Jump to content


Italian Tanks and Military Vehicles

italian tank tree heavy medium light tank destroyer artillery semovente carro armato

  • Please log in to reply
8414 replies to this topic

rivit #5601 Posted Sep 04 2014 - 18:55

    Captain

  • Players
  • 14073 battles
  • 1,532
  • Member since:
    01-19-2012

View PostLife_In_Black, on Sep 04 2014 - 13:49, said:

 

And it still doesn't say anything on the 90/42 and 90/53 using these shells. You can't just say that because they had these shells, that they were used in these specific guns. Historical research doesn't work that.

 

 Figure it out yourself.

Life_In_Black #5602 Posted Sep 04 2014 - 19:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 25648 battles
  • 11,446
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011

View Postrivit, on Sep 04 2014 - 13:55, said:

 

 Figure it out yourself.

 

I see that logic and reason is beyond you. You're trying to use the same logic that Wargaming did to justify the WT E 100.

Vollketten #5603 Posted Sep 04 2014 - 19:07

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 32925 battles
  • 8,672
  • [----] ----
  • Member since:
    12-26-2011

View PostPzBarkhorn, on Sep 04 2014 - 12:25, said:

Another site, idk if was posted before: http://www.tank-net....showtopic=35087

 

 

Don't know, I can't recall but possibly.

I'll take a look and ask Bojan if he has anything else too. thank you


Edited by Vollketten, Sep 04 2014 - 19:07.


TheWolfie #5604 Posted Sep 04 2014 - 23:12

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 184 battles
  • 331
  • [ANZIO] ANZIO
  • Member since:
    06-07-2014

View PostVollketten, on Aug 31 2014 - 23:43, said:

From FTR: http://ftr.wot-news....-wg-stream-qa/ 

"- Italians can build only a partial branch, but WG wants a full branch"

 

Pesky Tiers 8 and 9. :sceptic:

 

CV-3 > M11/39 > M13/40 > M15/42 > M16/43 > P43 > P43 bis > (Tier 8) > (Tier 9) > Leopard

 

 

 

 

 



Life_In_Black #5605 Posted Sep 04 2014 - 23:22

    Major

  • Players
  • 25648 battles
  • 11,446
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011
Tier 9 isn't a problem, it's tiers 7 and 8. Tier 9 can be filled by the OTO-Melara M47.

TheWolfie #5606 Posted Sep 04 2014 - 23:31

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 184 battles
  • 331
  • [ANZIO] ANZIO
  • Member since:
    06-07-2014

View PostLife_In_Black, on Sep 04 2014 - 18:22, said:

Tier 9 isn't a problem, it's tiers 7 and 8. Tier 9 can be filled by the OTO-Melara M47.

 

Tier 7 can be filled with the P43 bis.

Life_In_Black #5607 Posted Sep 04 2014 - 23:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 25648 battles
  • 11,446
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011

View PostTheWolfie, on Sep 04 2014 - 18:31, said:

 

Tier 7 can be filled with the P43 bis.

 

No it can't. The 90/42 gun isn't good enough for tier 7 and the 90/53 is not only unhistorical, but Wargaming said no to putting it on the P.43bis.

TheWolfie #5608 Posted Sep 04 2014 - 23:59

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 184 battles
  • 331
  • [ANZIO] ANZIO
  • Member since:
    06-07-2014

View PostLife_In_Black, on Sep 04 2014 - 18:45, said:

 

No it can't. The 90/42 gun isn't good enough for tier 7 and the 90/53 is not only unhistorical, but Wargaming said no to putting it on the P.43bis.

 

So it would have a poor armament but good armor.

 

It's Italy's equivalent to the Panther, it'd be ridiculous to put it at Tier VI.



