The L6 was a turreted tankette and was light even by light tank standards. Tankettes didn't do too well in combat but their chassis were suitable as carriers for light mortars, light anti-tank guns, and heavy machine guns. The L6 would have been suitable for the colonial anti-partisan role but not as a battle tank.
The L6 was not a tankette. The Italians didn't use the tankette concept. Even the Carden Loyd copies (CV.29) and inspired designs (CV.33, 35, 38) were classed as fast tanks.
@@TanksEncyclopediaYT - If they considered them fast tanks, they grossly overestimated their capabilities despite having first-hand knowledge of competing foreign designs. A CV.33 isn't much different than a Polish TKS. The British Carrier series were well-regarded despite their vulnerability. However, if you put a turret with a 20mm gun on a Bren Gun Carrier and called it a fast tank it wouldn't be any more successful than the L6/40.
@@TanksEncyclopediaYT It's only a question of naming, not of concept. It's not like "they don't use a perfect translation of 'tankette' so they considers them tanks".
The L6 was better armored than most WWII light tanks (40mm frontal), had a good gun and a clever suspension system (torsion bars placed at the ends of the hull, so to not steal space under it and so mantain a very low profile). It was the entire "light tank" concept to be outdated in WWII. Infact most powers stopped production, or relegated them to secondary roles-training.
It is not a matter of translation or naming. Tankette is a very nebulous term that 100% does not mean what people think it means. It was short term, varied a lot between countries and should not be used retroactively applied to vehicles. God, I should really do a video about what tankettes were and weren't.
And that's the problem. Most of the other reconnaissance vehicle of that time could perform multiple roles such as supply delivery, anti-aircraft duty, anti-partisan role, policing or join an offensive operation. However this tank can only do recon and anti-partisan duty. Worse, it's performance were inferior than it's alternative, better counterpart: the Autoblinda Armored Car. Which could do everything L6/40 was capable of better in all regard. The AB could also perform a supply delivery and it could also be fitted to become a command vehicle. Something a small L6/40 is incapable of doing.
Well, while the basic vehicle was inadequate for even armed recce roles, I remember this chassis had an antitank gun armed, open top version that was much lower and capable than the original one. This could be an useful support vehicle for recce troops, I guess. But as another reader pointed out before, this project was much more a tankette than a light tank.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 - I think the key word in my preceding comment was “all.” Of course U.S. Army Ground Forces extensively used the M-3 and M-5 in offensive operations; but obviously it wasn’t their sole armored fighting vehicle they brought to tank combat.
@@parrot849 neither was the L6 the main stay tank of the Italians. At least in premise. Since that would be taken up by the m13/40 with its later updates and semovente tank destroyers. the L6s were just cheap scout tanks hence why there were alot of them. I feel like if they did upgrade the armor it could've at least been a bit more of a reliant scout vehicle. Since at the very least it wouldn't get knocked out simply by an AT rifle by infantry.
Great vid. Context explains much of why the Italians made the armored vehicles they made. The Italians, however, should have been observing the kind of tanks the rest of the world was making and anticipated that Italy might be drawn into conflicts for which its current vehicles would prove inadequate. When those unexpected conflicts came, Italian industry lacked the ability to respond quickly enough to the changing environment with respect to tank requirements though they did improvise some useful tank destroyers.
The problem is that the Panzer II started production in 1936, back before even tank on tank combat was common. I totally disagree on the T-50 unless you meant T-60 or something else. The T-50 was heavily armoured for it's weight, had a 3 man turret, with a design inspired by the lessons learnt from the T-34, and unfortunately had mechanical issues on production. The issues were never fixed because the tank was never given priority over medium tanks.
Panzer II had a much lower silhouette and much better armor protection. Given it was intended as a mere training vehicle, it actually performed quite well in combat and as recon tank. 70% of German tanks in France 1940 were Pz I and II, and I dare to say they FUCKED the French. Can't really say that about the L6 anywhere. That said, light tanks weren't part of German doctrine to begin with; they were place holders. Luchs was a pure recon tank and very fast and much better protected than L6.
classic example of a tank made for one environment, the hills and mountains of Italy, because that's what most of Italy is, beautiful though it may well be, does not mean it will be a success anywhere else. Though, to be honest, I doubt a T34 or KV1 would have operated terribly well on most Italian roads, at least not without taking more than one dive off a cliff if the roads around Sorrento are anything to judge by. L6/40 also looks top heavy, given the narrow tracks and body and relatively tall superstructure and turret. Having 8 rounds of 20mm on tap is nice, but... that turret does not look optimised. The idea of an anti-aircraft role for it boggles my mind, especially when the Germans only managed that with their tank and armoured car mounts by removing the roofs and replacing it with that segmented steel mesh top as seen on the 222, the 234/1, that scout variant of the pz38(t), some retrofitted 232s and a couple other vehicles that I forget the designation for off the top of my head. The box mag coax mg is another flaw, that's just more work for whomever has to load that thing, and given the vehicle's size, I assume that might well be the gunner or commander, who already have their own tasks. But, if all you're up against is partisans or straight leg infantry with limited means of hurting you, tis a big step up from having just an mg.
thanks for the video. I am 3D Printing & painting this tank for Bolt Action army. Do you have any pictures of the command variant? I am looking for what the turret looked like from top if possible.
