PDA

View Full Version : Italian tanks and AFVs.



Panzerknacker
12-01-2006, 09:34 AM
Probably the most unknkown of the armored divisions. I


http://i10.tinypic.com/4hl84ea.jpg

Panzerknacker
12-02-2006, 03:30 PM
Carro Armato M-11/39.

In 1933 it was clear the the tankettes were not the answer for replacing the overaging FIAT 3000s and a new tank was commisioned. After experimenting about a bigger and heavier 12 tons tank based on the CV.33 design, a lighter 8 tons tank version was chosen. In 1935 new tank appeared with its 37mm L40 gun with a limited traverse of 15º on the left and on the right and 12º on top and bottom thanks to an hydraulic device on the horizontal plane. The gunner seated on the right and the driver, lightly reared, on the left while the commander manouvered the turret two Breda 8mm MGs. The engine, still of commercial version, transmitted its move through a gear box to the forward sprocket. The drive was possible because of an epicyclic lever and the brakes.


M-11/39 Prototype.


http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/4635/tanks/m39/m39_prototype.jpg


Ground tests demonstrated that the vehicle needed improvements on the engine and transmission systems; a new rounded turret was designed to speed and make easier the production and so, in 1937, the new tank, designed "Carro di rottura" (breaktrough tank) was requested in a first (and only) batch of 100 exemplaries.
Lack of materials delayed the production until 1939 when it begun to be delivered with the signature M. 11/39 (which states for "Medium tank weighting 11 tons and accepted in service in 1939"): this vehicle was taller, heavier (about 10 tons) and hard to explain the tank was lacking the radio (that instead was mounted on the prototype).
In May 1940 24 M. 11/39s were sent in A.O.I. ("Africa Orientale Italiana", Italian Eastern Africa) grouped in a "Compagnia speciale carri M.", special M. tanks company to reinforce the Italian positions in the colony. On the start of the conflict field commands required new tank reinforcements because the light CV. 33s were unuseful, as demonstrated in first encounters with British armored units. 70 tanks were placed at disposal of the 4th Tank Regiment and landed in Bengazi in July of the same year.


http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/7666/itacarroarmatom113932ww.jpg

When first employed against the English the M.11/39 got enough succes while being used in infantry support role during the first advance to Sidi Barrani. Similarly to the L. 33s this tanks were mechanically unreliable: in September when the Armored Groups were re-created the I Battailon of the 4th Tank Regiment's 31 tanks only nine were still in service. The first engagements with the british tanks immediatly proved the inferiority and weakness of the M.11 in both gun and armor thickness and shape, without speaking about the weak trasmission/suspension system.



http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/4635/tanks/m39/m39_rear.jpgA shot of the rear of a M. 39 captured by the British in North Africa.


The disaster was near: when the British launched their offensive in December 1940 the II Bataillon (2 M.11 companies) detached to Maletti Group was surprised near Nibeiwa and 22 of its tanks were knocked out. The I Battailon, while being part of the new Special Armored Brigade with a M.13 Battaillon and 2 L.33 battailons, was able to take only a minor part in the fight because the most part of its tanks were in Tobruk for repairs.
The following defeat in early 1941 took the destruction or the capture of almost all the M.11/39s: because of their unreliability and lack of any recovery vehicle the immobilized vehicles were abandoned in the enemy hands: the Australians equipped an entire regiment with the captured M.39 but they were soon put out of service because of their faults. The remnants six(!) tanks were used in Italy for training purposes and were officially put out of service after the armistice of September 1943.

http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/4635/tanks/m39/m39_destroyed.jpg

Panzerknacker
12-02-2006, 10:58 PM
Characteristics M-11/39:

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/6570/m1139side7za.jpg



Weigth: 10,970 tons
Crew: 3
Weapons: Vickers-Terni 37mm L40 gun with 84 rounds, 2 8mm MG Breda model 38 with 2800 rounds.
Armor: hull 8-30mm (nose 30mm, sloped plate 14mm, front 30mm, sides 14-15mm, top 8mm, bottom 7mm, rear 14mm); turret 7-30mm (front 30mm, sides and rear 14mm, top 7mm).
Engine: 43hp diesel FIAT Spa 8T, 8-cylinders on V, liquid cooled
Speed: 34Km/h
Autonomy: 200Km
Length (max)4,73m
Width: 2,18m
Height: 2,25m


Layout of the transporte device.


http://img106.imageshack.us/img106/7323/itam11395ci.jpg

Panzerknacker
01-30-2007, 08:03 PM
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/8985/fiatlh1.jpg

Extracted from "encyclopedia of Weapons of WW2"

Panzerknacker
02-14-2007, 05:26 PM
Gallery of light and Medium tanks, note the 20 mm AT rifle armed tankette.

http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/3042/galeriaob2.jpg


Plate from "Italian Armored Vehicles of WW2" Squadron Armor.

Panzerknacker
02-23-2007, 08:18 PM
Carro Armato L3 Light Tank

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/Italy/Ita-L3-Prototype.jpg


An experimental model produced by Fiat Ansaldo in 1937 on a chassis of a L.3 tankette. It had a 20mm Breda automatic cannon and an 8mm MG located in the turret much like the German Panzer II. This tank was never ordered into production.

Strina-Croatia
02-25-2007, 04:14 AM
Can someone please post some photos of the M13/40?

Panzerknacker
02-25-2007, 03:44 PM
Here you got M-13/40 and M-14/41, almost the same desing but the 14/41 was slightly heavier due the desert equipment.


http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/4719/11wu1.jpg


http://img93.imageshack.us/img93/4482/27gb.jpg


The maximum armor was 35mm.

http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/3434/37mo1.jpg

Panzerknacker
02-26-2007, 07:34 PM
More pics of the M-14/41 and M-13/40 this are extracted from "Italian armored vehicles" Nicola Pignato, Squadron Armor.


http://i17.tinypic.com/42u3s06.jpg


http://i18.tinypic.com/2luut90.jpg


http://i16.tinypic.com/4cug0fo.jpg

One of the few advantages of this desing over the Britsh ones was that his 47mm gun was capable of fire HE ammo til 3500 meters, the 2 pounder gun only receive He ammo after the war in desert was over.

In the other hand the 47/32 mm gun was not very fast one with 640 m/s initial muzzle speed for his AP projectile.

in Rommel words "Is scary to see what kind of tanks the Duce has given to his soldiers" :roll:

And where Rommel speak I just keep a respectful silence.

Strina-Croatia
02-27-2007, 11:35 AM
Thanks Panzerknacker i asked because i am finishing my bersagileri diorama in the desert so i wanted to see if i missed something.And i did not :-)!!!

Panzerknacker
02-27-2007, 07:36 PM
And i did not

You like the precise works. ;)

M-13/40 in color :

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/7231/m1340ii7.jpg


Characteristics of the M-13 armament, the penetration power of the Ansaldo 47/32 gun seems a little optimistic.


http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/908/m13401yt4.jpg


Source of the pics: same as above described.

Timbo in Oz
02-27-2007, 08:38 PM
serious piece of gear, Ariete had a lot by 1942, IIRC!

Timbo

GermanSoldier
02-28-2007, 03:29 PM
http://i6.tinypic.com/43e34m1.jpg
Italian tank picture in color. The picture shows a 47mm Ansaldo 47/32 Gun. This tank was very much used in North Africa. With a AA gun and great muzzle velocity gave it a great fighting chance.

It is no doubt that Italian tanks played an important role in many of their victorys, but I would not want to be a tanker in one of the Italian tanks.

Panzerknacker
02-28-2007, 09:16 PM
With a AA gun and great muzzle velocity gave it a great fighting chance.



Nice picture but the muzzle velocity of gun that war relatively poor, 630 m/s compared to 800 m/s of a british 2 pounder.


is no doubt that Italian tanks played an important role in many of their victorys, but I would not want to be a tanker in one of the Italian tanks

Rommel hated all the italian weapons (not the soldiers ) but you are corret most of the "PanzerArmee Afrika" was formed with italian armor.

In this video you can see italian armor and artillery, including the M-14/41 tank wich was the first vehicle to reach the Tobruk harbour when that fortress fell to the axis Forces in 21th June 1942.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJHrnVeNgIc

GermanSoldier
02-28-2007, 09:19 PM
[QUOTE=Panzerknacker;95089]Nice picture but the muzzle velocity of gun that war relatively poor, 630 m/s compared to 800 m/s of a british 2 pounder.
Thank you for pointing that out for me. Thanks for the compliment on the picture.

Panzerknacker
03-01-2007, 06:44 PM
No problemo.

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/Italy/Ita-M1340-Desert-1.jpg


M-15/42:

This tank can be regarded as a product improvement of the M 14/41 though external resemblence is close. The tank is slightly longer and can be distinguished from earlier models by the lack of a crew hatch on the left side and the appearance of a crew hatch on the right.

http://i2.tinypic.com/30mamvl.jpg


The gun was longer, the turret was electrically traversed, speed improved, improved armor, and in general, a better ride.

http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/3513/arietels5.jpg


82 of these tanks were built in 1943 before the war ended for Italy, but, these units did see action against the Germans. The rebuilt Ariete Division, located in Italy, took part in the Italian attempt to deny Rome to the Germans between 8 and 10 September 1943. The M.15s captured by the Germans were put to good use by their new owners.

GermanSoldier
03-05-2007, 07:07 PM
The M15/42 Tank was an Italian World War II 15 ton tank first built in January 1943. Some 90 vehicles were built befor the Italian surrender in September 1943 and in connection to that event they were used in battle against the Germans by the Ariete armored division in Rome. After that point they were confiscated and used by the Germans who also built another 28 M15/42 tanks. Armament was once 47 mm main gun and for 8 mm Breda 38 machine guns.

http://i19.tinypic.com/3yf2y42.jpg

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
crew:4
length:4.92 m
width:2.2 m
height2.4 m
weight:14.37 tonnes
ARMOUR AND ARMAMENT
armour:42mm
main armament 47 mm L/40 gun 111 rounds
secondary armament: 4x8 mm Breda 38 machine guns
MOBILITY
power plant: petrol 145 hp
suspension: vertical volute spring
road speed: 35km/h
range: 200km

Panzerknacker
03-06-2007, 06:15 PM
Thank G.S, the 40 calibres gun of this tank had higher muzzle speed that the used in the M-13s.

http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/4463/ansaldozb2.jpg

Panzerknacker
03-15-2007, 09:51 PM
Carro Armato Celere Sahariano.

http://utenti.quipo.it/mc68/italtank/Immagini/celere-s-0.jpg

Being impressed with the British cruiser tanks, the Italians attempted to make a copy for use in North Africa. The Carro Armato Celere Sahariano ( Fast Saharian tank) was clearly inspired by the Crusader, it had sloped armor and the 47 mm high velocity gun installed in a M-14/41 modified turret.

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/Italy/Ita-CarroArmatoCelereSaharianoMediumTank.jpg

The hull employed a torsion bar suspension for improved cross country abilities. The tank can reach 60 km/h powered by a 270 hp Fiat diesel engine.

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/Italy/Ita-CarroArmatoSahariano.jpg

The war in ended before this AFV could be put on service and the project was cancelled. A 75mm main gun was proposed for production models.

http://utenti.quipo.it/mc68/italtank/Immagini/celere-s-3.jpg

Natxo
03-21-2007, 11:36 AM
Carro Armato L3 Light Tank

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/Italy/Ita-L3-Prototype.jpg


An experimental model produced by Fiat Ansaldo in 1937 on a chassis of a L.3 tankette. It had a 20mm Breda automatic cannon and an 8mm MG located in the turret much like the German Panzer II. This tank was never ordered into production.

I must say that your information is not correct. This AFV was produced in Spain, in the Sestao Naval Yards, during 1937. The Spanish Army accepted the prototype, but problems with the manufacture of armoured steel plates stopped this proyect. Italian advisors were present during the design phase, ant it is inspired both by the L33 and the Pz I.

Panzerknacker
03-21-2007, 08:43 PM
Are you sure ? Was was the spanish name of this.

Natxo
03-22-2007, 04:35 AM
The name was CCI Tipo 1937. CCI stands for "Carro de Combate de Infantería", translated as infantry tank. It´s necessary to understand that for the spanish military the BT-5 used by the Republican Army was a heavy tank.
The tank was created thinking in the L3´s hull and the Pz I´s turret. It was intended to be protected only against 7,92mm ammunition, machine gun fire.
I can tell you that the buildings at the picture are from the Sestao Naval Yards.

Panzerknacker
03-22-2007, 09:03 PM
OK, gracias por aclararlo, lo que habia visto antes era unos Pz 1 con torre equipada con cañon Breda de 20mm.

http://www.czolgiem.com/niemcy/foto/panzer1_20mm.jpg

Nickdfresh
03-24-2007, 04:59 AM
Has anyone seen the film "The Lion of the Desert" about the Italian invasion and occupation of Libya?

The central Italian general, whose name I forget, makes the claim that he is "the first to put tanks in the desert" (circa the late 1920s or early thirties)...

