Driftless
Donor
As well as being thin-skinned and underarmed, weren't the Carro Velloce's mechanically unreliable too?
Conversely, weren't the Italian Semovente/Stug's pretty useful by anyone's measure?
Alternative History Armoured Fighting Vehicles Part 3
- Thread starter Claymore
- Start date
- Status
Conversely, weren't the Italian Semovente/Stug's pretty useful by anyone's measure?
The problem the Italians had was as follows.
Italy was not a wealthy country nor was it as industrialised as the French, Germans or British. It had the required technology but did not have the ability to make enough.
The Italians had one of the best European Air Forces and Armies in the early 1930's but by WW2 had large numbers of obsolete vehicles.
Italian production numbers really show the story. From 1939 to 1945 (including German numbers from Italian industry after 1943) the total number of Armoured Fighting Vehicles is only 2908. This is pathetic and the best AFV's it made would rightly be the SPG like the Semovente with it's interesting weapon choices.
The other interesting fact is that the Italians last series production tank of ww2 prior to armistice used a 47mm gun.
The Italians had not expected to be at war before 1943, so like how the German plans had a 1944/45 war date they went early. The end result was the weapons had become obsolete since design and no amount of individual skill or bravery could make up for it.
Italian commanders ranged from brilliant to worse than bad and the amount of political reliability was as with most totalitarian regimes seen as a reason for promotion.
The Spanish civil war identified many limitations but the industry could not rectify it fast enough.
Italy was not a wealthy country nor was it as industrialised as the French, Germans or British. It had the required technology but did not have the ability to make enough.
The Italians had one of the best European Air Forces and Armies in the early 1930's but by WW2 had large numbers of obsolete vehicles.
Italian production numbers really show the story. From 1939 to 1945 (including German numbers from Italian industry after 1943) the total number of Armoured Fighting Vehicles is only 2908. This is pathetic and the best AFV's it made would rightly be the SPG like the Semovente with it's interesting weapon choices.
The other interesting fact is that the Italians last series production tank of ww2 prior to armistice used a 47mm gun.
The Italians had not expected to be at war before 1943, so like how the German plans had a 1944/45 war date they went early. The end result was the weapons had become obsolete since design and no amount of individual skill or bravery could make up for it.
Italian commanders ranged from brilliant to worse than bad and the amount of political reliability was as with most totalitarian regimes seen as a reason for promotion.
The Spanish civil war identified many limitations but the industry could not rectify it fast enough.
No it's true, but there were good reasons for it as follows:
Geography. A lot of Italy is a long mountain range with two coasts attached. It's not a geography that favours big tanks, as the WAllies found out when they invaded.
Industry. Not a lot of money, not a lot of industry, means small tanks not big ones.
Politics. Their area of interest was the Mediterranean and North Africa. The North Africans did not have big fleets of big tanks, so there was no obvious need for them to go big
For further details, Google "Development of Italy's Armoured Doctrine 1918-1940" by the youtuber "The Chieftain"
Question for those more knowledgeable than me....
If the British has chosen to have worked with the WW1 6-pounder case (instead of the 2 pounder) and from there focused on improved propellant and longer barrel to reach higher velocities (still won't match the WW2 6-pounder, but would certainly exceed 2000fps), would the shorter case length and recoil allow it to fit into 3-man Valentine Turrets with the smaller turret rings (whereas the OTL 6 pounder required a reduction to 2-men in same turret)?
If the British has chosen to have worked with the WW1 6-pounder case (instead of the 2 pounder) and from there focused on improved propellant and longer barrel to reach higher velocities (still won't match the WW2 6-pounder, but would certainly exceed 2000fps), would the shorter case length and recoil allow it to fit into 3-man Valentine Turrets with the smaller turret rings (whereas the OTL 6 pounder required a reduction to 2-men in same turret)?
If Plan 1919 had actually occurred with the Allies utilising armoured vehicles to destroy the German units on the Western Front. How would this have affected AFV development, as I think having vindicated the utility of armoured warfare and the concentration of tanks - should improve doctrine and tank development. Well it should do so... it all depends on the post war draw down.
Garrison
Donor
Very unreliable. I looked this info up while researching for my TL. At the beginning of the invasion of Greece the 131st ‘Centauro’ Armoured Division had a theoretical strength of one hundred and sixty-three vehicles, only ninety were operational.