@@TanksEncyclopediaYT thank you! I have looked through it and cannot find a specific photo. If you happen to have any, please let me know. I am trying to model the turret. I have description that it was "open topped" and "they left the autocannon barrel on so it was not as easily identified by enemy forces". The machine gun was its only actual defense. I cannot find any other description but assume extra radio equipment was installed. I appreciate any help you can provide. Have a great day!
No such thing as far as we know. The only command versions are the L6 Centro Radio, which is just an L6 with less ammo and more radio, and the Semovente L40 Commando version. The open topped turret sounds very similar to this one though: tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2-italy-autoblindo-tl37-autoprotetto-s37/
Used in the role it was designed for it did okay. But it wasn't a jack of all trades, so it got poor reviews. It was useful, but needed other vehicles to carry the load of tank on tank combat.
to anser the 2 questions at the end yes it shuld hav ben upgraded or even replased and yes a shaby tank is always beter than no tank i feel like we somtimes forget how hard tank design can bee and ultimatly if you have a tank and your enemy dosent most of the time aslong as your not wrecles you win
Some countries classified tanks based on weight class, and others did it based on the intended battlefield role. That's why 44t Panther and 14t I-Go were both considered medium tanks by their respective nations.
That must have been ....incredibly mind-boggling to watch the overthrow of the knucklehead EL Duce! THEN, switch sides and all the turmoil that caused internally
If put to better use i think it could have seen more succes. Interval security, anti partisan and Mountain fighting seems to have been where they would do some good.
To be honest, I think the best option by Italy at that time is to NOT START A WAR. To be fair, Mussolini thought the German will overrun the entire Europe and even the Soviet Union and decided to have small piece of the pie. But I really like it, it was tank built by a nation who struggle with resources and a homegrown design learned from the Germans, in Theater of War 2 Afrika Centauro was the first time I seen it in 3d, however the battle was a Pyrrhic victory for me as I lost a majority of my L3 light tank plus lots of infantry defending a position from the British Crusaders, but I did manage to hold long enough for the Afrika Korp to sent in their tanks to save me.
I think they got WAY too cocky after attacking Ethiopia and thought they could run over anyone else. "We will run roughshod over anyone else in the world with our magnificent tanks!" College Football analogy .....University of Italy - 3, U of USA - 72
They were limited to much by their industry and manufacturing capabilities. Turrets are almost too complicated for them. The Italians would have been better off building either simplified German Panzer 4s or stugs. The problem wasn't the turrets but lack of fire power and armor. They also could have used their experience from tankettes to build up gunned or larger versions.
Concerning the 9 x L6/40s that "repelled" a Soviet attack, those Italian tanks did not see action on that occasion. Rather, the Soviets were preparing an attack with rifle battalions; while the Russians were readying themselves, they spotted the L6/40s drawing up along a ridge, on the opposite side of the valley. Perhaps not sure if the Italians had more, unseen tanks, the Soviets called off their attack.
To put it into perspective, in 1940 some other countries current generation of tanks: Matilda II, Crusader Mk1, Pzkpfw III, Pzkpfw IV, T-26, BT-7, LT-38. So, even by the standards of 1940, it's not much of a tank.
This is a light tank, it has little sense to compare it to medium tanks. As light tanks go, the L6 was better armored than most WWII light tanks (40mm frontal), had a good gun and a clever suspension system (torsion bars placed at the ends of the hull, so to not steal space under it and so mantain a very low profile). It was the entire "light tank" concept to be outdated in WWII. Infact most powers stopped production, or relegated them to secondary roles-training.
Not designed for main battle front use. It went into battle when nothing better was available in numbers. There are pictures of mixed formations with M40 self-propelled howitzers in North Africa running _ahead_ of infantry units, as their 75mm howitzer was the only tracked weapon heavy enough to inflict damage to the enemy. Light and medium tanks were there, sadly, only to confuse the British into firing on them as well, in the dust clouds of battle, buying time for the howitzers sneaked in between.
The main limitation would have been how to load a recoilless gun from inside the turret when the breech would have had to be sticking out the rear of the turret. A gas proof breech of some sort (to protect the crew inside the turret) might have been possible but that might have been asking a bit much from Italian design and manufacturing at that time. Even the Americans, when they made the Ontos, had to load their guns from outside the vehicle.
It was designed to be light tank for mountains. It might be good enough recon tank but forcing a role it could not fulfill and be mad it didn't is dumb. They should have at least went with a design with better main gun if not with better armour too.