Is this true?

Panzerknacker
03-24-2007, 12:54 PM
Unless the british had deployed some armor in WW1 in his colonies, I believe that this statement is probably truth.

1000ydstare
03-25-2007, 06:43 AM
Probably true.

The RAF put Armoured Cars in to the desert in the 20's but I don't know about tanks.


The history of No 3 (Field) Squadron Royal Air Force Regiment dates back to the inter-war years, before the formation of the Royal Air Force Regiment itself. It was Lord Trenchard's philosophy in the 1920s that, to support light bombers in their policing of large areas in the Middle East, Armoured Car Companies should be formed, manned by Royal Air Force officers and airmen and under Royal Air Force control. No 3 Armoured Car Company was formed on 3 November 1922 at Basra and served in eastern Iraq. The Company conducted operations both on its own and in co-operation with aircraft against disaffected Kurdish tribes over a wide area of southern and eastern Iraq. On 1 April 1925 the Company was disbanded and its personnel and vehicles were distributed among the remaining Armoured Car Companies.

They drove around in Rolls Royces....
http://www.tankmuseum.co.uk/news/images/new-images/image009.jpg

http://www.tankmuseum.co.uk/news/images/new-images/pro25c.jpg

Honest, they are Rolls Royces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls_Royce_Armoured_Car

http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafaldergrove/aboutus/3sqnhistory.cfm

Tanks were certainly seen by the British as only any good for World War 1 type offensives. Many didn't wish to see them replace the Cavalry (in all armies). The Armoured cars above would probably have been more reliable and faster in the desert.


An outstanding achievement of the British Army was the creation of the Experimental Mechanised Force in the late 1920s. This was a small Brigade-sized unit developed to field-test the use of tanks and other vehicles. The unit pioneered the extensive use of radio to control widely-separated small units. The unit was short-lived, however.

Anyone like to guess what this unit inspired? Yep, thats right, the Blitzkreig was pioneered by the British and discarded, the Germans perfected it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanks_(1919-1939)

1000ydstare
03-25-2007, 07:08 AM
I am pretty sure the Italians may have been, if the film is accurate, unless the British used them in Iraq inthe 1920s.

The Royal Tank Regiment, does not have any battle honours for the prewar period, so unless htey were used by other units...

I ahve a feeling htough that they used the cars as above. Lawerence of Arabia was a Tank officer though.

Strina-Croatia
03-25-2007, 07:21 AM
The Italians were the first to do it with tanks but before them the french were testing armoured vehicles there

GermanSoldier
03-26-2007, 09:00 PM
The Italians were the first to do it with tanks but before them the french were testing armoured vehicles there

Yes this is true because the French was the first nation to build a tank. (which was manuafactured in World War 1) After World War 1 the French were very interested in making a great tank that would give them the advantage on the battle field. While they were taking interest in their tanks the Italians were already in great process in their future tank population in World War 2. (Italy probably did not make the best tanks in World War 2.) Me personally I did not like the Italian tanks very much, but I like the effort that most Italians had during fights. No matter what tank, they were determined to win the battle. However this statement might have been true only a few times in World War 2.

1000ydstare
03-27-2007, 01:34 PM
...the French was the first nation to build a tank. (which was manuafactured in World War 1) After World War 1 the French were very interested in making a great tank that would give them the advantage on the battle field. While they were taking interest in their tanks the Italians were already in great process in their future tank population in World War 2. (Italy probably did not make the best tanks in World War 2.)

I agree that Italian tanks were some of the worst in WW2, but wrt the first tanks I disagree...

The first tank design was, the Italian, Leonardo DaVinci (although it never got off paper).

The British were the first to design and develop "water carriers", so named after the cover story of them being tracked water carriers for the Army on the front. This name slipped to "water tanks" and then "tanks". The name becoming official in December 1915 as a cover, and eversince their actual name.

Little Willie was Britains first succesful prototype and was completed in Sept 1915 (design started in July 1915). The first British tank saw action during the Battle of the Somme on 15 September 1916.

The first French tank was the Schneider CA1, it started life as a tracked gun tractor (the British had these prior to the Great War as did many farmers and other countries) and thus can not be called a "tank" as such.

The Schneider Company was a large arms manufacturer in France. Having been given the order to develop heavy artillery tractors, in January 1915 the company sent out its chief designer, Eugène Brillié, to investigate tracked tractors from the American Holt Company, at that time participating in a test programme in England.

On his return Brillié, who had earlier been involved in designing armoured cars for Spain, convinced the company management to initiate studies on the development of a Tracteur blindé et armé (armoured and armed tractor (essentely and early "tank"), based on the Baby Holt chassis, two of which were ordered. In July 1915 this private programme was combined with an official one for the development of a barbed wire cutter by engineer Jean-Louis Bréton.

On 9 December 1915, the first chassis was demonstrated to the French Army (3 months after the British).

One of the onlookers was colonel Jean-Baptiste Eugène Estienne (1860-1936), a man held in very high regard throughout the army for his unmatched technological and tactical expertise. For Estienne the vehicle shown embodied vague concepts about AFVs already growing in his mind. On 12 December he presented to the High Command a plan to form an armoured force, equipped with tracked vehicles.

This plan met with approbation and a production order of 400 at a price of 56,000 French francs per vehicle was made on 25 February 1916. The first vehicle of the production series was delivered on 5 September. Meanwhile, production had shifted to the SOMUA company.

As their production numbers were more ambitious, the French lagged behind the British somewhat — it took them more time to build larger factories — deploying their tanks for the first time on 16 April 1917 at Berry-au-Bac during the infamous Nivelle Offensive (7 months after Britain's first operational deployment).

The first tank versus tank action took place on 24 April 1918 at Villers-Bretonneux, France, when three British Mark IVs met three German A7Vs taking part in an attack with infantry incidentally met three Mark IVs (two Female machine gun tanks and one Male with 6 pounder guns) near Villers-Bretonneux. During the battle tanks on both sides were damaged. According to the lead tank commander, 2nd Lt Frank Mitchell, the machine gun armed Female Mk IVs fell back after being damaged by armor piercing bullets. They were unable to damage the A7Vs with their own machine guns. Mitchell then attacked the lead German tank with the 6 pounders of his own tank and knocked it out. He hit it three times, and killed five of the crew when they bailed out. He then went on to rout some infantry with case shot.

The two remaining A7Vs in turn withdrew. As Lt. Mitchell's tank withdrew from action, 7 Whippet tanks also engaged the infantry. Four of these were knocked out in the battle, and it is unclear if any of them engaged the retreating German tanks. Lt. Mitchell's tank lost a track towards the end from a mortar shell and was abandoned. The damaged A7V was later recovered by German forces.

The Medium Mark A Whippet was a British tank of World War I. Intended to complement the slow Mark V tanks by using its relative mobility and speed in exploiting any break in the enemy lines.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Whippet.jpg
A British whippet (named after one of our Mods :D)

For the Germans, the A7V was a tank introduced by Germany in 1918, near the end of World War I. The name probably means Allgemeines Kriegsdepartement 7 Abteilung Verkehrswesen ("General War Department 7, Branch Transportation").

In German the tank was called Sturmpanzer-Kraftwagen (roughly "assault armoured motor vehicle"). 100 were ordered for the spring of 1918, but only 20 were delivered. They saw action from March to October that year, and were the only tanks produced by Germany in WWI.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/British_Mark_I_male_tank_Somme_25_September_
A British Mk 1 Male tank Somme, around 25 September 1916


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Schneider_CA1_%28M16%29_tank.jpg
A french Schneider CA1. Note the main armament on the front RHS corner. There was no similar armament on the LHS.

1000ydstare
03-27-2007, 01:35 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/A7v.JPG
a German A7v, note that most of the hatches would have had a machine gun mounted in them.

Even if you go to the Tracked Tractors and claim they were tanks...

{quote]A crude caterpillar track was designed in 1770 by Richard Lovell Edgeworth. The British polymath Sir George Cayley patented a caterpillar track, which he called a "universal railway" (The Mechanics' Magazine, 28 January 1826). In 1837, a Russian inventor Dmitry Zagryazhsky designed a "carriage with mobile tracks" which he patented that same year. However, due to a lack of funds he was unable to build a working prototype. As a result his patent was voided in 1839. Steam powered tractors using a form of caterpillar track were reported in use with the Western Alliance during the Crimean War in the 1850s.

An effective caterpillar track was invented and implemented by Alvin Lombard, for the Lombard steam log hauler. He was granted a patent in 1901. He built the first steam-powered log hauler at the Waterville Iron Works in Waterville, Maine the same year. In all, eighty-three Lombard steam log haulers are known to have been built up to 1917 when production switched entirely to internal combustion engine powered machines ending with a Fairbanks diesel powered unit in 1934. [/quote]


Kégresse track is an unusual kind of caterpillar track which uses a flexible belt rather than interlocking metal segments. It can be fitted to a conventional car or truck to turn it into a half-track, suitable for use over rough or soft ground. Conventional front wheels and steering are used.

...

The name comes from the system's inventor Adolphe Kégresse, who designed the original while working for Tsar Nicholas II of Russia between 1906 and 1916.

from the wiki.

Panzerknacker
03-27-2007, 06:24 PM
A rare italian design of WW1.

Fiat 2000 - Model 17


The first Italian tank. It was conceived by Fiat as a private venture in October 1916. The first prototype was ready in June 1917. Fiat donated 2 tanks to Italian Army in February 1918. Total production until the end of 1919. encompassed 6 vehicles. Arguably the finest heavy tank built in WW1 and a great "what if...". The Fiat 2000 never saw combat.

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/Italy/Ita-Fiat2000-3.jpg


http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/Italy/Ita-Fiat2000.jpg



http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/Italy/Ita-Fiat2000-b.jpg



http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/Italy/Ita-Fiat2000-Model17-IonFonosch.jpg


http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/Italy/ItalianTanks.html

GermanSoldier
03-27-2007, 06:24 PM
but wrt the first tanks I disagree...

The reason I said that is because I was watching the Military channel on tanks and it said that France was the first to create a tank. I guess they must of had some wrong information if your post is true.

1000ydstare
03-27-2007, 11:50 PM
Don't worry about it. The History Channel and other sattelite channels often make mistakes (believe it or not). I think somewhere on here there is a thread about it.

Like I say though, it is generally accepted that the British were the first to look at an Armoured, Tracked Fighting vehicle. Prior to that there were Armoured Cars, I wouldn't like to guess who invented them, and Tracked gun tractors, maybe armoured but not "tanks".

The Channel may have used the armoured tracked gun tractors as the first "tank". Bearing in mind that this name was also coined by the British, as a cover originally, "tanks" in other armies were named differently.

Rather than the British Mk1.

Panzerknacker
03-29-2007, 06:46 PM
Profiles of FIAT 611 armored car and other vehicles deployed in africa.


http://img481.imageshack.us/img481/7721/41128633cc1.jpg



http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/1950/51550836rg7.jpg


In here the 611 is armed with an ansaldo 37 mm gun.

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/6971/37965255vj3.jpg

oriwalter
04-05-2007, 03:36 AM
Probably the most unknkown of the armored divisions. I


http://i10.tinypic.com/4hl84ea.jpg

The right SPG is a newly designed semovente?

Panzerknacker
04-05-2007, 10:46 AM
No. I think is a Semovente dal 75/34. That figure refers to the calibre and lenght of the gun.


http://wio.ru/tank/for/sem7534.jpg

oriwalter
04-05-2007, 02:39 PM
aham.... thanks... I tought that, because the right are lower, and the nose plate is other.

Panzerknacker
05-24-2007, 07:28 PM
Ansaldo AS-37, armoured personel carrier:

http://i14.tinypic.com/4cux1ex.jpg

Designed as a APC truck this all drive entered in service in 1941. It wa sdesinged as a recce and transport vehicle for a crew of 8.

The lenght was 5 meters, width 1,9 meters and it had a height of 1,8 meters. Armor was comprised by a 8,5mm plate in every surface with a open back. In the later production vehicles an extra shield of 8mm plate was added in the rear to allow a machinne gunner to shot his weapon from a protected position.


The total weight was 5,7 tons, a 6 cilinders diesel engine with 75 hp was used allowing a top speed of 75 km/h in good terrain. The diesel fuel and a large capacity tank combined to gave an autonomy of 550km.

http://i13.tinypic.com/2lmw9ky.jpg

Some 500 AS 37 were delivered to the italian army, those were mostly used in antipartisan and security task in the Balkans and Greece.

tankgeezer
05-30-2007, 10:03 AM
My experiences with Italian AFV's of that era show that they were either very good, or very bad, without a middleground. Even if the operational designes were good ones, the vehicles lacked sufficient armor to protect them from anything larger than basic rifle fire, and not so near misses by artillary. It also seems that a committee must have designed them, as some aspects were indeed well thought out, and others, not much considered. Like the ammo basic load, was very small,in some cases, and sometimes not onboard at all. (in the example of some Itlaian self propelled artillary.) Good automotive, but poor weaponry. Perhaps it was because they had only limited availability of some parts, and weapons, so had to "make do" with what was on hand at the time. - Raspenau -

Panzerknacker
05-30-2007, 06:59 PM
You can add to the list that the lack of welded armor, only riveted one.