On the other hand the TDs were apparently quite good, but very rare.
This beast reminds me a bit of the experiment carried out with the Raupenschlepper Ost.
Not a success, though of course the IJA chassis is larger.
Good feature.
That's a new one to me. I think I have a line drawing of an RSO, might play around with this idea.
The weight and recoil seem too far over the rear road wheel.
Garrison
Donor
BACKGROUND:
‘In response to the Allied deployment of the Pershing and Centurion tanks the Nazi regime started the ‘Volkspanzer’ program. This was intended to provide a stopgap until the Panther II and Tiger III tanks could be deployed. During the program the idea of a fitting the vehicles with an allegedly simple wire guided anti-tank rocket in place of a complicated to produce 88mm or 105mm gun was seized on, primarily since it would allow for a much smaller vehicle based on the existing Hetzer chassis and needing a much smaller crew, ideally one drawn from the ranks of the Hitler Youth rather than the badly depleted ranks of regular tank crews. The vehicle was called the Wiesel (Weasel) and the missile was the XJ-1, designated as the ‘Fangzahn’ (Fang). The mount on top of the vehicle carried two missiles side by side and the large panniers attached to the sides of the Wiesel were intended to carry three additional weapons and fittings each. The XJ-1 was based on the X-4 air-to-air missile, but was somewhat smaller and shorter in proportions and intended to have a shaped charge warhead rather than the simple explosive/fragmentation type of the X-4 By the end of the war one Hetzer had been modified with a wooden mock-up of the launching mount but the XJ-1 never progressed beyond the drawing board. The mocked-up Wiesel was seized by the Soviets at the end of the war but was broken up for scrap shortly afterwards.’
So this very bad idea of a 'Volkspanzer' came into my head last night and I decided to get it out of there.
A modified Hetzer image with a modified X-4 missile bolted onto it. I feel that it is a perfect late war Nazi vehicle, overengineered, overcomplicated and at the same time intended for some poor bastards with minimal training to use. 
marathag
Banned
sometimes didn't work out
Now the M56 was around 6000 pounds heavier, but the 90mm was far more powerful, roughly twice the ME of the Pak40
Deleted member 2186
Why not mount a pair of Panzerschreck tubes instead of rockets, ore something like the M50 OntosView attachment 706022
BACKGROUND:
‘In response to the Allied deployment of the Pershing and Centurion tanks the Nazi regime started the ‘Volkspanzer’ program. This was intended to provide a stopgap until the Panther II and Tiger III tanks could be deployed. During the program the idea of a fitting the vehicles with an allegedly simple wire guided anti-tank rocket in place of a complicated to produce 88mm or 105mm gun was seized on, primarily since it would allow for a much smaller vehicle based on the existing Hetzer chassis and needing a much smaller crew, ideally one drawn from the ranks of the Hitler Youth rather than the badly depleted ranks of regular tank crews. The vehicle was called the Wiesel (Weasel) and the missile was the XJ-1, designated as the ‘Fangzahn’ (Fang). The mount on top of the vehicle carried two missiles side by side and the large panniers attached to the sides of the Wiesel were intended to carry three additional weapons and fittings each. The XJ-1 was based on the X-4 air-to-air missile, but was somewhat smaller and shorter in proportions and intended to have a shaped charge warhead rather than the simple explosive/fragmentation type of the X-4 By the end of the war one Hetzer had been modified with a wooden mock-up of the launching mount but the XJ-1 never progressed beyond the drawing board. The mocked-up Wiesel was seized by the Soviets at the end of the war but was broken up for scrap shortly afterwards.’
So this very bad idea of a 'Volkspanzer' came into my head last night and I decided to get it out of there.
Garrison
Donor
I did think of that, but the missiles give greater range, and frankly they just look cooler.
Deleted member 2186
True but cooler is not simple, especially if they are to be used by troops who have limit training.I did think of that, but the missiles give greater range, and frankly they just look cooler.
A lot of the "Volks"-equipment was not realy usable by the kind of barely trained teenagers and old man envisioned to use it.
I think the super overengineered guided-missiles-on-a-somewhat-reasonable-chassis thing fits very well with late war german ideas.
- Status