A two man tank is better described as a tankette, I think. For a tankette, L6/40 was as good as anyone's matching vehicle*. The Japanese M37 tankette (37mm short gun), the Universal Carrier (ATR plus LMG), the Soviet Red Army T60 (20mm autocannon) and T70 (45mm gun), the Polish TKS/20, the French H35/36 (et al), and Panzer I are all in the same class: Low. Comparing L6/40 to these is a better way to rate it. As such it ain't bad. When compared to genuine light tanks, however, such as the Vickers MkVIC (3 men and 15mm AC), the 7TP (3 men and 37mm), the CKD vz38 (4 m3n and 37mm), and the US M3 (4 men and 37mm), it becomes clear that is no suitable metric. I saw two photos of the more interesting variant, the Smv L6 da 47, but did not notice any of the command variant (13mm HMG). Personal view? The L6/40 was much like the British Churchill in that it was a perfect tank . . . for the last war. *I have some points to make about light tanks in general. A reconnaissance vehicle must (must!) be one of two things: 1) unobtrusive (quiet and low silhouette) if needed for pure observation, or 2) tough as nails (well armed and armored) if needed for reconnaissance by/in force. The two qualities are almost immiscible. Don't let me confuse you; high mobility fits both requirements. A low mobility recon vehicle is an argument in favor of a return to horsed cavalry for your intelligence gathering and column security needs. I cite the zex rad PSW231 www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/germany/Sd-Kfz-231_6-rad.php and the US T17 Deerhound prototypes. Similarly, a well armored recon "track" like a light tank is blind when buttoned up, shooting its guns in anger (or terror; terror works, too). When fighting it is not intelligence gathering. PzKw IIJ is an example. Turrets make a vehicle taller and more noticeable. Also, for best fighting qualities a turret needs a three man crew. For best intelligence gathering it needs a three man crew even more. none of WW2's light tanks had a 3 man turret crew*. The ideas about light tanks grew out of several sources. The French needed a lot of light armored machine gun carriers at the front in WW1. The Italians were limited by their narrow roads and tiny tunnels; your pointing out the location of Italy's WW1 interests is salient to topic. Germany needed something to quick train thousands of tankers for a planned war across the plains of Europe. The CCCP had a limited ability to produce full size tanks. Scaling up for producing masses of light armored tankettes helped put new industries on proper war footing, training-not crews, but factory workers. The British wanted to patrol colonial spaces, shooting at ill-armed starving peasants for fun (Italy is not free of this peculiar form of guilt). In none of these cases is the aim to make a better reconnaissance vehicle. In the end, none of the light tanks was worth two shits in a hole as a recon platform. Why? If one creates an ideal light tank it will need be thin armored (M551 comes to mind) and have lots of looking holes for the TC. Telling crews that a thin armored, high silhouette light tank should sit in plain sight and engage in firefights with enemy FLOT elements (taking this from the US Army familiarization film on the Sheridan) is pretty much tantamount to conspiracy to commit murder of your loyal recon troops. The best light recon vehicles of WW2 were none of them tanks. The Jeep, Dingo, AS42, SdKfz250/9, were small, low, and mobile, but thin armored and not focused on fighting as a primary mission. *M24 Chaffee was used in such small numbers and so late that it doesn't count.
The L6 was not a tankette. The Italians didn't use the tankette concept. Even the Carden Loyd copies (CV.29) and inspired designs (CV.33, 35, 38) were classed as fast tanks. Vehicle classes are not based on specifications. They are based on intended usage (doctrine).
@@TanksEncyclopediaYT First off thanks for making this video, I've always found Italy's efforts during the war to be the most interesting and found out most people did not care for them and would rather focus on the Germans or the Japanese over them, and while I understand and agree that the L6 is a light tank and understand the fast tank doctrine the CVs were assigned to you'll know that if you made a video on the P26/40 calling it a heavy tank you're gonna get a looot of comments on it. I'm honestly surprised so many people are pushing the tankette angle on the L6.
I am normally ok with the content of this channel, since it is very professionally presented. But, in all frankness, I find this title disrespectful to my country. Imagine if you used titles like "SS Darling" for a German tank or "Vodka Carrier" for a Soviet one or "Redneck Van" for an American one...that would be odd, to say the least. It is ok to present a tank for what it is (in this case, a hastly converted tankette, developed after the very painful experiences in Somaliland and Eritrea with the CV33), but in a respectful way.
We'd gladly do both Vodka Carrier and Redneck Van. SS Darling probably not, that would get us in trouble with TH-cam. The titles are meant to be funny and not disrespectful (which they are not).
@@TanksEncyclopediaYT What can I say...let's agree to disagree. I hope you understand that Italy and Italians have been (and still are) the target of significant and unwarranted mockery for anything related to military matters and the performance of Italian troops in WWII, in particular. People like me are sensitive to such matters, for the reason stated above. Every single time I think of my fellow countrymen who died in such contraptions, the only feelings I have are pity, for their sacrifice, and pride, for their courage and dedication. That significantly dampens my sense of humor.
They did funny titles for other nations, French came to mind (and others), it's just fun just look how serious the content his, they never go as low as many english-speaking channels with really stupid ''jokes'', all the contrary. Relax.
@@dantecafarelliYou built the Fiat Oh-No, the Lancia anything and inflicted the Lada on humanity... And those aren't the worst. Stop whining. PS Alfa Romeo Arna.... 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
This line at the end (paraphrased): is a shitty tank better than no tank? Absolutely not. If you dont have competent tanks, dont build tanks. Invest those resources into providing your infantry with more AT solutions, until you can come up with an adequate tank. Infantry is cheap. A shitty tank, even though its shitty, is still expensive. Go cheap until you can go expensive, without ruining your wallet in the process.
A waste of metal. The Italians had pretty good armoured cars, a much better choice for recon, so the effort shold have gone there. The 20mm gun was all right.