They have some nice non armored vehicles but the desing of the tanks....:rolleyes:

tankgeezer
05-30-2007, 11:09 PM
My Lahti would love to chew on one,,well, not the whole vehicle,, but some of the armor plate would make for an interesting experiment.

Panzerknacker
05-31-2007, 05:43 PM
Do you have a 20 mm rifle TG ? :shock:

Semovente 75/18

http://wio.ru/tank/for/sem7518.jpg

tankgeezer
06-02-2007, 11:16 AM
Do you have a 20 mm rifle TG ? :shock:

Semovente 75/18

http://wio.ru/tank/for/sem7518.jpg

Hello my friend, yes, I do own an L-39 lahti AT rifle, I knew some fellows who oned one, and a Solothurn, and a Boys .55 rifle. they had mentioned seeing a lahti in an antique store, so I when exploring, and found it, sitting on the floor, under alot of dust. Luckily it was one of the few active rifles, and it being 1977, I got it for a right price, and did the transfer papers, and its been mine since, I have fired it a couple times, and it does quite a job on mild steel. Makes a fierce BOOM, and pushes you back about 100 mm.
It would be fun to test it on some genuine armor plate to see what it will actually do.( he man in the photo is not me,but its the same version of the rifle.

Panzerknacker
06-02-2007, 09:49 PM
Beatiful weapon, the italians used the swiss Solothurn 20mm in some of his vehicles.

http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/3042/galeriaob2.jpg

tankgeezer
06-02-2007, 10:34 PM
They made an excellent choice in the Solothurn, the one my friend owned was a real gem of engineering, a work of art as much as a weapon. It had very little recoil, and the interchangable barrel assemblies made "hi volume" business possible.I really liked the optical sights, the lahti uses iron sights just like the 98 mauser rifle, only at the left side. the sights are indicated to 1600 meters, but it would take some good vision to see the target at that range.

Panzerknacker
06-02-2007, 10:49 PM
Other use for the Solo 18-1000, mounted over the long range recce vehicle AS 42.

http://img342.imageshack.us/img342/6483/29fb1.jpg

tankgeezer
06-03-2007, 06:42 AM
Thats quite a vehicle, looks well built, and would come in handy in rush hour traffic.... :) A 20m.m., and a machine gun makes for a very effective recon force. I think the 20 m.m as a recon weapon lasted into the 80's, when the bushmaster, and other higher velocity, modern guns, were adopted. That is quite a fine tribute for a caliber to prove so versatile, for so many years.I have to get on the stick and post the other 20's, I have info and pics for.

Panzerknacker
06-04-2007, 07:43 PM
:D

With 20mm Breda and 13,2mm MG.

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/1219/marzo19433uq.gif



http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/6619/as420gs.jpg

1000ydstare
06-05-2007, 11:28 AM
Are they fuel or water cans all along the sides?

I would hope they were water!!!!!!

Panzerknacker
06-05-2007, 06:02 PM
Diesel in the sides, water at front.

Tony Williams
06-10-2007, 05:32 AM
A 20m.m., and a machine gun makes for a very effective recon force. I think the 20 m.m as a recon weapon lasted into the 80's, when the bushmaster, and other higher velocity, modern guns, were adopted. That is quite a fine tribute for a caliber to prove so versatile, for so many years.I have to get on the stick and post the other 20's, I have info and pics for.

There were 20mm and then there were 20mm....pics from the Ammunition Photo Gallery on my website:

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/20mm1.jpg
20x70RB (Becker), 20x72RB (Oerlikon FF - aka IJN Type 99-1), 20x80RB (German MG-FF/M), 20x82 (Mauser MG 151/20), 20x94 (IJA Ho-5), 20x99R (ShVAK), 20x101RB (Oerlikon FFL- aka IJN Type 99-2), 20x105B (Solothurn S18-350), 20x105 (German MG 204), 20x110RB (Oerlikon FFS and HS.7, H.S.9 variants), 20x110 (HS.404 - Hispano)

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/20mm2.jpg
20x110 (HS.404), 20x113 (Lahti L34), 20x120 (Madsen), 20x125 (IJA Type 97; and Ho-1, Ho-3), 20x138B ('Long Solothurn' used in FlaK/KwK 30 and 38), 20x139 (Swiss FMK: drill), 20x142 (IJA Type 98), 20x144R (Bofors m/32)

and then, after WW2:

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/20mm3.jpg
20x110 (HS.404: Swiss API), 20x102 (US M39 and M61 Vulcan, GIAT 20M621), 20x110 USN (Mark 11 and 12 aircraft guns), 20x128 (Oerlikon KAA, also used in Meroka CIWS), 20x139 (HS 820 - now called Oerlikon KAD - M139 in US service - and also used in Rh 202, GIAT 20M693 / Vektor GI-2), 20x82 (Vektor GA-1: the MG 151/20, still in production!)

Panzerknacker
06-10-2007, 01:14 PM
The only people who still use the 20x110 USN must be the Argentine Air force in their super Skyhawks :rolleyes:

Tony Williams
06-10-2007, 02:25 PM
The only people who still use the 20x110 USN must be the Argentine Air force in their super Skyhawks :rolleyes:
That could well be, now that the French have retired their Crusaders. I'm not sure if anyone else still uses Skyhawks.

As well as being used in the Mk 12 (Hispano), the ammo was also used in the MK 11 gun which was only ever fitted into a gunpod - that might still be in use somewhere.

Panzerknacker
06-18-2007, 06:38 PM
I thinks is the last of the line, New zealand and Singapore withdraw their A-4s some time ago.

Carro Armato P.75, P.40, P.26/40

In 1940 the need for a "heavy" tank was perceived by the Italians and plans were drawn up into what became the P.40 (originally designated as the P.75). The prototype was tested in early 1942 and mounted a 75/18 gun/howitzer and was powered by a 330hp diesel engine.

P-40/18 mock-up

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/Italy/Ita-P40-prototype.JPG

Armament on the first prototype was changed to the longer 75/32 gun. This was the gun selected for use on all production models. The diesel engine proved to be wanting and consideration was given to the V12 engine from captured Soviet T-34 tanks!

P-40/18 (75mm L-18 gun) prototipe.

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/Italy/Ita-P2640-HeavyTank-a.jpg

Productions models of the tank were equipped with a 420hp gasoline engine. No P.40, completed prior to the Italo-Allied armistice, saw service with Italian armored units.

All units produced were captured and added to German stock. Some hulls, without engines, were dug in and used as static forts. Some sources state that 21 while others state 24 units were produced under Italian administration.


Definitive model P-26/40.

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/1047/89rd4.jpg

mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/
http://digilander.libero.it/avantisavoiait/Reparti%20mezzi%20corazzati.htm

As many as 80 were produced by the Italians under German direction.

veldm. keitel
08-13-2007, 12:45 PM
Probably the most unknkown of the armored divisions. I


http://i10.tinypic.com/4hl84ea.jpg

I don´t think so we in Holland now the tank it was a `far shooter`;)

pdf27
08-13-2007, 02:57 PM
I thinks is the last of the line, New zealand and Singapore withdraw their A-4s some time ago.
Brazil still fly Skyhawks off their carrier. Also, Indonesia are allegedly thinking about bringing theirs back into service now they can get spares again.

Panzerknacker
08-13-2007, 06:31 PM
True, I forgot about the brazilian A-4Fs.



I don´t think so we in Holland now the tank it was a `far shooter`


"far shooter", far shooter is wich sence ?

Panzerknacker
10-09-2007, 07:51 PM
Fiat 665NM Scudatto.

http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/9288/fiat665nm1yf1.jpg


This armored personel carrier was largely based in the Fiat comercial truck 665 model 1942. It consisted in the same chassis with the addition of 8-9mm steel plate all over.

The fiat scudatto ( scudatto = shielded) had a capacity for 29 soldiers more 2 in the crew, the sides and back of the vehicle were equipped with 19 ports from wich the soldiers could be use his rifles without exposing to enemy fire.

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/7154/665nm2az1.jpg

The armor protect only against fire from 7,7 mm rifles/mg and artillery splinters.

Powerplant was a V8 diesel engine with 115 hp, it gave the 9 tons vehicle a top speed of 72 km/h.

The Fiat scudatto was considered too heavy for the afrikan desert so it was only deployed in the Balcans and Yugoeslavia mostly for antipartisan and security duties. Just 100 Scudattos were made between 1942-43.

Nickdfresh
10-10-2007, 10:26 AM
:D

With 20mm Breda and 13,2mm MG.

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/1219/marzo19433uq.gif



http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/6619/as420gs.jpg

I wonder if the SAS used any captured models? This seems like their "bag."

Panzerknacker
10-14-2007, 11:48 AM
Dont know, I have no photo of captured Saharian trucks. Actually the vehicle is a response to the long range trucks used by the desert rats.

DavidW
10-15-2007, 03:39 AM
Ping.

Panzerknacker
10-15-2007, 05:37 PM
Semovente dal 75/18

After the first encounters with british AFVs, specially the infantry support tanks and other well armored allied vehicles the italian army was aware that his main antitank armament the Breda (Böehler) 47mm was ineffective in most ocassions.
As an interim solution the Semovente ( self propelled guns) were developed.

Semovente Littorio Div. may 1942.

http://img480.imageshack.us/img480/5118/semoventearietehd8.jpg
Following a similar path of the germans with his Panzer III/ Stug III, the italian modified the M-13 and 14/41 tank supestructure in order to accept an infantry 75 mm infantry gun.

The crew of the Semovente 75/18 was merely 3, driver, commander/gunner and loader.

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/5401/semoventeinteriorgs3.jpg


It was used in the infantry support role and also as a tank killer, 44 round were carried for the main gun. 3 types of ammo were used, steel core armor piercing, high explosive and a special "efetto pronto" ( quick effect) HEAT projectile. Also a Breda model 30 6,5mm MG or a model 38 7,7mm was carried in the top armor as defensive weapon against infantry and low fliying aircrafts.

The semovente 75/18 enter in production in late 1941 and began to arrive in the Afrikan teather of operations in january 1942, giving some badly needed extra punch for the Rommel s Panzer Army.

Characteristics Sm 75/18

Lenght: 4,91m

Width: 2,1 meters

Height : 1,9 meters.

Crew: 3

Engine: Diesel Fiat V8, 125 hp.

Speed: 33 km/h

Armor : max 32 mm, minimum 7 mm

Weight: 13,200 kg (in M-13 chassis) 14,000 kg (in M-14 chassis)

Muzzle velocity 75 mm gun: 430 M/s

Elevation: + 22º, -18º

Traverse: 20º left and right (hand)

Penetration of armor main gun: 59mm (APC) 70 mm (HEAT)

"Pepperbox" muzzle brake in the 75 mm ansaldo gun

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/9994/frenodebocaxx3.jpg

Byron
03-11-2008, 10:42 PM
While the Italians were ahead of the game in organization and armor theory, they never got the design and production ends of it right. At the armistice, they were just starting to come out with a few good assault guns/tank destroyers based upon the Semovente (105/25 and 75/46).

If they had been a bit more on the ball (and Ansaldo had not owned a monopoly on AFV design, which led to poor quality throughout the war), they could have fielded AFV formations with P 40 tanks supported by the Semovente 105/25 and 75/46 AFV, possibly as early as late 1942. Quite a tough nut to crack, that would have been.

DavidW
03-12-2008, 02:41 AM
I never knew about the Ansalado monopoly. How constrictive.
You would have thought it would have been lifted by Mussolinin in time of war.

Nickdfresh
03-12-2008, 09:45 AM
I have a couple of questions for the Italio-philes...

Was Italy working on a newer tank comparable to the latest designs?

After the Germans took over, did some Italian units fighting under the Germans use completely German equipment?

Byron
03-12-2008, 10:08 PM
Was Italy working on a newer tank comparable to the latest designs?


Depends on your version of "latest designs". The P40 was the best tank they were seriously working on (a P43 was on the drawing table, but really only a pipe dream) and it was generally about as good as the Sherman 75 (probably not as reliable or rugged as the Sherman however).

But in 1943, the Sherman was really not a good tank. The Italians best designs were based on the Semovente tank destroyers and assault guns (which fit their economy and industrial capabilities much better). Both the Semovente 105 and 75/46 were excellent designs overall and very potent weapons.


After the Germans took over, did some Italian units fighting under the Germans use completely German equipment?

I'm not sure but I doubt it. The Germans tended to keep the better equipment for themselves and dole out the lousy stuff to their allies. At that point in the war, they didn't trust the Italians--I doubt they would have equipped an Italian unit very well.

snebold
04-06-2008, 06:48 AM
The only transfers of GERMAN tanks to Italy by Germany I´ve been able to find was before sep43.

