I would have my vote. I could take pics on the turret roof while standing next to it.
check this tread about paratrooper tanks.
http://www.finescale.com/fsm/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=42922
The Polish TKS Tankette was armed with a 20-mm auto-cannon that had armor-piercing rounds and was used for infantry support. Most were caprtured and went into service with the Whermacht. I don’t know if it was the smallest … but I’d put a wager on it.
Yeah, that sounds about right – or the Japanese tankette that Rob mentioned in his message in that linked thread (thanks for the link). Or it might be that paratank I’m not too familiar with. I suspected it might be one of those teeny British infantry tanks though with an MG in the turret.
Most likely right:
Data of TKS tankette (TK, if different)
Crew 2
Combat weight 2570 - 2650 (2430) kg
Length 2560 (2580) mm
Width 1760 (1780) mm
Height 1.330 (1320) mm
Track width 170 (140) mm
Tracks centers spacing 1.450 (1.475) mm
Ground clearance 330 (300) mm
Max. road speed 40 (46) km/h
Road / terrain range 180 / 110 (200 / 100) km
Ground pressure 0,42 (0,6) kg/cm2
Fuel consumption (road - terrain) 38 - 70 (28 - 60) litres /100 km
Panzer I
Model: Ausfuhrung A Ausfuhrung B
Weight: 5300kg 5900kg
Crew: 2 men 2 men
Engine: Krupp M305 (Boxer) / 4-cylinder / 57hp Maybach NL38TR / 6-cylinder / 100hp
Speed: 37km/h 40km/h
Lenght: 4.02m 4.42m
Width: 2.06m 2.06m
Height: 1.72m 1.72m
I think it’s the Polish TKS. It weighed around 2500 kgs, whereas the Japanese TK (Type 94) weighed around 3300 kgs. The American paratank is small but it is a giant compared to the TKS.
Apparently the vast majority of active service seen by the TKS in WWII was in the Wehrmacht, protecting convoys of trucks, etc., against Soviet partisans. They apparently were also used on occasion to defend airfields.
There is a great picture of the type 94 at:
http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-armour/enemy/jap_ww2.htm
As you can see, the only armament is a single 6.5mm Type 91 MG. The engine was a virtual dynamo that could produce a whopping 35 hp at 2500 rpm. You can see some more characteristics at:
http://www.onwar.com/tanks/japan/ft94.htm.
Of course, to decide what is the smallest tank, one needs to define the term. Do you mean lightest weight, shortest, etc. The type 94 tips the scales at 3400 pounds when combat loaded (at least according to the “onwar” site above).
I mean, “smallest.” [:p]
It would have to be some sort of calculus based on weight and length. A tank nine inches shorter than another, but which weighed two tons more, wouldn’t be smallest! Weight is probably the best overall gauge.
Ahhh, here you go!!! Finally something I can make you fellas work for!! My submission for the smallest tank of WW2 is the French Renault Chenillitte 1937R. This is a basic Schlepper UE630 chassis mounting a 37mm Pak 35/36 ATG.
There were all sorts of versions, including a 28/32 Wurfrahamanen…basically a mini-Stuka zu Fuss rocket tank. This little fella is tad bigger than a Kubelwagen… 
Here’s the image of the 28/32 kit I have…
I don’t have any web references to verify weight and size, but in looking at the photo, compare of the size of the rocket rounds to those on a 251-based Stuka Zu Fuss…
Jeff
Doh! Of course this should be kilograms, and not pounds. So the polish TKS wins by almost a ton!
That was a supply carrier, wasn’t it? I don’t think it was designed as a tank or tankette, though one could argue that the Germans made it into one by mounting the 37mm on it …
How much did this big fella weigh with the PAK gun on it? Was it more than 2500 kg?
If this was bigger than a Kubelwagen it was bigger than a TKS. Kubel has a foot print of 5.76 square meters while teh TKS has a footprint of 4,25 square meters but the Italilan wins with a footprint of 3.6 sqaure meters.
By their very definition as armored vehicles, tanks are intrinsically heavier than other machines with similar dimensions. By that rote, a heavy tank is truly that, but a light tank is not really light, just lighter than other tanks. That great weight, which comes naturally with heavy steel and iron riding on complex track and wheel assemblies, has been a significant problem with shipping tanks to the battle front in time to render their valuable fire support. Airborne and cavalry forces in particular have traditionally employed light tanks so they could have their armor and use it, too, despite early-deployment requirements. But the search for really light tanks, called tankettes, has produced some real curiosities. The abbreviated tanks of the 1920’s and '30s would be considered light by later standards, but some found a utility that kept them around beyond their contemporaries careers. One such success story was the ubiquitous British Bren Gun Carrier, a speedy little track that served as a scout, a small tank and a simple troop transport depending on who used it. Weighing only three tons, it was nearly identical to the Italian CV33/5 light tank. Both traveled at 25 mph. The British also had a 5.2 ton tank, the Light Mk VIB, which carried two machine guns at speeds up to 35 mph. All of these mini-panzers were highly vulnerable to anti-tank fire. Germany’s romance with mini-tanks was brief, with the single example being the 5.4 ton Panzerkampfwagen ohne Aufbau, models A and B. Developed in 1933, it was the Third Reich’s first mass-produced tank and was quickly withdrawn after taking heavy losses in 1941, even while Germany was still winning the war. A similar fate awaited America’s M2 and M3 tanks, which weighed between two and nine tons in their various versions. Except where they were unopposed by enemy armor, they were nearly useless and phased out of service quickly. The Russian’s 1.7 ton tankette, the T-27, fared much better and was produced in large numbers throughout the war, serving as a machinegun and infantry carrier. By war’s end, however, the little tracks were only used for training and towing small field guns. Both the T-27 and the Italian CV33/5 were licensed copies of the Bren Gun Carrier. The Japanese also fielded a 4.5 ton copy of the British design, but added a small armored turret with a diminutive 37 mm gun. It was handy for cruising through the dense jungles, but made an easy target for American Sherman tanks and was obsolete by 1941. Perhaps the smallest of the tankettes was Poland’s TK-1, 2 and 3. Weighing a mere 1.75 tons, it had a 2-man crew and one machinegun. By the time the TK-3 was in service, the weight had climbed to 2.4 tons, not enough to battle the German blitzkrieg of 1939. Like the heavy tank, tankettes are generally considered obsolete today, but the Germans, who dropped the concept early in Word War II, still have a tiny tank called the Weisel. Sporting a Porsche auto engine, it can be air dropped by parachute and will mount a heavy machinegun or a TOW missile launcher. And it weighs only 3 tons.
What about the Russian T-27 tanks?
They only weighed in at about 1,700 Kg.
Granted, they ceased production in 1941, but made a bunch of them and they saw action in the first years of the war.
[Edit] Hey, MBT…we posted at nearly the same time!
I think the L3/33 was heavier than the TKS, though. (Was it even used in WWII? I know it was used in Ethiopia and in the Spanish Civil War.)
It seems that the winner of the smallest/lightest AFV of WWII was the TKS – although we may want to include Jeff’s little schlepper with 3.7cm, though that was something of a Rube Goldberg pairing to mobilize an AT gun.
Hmm, that may be even smaller than the TKS! But was it a “tank?” The TKS was (well, sort of!).
1,700 Kg, or 1.7 tons?