Poor Italian tankers were always getting kit one generation behind the curve. This would have been great if introduced in say, 1935. Tankettes have a complex story, when used as pure scouts, self propelled machine gun posts or utility vehicles (see the British Carrier family, basically a Jeep on tracks!) they did well. As infantry battalions gained antitank weapons from 1937 onwards they became vulnerable to the point that what protection they gave led to false confidence on part of the crews, and inappropriate deployment on the part of the generals, with deadly results for the users.
@@TanksEncyclopediaYT I beg to differ, its a Tankette with a turret shaped knob on*...🤪 * If you know the British Idiom of "With Brass Knobs on", that's what I am referring to.
Jon-Paul Filkins 1) it has more armour than most contemporary light tanks, and descent mobility compared to many contemporary light tanks (such as those fielded by the Germans). It's not entirely a generation behind, if at all. 2) what a tank is classified as is dependant on doctrine (ie intended use) not physical characteristics.
Italy's issue was being a poor nation just coming into the industrial age, a major nation in name only. While it had some great ideas for kit it had no way to keep up with other more industrialized nations in a time of war. Italy should have continued on with its internal problems before trying its hand at another european war.
you see...i dont like this EASY way out explanation.....it is a TYPICAL HINDSIGHT explanation... At the time of war break out (with England) and the years before the English had a HEALTHY RESPECT for the italian Navy ships, Submarines, airplanes (in sofar Britain LACKED THE MASSES OF SPITFIRES ?!?!?!), and...tanks (just look at the ABYSMAL stupid outdated BRITISH tanks of the time !!! safe the matilda MARK 2 !! (only a few dozens...)., and artillery... Itlay DID lack the GREAT number of TRUCKS to transport or mechanize its infantry..which Britain DID have... So ON PAPER britain was only MARGINALLY better to deal with Italy BESIDES the germans!!!!!
one other IMPORTANT factor is the code breaking of the italian codes by the british early on...that proves to be a MAJORRRRRRRRRR factor in winning battles...
to put it simply: my country was fresh out of the colonial wars and the spanish civil war. in addition we gave away many armaments to franco's supporters. there are a bunch of other reasons we weren't up to speed however I wanted to correct that for you
Wrong. It was never developed as a light mountain recon tank. It was designed as an improved version of an earlier L3/35 Italian tankette. It was always still intended as a PRIMARY tank, it was simply obsolescent by the time of introduction and totally obsolete by 1943. It was never a "mountain tank".
My goodness! It looks like a tank a child drew with crayons that someone built out of cardboard and ductape. I knew Italian tanks were notoriously bad, I'd never heard of this one before....what a goofy looking thing....almost looks like it was powered by the crew pedaling on bicycles or a Volkswagen bug engine (tbh the Volkswagen engine was probably overpowered for this lol)
Oh and as for the image of the flipped L6/40 at Stalingrad for "unknown reasons", it was probably by a Russian without a weapon that got mad and just flipped it like a table...
The only way Italy could win anything in the 30's and 40's was by going up against a populace bereft of technological sophistication. Italy itself lacked the means to build something better, so they did not. They should have stuck to fighting natives, that's the mistake.
We are speaking about a bunch of moronic arrogant tugs that declared war to the USA! I thinks that surely there were more phones in New York than in Italy !
One would think the Italians could build at least one light tank along the lines of a Ferrari or other. "Si....it is super expensive but so fast, no one can target it long enough to aim and fire" Rich Corinthian Leather inside. Bucket seats. =)
It was a decent tank for mountain combat, but was deployed to other unsuitable terrains
The L6 was a turreted tankette and was light even by light tank standards. Tankettes didn't do too well in combat but their chassis were suitable as carriers for light mortars, light anti-tank guns, and heavy machine guns. The L6 would have been suitable for the colonial anti-partisan role but not as a battle tank.
The L6 was not a tankette. The Italians didn't use the tankette concept. Even the Carden Loyd copies (CV.29) and inspired designs (CV.33, 35, 38) were classed as fast tanks.
@@TanksEncyclopediaYT - If they considered them fast tanks, they grossly overestimated their capabilities despite having first-hand knowledge of competing foreign designs. A CV.33 isn't much different than a Polish TKS. The British Carrier series were well-regarded despite their vulnerability. However, if you put a turret with a 20mm gun on a Bren Gun Carrier and called it a fast tank it wouldn't be any more successful than the L6/40.
@@TanksEncyclopediaYT It's only a question of naming, not of concept. It's not like "they don't use a perfect translation of 'tankette' so they considers them tanks".
The L6 was better armored than most WWII light tanks (40mm frontal), had a good gun and a clever suspension system (torsion bars placed at the ends of the hull, so to not steal space under it and so mantain a very low profile). It was the entire "light tank" concept to be outdated in WWII. Infact most powers stopped production, or relegated them to secondary roles-training.
It is not a matter of translation or naming. Tankette is a very nebulous term that 100% does not mean what people think it means. It was short term, varied a lot between countries and should not be used retroactively applied to vehicles.
God, I should really do a video about what tankettes were and weren't.
Funny to say "its 20mm gun was only usefull in a reconnaissance role" as a problem, since this tank was designed to be a reconnaissance vehicle...