12 each of Pz IIIN, IVH and StuG IIIG and 36 Tigers. The Tigers were repossesed by the Germans, I don´t know about the rest.

It´s reasonable to believe, that the Germans did not hand over any later as the fighting moved into terrain where tanks were not so crucial as elsewhere.

Panzerknacker: you seem to have a good source on Italian soft skinned vehicles as well!?
(I´d like to have an AS42 to scare some Hummer drivers of the road:cool:)

larryparamedic
04-06-2008, 08:37 AM
A little used tankette flamethrower variant of the cv3/35 mostly seen in the desert of North Afrika. Seems it saw very little sucess there.
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f184/larryparamed/Ita-L35Lf-L3-35Lf.jpg
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f184/larryparamed/Ita-L35Lf-L3-35Lf-inaction.jpg
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f184/larryparamed/Ita-CV33-FlameOn.jpg
"Designed by Ansaldo but based upon earlier Carro Veloce 29. Although commonly referred to as a tank, this vehicle falls more properly within the classification of a tankette. The Italian authorities showed an interest in a small, light vehicle which would be suitable for use in mountainous terrain, leading to the acquisition of 25 British Carden Loyd Mark VI tankettes in 1929. A Fiat-Ansaldo modification of the Mark VI, armed with a Fiat Model 14 water-cooled 6.5 mm machine gun was designated as the carro i,elo(-e (CV) 29. The armament was subsequently changed to a single Fiat Model 14 air-cooled anti-aircraft machine gun, still 6.5 mm. Subsequent modifications resulted in the CV 3/33, still armed with a single 6.5 mm air-cooled weapon. Apart from its distinctive armament, this first series of CV 3/33 had a characteristic track tension idler mounted in a bracket which was attached to the rear idler wheel. In 1934, the second series of CV 3/33 appeared, with the track tension idler separated from the rear idler, and with two 8 mm machine guns as standard armament. The earlier series of CV 3/33 were eventually retrofitted with the heavier armament also. Development continued, and in 1935 the CV 3/35 appeared, incorporating minor design and production changes, and retaining the 8 mm armament. A final version, of which only a limited number was produced, was introduced in 1938. It differed significantly in its suspension system, and was armed with a single Breda 13.2 mm machine gun. External stowage of entrenching tools, etc, varied from series to series. The designation of both the CV 3/33 and 3/35 was changed to L.3 in the late 1930s.

Variations of the L.3 were built for special applications. The most frequently encountered variant was the flamethrower, which was built in a version with a self-contained tank for flame liquid, and also in a version in which a wheeled tank trailer carrying the liquid was towed behind the CV. There were a number of radio-equipped variants of the L.3 used by company and battalion commanders. A limited number of L.3s were modified to mount the 20 mm Solothurn anti-tank gun in lieu of the machine guns. T ' wo experimental variants of the L.3 were also produced, the first being the carro gettaponte, or bridge-laying tank, very similar in concept to present-day AVLBS, and the second being a recovery vehicle with an A-frame on the rear which could be controlled from inside the tank, making it similar in concept to present-day VTRS. It is interesting to note that this appears to have been the only Italian attempt at building a tracked VTR.

The CV was not meant to be used in lieu of heavier tanks, but was designed according to the Italian doctrine of the period, for security and reconnaissance duties, and was also to be utilized in the elimination of small pockets of resistance. However, the outbreak of hostilities earlier than anticipated by Italy forced them to use what was at hand, namely large numbers of the L.3. More than 75% of the tank formations encountered by the British in their desert offensive of late 1940 and early 1941 were comprised of the L.3, whose armor was not even proof against the armament of British armored cars which they encountered. The L.3 continued to be used throughout the war, being employed after 8 September, 1943 by units of the RSI."

Byron
04-07-2008, 02:02 PM
Yes, the L3 was not really an effective combat vehicle! When you consider that it would have to close to use the flamethrower it's little surprise that it was not effective in this role! :rolleyes:


I never knew about the Ansalado monopoly. How constrictive.
You would have thought it would have been lifted by Mussolinin in time of war.

I believe that the monopoly was the result of the political system in Italy so Mussolini couldn't break it up due to the political backlash.

Panzerknacker
05-07-2008, 11:45 AM
A little used tankette flamethrower variant of the cv3/35 mostly seen in the desert of North Afrika. Seems it saw very little sucess there


In north Afrika was not good because the lack of range, in Abisinia in 1936 was a superb weapon however.

Of course the Selassie warriors had not proper AT weapons.

Byron
05-11-2008, 06:22 PM
In north Afrika was not good because the lack of range, in Abisinia in 1936 was a superb weapon however.

Of course the Selassie warriors had not proper AT weapons.

That and paper-thin armor on the CV as well!

I remember reading somewhere that the Selassie would run up to the CV-33/35s and, in true frat-boy style, tip them over! Not the best anti-tank doctrine. Of course, the crew was then trapped in the tankette and would die from exposure.

Churchill
05-11-2008, 07:14 PM
That would really suck. Dieing in a functional tank because it's on its side...

DavidW
05-12-2008, 01:23 AM
that the Selassie would run up to the CV-33/35s and, in true frat-boy style, tip them over!

And in that moment, cow tipping was born!

Panzerknacker
05-19-2008, 09:09 PM
Littorina Blindata "Libli":

Self propelled armored rail cruiser made by Ansaldo in 1942-43, it was used mostly in the Balkans and Yugoeslavia to patrol in antipartisand role, specially watching the security of main railways one of the most targeted objetive the guerrilla fighters..

http://i32.tinypic.com/11kbjx3.jpg

The weapons included two M-13/40 47/32 mm armed turrets and two 45 mm semiautomatic mortars "Brixia", plus several Breda 7,7 and 13 mm machineguns.

The armor varied between 11 mm ( sides) to 32 mm ( maximum in front turret).

http://i25.tinypic.com/14lkj9s.jpg

More info to come, I have to translate that.

Nickdfresh
05-19-2008, 09:46 PM
Littorina Blindata "Libli":

Self propelled armored rail cruiser made by Ansaldo in 1942-43, it was used mostly in the Balkans and Yugoeslavia to patrol in antipartisand role, specially watching the security of main railways one of the most targeted objetive the guerrilla fighters..

http://i32.tinypic.com/11kbjx3.jpg

The weapons included two M-13/40 47/32 mm armed turrets and two 45 mm semiautomatic mortars "Brixia", plus several Breda 7,7 and 13 mm machineguns.

The armor varied between 11 mm ( sides) to 32 mm ( maximum in front turret).

http://i25.tinypic.com/14lkj9s.jpg

More info to come, I have to translate that.

But what if the partisans blow the tracks and just derail it? :D

Panzerknacker
05-20-2008, 06:42 PM
Well, that is the dilemma of all armored trains, not to mention aircraft attacks. By the way the brixia is not an "semiautomatic mortar" but is manually repeater.

Panzerknacker
05-23-2008, 06:04 PM
More images of the Littorina Libli. The engine was a diesel V8 240 hp.

http://digilander.libero.it/avantisavoiait/Libli_2.JPG


inside view, the 47 mm turret base and the driver and co-driver seats behind.

http://digilander.libero.it/avantisavoiait/Libli_5.JPG


http://digilander.libero.it/avantisavoiait/Gall_foto_Littorina_blindata_Ansaldo.htm

A remarkable characteristic was the use of a side "lanciafiamme", flamethrower with a range of 35 meters.

Cav1
05-25-2008, 08:29 AM
Scrolled through and didn't see this photo. Hopefully I uploaded it correctly. To the rear, the standard L3/35 armed with twin 8mm machine guns and in the front the L3 cc contracarro fitted with the Solothurn 20mm. I have a war-time set of Swiss publications that have photos of Italian armor. I'll see if there are any new ones not in this thread and scan them if so.

Panzerknacker
05-25-2008, 10:50 PM
Nice, I ve posted something like that, a profile here:

http://forums.soccerfansnetwork.com/showthread.php?t=43658

In a german newsreel I had see the 20 mm at gun mounted outside the mantlet of this tankette.

Byron
05-28-2008, 04:55 PM
Solothurn 20mm

Yep, the tankette was actually armed with an anti-tank rifle. This was a poor attempt to make it effective against opposing armor. Some of these types were even included in the Axis forces during El Alamein! You do what you can.... :rolleyes:

Panzerknacker
05-28-2008, 06:30 PM
It have good effects in armored cars and A9/A13 cruisers but none against Shermans and Grants, the main battle tanks of the allied forces in Alamein.

Cav1
06-06-2008, 07:37 PM
More pics of Italian armor. A few images from Das grosse Weltgeschehen, a series of books published in Switzerland during WWII. I haven't come across these photos elsewhere in other sources, so perhaps they will be "new" to other members as well. I'm no expert on Italian armor, so hopefully one of the resident experts here can provide more information than that found in the original captions. I'm thinking M 11/39 in the first photo, M15/42 in the last one...and in the middle??? An export or license-built version of the Renault FT-17?

Cav1
06-07-2008, 08:07 AM
Whoops. I see from previous illustrations that the middle photo is of a Fiat 3000A. Mongo does not know much about Italian armor, just found some interesting old photos.

Panzerknacker
06-08-2008, 09:23 PM
Vey good ones, I think the tanks in the left are M-14/41, the 15/42 used a longer main gun.

Panzerknacker
09-05-2008, 05:02 PM
Panzer III ausf N used by the Division Centauro, some were imported from Germany in Early 1943.

http://i33.tinypic.com/vpiw5s.jpg


http://i33.tinypic.com/j6h79i.jpg


Panzer IV ausf G of the same combat unit.

http://i37.tinypic.com/r2pxch.jpg

It seems that this AFVs were not deployed in Afrika, only they saw use in the Italian mainland.

DavidW
09-05-2008, 05:51 PM
Correct.

Divisione Centauro only had Italian tanks in North Africa.

Panzerknacker
09-05-2008, 07:41 PM
Divisione Centauro only had Italian tanks in North Africa.

Wich was not promising in regard of the combat capabilities.:mrgreen:

StuG IIIs of the Centauro div. Between 25 to 30 examples were delivered in april 1943.

Django
10-27-2008, 09:03 PM
Excellent thread Panzerknacker, thanks for the link!

Still trying to find my way around this impresssive site

Panzerknacker
10-28-2008, 06:00 PM
Thank you and dont worry, there are people that got some 700 post ( not just seven) , and still they are trying to find the way around.

Semoventi M1940 dal 75/18 near Bir Hacheim, June 1942.

http://i33.tinypic.com/2le2qlv.jpg

Panzergrenadier Italien
11-03-2008, 07:26 AM
do anyone knows if the saharino recce was anfibius?

Panzerknacker
11-04-2008, 05:19 PM
No, is not amphibian, there was no need of that because hardly it going to cross rivers in the "Africa Settentrionale" theater of operations.

http://www.afrikakorps.org/_photos/Italian/Sahariana.jpg

Uyraell
03-27-2009, 09:08 PM
Carro Armato Celere Sahariano.

http://utenti.quipo.it/mc68/italtank/Immagini/celere-s-0.jpg

Being impressed with the British cruiser tanks, the Italians attempted to make a copy for use in North Africa. The Carro Armato Celere Sahariano ( Fast Saharian tank) was clearly inspired by the Crusader, it had sloped armor and the 47 mm high velocity gun installed in a M-14/41 modified turret.

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/Italy/Ita-CarroArmatoCelereSaharianoMediumTank.jpg

The hull employed a torsion bar suspension for improved cross country abilities. The tank can reach 60 km/h powered by a 270 hp Fiat diesel engine.

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/Italy/Ita-CarroArmatoSahariano.jpg

The war in ended before this AFV could be put on service and the project was cancelled. A 75mm main gun was proposed for production models.

http://utenti.quipo.it/mc68/italtank/Immagini/celere-s-3.jpg
I cannot help but think this tank looks very similar to a T34/76/06.
I know there are only a certain number of "viable solutions" in developing tanks, yet: the close similarity to the T34 struck my eyes immediately.

Given a proper main armament, in the 75mm class, this, lightly armoured though it is, could have been a formidable tank indeed, given the combat methods of the era.

Regards, Uyraell.

Panzerknacker
03-29-2009, 09:06 PM
It had a bit of the T-34, tank wich the italians already faced ( and suffered) with the Expeditionary Corps sent to Russia in july 1941, but its more important inspiration was the Crusader, AFV wich really impressed the italians, ironic because in british service the crusader was considered no match for german mediums Pz III and IV and also mechanically unrealiable.

Images of knocked down M-13s. Is interesting to note the shape of the cracks in the armor, the lower pic indicates an overhardened plate wich was broken like a porcelain plate by the incoming round. Very low quality armor.