Vollketten #5609 Posted Sep 05 2014 - 15:51

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 32925 battles
  • 8,672
  • [----] ----
  • Member since:
    12-26-2011

It's been on my lists with another failed 149/37 for some time but I don't think it's been on here so here is the prototype 149/37 designed by Ansaldo in 1930

and the Royal Arsenal version ~1933 in the same 149/37

Both guns led to the 149/40 so could be the starting 149/40 gun despite only having reached prototype stage.

There is also the prototype of the 149/40 gun to consider too. (Edit: It differs from the production version with some extra balancing weight to the gun so game wise you're looking at probably a dispersal variation to differentiate the two)

There's a nice wriote up on the history of the piece at .

There is also a boat load of shells for this gun too.


Edited by Vollketten, Oct 28 2017 - 03:27.


rivit #5610 Posted Sep 05 2014 - 17:14

    Captain

  • Players
  • 14073 battles
  • 1,532
  • Member since:
    01-19-2012

View PostLife_In_Black, on Sep 04 2014 - 14:06, said:

 

I see that logic and reason is beyond you. You're trying to use the same logic that Wargaming did to justify the WT E 100.

 

Figure it out yourself and stop interrupting my discussion about ammunition compatibility with my old super forum friend Vollketten!

rivit #5611 Posted Sep 05 2014 - 17:20

    Captain

  • Players
  • 14073 battles
  • 1,532
  • Member since:
    01-19-2012

View PostVollketten, on Sep 04 2014 - 11:17, said:

Notes again:

(as usual apologies for repetition of information which may be earlier - a lot of stuff gets repeated and may additions are in [ ] )

 

  • 1924 article in 'Journal of the Royal artillery ' advokates adoption of anti-tank guns mounted on self-propelled gun carriage - Colonello M.Caraecciolo takes an interest in this and experiments in the US in 1925 for some designs of his own.
  • 65/17 is considered superior to the 47/32 against tanks when using Effetto Pronto shells. [just interesting for proof of the existance of 65mm EP type shells rather than surprising that a larger shell would carry more explosive - with standard AP ammunition the 47/32 will still be superior in penetration]
  •  31st July 1933 - 'Summary of Issues Artillery' has the presentation of a 50mm Cannone weighing 90kg capable of firing a 1.5kg shell at 225m/s out to 3000m
  • ~1934 a new infantry antiaircraft gun in 20mm calibre studied
  • ~1934 studies for a new infantry antitank gun:
    • calibre 47mm
    • semiautomatic
    • Project led by Colonello Saracino
    • Weighs just over 50kg
      • Can be broken into three loads of 18kg each
    • Muzzle velocity variable between 60 and 160m/s
    • Shell 2.3kg
    • Range 200 to 1500 metres
    • Mule packs:
      • Each ammo box holds 6 shells and weighs 17kg
      • One mule can carry 8 boxes, therefore 48 shots
      • A company of 3 mules can carry 114 rounds with the gun
      • Thus a battalion with mules can carry 6 guns with 114 rounds each
  • ​Leads to the development of a better version:
    • 47mm calibre
    • Semiautomatic
    • 500kg weight in battery
    • On trailer for towing behind a vehicle
    • Can be dismounted from wheels and carriage for firing or fired from the carriage
    • Muzzle Velocity 800 m/s
    • Shells 1.5kg
      • Armour Piercing
      • High Explosive
    • Movement on mount:
      • Maximum elevation 30 degrees
      • 120 degrees of traverse (when taken off carriage)

-88/91

 

Nice find! Believe it or not I've been studying the weights of ammo crates, which is far more useful than people think. 

Life_In_Black #5612 Posted Sep 05 2014 - 17:33

    Major

  • Players
  • 25648 battles
  • 11,446
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011

View Postrivit, on Sep 05 2014 - 12:14, said:

 

Figure it out yourself and stop interrupting my discussion about ammunition compatibility with my old super forum friend Vollketten!