And that's the problem. Most of the other reconnaissance vehicle of that time could perform multiple roles such as supply delivery, anti-aircraft duty, anti-partisan role, policing or join an offensive operation.
However this tank can only do recon and anti-partisan duty. Worse, it's performance were inferior than it's alternative, better counterpart: the Autoblinda Armored Car. Which could do everything L6/40 was capable of better in all regard.
The AB could also perform a supply delivery and it could also be fitted to become a command vehicle. Something a small L6/40 is incapable of doing.
Well, while the basic vehicle was inadequate for even armed recce roles, I remember this chassis had an antitank gun armed, open top version that was much lower and capable than the original one. This could be an useful support vehicle for recce troops, I guess. But as another reader pointed out before, this project was much more a tankette than a light tank.
It had a 47/32 gun and it was extremey cramped.
That’d be kinda like the American Army depending on the M5 Stuart for all their offensive armored needs
Ironic considering the Americans used the Stuart for offensive operations more than the italians depended on the L6.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 - I think the key word in my preceding comment was “all.” Of course U.S. Army Ground Forces extensively used the M-3 and M-5 in offensive operations; but obviously it wasn’t their sole armored fighting vehicle they brought to tank combat.
@@parrot849 neither was the L6 the main stay tank of the Italians. At least in premise. Since that would be taken up by the m13/40 with its later updates and semovente tank destroyers. the L6s were just cheap scout tanks hence why there were alot of them. I feel like if they did upgrade the armor it could've at least been a bit more of a reliant scout vehicle. Since at the very least it wouldn't get knocked out simply by an AT rifle by infantry.
As a recon / distraction vehicle it seems to be not bad . A recoilless weapon on it might have made it truly useful .
I love the asthetics of the L6, ist a nice looking tank if nothing else.
Yes I have been waiting for something like this for so long, thanks you 👍
Great vid. Context explains much of why the Italians made the armored vehicles they made. The Italians, however, should have been observing the kind of tanks the rest of the world was making and anticipated that Italy might be drawn into conflicts for which its current vehicles would prove inadequate. When those unexpected conflicts came, Italian industry lacked the ability to respond quickly enough to the changing environment with respect to tank requirements though they did improvise some useful tank destroyers.
It was not a bad light tank/recce vehicle especially compared to the German panzer II, German Lynx or the Soviet T 50.
The problem is that the Panzer II started production in 1936, back before even tank on tank combat was common.
I totally disagree on the T-50 unless you meant T-60 or something else.
The T-50 was heavily armoured for it's weight, had a 3 man turret, with a design inspired by the lessons learnt from the T-34, and unfortunately had mechanical issues on production. The issues were never fixed because the tank was never given priority over medium tanks.
Panzer II had a much lower silhouette and much better armor protection. Given it was intended as a mere training vehicle, it actually performed quite well in combat and as recon tank. 70% of German tanks in France 1940 were Pz I and II, and I dare to say they FUCKED the French. Can't really say that about the L6 anywhere. That said, light tanks weren't part of German doctrine to begin with; they were place holders.
Luchs was a pure recon tank and very fast and much better protected than L6.
classic example of a tank made for one environment, the hills and mountains of Italy, because that's what most of Italy is, beautiful though it may well be, does not mean it will be a success anywhere else. Though, to be honest, I doubt a T34 or KV1 would have operated terribly well on most Italian roads, at least not without taking more than one dive off a cliff if the roads around Sorrento are anything to judge by.
L6/40 also looks top heavy, given the narrow tracks and body and relatively tall superstructure and turret.
Having 8 rounds of 20mm on tap is nice, but... that turret does not look optimised. The idea of an anti-aircraft role for it boggles my mind, especially when the Germans only managed that with their tank and armoured car mounts by removing the roofs and replacing it with that segmented steel mesh top as seen on the 222, the 234/1, that scout variant of the pz38(t), some retrofitted 232s and a couple other vehicles that I forget the designation for off the top of my head.
The box mag coax mg is another flaw, that's just more work for whomever has to load that thing, and given the vehicle's size, I assume that might well be the gunner or commander, who already have their own tasks. But, if all you're up against is partisans or straight leg infantry with limited means of hurting you, tis a big step up from having just an mg.
"...the roads around Sorrento..." ;-)
Way better than no tank and a 20mm is better than an MG.. I remember them using this turret on w4 armoured cars as well..
thanks for the video. I am 3D Printing & painting this tank for Bolt Action army. Do you have any pictures of the command variant? I am looking for what the turret looked like from top if possible.
Check our website.
@@TanksEncyclopediaYT thank you! I have looked through it and cannot find a specific photo. If you happen to have any, please let me know. I am trying to model the turret. I have description that it was "open topped" and "they left the autocannon barrel on so it was not as easily identified by enemy forces". The machine gun was its only actual defense. I cannot find any other description but assume extra radio equipment was installed. I appreciate any help you can provide. Have a great day!
No such thing as far as we know. The only command versions are the L6 Centro Radio, which is just an L6 with less ammo and more radio, and the Semovente L40 Commando version.
The open topped turret sounds very similar to this one though:
tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2-italy-autoblindo-tl37-autoprotetto-s37/
@@TanksEncyclopediaYT Any pictures of the Centro Radio in your files?
"obsolete" was the word for which you were grasping.