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/4246/m13bag.jpg

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/9841/m13ko.jpg

Panzerknacker
11-08-2009, 01:32 PM
Nice picture of Rommel near the Semoventi 75/18 of the Ariete division close to Bir Hacheim.

http://i36.tinypic.com/2na73m9.jpg

Panzerknacker
11-22-2009, 09:49 PM
Italian newsreel of 1942 showing the manufacture of M14/41 tanks.

http://www.archivioluce.com/archivio/jsp/schede/videoPlayer.jsp?tipologia=&id=&physDoc=20224&db=cinematograficoCINEGIORNALI&findIt=false&section=/]

burp
03-05-2010, 05:22 AM
I never knew about the Ansalado monopoly. How constrictive.
You would have thought it would have been lifted by Mussolinin in time of war.


Yes, the L3 was not really an effective combat vehicle! When you consider that it would have to close to use the flamethrower it's little surprise that it was not effective in this role! :rolleyes:
I believe that the monopoly was the result of the political system in Italy so Mussolini couldn't break it up due to the political backlash.
No, it's an economic question: at the time of pre-war period Ansaldo is controlled by the Italian state so for economic reason the Italian state didn't outsource to other private companies the war production.



I wonder if the SAS used any captured models? This seems like their "bag."
The English consider the Breda Modello 35 cal 20 mm a very usufel weapon faster, hard-hitting and more reliable thant their cannon. And Fiat AS42 has it, so they kept few of them in heavy section of Long Rage Desert Group, but in real they prefer the Fiat AS 37. The Fiat AS42 is primary used by soldier expert in desert warfare of Auto Sahariana Company, a military unit similar to the Long Rage Desert Group.


But what if the partisans blow the tracks and just derail it? :D
This is why the Littorina are dispatched to the Balkans: they cheked the rail line just before the expensive train convoy pass, assuring that the rail line is safe.

tankgeezer
03-06-2010, 06:17 PM
Italian newsreel of 1942 showing the manufacture of M14/41 tanks.

http://www.archivioluce.com/archivio/jsp/schede/videoPlayer.jsp?tipologia=&id=&physDoc=20224&db=cinematograficoCINEGIORNALI&findIt=false&section=/]

That was excellent, seldom get to see the workings of war time industry..Those guys knew how to run a hammer..

Deaf Smith
03-06-2010, 09:41 PM
From the looks of it though, even the Carro Armato Celere Sahariano had armor that had rivets to join plates.

Would not these act as bullets inside the hull from even a glancing blow by a enemy shell (and not even a big one?)

Were any of the Italian AFVs welded with no use of rivets?

Deaf

Uyraell
03-07-2010, 12:24 AM
Hello Deaf, from memory, very few (I want to say "if any", but may be open to correction on that) Italian AFVs were of welded build.
Apparently, welding facilities were even less common than in UK factories, which also lacked that ability to a great degree.

Kind Regards, Uyraell.

Tiger205
03-07-2010, 01:21 PM
Hi,
maybe the Autoblinda Lince?
This was a licence of Daimler Dingo.
Built in acceptable number (250 pcs).

regards:
TGR

Tiger205
03-07-2010, 01:23 PM
Hi,
maybe the Autoblinda Lince?
This was a licence of Daimler Dingo.
Built in acceptable number (250 pcs).

regards:
TGR

http://img0.tar.hu/tiger205/size2/73177424.jpg

Uyraell
03-07-2010, 07:38 PM
Hello Tiger205. :)
You are, of course, correct.

I *should* have specified the period prior to September 1943.
Though from memory even in the case of the Lince, true production did not get underway until after the British had delivered to Autoblinda a number of the relevant British welding jigs.

Memory says that Italy in general terms had few facilities available
for welding. Again I'm open to the idea I may be wrong about that, I have forgotten a lot of what I once knew.

Kind regards, Uyraell.

Tiger205
03-08-2010, 01:20 AM
Hello Tiger205. :)
You are, of course, correct.

I *should* have specified the period prior to September 1943.
Though from memory even in the case of the Lince, true production did not get underway until after the British had delivered to Autoblinda a number of the relevant British welding jigs.

Memory says that Italy in general terms had few facilities available
for welding. Again I'm open to the idea I may be wrong about that, I have forgotten a lot of what I once knew.

Kind regards, Uyraell.

and let you imagine the HUNGARIAN industry - licence of the Italian Fighters :confused:
plus - our first "tanks" were CV-33/35

regards:
TGR

Tiger205
03-08-2010, 01:23 AM
One more comment:

Anyway, riveted or not, the Semovente was very useful - like our Zrinyi - SO the self-propelled-guns had higher respect than our(and Italian too) tanks.

regards:
TGR

Uyraell
03-08-2010, 06:17 PM
The Zryni was a rather better vehicle than may have been suggested by it's appearance.
And though the Semovente is mentioned more often, I think I'd prefer the Zryni or Zryni II.
I'm not certain I'd say the same of Turan, because I always felt it to be under-gunned.

All in all, Hungarian industry had better designs than were predicted or expected by any of the larger nations. Yes, Hungarian industry handicapped itself by never deciding on adequate allocation of limited resources, and by allowing an ever-expanding task-base or set of goals to exist alongside the resource allocation issue.

However: in general the Hungarian designs were well-thought-out, innovative, and very produce-able. In the field, they would have worked well.

The same cannot be said in regard to Italian vehicles.

Kind Regards Tiger205, Uyraell.

Tiger205
03-09-2010, 04:33 AM
Dear Mr. Uyraell,

Thanks a lot in the name of our industry ;)

OFF
The fact is that we lost the war and 2/3 of our country (!) worsened by the Antant contorll and small-Antant (CZ, SHS, RUM) revulsion about our re-arming.
Until 1938 nothing important hapenned!

So later we have bought the licenses for a Czech tank and a Swedis one.
The first became the Turan (Basic of Zrinyi), the later is the Toldi.
The riveted and thinny armour, the complicated power-train and track system was not outstanding (troublesome) even at the time of purchase, BUT noone else wanted to sell tanks to us (see Mezek aircraft and Israel after war).
The Czech gun was not adequate during the tests, so we installeed the well knowen amd good bofors licence 40 mm one.
For a much stronger (long barell) gun the diameter of the turret was inadequate.
(anyways, in Turan II. the need for infantry support motivatedd us to install short barell 75 mm).
The Zrinyi (named after a Hungarian Hero (family)) was derived from this construction with its disadvantages (small interior (more details later, if you need) and the advantages of SPGs.

Maybe open a topic about this issue???

Regards:
TGR

Uyraell
03-10-2010, 05:48 PM
Dear Mr Tiger205,you're more than welcome.:)
I'm aware Hungarian industry was, to a large degree, handicapped by the prior decades, and that the resulting vehicles suffered issues as a direct consequence.
Some of the Turan, Toldi, Zrinyi, details I am aware of, but I'd make no claim to complete expertise on those vehicles. Yes, I have some knowledge, but by no means vast.

As to a thread, Why not? Damn good Idea, I'd say, because vehicles in general from that part of the world remain relatively unknown even today.
I do have a book on Czech designs, but would have to dig it out from where it has spent many years buried, along with various other reference books.

Suffice to say I'd welcome a thread on Hungarian AFVs and relevant soft-skinned vehicles.
A parallell thread might well be topical for Czech vehicles, organised in similar manner.

Alternately, a single thread, covering both nations, and a second thread covering Licence-derived vehicles as in the case of the various Carden-Lloyd Carriers that became, for example, the Bren/Universal Carrier, Renault UE, CV33/35, Panzer 1; or the Czech vehicles Licence-produced in Sweden; and the Russian vehicles Licence-produced.

Thinking on it, a "Licence_Derived_Vehicles" thread would make a lot of sense, provided it clearly identified the original and subsequently Licence-Derived vehicles and distinguished between each case.
The forum has more than enough expert members to provide contributions.:)

Kind Regards, Tiger205, Uyraell.

Tiger205
03-13-2010, 03:06 AM
Mr. Uyraell!
I have prepared both threads you adviced, so please USE them!
:lol:
TGR

Uyraell
03-21-2010, 10:17 PM
Mr. Uyraell!
I have prepared both threads you adviced, so please USE them!
:lol:
TGR

Many Many Thanks Tiger205. :)
I shall read them and follow up where able, be assured.

Currently, various realworld matters limit My on-forum time, for which I make apology in cases where I might have otherwise been sooner able to reply.

Kind and Warm Regards Tiger205, Uyraell.

Tiger205
03-24-2010, 09:24 AM
THE SAME?
THE SAME!!!!
:lol:

Currently, various realworld matters limit My on-forum time, for which I make apology in cases where I might have otherwise been sooner able to reply.

Sorry for that,
TGR

fredl109
04-03-2010, 04:47 AM
For GermanSoldier. Italian tank picture in color. The picture shows a 47mm Ansaldo 47/32 Gun. This tank was very much used in North Africa. With a AA gun and great muzzle velocity gave it a great fighting chance.

It is no doubt that Italian tanks played an important role in many of their victorys, but I would not want to be a tanker in one of the Italian tanks.[/QUOTE]

First sorry for my very bad english. This photo had not a realy photo but a model made by a great modeler. Y write the name of the modeler and the address site in another post because, y have lost the address sory.
Friendly Fred

fredl109
04-03-2010, 06:25 AM
For veldm. keitel, the photo of Semovente is took in the Ansaldo farbric in Génes in 1st february 1943, the Semovente in your left is a Semovente M42 da 75/18 and the Semovente in your right is the prototype of Semovent 105/23 (Bassoto). For more explanation go to Italie 1935-45.com.
PS: Sorry for my english
Friendly Fred

fredl109
04-03-2010, 07:30 AM
While the Italians were ahead of the game in organization and armor theory, they never got the design and production ends of it right. At the armistice, they were just starting to come out with a few good assault guns/tank destroyers based upon the Semovente (105/25 and 75/46).

If they had been a bit more on the ball (and Ansaldo had not owned a monopoly on AFV design, which led to poor quality throughout the war), they could have fielded AFV formations with P 40 tanks supported by the Semovente 105/25 and 75/46 AFV, possibly as early as late 1942. Quite a tough nut to crack, that would have been.

Sorry gentlemen but my english its very poor also y answer in french, translate for me please.

Votre question est trés interéssante, car elle souléve l'un des principaux problème de l'Italie avant son entrée en guerre, car tout simplement elle n'y a jamais été prête, Mussolini c'est lancé dans un guerre sans aucune infracstructure conséquente, son tissu industriel date des années 20 donc adapté a un temps de paix, mais pas pour une production de guerre, si vous regardez des photos d'usines Italiennes de l'époque, vous remarquerez de suite le manque de modernisme des installations et surtout la petitesse des chaines de montages, de plus la production de métaux que cela soit pour les avions ou pour les chars est trés inférieurs à ce qu'elle devrait être, la livraison de minerais étranger en est de même, n'oubliez pas messieurs que l'Italie est un pays essentielement agricole, il n'a pas encore fait sa révolution industriel comme l'on déja fait l'Allemagne l'angleterre et la France du coté européen. Un autre problème se gréve dessus , les aciers produits sont de piétre qualité, ce qui handicapera beaucoup de matériel. Lorsque vous demandez s'ils étaient capable de sortir des nouveaux blindés et autres engins, ma réponse et oui et non, oui parce que de tout temps les ingénieurs Italiens ont été de grands découvreurs et non car d'un autre coté l'archaïsme de leur conception de montage les a toujours freinés. Le terme de rationnalisation n'a jamais fait parti du vocabulaire Italien en temps de guerre je m'entend. Pour vous donner un exemple, il faut savoir que, je parle ici d'aviation, le chasseur le plus produit de la guerre est un biplan, le Fiat CR42, il a été produit à 1950 exemplaire et sa conception remonte aux années trente, cela ne veut pas dir que les ingénieur italiens soit défaillant dans la conception et l'étude de chasseurs performant, l'Italie produira un chasseur supérieur au Meeserschhmitt 109K de l'époque, le Fiat G55, il est vrais qu'il avait un moteur DB603, mai seulement.... 113 exemplaires furent construit. Il en va de même avec l'armement terrestre, les ingénieur Italiens avaient dans leurs tirroires de bons projets, mais pas d'infrastructures adéquats pour les mettrent en oeuvre, ainsi beaucoups de véhicule qui étaient prometteurs ne dépassérent pas le stade de la planche à dessin ou ne furent construit que sous la forme de prototype, ou arrivérent trop en retard dans la guerre pour être d'une quelquonque utilité. J'éspére vous avoir éclairé un peu plus sur ce passionnant sujet, pardonnez moi d'avoir écrit dans ma langue, mais je ne mannis pas assez bien l'anglais pour faire une telle réponse.
Friendly Fred

Byron
04-05-2010, 12:55 PM
Here's the Google translation:


