Why did the Italians bother with building tanks?

[poesel]

Ok, I'm (half) joking here

I'm playing an armour only QB blue on blue. I went with Semovente 47's and some AB 41. My opponent jby went nearly AB 41 only.

The 20mm of the AB rips the Semoventes to shreds - even frontally. With the high rate of fire of the AB's the Semoventes stand no chance.

So what were they thinking when they designed the Semoventes? Shouldn't a tank's armour not roughly match it's own gun?

[JonS]

Why did the Italians bother with building tanks?

to be read in sequence:

http://www.historynet.com/launching-the-war.htm

http://www.historynet.com/one-tough-campaign.htm

http://www.historynet.com/sitting-in-judgment-the-ethiopian-campaign.htm

http://www.historynet.com/ugly-a-last-note-on-the-ethiopian-campaign.htm

[womble]

Shouldn't a tank's armour not roughly match it's own gun?

Tell that to the Brits.

And then look at the 90/53. That gun eviscerates Shermans, reliably penetrating the glacis at kilometer ranges, but the armour is marginal protection against even .50cal.

Frankly, the 47mm in the Semo overmatches its armour by a significant margin, but the worst thing about it is the combination of open top (meaning crew vulnerability to even the slightest plunging element of small arms fire, let alone the general tissue-thinness of the armour in general), and the fact that the gun cannot be fired by the loader or loaded by the commander, so if you lose either, the vehicle is mission-killed.

Italian tanks, especially in the Sicily campaign, where they were actually only fielding Infantry Divisions, were rubbish, for economic and historical reasons.

[JonS]

Shouldn't a tank's armour not roughly match it's own gun?

No, why would it?

There are numerous examples in the extreme opposite direction, a design approach memorably labelled "eggshells with hammers." And as a general rule, I'd think that most tank designs were at least somewhat vulnerable to their own gun.

[Erwin]

Good summation in those links, Jon. Thanks.

[newlife]

A tanks armor doesn't need to match its gun. It needs to match the enemies gun. But when your resources are limited and you can't do anything, what do you put your resources into? A better gun or better armor?

[Erwin]

Also back in those days, "survivability" wasn't as high a priority as now. As Rickusty posted elsewhere, the Italian high command saw their troops as expendable.

[dieseltaylor]

Matilda II being a notable exception with its effective armour all round and only a 2pdr.

Compared to other British vehicles of the time the Matilda II was expensive and took longer to build, the first production models were completed in September 1939. The Matilda II used a riveted construction with both cast and rolled armour and was armoured with a 2pdr gun with a Besa 7.92 machine gun. Armour was extremely thick for the period being 75-78mm thick on the front and 65-75mm thick on the sides, this armour granted virtual immunity to nearly all anti-tank weapons of the time. The 2pdr gun could be replaced with a 3" howitzer which could fire both High Explosive and Smoke shells.

The Matilda II first saw action in the Battle of France were it's thick armour caused the German 37mm Pak and tank guns to bounce off even at point blank ranges, only a handful of the tanks had been sent to France so they had little impact on the campaign. In North Africa the Matilda II has great success against the Italians who were unable to deal with the Matilda's thick armour, this protection was well liked by the crews of the Matilda II. It wasn't until the arrival of the Germans in North Africa in February 1941 that a weapon capable of dealing with the Matilda II was available - the 88mm Flak gun, it must be remembered however that the Germans did not have a tank capable of penetrating the Matilda II's armour at range until the Summer of 1942, after over two and a half years of war.

http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64:matilda-mk-ii-infantry-tank-a12&catid=38:infantry-tanks&Itemid=56

[poesel]

to be read in sequence:

...

Thanks, interesting read.

To sum it up: the Italians where first on the market with mechanised warfare and had invested in 1st generation hardware. The runners up could learn from their faults and copy their designs and thus start with 2nd gen. The Italians lacked the resources to keep the pace, fell behind the curve and their shiny new stuff looked silly and lacking only a few years later.

Makes sense.

[Alan8325]

Also the Semovente 47 is a mobile gun, similar in role to the StuG but much less capable, and not a tank. I would use it like an AT gun that I could relocate quickly if needed. Given your scenario of Italian armor vs Italian armor, there won't be any 'real' tanks such as the Pz III or bigger present. With only light armor expected on my opponent's side I would probably choose the AB 41 over the Semovente as well. The higher rate of fire for the cannon gives you better lethality against light armor, plus you have a coaxial mg and better mobility.

The AB 41 was considered a good armored car in the war. According to Wikipedia the Breda 35 cannon could penetrate 30mm of armor at 500m and the Semovente 47 has 30mm of frontal armor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannone-Mitragliera_da_20/65_modello_35_(Breda)

[MikeyD]

I'm reminded of Japanese tanks. They were said to have been assembled with the meticulousness of fine Swiss watches. They were also pretty crappy tanks, all things considered. Then there's the T-34, assembled with the meticulousness of a rural farm tractor. But it spread fear and panic along the front. The German big cats - a marvel of engineering assembled largely by disguntled forced labor. Some Jadgtiger radiators were so (purposefully?) clogged with solder that the engines burned out with only 40km on the odometer. U.S. tanks. An expedient design with expedient upgrades built in an expedient manner.

An interesting bit of trivia, the well known design for the air-cooled deisel V engines for the M60 series can quite possibly trace its conceptual origins toType-95 Kyo-Go whose air-cooled deisels had impressed our engineers.

[dieseltaylor]

AB41 excerpt from Wikipedia

It had six forward gears and four reverse gears, with a driving position at the front and one in the rear, so two crew members were drivers. Overall the AB 40/41 family was well thought out, with a top speed of over 70 km/h (45 mph), good armor (15 mm on the front plates) and good road and cross-country performance, but there were some examples of poor detail design like difficult access to the powerplant, an unprotected fuel tank, one man turret, exposed traverse gear and lack of an interior bulkhead separating the engine and crew compartments.

The actual speed on roads should also be an advantage. It would be interesting to see how fast a Semovente can traverse and engage the Ab41's at speed.