Used in the role it was designed for it did okay. But it wasn't a jack of all trades, so it got poor reviews. It was useful, but needed other vehicles to carry the load of tank on tank combat.
to anser the 2 questions at the end yes it shuld hav ben upgraded or even replased
and yes a shaby tank is always beter than no tank i feel like we somtimes forget how hard tank design can bee and ultimatly if you have a tank and your enemy dosent most of the time aslong as your not wrecles you win
Wait hold on the M13/40 is only 13 tons and is considered a MEDIUM TANK?!!?!?
Some countries classified tanks based on weight class, and others did it based on the intended battlefield role.
That's why 44t Panther and 14t I-Go were both considered medium tanks by their respective nations.
I’m always just amazed by the fact that Italy was involved in fighting the UK, US & the Soviet Union simultaneously.
And partisans. And, at times, itself.
That must have been ....incredibly mind-boggling to watch the overthrow of the knucklehead EL Duce! THEN, switch sides and all the turmoil that caused internally
9:21 poosing with the tank you just hundted in the forest of russia is an real badass move
I would get it in warthunder because I enjoy a 20mm auto cannon at low tiers except it doesn't have a stabilizer and the barrel bounces too much
If put to better use i think it could have seen more succes. Interval security, anti partisan and Mountain fighting seems to have been where they would do some good.
It almost feels like they sent them to get destroyed in inappropriate fronts.
To be honest, I think the best option by Italy at that time is to NOT START A WAR. To be fair, Mussolini thought the German will overrun the entire Europe and even the Soviet Union and decided to have small piece of the pie.
But I really like it, it was tank built by a nation who struggle with resources and a homegrown design learned from the Germans, in Theater of War 2 Afrika Centauro was the first time I seen it in 3d, however the battle was a Pyrrhic victory for me as I lost a majority of my L3 light tank plus lots of infantry defending a position from the British Crusaders, but I did manage to hold long enough for the Afrika Korp to sent in their tanks to save me.
I think they got WAY too cocky after attacking Ethiopia and thought they could run over anyone else.
"We will run roughshod over anyone else in the world with our magnificent tanks!"
College Football analogy .....University of Italy - 3, U of USA - 72
As in all armies, they should have taken their obsolete light vehicle and STRAPPED A GIANT CANNON TO IT
Every time I see the front of this tank all I can see is a smile cute face.
If something is not intended to fight tanks, fighting tanks is an unsuitable criteria. I see it just like the German Wiesel of the Bundeswehr.
They were limited to much by their industry and manufacturing capabilities. Turrets are almost too complicated for them. The Italians would have been better off building either simplified German Panzer 4s or stugs. The problem wasn't the turrets but lack of fire power and armor. They also could have used their experience from tankettes to build up gunned or larger versions.
Italian Tanks, the proverbial knife in a gunfight.
Concerning the 9 x L6/40s that "repelled" a Soviet attack, those Italian tanks did not see action on that occasion. Rather, the Soviets were preparing an attack with rifle battalions; while the Russians were readying themselves, they spotted the L6/40s drawing up along a ridge, on the opposite side of the valley. Perhaps not sure if the Italians had more, unseen tanks, the Soviets called off their attack.
Whats the music?
It is so cool.
To put it into perspective, in 1940 some other countries current generation of tanks:
Matilda II, Crusader Mk1, Pzkpfw III, Pzkpfw IV, T-26, BT-7, LT-38. So, even by the standards of 1940, it's not much of a tank.
This is a light tank, it has little sense to compare it to medium tanks.
As light tanks go, the L6 was better armored than most WWII light tanks (40mm frontal), had a good gun and a clever suspension system (torsion bars placed at the ends of the hull, so to not steal space under it and so mantain a very low profile). It was the entire "light tank" concept to be outdated in WWII. Infact most powers stopped production, or relegated them to secondary roles-training.
Not designed for main battle front use. It went into battle when nothing better was available in numbers. There are pictures of mixed formations with M40 self-propelled howitzers in North Africa running _ahead_ of infantry units, as their 75mm howitzer was the only tracked weapon heavy enough to inflict damage to the enemy. Light and medium tanks were there, sadly, only to confuse the British into firing on them as well, in the dust clouds of battle, buying time for the howitzers sneaked in between.
The Rivit Construction makes it a poor Canditate for Up Grading ??!
Imagine going against a T34 with this thing!😱
Shame they could not mount a recolless rifle on those units .... probably could have done some real damage then .
Real damage to their chassis that is.
@@copter2000 what part of "recoilless" are you not getting
Yeah, heat ammunition was not really well developed yet, I guess it could have been an interesting against infantry and siege with HE.
Although that wouldn't be super difficult to do with a low pressure gun. Say a 75.
The main limitation would have been how to load a recoilless gun from inside the turret when the breech would have had to be sticking out the rear of the turret. A gas proof breech of some sort (to protect the crew inside the turret) might have been possible but that might have been asking a bit much from Italian design and manufacturing at that time. Even the Americans, when they made the Ontos, had to load their guns from outside the vehicle.
I'm still pissed they made this thing reserve in war thunder. Italy is already pain, you don't need to punish their players at rank 1
If only had 400 of these in 1942 in hoi4 there is no f way I could win!
Great content.