Your question is very interesting because it raises a major problem in Italy before going to war, because it simply has never been ready, Mussolini is engaged in a war with no consistent infracstructure, its industrial dated 20s then featured in a peacetime, but not for war production, if you look at pictures of Italian factories of the time, you will notice immediately the lack of modern facilities and especially the small assembly lines, production of more metal than it is for airplanes or the tanks is very inferior to what it should be, the delivery of foreign ore is the same, remember that the gentlemen Italy is a predominantly agricultural country, it has not yet made its industrial revolution as we already made Germany the England and France on the European side. Another problem is above strike, the steel products are of poor quality, the handicap lot of material. When you ask if they were able to climb out of the new armor and other gear, and my answer yes and no, yes, because any time the Italian engineers were great explorers and not because of another side of the archaic assembly design has always hampered. The term rationalization has never been part of the Italian language in time of war I hear me. To give you an example, we must know that I am talking about aviation, the most produced fighter of the war is a biplane, the Fiat CR42, it was produced in 1950 copies and its design dates back to the thirties, this dir is not that Italian engineer is faulty in design and performance study of hunters, Italy produce a hunter Meeserschhmitt above 109K at the time, the Fiat G55, it is true that he had an engine DB603 May only .... 113 copies were manufactured. It's the same with land weapons, the Italian engineer had in their drawers of good projects, but no adequate infrastructure for mettrent implemented, and many vehicles were promising that did not go beyond the stage of board design were not constructed in the form of prototype, or arrived too late in the war to be a quelquonque utility. I hope this explains a little about this fascinating subject, forgive me for writing in my language, but I do not Mannis English well enough to make such a response.

fredl109
04-05-2010, 04:11 PM
Thank you very much fot this translation Byron.
Friendly Fred

burp
04-12-2010, 04:43 AM
Not only the general condition of Italy is bad but also governance by Fascism. Hitler start an invest campaign to raise his industry to certain level that can permit it to sustain a war. While starting with a Germany economically destroyed, Hitler arrive at 1939 with ad industrial complex where young and brilliant designer has all the resources needed to create new projects. The Army has accumulated and huge amount of every type of equipment while spending a lot of efforts in training.
Mussolini, for various reason, never try to follow this path. He supports in various way the growing industry of Italy but Mussolini doesn't spent resources into specialization of industrial complex in wartime production. Italy doesn't spent any effort in creation of reserve of military equipment or huge training program for his soldiers. When Mussolini ask to his highest officials when Italy can enter at war in 1939, the best response is 1943, and at this time Italy will only accumulated a reserve of equipment and train an sufficient number of soldier, there is no way that Italy in 4 years can be able to develop a complex industrial complex needed for a modern war. Mussolini use for propaganda purpose single achievement like transatlantic flight or win in Schneider Cup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schneider_Cup), but in real he knew that Italy cannot sustain his Army, even in a short campaign like France.
I think that the most significant expression of this is a phrase from the diary of a RAF pilot that fight over Malta: "when i see them [the italians] attach with their ruin [the italian airplanes] i don't know if laugh for derision or cry for emotion".

Panzerknacker
09-20-2010, 04:02 PM
Semovente ruotato 90/53 breda 501

Short series armored truck, it was an "portee" with 90 mm Ansaldo AA gun.The 6x6 lorry wasfully plated with 30mm frotal armor and 8 mm on the sides. close range protection was provided by two 8mm Bredas 38.

The 90 mm gun had a 53 calibers tube and a muzzle velocity of 865 mps with High explosive ammunition and 845 mps with armor piercing ammo, was in fact a little more powerful than the infamous 88mm flak.
An diesel V8 142 or 190 hp engine allowed a maximum road speed of 59 km/h.

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/6365/prototype.jpg



http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/4645/facef.jpg


It came too late to see service in Africa so it was deployed with coastal protection units in southern Italy.

Fool in the Desert
09-23-2010, 10:58 AM
I thought that this may be of interest to you all. This tank is located some 30km NW of Kufra, in the Libyan Desert. Local folk law has it as one of Graziani's tanks that was destroyed by the Senussi, who were defending Kufra against the advancing Italian Army in 1931. It looks like it could be a Fiat, but the track mechanism is not like any of the photos I have been able to find from this period. Can anyone identify it?

The car is at the same location, although I suspect it has been placed there at a later date. Again, I would be interested in its identity. Could it be similar to those used by the Long Range Desert Group?

tankgeezer
09-23-2010, 12:29 PM
It looks like an early Stuart light tank, though I cant place the version,I'll guess at M-3 (A1)

leccy
09-23-2010, 05:51 PM
Similar to this I believe although the turret looks more angular on this one. (hexagonal as opposed to rounded)

4874

DavidW
09-24-2010, 01:34 AM
Yeah, the wreck is definately an M3 Stuart.

Panzerknacker
09-24-2010, 01:40 PM
Interesting, this is the first timer I ever see a captured Stuart in Italian service.

fredl109
10-28-2010, 06:35 AM
Interesting, this is the first timer I ever see a captured Stuart in Italian service.

In our connaissace Panzerknacker on our forum from Italy in 1935 45 and by asking for Nox is one of the site's Webmaster Beute Narod, there was no Stuart at the hands of Italians, at least we have no evidence that 'I was there. Nox said he would seek in its base picture, but he has doubts.
Friendly Fred

The Fiendish Red Baron
11-01-2010, 06:39 AM
IThe one at Kufra is an Allied wreck.

The fighting around there was over before any M3 Stuarts arrived in North Africa, indeed the Sensussi were fighting in the 1930's before teh tank was built! By 1942 Kufra was a support point for LRDG and SAS raids.

This particular tank is one of two that were suppossed to be used by David Stirling in an SAS raid on Benghazi - Operation Bigamy. It broke down a few kilometres from Kufra.

Panzerknacker
11-01-2010, 02:51 PM
In our connaissace Panzerknacker on our forum from Italy in 1935 45 and by asking for Nox is one of the site's Webmaster Beute Narod, there was no Stuart at the hands of Italians, at least we have no evidence that 'I was there. Nox said he would seek in its base picture, but he has doubts.
Friendly Fred



IThe one at Kufra is an Allied wreck.

The fighting around there was over before any M3 Stuarts arrived in North Africa, indeed the Sensussi were fighting in the 1930's before teh tank was built! By 1942 Kufra was a support point for LRDG and SAS raids.

This particular tank is one of two that were suppossed to be used by David Stirling in an SAS raid on Benghazi - Operation Bigamy. It broke down a few kilometres from Kufra.


thank you for the update guys, by the way I would love to participate in that italian forum but not time at all, not even for this forum.

DVX
02-17-2011, 06:09 PM
You forgot the semovente 90/53 that fought in Sicily, based on the 90/53 gun double chiuce AA-AT like (and better, too) the German 88.

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semovente_M.41_da_90/53

Under project there was a semovente of 149/40. The only one produced was captured by US forces and its now exposed in US Army Ordnance Museum, Aberdeen, Maryland, like a semovente 90/53.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semovente_da_149/40

The only armored car not riveted was the autoblindo Lince, copied from the British Dingo (some of them were captured). The project started in 1941 but only during RSI it was produced.
We've to say two other things: the autoblindo were a bit more than "bullet-proof" (in italian blindate) but not properly "armored" (corazzate); furthermore italian AVS didn't have bulletproof glasses: the lights were free... And the aiming instruments too, of course, were worse than German's or Allies ones.

DVX
02-17-2011, 06:19 PM
Another semovente was the 47/32 based on the light tank L 6/40, used in Balkans, France, Russia, Italy and Tunisia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semovente_47/32

DVX
02-17-2011, 06:30 PM
The right SPG is a newly designed semovente?

As Fred already said, the semovente at left is the 75/34 (an improvement of 75/18) the other is the new semovente "Bassotto" = a bit short of 105/25. About 65 75/34 were built and 30 105/25. Could Italy win the war??? :-D
However these last 30 caused many problems to the Germans attacking forces during Rome fightings of 8-10 settembre 1943. Two of them were destroyed during the battle, the others were captured after the Italian army capitulation.

DVX
02-17-2011, 06:41 PM
Has anyone seen the film "The Lion of the Desert" about the Italian invasion and occupation of Libya?

The central Italian general, whose name I forget, makes the claim that he is "the first to put tanks in the desert" (circa the late 1920s or early thirties)...



Perhaps Graziani, or Badoglio. However I've never seen that film. Are you talking about the film with Anthony Quinn, Oliver Reed... aren't you? It was censored here in Italy...
:-D
And still after 30 years never passed on TV!

DVX
02-17-2011, 08:07 PM
Wich was not promising in regard of the combat capabilities.:mrgreen:

StuG IIIs of the Centauro div. Between 25 to 30 examples were delivered in april 1943.

Wait a moment. Listen to me: you' re talking about Armored Division M not Centauro division.
Centauro division fought on Greek and Yugoslavian fronts. And later in 1943 in Tunisia, but not as an organic division and not the whole division. Some of units were sent one by one and shared amongst other units already in the theatre. However the most of the division fought against the whole 2nd US Corps during the battle for Gafsa, resisting for twelve days when was finally supported and replaced by 21st panzer.
In the meantime in Italy the High Command decided to form a new armored division with modern equipment. The division should be formed on the base of some elite units of MVSN (or Black Shirts or M Battalions), veterans of Russian front. German Command, and Himmler himself, offered his SS best weapons to the alley's equivalent of SS (pollitically speaking) that is the MVSN.
The MVSN should have an armored divsion like SS had their ones. Both SS and MVSN were the army of the Party. Of course this thing, not officially, disliked the monarchy and high commands of Italian army, that were preparing the fall of Mussolini (25 july 1943) and possibly an armistice with the enemy. A Fascist division, commanded by the Fascist party and not by the Army, could be a big problem, especially with its German armament superior to other italian units.
In fact M division received from SS: 12 Panzer IV Ausf. G, 12 PzKpfw III Ausf. N, 12 StuG III Ausf. G, 24 Flak 88mm, 46 MG 20mm mod. 43. Other equipment was Italian: 24 flamethrowers, 20guns 47/32, 36 mortars brixia, 16 mortars 81mm, 94medium tracks, 328 light trucks, 75 haevy trucks, 30 cars, 1 autoambulance, 12 motobikes-van, 20 tractors, 6 tows, 261 motorbikes, 3 mobile workshops.
M divison begun training in may 1943 (some crews for Panzer Tiger, that should be delivered later) and made the first fire training the 10th of july. Mussolini wanted to sent the division in Sicily against the Angloamericans, even if not yet well combat ready, instead the Command wanted to split the division for political back doors... In fact, 2 weeks later Mussolini fell off and was removed.
Badoglio ensured the prosecution of war and the M division was told that it would be sent to fight in Sicily. Instead, all the officers, fascists, were removed and changed by fans of monarchy and Badoglio, first of all the commander of divison. The division was split and new royalist units were attached to the former M division troops, to look after them. The spirit of M division was defused... The new commander Calvi di Bergolo, son in law of the king Vittorio Emanuele, renamed the division Centauro II.
During the days of armistice, the division melt down and the Germans retook their own equipment. Later months the most of former troops of M divison joined the RSI, but there were no more tanks...

skorzeny57
02-19-2011, 12:12 AM
Perhaps Graziani, or Badoglio. However I've never seen that film. Are you talking about the film with Anthony Quinn, Oliver Reed... aren't you? It was censored here in Italy...
:-D
And still after 30 years never passed on TV!

"The Lion of the Desert" is a 1981 Lybian historical war movie, starring Anthony Quinn as Tribal Leader Omar el-Mukhtar, that fought against Italian Army in the years leading to the WW2. The Italian General, that Nickdfresh mentioned, was Rodoldo Graziani, impersoned by Oliver Reed. It was directed by Moustapha Akkad and funded by Muhammar al-Gheddafi's government. In 1982 the Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti described the film like "damaging to the honour of the Italian Army". That's why it was banned. I had the chance to watch it a couple of years ago, when it was finally broadcast on TV by Sky Italy on June 11, 2009, during the official visit of Lybian Leader Muhammar al-Gheddafi.

Nickdfresh
02-19-2011, 08:00 AM
Perhaps Graziani, or Badoglio. However I've never seen that film. Are you talking about the film with Anthony Quinn, Oliver Reed... aren't you? It was censored here in Italy...
:-D
And still after 30 years never passed on TV!

Yes...I might add that the film is no longer widely played on American TV...

fredl109
02-20-2011, 04:04 AM
As Fred already said, the semovente at left is the 75/34 (an improvement of 75/18) the other is the new semovente "Bassotto" = a bit short of 105/25. About 65 75/34 were built and 30 105/25. Could Italy win the war??? :-D
However these last 30 caused many problems to the Germans attacking forces during Rome fightings of 8-10 settembre 1943. Two of them were destroyed during the battle, the others were captured after the Italian army capitulation.

As said DVX, the little "Bassoto" product provoked a lot of damage to the German forces which met, it was exactly the same thing for the allied forces landed in Normandy against the stug, this type of tank and perfect for the ambush and close combat, Normandy Rome as a theater were ideal for these assault gun. Remember that the majority of German victories of tanks against tanks in Normandy was made of the Stug. The Germans knew the qualities of these tanks, before landing in 44, do not be deprived of using them wisely, the land in Italy is well suited to combat this type of vehicle, especially in the north.