 

This isn't how research works rivit, you don't get to simply state that because shells exist that they were specifically used in those cannons. And instead of Vollketten actually reigning in such nonsense, he's let you run rampant both here in this thread, and over in sp15's thread. It's no wonder Wargaming wants everything as historical as possible for Italy, look at all the rampant speculation and unhistorical proposals that have come from you and others in this thread.

rivit #5613 Posted Sep 05 2014 - 17:46

    Captain

  • Players
  • 14073 battles
  • 1,532
  • Member since:
    01-19-2012

Pipe down, Vollketten is trying to post his info.

Sorry Vollk, I didn't realize you were in the middle of an info posting burst.

I've been slowly updating this stuff on pg 2 BTW!



Vollketten #5614 Posted Sep 05 2014 - 17:49

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 32925 battles
  • 8,672
  • [----] ----
  • Member since:
    12-26-2011

View Postrivit, on Sep 05 2014 - 11:46, said:

Pipe down, Vollketten is trying to post his info.

Sorry Vollk, I didn't realize you were in the middle of an info posting burst.

I've been slowly updating this stuff on pg 2 BTW!

 

Yeah, the index will be out of date quite a bit. Page 1 vehicle data sorely needs a going over as well as I think my last update other than some formatting and typo's was back in April.

Also been a while since I did an FTR piece too as I;ve had other stuff going on but I've got a couple part done at the moment.

Also I see the negging of content posts of mine is back.......



Life_In_Black #5615 Posted Sep 05 2014 - 17:53

    Major

  • Players
  • 25648 battles
  • 11,446
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011

[content removed - non-constructive, off topic]

~Moderation Team

 



rivit #5616 Posted Sep 05 2014 - 18:00

    Captain

  • Players
  • 14073 battles
  • 1,532
  • Member since:
    01-19-2012

View PostVollketten, on Sep 05 2014 - 12:49, said:

 

Yeah, the index will be out of date quite a bit. Page 1 vehicle data sorely needs a going over as well as I think my last update other than some formatting and typo's was back in April.

Also been a while since I did an FTR piece too as I;ve had other stuff going on but I've got a couple part done at the moment.

Also I see the negging of content posts of mine is back.......

 

 I saw the MBT-70 post. What kind of contribution did Italy make(since nobody else bothered to ask)?

Vollketten #5617 Posted Sep 05 2014 - 20:34

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 32925 battles
  • 8,672
  • [----] ----
  • Member since:
    12-26-2011

View Postrivit, on Sep 04 2014 - 11:53, said:

Heh,

The I.O M40 p.c. and R 40 M.C. fuses are compatible with the 90/53 and 90/42.

Italian and French Explosive Ordnance

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/TM/pdfs/TM9-1985-6-Italy.pdf

pg.138

 used in 75mm-100mm

Made of aluminum and of recent design.

 

From that doc the 90mm shells in question:

Fuse type unknown but is base fused TNT filled. TNT is not a good explosive for squash head type rounds but perfectly fine for plain 'normal' HE.

Same calibre compatable with the same gun, same filling type (1kg) but this time nose fused with as you say the M41, MT36,  IO M40p.c. and R40m.c fuses

Same calibre again and 'probably' the same filling but this time base fused M09 and classed as AP. So its a base fused anti-armour round with an explosive filling.

So the fuses mentioned in this one document for the 90 are:

M09

M41

MT36

IO M40pc

R40mc

and possible another base fuse on an unknown type

 

Those marking denote:

'mc' - medium calibre

'pc' - small calibre

'MT' - mechanical timed fuse

'I' - Instantaneous

'O' - Nose

 

So IO M40 PC is the Nose Fused Instantanous fuse designed for a small calibre shell. 

 

Sadly that document doesn't give the exact dimensions of all the fuses but it does show that even the AA shell was able to be refused for ground use wit an instantaneous fusing. An instant fuze isn't very useful for shooting down aircraft unless you are relying on a direct hit afterall.