It was designed to be light tank for mountains. It might be good enough recon tank but forcing a role it could not fulfill and be mad it didn't is dumb. They should have at least went with a design with better main gun if not with better armour too.
A two man tank is better described as a tankette, I think.
For a tankette, L6/40 was as good as anyone's matching vehicle*. The Japanese M37 tankette (37mm short gun), the Universal Carrier (ATR plus LMG), the Soviet Red Army T60 (20mm autocannon) and T70 (45mm gun), the Polish TKS/20, the French H35/36 (et al), and Panzer I are all in the same class: Low. Comparing L6/40 to these is a better way to rate it. As such it ain't bad.
When compared to genuine light tanks, however, such as the Vickers MkVIC (3 men and 15mm AC), the 7TP (3 men and 37mm), the CKD vz38 (4 m3n and 37mm), and the US M3 (4 men and 37mm), it becomes clear that is no suitable metric.
I saw two photos of the more interesting variant, the Smv L6 da 47, but did not notice any of the command variant (13mm HMG).
Personal view?
The L6/40 was much like the British Churchill in that it was a perfect tank . . . for the last war.
*I have some points to make about light tanks in general. A reconnaissance vehicle must (must!) be one of two things: 1) unobtrusive (quiet and low silhouette) if needed for pure observation, or 2) tough as nails (well armed and armored) if needed for reconnaissance by/in force. The two qualities are almost immiscible.
Don't let me confuse you; high mobility fits both requirements. A low mobility recon vehicle is an argument in favor of a return to horsed cavalry for your intelligence gathering and column security needs. I cite the zex rad PSW231 www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/germany/Sd-Kfz-231_6-rad.php and the US T17 Deerhound prototypes.
Similarly, a well armored recon "track" like a light tank is blind when buttoned up, shooting its guns in anger (or terror; terror works, too). When fighting it is not intelligence gathering. PzKw IIJ is an example.
Turrets make a vehicle taller and more noticeable. Also, for best fighting qualities a turret needs a three man crew. For best intelligence gathering it needs a three man crew even more. none of WW2's light tanks had a 3 man turret crew*.
The ideas about light tanks grew out of several sources. The French needed a lot of light armored machine gun carriers at the front in WW1. The Italians were limited by their narrow roads and tiny tunnels; your pointing out the location of Italy's WW1 interests is salient to topic. Germany needed something to quick train thousands of tankers for a planned war across the plains of Europe. The CCCP had a limited ability to produce full size tanks. Scaling up for producing masses of light armored tankettes helped put new industries on proper war footing, training-not crews, but factory workers. The British wanted to patrol colonial spaces, shooting at ill-armed starving peasants for fun (Italy is not free of this peculiar form of guilt).
In none of these cases is the aim to make a better reconnaissance vehicle. In the end, none of the light tanks was worth two shits in a hole as a recon platform. Why? If one creates an ideal light tank it will need be thin armored (M551 comes to mind) and have lots of looking holes for the TC. Telling crews that a thin armored, high silhouette light tank should sit in plain sight and engage in firefights with enemy FLOT elements (taking this from the US Army familiarization film on the Sheridan) is pretty much tantamount to conspiracy to commit murder of your loyal recon troops.
The best light recon vehicles of WW2 were none of them tanks. The Jeep, Dingo, AS42, SdKfz250/9, were small, low, and mobile, but thin armored and not focused on fighting as a primary mission.
*M24 Chaffee was used in such small numbers and so late that it doesn't count.
The L6 was not a tankette. The Italians didn't use the tankette concept. Even the Carden Loyd copies (CV.29) and inspired designs (CV.33, 35, 38) were classed as fast tanks.
Vehicle classes are not based on specifications. They are based on intended usage (doctrine).
It will be logical, but we (Italians) classed it as a Light Tank and assigned/used them as such.
SdKfz250/9,that was the one I was trying to think of, thank you ^w^
@@TanksEncyclopediaYT First off thanks for making this video, I've always found Italy's efforts during the war to be the most interesting and found out most people did not care for them and would rather focus on the Germans or the Japanese over them, and while I understand and agree that the L6 is a light tank and understand the fast tank doctrine the CVs were assigned to you'll know that if you made a video on the P26/40 calling it a heavy tank you're gonna get a looot of comments on it. I'm honestly surprised so many people are pushing the tankette angle on the L6.
Why Italy did so many weird metal boxes?? 🤣
I bet you're part of that country that's army gets its ass kicked by terrible rice farmers
To to 2:01 to avoid the annoying commercial.
*Slaps Turret* PIZZA TIME :)
I am normally ok with the content of this channel, since it is very professionally presented. But, in all frankness, I find this title disrespectful to my country. Imagine if you used titles like "SS Darling" for a German tank or "Vodka Carrier" for a Soviet one or "Redneck Van" for an American one...that would be odd, to say the least. It is ok to present a tank for what it is (in this case, a hastly converted tankette, developed after the very painful experiences in Somaliland and Eritrea with the CV33), but in a respectful way.
We'd gladly do both Vodka Carrier and Redneck Van. SS Darling probably not, that would get us in trouble with TH-cam.
The titles are meant to be funny and not disrespectful (which they are not).