Sincerely Fred

Nickdfresh
02-20-2011, 08:12 AM
It should be noted that the Stug technically wasn't a tank with respect to its limitations--namely, not having a turret. This made it cheap to produce and it was still a very effective tank-killer under defensive circumstances. But technically, I think it's either an assault gun, an armored fighting vehicle, or most accurately termed a "tank destroyer" in its final incarnations....

burp
02-21-2011, 10:24 AM
You are right Nickdfresh: Stug III was created upon proposal of Erich Von Maisten to create a Sturmartillerie (assault artillery) units. It starts as assault gun, but in Western Front losses and appareance of stunnig tanks like T-34 and KV-1 inspire panzer commander to test Stug III as tank destroyer and it works very well. Heinz Guderian was a fierly supporter of Stug III and try to eliminate Jadpanzer IV, a Stug III superstructure on Panzer IV chassis becuase he thinks that Stug III is very good and Jagpanzer IV drain energy from Panzer IV production, but Hitler is a supporter of Jadpanzer IV. While it was cheaper and faster to produce it has a greater reliability than heavy tanks like Panther and Tiger and like jadpanzer (tank destroyer) offers low silhoutte and small size, a fast target hard to get. So when in 1943/1944, when losses in Africa and Russia drains panzer production and ally bombing destroyed industrial implants Stug III/IV was forced into panzer division as normal tanks. The Russian Army get every Stug III that it can get and redeploy it as Su-76. Some of this Su-76 captured from Russian are deployed again in German Army.

leccy
02-21-2011, 05:56 PM
I think the Stug III was called an SU 75 in Russian service and not an SU 76 as that was the designation for a Soviet Infantry Support Vehicle based on the T70 light tank

burp
02-22-2011, 08:16 AM
Righ, I forgot the i at the end of the Su-76 :(. Su-76 were based on T-70 light tank chassis while Su-76i were based on Panzer III chassis, Su-76i were gapfiller while Su-76 was produced in refined version without reliablity problems. The gun, the 76.2mm Tank Gun S-1, was the same. A good review on Su-76 (http://www.battlefield.ru/en/tank-development/29-sp-guns/63-su76i.html)i.
Also Su-122i were Stug III with 122mm M-30 self-propelled howitzer.

Uyraell
03-02-2011, 07:02 AM
The Sturmgeschutze series eventually came to replace turreted tanks in Heer service because they were quicker to produce, and thus could be made in greater numbers, which became increasingly necessary as the war progressed.
The only real disadvantage of a Stug. compared to a turreted tank is in tactical employ: it takes longer to align the Stug. on a new target. This means that in a fluid battlescape, the Stug. becomes somewhat easier to kill.
Which was one reason the Russians at times deployed turreted tanks alongside SU's.

Kind and Respectful Regards, Uyraell.

Der Toten Kaiser
07-09-2011, 12:12 AM
Hey guys, I've just found a photo of Italian medium tank, the P40! Did someone know this tank! The allied tank crews had said it was an excellent tank, I'll post some photos!

http://www.afv-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/header_89792.jpg

http://www.google.com.br/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://gallery.sudden-strike.ru/img/albums/userpics/10354/Carro%2520Armato%2520P-40%2520(%25C8%25F2%25E0%25EB%25E8%25FF)%2520%25E2% 2520%25E0%25F0%25EC%25E8%25E8%2520%25C3%25E5%25F0% 25EC%25E0%25ED%25E8%25E8%2520%25C8%25F2%25E0%25EB% 25E8%25FF%25201944.jpg&sa=X&ei=DuUXTqXQFITbgQfgyekg&ved=0CAQQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNFipU_KpApcndQAzqFvt_hyUmQFsQ

I'll find some more good ones

Unofficial MOD Warning: You really needed four separate posts uploaded within a very short time of one another? Please refrain from making meaningless one-line posts. Also, you all need to watch how you interact with other long-time posters here. I'm speaking of the "'frustrated' German pic thread" specifically...

fredl109
07-09-2011, 06:18 AM
Hello everyone, the P26/40 is a step forward for Italian, but it has the same problem as its predecessors, that dir as steel in which it is built is of poor quality, more production is ridiculous in number. In terms of combat capability, the problem is that it met very little car in its class, so its assessment is difficult. Note though that the Germans will still occur until 1945, suggesting some military value to them. For more information I suggest you look at this.

http://www.italie1935-45.com/RE/photoscopes/chars/p26-40.html

Sincerly Fred:D:D:D

leccy
07-09-2011, 09:07 AM
The P40 seems to have been liked by some German units while not well thought of by others (mainly due to its unreliable engine). It was generally regarded as a useful vehicle but in the too little too late mould.

It was the tank the Italians wanted in 1941 and needed in 1942 but got in 1943 by which time it was being superseded. The proposed P43 would have been a much better proposition but Italian design and manufacturing was unfortunately very limited in its capabilities.

Typical of the Germans as vehicles broke down and become un-repairable they turrets were used as static defence points along with Panther turrets.

Der Toten Kaiser
07-09-2011, 12:02 PM
The germans used the P40's in northern Italy & Yugoslavia, but some allied tank crews sais it could beat the Grants and shermans M4A1, but for the luck of the allies it was finished only in 1943

leccy
07-09-2011, 02:43 PM
The P40 was the first time the Italians actually had a tank with a gun comparable to the main allied tank of the time (the Sherman). Its armour was not much better than its predecessors though.

Der Toten Kaiser
07-09-2011, 03:35 PM
Yeah, I think the Semoventes were the best (if not the only) Italian trumps of the war, if their air-force does not count!

DVX
07-10-2011, 07:50 AM
The Germans considered the P40 as a sort of less powerful and efficient Panzer IV.

Byron
07-10-2011, 08:16 PM
The germans used the P40's in northern Italy & Yugoslavia, but some allied tank crews sais it could beat the Grants and shermans M4A1, but for the luck of the allies it was finished only in 1943

It was roughly equal to the Sherman, stat-wise, but was made with poorer-quality steel, nowhere near as reliable and never produced in numbers for a variety of reasons. Development took way too long; if the Italians could have fielded this tank in NA in early 1942, it could have made quite a difference in the war there.

Without a doubt, the Semovente were the best AFV the Italians did use in the field. If they had upgunned them to the 75/46 or the 105 faster, they could have had a significant impact on the war in NA. As it ended, it seemed the Italians only managed to manufacture adequate AFV in 1943, and for the most part they were still behind other nations with these designs. Still, they were worlds better than the 47mm armed M 13/40-14/41-15/42 tanks.

fredl109
07-15-2011, 10:53 AM
Sorry Byron, but you're wrong, the Italians had lost the war is beginning, let me explain, Mussolini launched a country are far too early in the war, when he declared war on France, are armed is far be ready, regardless of the regiment are fully staffed with whether in weapons or soldiers, it just has to see the reaction of the general commanding the Alpini who says simply Mussolini they are by no ready and it will be repeated on each theater unfortunately in Greece for example, or it will be rolled by troops better equipped and better managed, in North Africa where they send the Folgore in abject poverty and But that will do wonders. This is not the troops and officers and NCOs to blame but a central command unable to have a realistic view of events. What then of the industrial production of weapons whose capabilities are more than reduced, the fact that they would have had the Semovente they produce more consistent with a weapon does not mean because of the low yield industrial capabilities, many pictures show Italian factories with facilities date back to early 20s with no modernization,how do you know that in such conditions they can rapidly produce improved ue for a particular material, that they is simply not possible.
friendships Fred

DVX
07-15-2011, 01:40 PM
You're right dear Fred. Apart the big lack of industrial output, the Italian war was just a bet over the idea that "Germany has already won, just some months and a bit of blood and we'll seat among the winners". The Comando Supremo, apart the fact the the armed forces would still needed at least 3 years of preparation to be quite ready for a great conflict (like agreed in the Steel pact) guaranteed 6 months of authonomy for such a conflict. If the war was lasted less, that would be perfect, but after that time, nothing could be assured.
In fact what strategical planes were prepared for the war? None. "Now we enter into the war, then we'll see what to do". To delay the invasion of Malta after june 1940 was a mistake consequenting a big general mistake based on these mistaken basis. The war against Greece was another worse mistake in the mistake. After the German military intervention in Romania, Mussolini wanted its own success in the Blakans. Mussolini, Ciano and general Visconti Prasca prepared a useless campaign without the mininum good sense, political and military. Few and insufficent troops, without moral motivation, in the worst season for an attack, should attack an enemy clearly stronger, fierce and motived in defending the homeland, and alerted by months of useless menaces if the fate was to attack and not just warning from some political attitudes. Apart the political disaster by Ciano and Mussolini, Visconti Prasca should be shooted for inaptness and airiness.
Still in 1941 the economy was not a war-economy: the Duce, the first year and more want to limit the fatigues of the population, under the usual idea the war should last no long.
Even in september - october, the veterans in Albania were dismobilited, for the same reason: Mussolini, would a peace-time attitude in the homefront. A few weeks later those men were recalled with the confusion - many already at home - and the moral conseguences easily guessable.
Troops that would served in Africa, were wasted in Greece, without useful motivation and in the worst possibile military conduction. Discretid covered the Italian armed forces, that fought well, as usual, in their duty, for the ineptitude of the political and military leaders. Being not finished after december 1940, the war was already lost for Italy, as the Comando Supremo had already meant 6 months before. After that time Italy was towed by Germany, and this was not in the intentions. To send the CSIR and the ARMIR in Russia, was another military mistake, even if the political reasons of the move were understandable. Especially considering that the Germans wasted the Alpini Corp in the steppe's plains and not in the Caucaso mountains, for wich it was allotted.
So, apart the army not ready, apart the completely insufficient industrial output, the Italian war was a big mistake from the start, with other and worse big mistakes in the tecnical conduction...
So, considering all this, as the famous historician of the US navy Morison wrote, it's not surprising that Italy lost the war, it's surprising that was able to resist three years!

DVX
07-15-2011, 01:55 PM
By the way Fred, you that speak a bit of Italian, read here. Do you know the story of Suor Elena Aiello?

Cosenza, 23 aprile 1940

Al Capo del Governo
Benito Mussolini

Duce,
vengo a Voi in nome di Dio per dirvi ciò che il Signore mi ha rivelato e che vuole da voi. Io non volevo scrivere, ma ieri, 22, il Signore mi è apparso di nuovo imponendomi di farvi sapere quanto segue:

“Il mondo è in rovina per i molti peccati e particolarmente per i peccati d’impurità che sono arrivati al colmo dinanzi alla Giustizia del mio Padre Celeste. Perciò tu dovrai soffrire ed essere vittima espiatrice per il mondo e particolarmente per l’Italia, dove è la sede del mio Vicario. Il mio Regno è regno di pace, il mondo invece è tutto in guerra.
I Governatori dei popoli sono agitati per acquistare nuovi territori. Poveri ciechi!... Non sanno che dove non c’è Dio non vi può essere alcuna vera conquista! Nel loro cuore non vi è che malvagità e non fanno che oltraggiarmi, deridermi, disprezzarmi! Sono demoni di discordia, sovvertitori dei popoli e cercano di travolgere nel terribile flagello anche l’Italia, dove sta Dio in mezzo a tante anime e la sede del mio Vicario, Pastor Angelicus.
La Francia, tanto cara al mio cuore, per i suoi molti peccati, presto cadrà in rovina e sarà travolta e devastata come Gerusalemme ingrata.
All’Italia, perché sede del mio Vicario, Ho mandato Benito Mussolini, per salvarla dall’abisso verso il quale si era avviata, altrimenti sarebbe arrivata in condizioni peggiori della Russia. In tanti pericoli l’ho sempre salvato; adesso deve mantenere l’Italia fuori dalla guerra, perché l’Italia è civile ed è la sede del mio Vicario in terra.
Se farà questo avrà favori straordinari e farò inchinare ogni altra Nazione al suo cospetto. Egli invece ha deciso di dichiarare la guerra, ma sappia che se non la impedirà, sarà punito dalla mia Giustizia!”

Tutto questo mi ha detto il Signore. Non crediate, o Duce, che io mi occupi di politica. Io sono una povera Suora dedicata all’educazione di Piccole abbandonate e prego tanto per la vostra salvezza e per la salvezza della nostra Patria.

Con sincera stima
dev.ma
Suor Elena Aiello

(la lettera fu consegnata alla sorella del Duce, Donna Edvige, il 6 maggio 1940, ed ella la consegnò a Mussolini qualche giorno dopo).