 

For the M40 fuse on P138 is had two types of attached detonator,'M40 Ordinary':

and 'M40 Instantaneous Action':

Looking at all of the shells and fusing options: (not listing those it has as 'unknown')

  • M06/17 Nose Time Fuse used in shells: 75mm AA, 77mm AA
  • M09 Base Fuse used in shells: 47mm APHE (capped and uncapped) M.35, 47mm AP M.39, 57mm AP (capped and uncapped), 65mm AP, 90mm AP, 305mm HE (short), 305mm HE (long), 
  • M09/41.p.c Base Fuse used in shells: 75mm AP, 
  • M10 Nose Fuse used in shells: 65mm HE, 70mm HE, 75mm HE, 75mm HE (light case), 75mm HE M.32, 77mm HE (short), 77mm HE (long), 100mm HE, 100mm HE M.32, 105mm HE, 100mm HE M.32, 149mm HE,  
  • M11 K.S.R Base Fuse used in shells: 152mm AP
  • M12 ADE Nose Fuse used in shells: 100mm ADEHE
  • Nose Fuse M Geurritore** (M-m, e.g.c) used in shells 70mm HE, 75mm HE (light case), 77mm HE (short), 120mm HE (cast steel M.?), 149mm HE M32, 149mm HE M38, 149mm HE (one piece), 149mm HE (British), 
  • M14 Base Fuse used in shells: 120mm HE, 305mm HE (short), 305mm HE (long), 305mm HE (heavy)
  • M15.I.T (French) Nose Fuse used in shells: 400mm Bomba
  • M16 Base Fuse used in shells: 380mm HE, 
  • M17 Nose Fuse used in shells: 120mm HE, 120mm HE (cast steel), 120mm HE (short), 120mm HE (long), 120mm HE (cast steel), 120mm HE (cast steel M.?), 149mm HE (short), 149mm HE, 149mm HE (light), 149mm HE M32, 149mm HE (cast steel), 147mm HE (one piece), 149mm HE (British), 152mm HE, 152mm HE (M.?), 210mm HE, 210mm HE (Cast steel), 260mm HE, 260mm HE (cast steel), 305mm HE (British short), 305mm HE (British long), 305mm HE (one piece), 240mm Bomba, 400mm Bomba
  • M32 ADE Nose Fuse used in shells 100mm ADEGE M32, 100mm ADEHE M36, 105mm ADE M.32, 149mm ADE M.32, 
  • M35.p.c Nose Fuse used in shells 75mm HE, 100mm Incendiary
  • M35.I Nose fuse used in shells 75mm HE, 75mm Incendiary F/C and F.1C, 100mm HE, 149mm HE (short), 149mm HE (light), 210mm HE (Bomba), 240mm Bomba
  • M35.I.p.c Nose Fuse used in shells 75mm Incendiray F/C and F.1C, 77mm HE (short), 105mm HE Practice, 
  • M35.I.m.c Nose Fuse used in shells: 152mm HE (M.?)
  • M35.I.T (French) Nose Fuse used in shells 240mm Bomba
  • I.O M36/40 Nose Fuse used in shells 75mm HE
  • M36 EP Base Fuse used in shells: 75mm EP, 100mm EP
  • MT36 Nose Fuse used in shells: 75mm HE M.34, 76mm HE M.36, 90mm AA
  • M36 ADE Nose Fuse used in shells: 75mm HE, 75mm HE M.36, 75mm ADEHE, 100mm ADEHE M36, 100mm ADE M.32, 149mm ADEHE M.35, 
  • M36 Time Fuse used in shells: 75mm HE M.34
  • M38.p.c Nose Fuse used in shells: 75mm HE
  • M38.I Nose Fuse used in shells 75mm HE, 100mm HE, 149mm HE (short), 149mm HE (light), 210mm HE (Bomba), 240mm Bomba
  • M38.I.M.C Nose Fuse used 149mm HE M.32, 149mm HE M.38, 152mm HE (M.?)
  • M38.I.p.c Nose Fuse used in shells 75mm Incendiary F/C and F.1C, 77mm HE (short), 77mm HE (long)
  • M38.V Nose fuse used in shells: 210mm HE M.35, 
  • M39 Percussion Nose Fuse used in shells: 47mm HE M.35
  • M40.p.c Nose Fuse used in shells: 75mm HE
  • M40.I used in shells: 100mm HE, 149mm HE (short), 
  • I.O M40 used in shells: 149mm HE (light)
  • I.O M40.p.c Nose Fuse used in shells: 75mm HE M.32, 90mm AA
  • R40m.c Nose Fuse used in shells: 90mm AA
  • M41 Base Fuse used in shells: 47mm EP M.41, 75mm EP
  • M41 Nose Time Fuse used in shells: 90mm AA
  • I.E.P.M Nose Fuse* used in shells: 47mm EPS, 65mm EPS, 75mm EPS, 100mm EPS, 
  • MT Nose Fuse used in shells: 75mm HE M.34
  • M42 EPS Nose Fuse used in shells: 75mm EPS M.42
  • M44 Base Fuze used in shells: 65mm EP, 
  • M900/34 Nose Timed Fuse used in shells: 76mm HE
  • M914 Base Fuse used in shells 152mm HE
  • Fuse 44 (British) Nose Fuse used in shells: 152mm HE (short), 153mm HE (Long),
  • Fuse 100 (British) Nose Fuse used in shells: 153mm HE (Long),
  • Fuse 101 (British) Nose Fuse used in shells: 152mm HE (short), 153mm HE (Long),
  • Fuse 101E (British) Nose Fuse used in shells: 152mm HE (short), 153mm HE (Long), 305mm HE (British short), 305mm HE (British long), 
  • Fuse 106 (British) Nose Fuse used in shells: 152mm HE (short), 153mm HE (Long),
  • Fuse 450A (British) Nose Fuse used in shells: 305mm HE (British short), 305mm HE (British long), 