@@TanksEncyclopediaYT What can I say...let's agree to disagree. I hope you understand that Italy and Italians have been (and still are) the target of significant and unwarranted mockery for anything related to military matters and the performance of Italian troops in WWII, in particular. People like me are sensitive to such matters, for the reason stated above. Every single time I think of my fellow countrymen who died in such contraptions, the only feelings I have are pity, for their sacrifice, and pride, for their courage and dedication. That significantly dampens my sense of humor.
They did funny titles for other nations, French came to mind (and others), it's just fun just look how serious the content his, they never go as low as many english-speaking channels with really stupid ''jokes'', all the contrary. Relax.
@@dantecafarelliYou built the Fiat Oh-No, the Lancia anything and inflicted the Lada on humanity... And those aren't the worst. Stop whining.
PS Alfa Romeo Arna.... 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
plywood covered with aluminum foil? Heavy Duty aluminum foil =)
This line at the end (paraphrased): is a shitty tank better than no tank?
Absolutely not. If you dont have competent tanks, dont build tanks. Invest those resources into providing your infantry with more AT solutions, until you can come up with an adequate tank. Infantry is cheap. A shitty tank, even though its shitty, is still expensive. Go cheap until you can go expensive, without ruining your wallet in the process.
Tow supplies
A waste of metal. The Italians had pretty good armoured cars, a much better choice for recon, so the effort shold have gone there. The 20mm gun was all right.
Well storically this tank wasnt good but in games like WOT is broken for his tier
Poor Italian tankers were always getting kit one generation behind the curve. This would have been great if introduced in say, 1935.
Tankettes have a complex story, when used as pure scouts, self propelled machine gun posts or utility vehicles (see the British Carrier family, basically a Jeep on tracks!) they did well. As infantry battalions gained antitank weapons from 1937 onwards they became vulnerable to the point that what protection they gave led to false confidence on part of the crews, and inappropriate deployment on the part of the generals, with deadly results for the users.
We will keep repeating this. Not a tankette.
@@TanksEncyclopediaYT I beg to differ, its a Tankette with a turret shaped knob on*...🤪
* If you know the British Idiom of "With Brass Knobs on", that's what I am referring to.
Jon-Paul Filkins 1) it has more armour than most contemporary light tanks, and descent mobility compared to many contemporary light tanks (such as those fielded by the Germans). It's not entirely a generation behind, if at all.
2) what a tank is classified as is dependant on doctrine (ie intended use) not physical characteristics.
Italy's issue was being a poor nation just coming into the industrial age, a major nation in name only. While it had some great ideas for kit it had no way to keep up with other more industrialized nations in a time of war. Italy should have continued on with its internal problems before trying its hand at another european war.
you see...i dont like this EASY way out explanation.....it is a TYPICAL HINDSIGHT explanation...
At the time of war break out (with England) and the years before the English had a HEALTHY RESPECT for the italian Navy ships, Submarines, airplanes (in sofar Britain LACKED THE MASSES OF SPITFIRES ?!?!?!), and...tanks (just look at the ABYSMAL stupid outdated BRITISH tanks of the time !!! safe the matilda MARK 2 !! (only a few dozens...)., and artillery...
Itlay DID lack the GREAT number of TRUCKS to transport or mechanize its infantry..which Britain DID have...
So ON PAPER britain was only MARGINALLY better to deal with Italy BESIDES the germans!!!!!
one other IMPORTANT factor is the code breaking of the italian codes by the british early on...that proves to be a MAJORRRRRRRRRR factor in winning battles...
to put it simply: my country was fresh out of the colonial wars and the spanish civil war. in addition we gave away many armaments to franco's supporters. there are a bunch of other reasons we weren't up to speed however I wanted to correct that for you
England had pretty bad tanks also, despite being the first industrialized nation and having an entire colonial empire at its disposal.
Wrong. It was never developed as a light mountain recon tank. It was designed as an improved version of an earlier L3/35 Italian tankette. It was always still intended as a PRIMARY tank, it was simply obsolescent by the time of introduction and totally obsolete by 1943. It was never a "mountain tank".
My goodness! It looks like a tank a child drew with crayons that someone built out of cardboard and ductape. I knew Italian tanks were notoriously bad, I'd never heard of this one before....what a goofy looking thing....almost looks like it was powered by the crew pedaling on bicycles or a Volkswagen bug engine (tbh the Volkswagen engine was probably overpowered for this lol)
Oh and as for the image of the flipped L6/40 at Stalingrad for "unknown reasons", it was probably by a Russian without a weapon that got mad and just flipped it like a table...
They played durag on the top of the tank when he lost he flipped it over
The only way Italy could win anything in the 30's and 40's was by going up against a populace bereft of technological sophistication. Italy itself lacked the means to build something better, so they did not. They should have stuck to fighting natives, that's the mistake.
We are speaking about a bunch of moronic arrogant tugs that declared war to the USA! I thinks that surely there were more phones in New York than in Italy !
Having five reverse gears was beneficial.
Let's just face facts fellow armchair generals, Italy just had no idea how to build a real tank and still don't.
One would think the Italians could build at least one light tank along the lines of a Ferrari or other.
"Si....it is super expensive but so fast, no one can target it long enough to aim and fire"
Rich Corinthian Leather inside. Bucket seats. =)