Ma ecco un’altra lettera di Suor Elena Aiello, questa volta direttamente a Donna Edvige, nella quale ella accenna al contenuto della lettera di cui sopra:

Montalto Uffugo (CS), 15 maggio 1943

Gent.ma Donna Edvige,
questo mio lungo silenzio vi avrà fatto forse pensare che io mi sia dimenticata di voi, mentre invece io vi ricordo tutti i giorni, nelle mie povere preghiere, seguendo sempre le dolorose vicende della nostra bella Italia.
Noi ci troviamo fuori Cosenza, a causa dei bombardamenti. La barbarie nemica ha sfogato il suo odio, sganciando bombe sulla città di Cosenza, causando devastazione, dolore e morte fra la popolazione civile.
Io mi trovavo a letto con le sofferenze: tre bombe sono cadute vicino al nostro Istituto, ma il Signore ci ha salvato nella sua infinita bontà e misericordia. Per tenere lontane le bambine dal pericolo di nuove incursioni, ci siamo rifugiati a Montalto Uffugo, mio paese natio, dove ci troviamo certamente a disagio, ma tutto offriamo al Signore per la salvezza dell’Italia.
La ragione di questo mio scritto è per rivolgermi nuovamente a voi, come nel mese di maggio del 1940, quando venni a Roma presentata dalla Baronessa Ruggi, per consegnarvi in iscritto le rivelazioni avute dal Signore riguardo al Duce. Ricordate quando il 6 maggio del 1940 dicevano che il Duce aveva deciso di fare la guerra, mentre il Signore gli faceva sapere nella mia lettera che doveva salvare l’Italia dalla guerra altrimenti sarebbe stato punito dalla Sua divina Giustizia? “In tanti pericoli” diceva Gesù “l’ho sempre salvato: anche lui, adesso, deve salvare l’Italia dal flagello della guerra, perché vi è la sede del mio Vicario. Se farà questo gli darò favori straordinari e farò inchinare ogni altra Nazione al suo cospetto; invece lui ha deciso di fare la guerra, ma sappia che se non la impedisce, sarà punito dalla mia Giustizia”.
Ah!... se il Duce avesse dato ascolto alle parole di Gesù, l’Italia non si sarebbe trovata ora in così triste condizione!...
Io penso che il cuore del Duce sarà molto rattristato nel vedere l’Italia, da un giardino fiorito, trasformato in un campo deserto, seminato di dolore e di morte. Ma perché continuare questa guerra terribilmente crudele, se Gesù ha detto che per nessuno vi sarà vittoria? Perciò, cara Donna Edvige, dite al Duce, a nome mio, che questo è l’ultimo avviso che il Signore gli manda. Potrà ancora salvarsi mettendo tutto nelle mani del Santo Padre. “Se non farà questo” diceva il Signore “Presto scenderà su di lui la Giustizia Divina. Anche gli altri Governatori che non ascolteranno gli avvisi e le direttive del mio Vicario(1) saranno raggiunti e puniti dalla mia Giustizia”.Vi ricordate il 7 luglio dell’anno scorso quando mi chiedevate che cosa ne sarebbe stato del Duce ed io vi risposi che se non si fosse mantenuto unito al Papa sarebbe finito peggio di Napoleone?! Ora vi ripeto le stesse parole: Se il Duce non salverà l’Italia rimettendosi a quanto dirà e farà il Santo Padre, presto cadrà; anche Bruno dal cielo chiede al padre la salvezza dell’Italia e di lui stesso.
Il Signore dice spesso che l’Italia sarà salva per il Papa, vittima espiatrice di questo flagello, perciò non vi sarà altra via per la vera pace e per la salvezza dei popoli, fuori di quella che traccerà il Santo Padre.
Cara Donna Edvige, riflettete bene come tutto ciò che ha detto il Signore si sia perfettamente avverato.
Chi è che ha causato tanta rovina all’Italia? Non è stato forse il Duce per non avere ascoltato le parole di nostro Signore Gesù Cristo?
Ora potrà ancora rimediare facendo quanto vuole il Signore.
Io non mancherò di pregare.
Suor Elena Aiello

Read here too:

http://ilcovo.mastertopforum.net/mussolini-uomo-della-pace-vt1308.html

Byron
07-16-2011, 03:39 PM
Fred and DVX,

I never claimed that the Italians could have won the war--or even won in NA. I only stated that the better weaponry they were just beginning to field in 1943 (at the end) could have had a powerful effect in NA if it had been produced sooner. To say that would have completely turned the tide of the entire war, or even the conflict in NA, is a stretch. However, it would have had a pretty good chance of prolonging the conflict and may have changed the overall timeline of the war in 1943.

I am aware of the reasons why these AFV were not produced in 1941 or 1942.

fredl109
07-17-2011, 05:26 AM
Hello Byron, it was not a criticism but rather a focus to understand why this has occurred. Indeed you are right about the Semovente is in fact probably the best tank produced by Italian industry of the time. As for the P26/40 I think it could be of great service as well, because the documents proved that the Germans liked the machine. As for fighting, it is true that a char type Semovente represents a significant potential deal with Shermans and other allies, it is easy to hide in the landscapes of northern Italy as well as his German counterpart, the Sturmgeschütz was in Normandy and the evolution of his caliber 105mm cannon to make it formidable and your thinking is right, especially when you see how it passed the landing of Anzio, the effect in this type of tank engaged in strength could have sacred pose problems for Americans.
Friendships Fred:D:D:D

DVX
07-17-2011, 03:35 PM
Fred and DVX,

I never claimed that the Italians could have won the war--or even won in NA.

Even if you would say that, it hadn't been a shame. :-D


I only stated that the better weaponry they were just beginning to field in 1943 (at the end) could have had a powerful effect in NA if it had been produced sooner. To say that would have completely turned the tide of the entire war, or even the conflict in NA, is a stretch. However, it would have had a pretty good chance of prolonging the conflict and may have changed the overall timeline of the war in 1943.

I am aware of the reasons why these AFV were not produced in 1941 or 1942.

Yes of course. But unfortunatly, strategically speaking, Italy had already lost the war at the end of 1940, when the political basis of the Italian war-bet had already fallen, and badly too. After that time, Italy was just towed by Germany for the "strategical economics" of war. When Italy entered into the war, all the Italian leadership knew that weaponry, organization, moral and industrial output were very far from being ready for a world war. Only in 1943 the army would had STARTED to be quite ready for such a war.
In fact Italy started to produce better and modern weapons in 1943 (artillery, tanks and aircrafts), when the war was lost.
The delay of the Italian industrial and heavy production, could not be resolved soon. In fact like the P26, many other weapons that were projected already in 1940-41 started to be produced in 1943. For example, other weapons, that would be effective in 1940, in 1943 were belated... The radical change in the Italian infantry division, passed from three regiments to two, decided in late '30s, should had needed many years of reorganization, but the war surprised the core of the army in this full structural change.
Everything was based on the idea that the war was already finished and won, something should be done soon to seat at the table of peace, before it would be too late and Germany too powerful. No strategical planes were prepared for industry and military, and no war-time economy was organized before the late of 1941. So the Italian industry, already belated, lost at least another year of temporization.
All this can explain the delay in the development of the P26 like in many other projects. But as the same Comando Supremo stated in 1940, the armed forces would started to be ready not before 1943 and if the war would had lasted more than six months nothing could be assured after that time. After that time Italy had virtually already lost.

VelvetClaw
08-04-2011, 09:44 PM
Does anyone know if these weapons were ever made for export, and if so, who got them?

DVX
08-09-2011, 09:47 AM
Generally speaking, Italian aircrafts had much more export success than other kind of Italian weapons. In fact, the Italian tanks were quite belated. Anyway many CV tanks were acquired by Hungary and Spain, Nationalist China, Austria, Afghanistan, Bulgaria, Iraq (one was re-found and "captured" by US forces a few years ago) and other South American countries, when this tank, or better its formula, was considered still effective in many armies of the time.

leccy
08-09-2011, 10:40 AM
Strange beast I saw earlier today

5614

DVX
08-09-2011, 04:29 PM
Strange beast I saw earlier today

5614

Nice finding leccy. It's an armored transport for infantry based on the L6/40 light tank platform. It was just a prototype. The British AFV impressed the Italian army, and in this case the influence of the Bren carrier is evident. Another prototype built by Fiat was a perfect copy of the Bren carrier, like the blindo Lince that was largely inspired by the Dingo. Anyway the only "copy" really built was the Lince. The Italian AV for infantry, except these and other experiments, were the armored trucks Autoprotetto S37, the Fiat 665 blindato, and the Dovunque protetto.

leccy
08-09-2011, 06:02 PM
I got a couple more pics but the site kept crashing for me when I tried to set them up. Will try again later with some info for them.

Seems they were impressed with the T16 and Windsor Carriers in particular.

DVX
08-09-2011, 06:06 PM
Dalmatian MVAC or BAC (Milizie Volontarie AntiComuniste, Bande AntiComuniste) usually fighiting along with the Italian army, over a an AS37

leccy
08-09-2011, 06:53 PM
Is that a local improvised vehicle or a factory built, I only know the AS37 as the Saharina and never seen a picture of one armoured.

DVX
08-09-2011, 06:59 PM
Panzerknacker already answered:

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?4054-Italian-tanks-and-AFVs./page3

The SPA 37 is the normal truck not armored, the Sahariana is the AS42

DVX
08-09-2011, 07:22 PM
Also the SPA 37 was called Autocarro sahariano, but it's different from the "sahariana" that is a camionetta (the AS 42). The SPA 37 or AS37 is the same thing: the SPA AS37. Called also SPA TL (traino leggero) 37. All this denominations can easily create confusion for everybody... Anyway with a picture all becomes easy.

leccy
08-10-2011, 04:35 AM
A few more pictures of this useful looking Italian version of the universal type carrier.

56185619
56205621

I have only just started to look at Italian vehicles again, in my youth I fairly dismissed them as irrelevant and concentrated more on Early British WW2 vehicles (North Africa and the BEF in particular).
The Italians had some very good kit as well as the more commonly thought of really bad kit. It did surprise me rather pleasantly I may add.

fredl109
01-01-2012, 10:10 AM
Hello Leccy, to make you an idea on what the Italian possessed as material, I join you this link, that will be able to help you. It is a site in French but with the translator of Google it should go.
Fred regards

http://www.italie1935-45.com/

leccy
01-01-2012, 03:23 PM
Cheers for that, finding reliable information on the net in English is difficult. I have no problems using the translators even if it takes me longer to read and understand as it is generally well worth the effort.

I only have a few books about Italian forces during WW2 and they are not particularly all encompassing so more good links are very welcome. (Good books in English are welcome as well)

Panzerknacker
01-01-2012, 05:12 PM
A few more pictures of this useful looking Italian version of the universal type carrier.

56185619
56205621

I have only just started to look at Italian vehicles again, in my youth I fairly dismissed them as irrelevant and concentrated more on Early British WW2 vehicles (North Africa and the BEF in particular).
The Italians had some very good kit as well as the more commonly thought of really bad kit. It did surprise me rather pleasantly I may add.

Wanst that more like a command variant of the L6 light tank ?

fredl109
01-01-2012, 05:35 PM
Hello Panzerknacker, it is well about frame of L6/40, but used here on a prototype of recognition vehicle, its name was Cingoletta L40 and it was armed of one MG of 13.2mm and of a Breda model 38 of 8mm, that speed was of about 60KM/H and its motor came from the AB40. As hoping to have you was useful, it is true that this vehicle is very little known.
Fred regards

Panzerknacker
01-02-2012, 10:29 AM
Hello Panzerknacker, it is well about frame of L6/40, but used here on a prototype of recognition vehicle, its name was Cingoletta L40 and it was armed of one MG of 13.2mm and of a Breda model 38 of 8mm, that speed was of about 60KM/H and its motor came from the AB40. As hoping to have you was useful, it is true that this vehicle is very little known.
Fred regards

I see, I thought it was the variant of the semovente of 47mm without gun.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JhVx3PrAs1k/TpPbcuSTT6I/AAAAAAAAB6Y/yY-7RDBk3hQ/s1600/sem47-32.jpg

fredl109
01-02-2012, 03:30 PM
Indeed my dear Panzerknacker, because the two vehicles sharing the same frame and the aspect is misleading enough, but it makes look at the back shelf of the vehicle, notably the over to perceive that the one doesn't come here from the Semovent, the one of the Cingolato is longer.
Fred regards

Mauro433
04-06-2013, 10:11 AM
Bella foto, nitida, del Semovente 76/46

DavidW
05-08-2013, 07:22 PM
Nice to see the Italians and their equipment getting some good coverage, they are so often overlooked.

Byron
08-28-2013, 09:50 PM
Bella foto, nitida, del Semovente 76/46

The Semovente 76/46 was the first "real" Italian tank destroyer. The Italians armed all Semovente with a mix of ammunition but their primary role, up to the armistice, was as mobile artillery support/assault guns. They began to form tank destroyer formations, using the 75/34, in 1943 (the 75/18 was also used to supplement tank strength, much in the way the Germans used the Stug and other tank destroyers in their tank battalions during the late war period) but the 76/46 was really the first Semovente designed as a tank destroyer, with an ATG as its main armament.

Panzerknacker
01-26-2016, 03:12 PM
Testing the "sardine can" Ansaldo CV33 and derivates, ridiculous vehicle, I think the film is from 1934 or 35.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhoOhJLr60o