 



Vollketten #5618 Posted Sep 05 2014 - 20:38

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 32925 battles
  • 8,672
  • [----] ----
  • Member since:
    12-26-2011

View Postrivit, on Sep 05 2014 - 12:00, said:

 

 I saw the MBT-70 post. What kind of contribution did Italy make(since nobody else bothered to ask)?

 

IIRC it was either something to do with the turret design or fire control control equipment

Vollketten #5619 Posted Sep 07 2014 - 16:33

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 32925 battles
  • 8,672
  • [----] ----
  • Member since:
    12-26-2011

From FTR today: http://ftr.wot-news....9/07/7-9-2014/ 

 

"A few “Italian” answers (please note that this does NOT mean they are coming anytime soon).

- for now, there are likely no other Italian tier 10 candidates apart from the autoloaded Leopard
- Italian heavy candidates are P.75, P.40, P.43 and P.43bis, but the P.40 and P.43 (and their subtypes) are (using German measures) more like medium tanks, the P.75 is kinda like Neubaufahrzeug.
- regarding SPG’s and TD’s, Italians have only lowtier to midtier candidates"

 



Vollketten #5620 Posted Sep 07 2014 - 16:38

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 32925 battles
  • 8,672
  • [----] ----
  • Member since:
    12-26-2011

I don't know who provided the answers but they are a little out of date with the research.

So the "the" singular may not be accurate.

As for the P's are Mediums part, comparing them to other vehicles under that method then yes they would be mediums, not a problem there and the P.75 in its early forms as already shown here on this thread first are indeed very similar to the Neubelfahrzeuge except that actually have some decent armour and firepower; so "Naebel+"

And the low to mid tiers comment basically says nothing about Tier 6 which is also not accurate.

:smile:

 

Also I have a new tank as well for low tiers and some good new stuff from mockup info to a new (new to here anyway) published Italian gun pen table which is bound to cause some argument.






2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users