Was Italian equipment really so bad?

[Mario Raspagliosi]

Expecially early during the war, in 1940-41 years, in my opinion, Italian equipment - Army, Navy, Air Force - from boots to battleships - was not so under-rated in respect of other countries' equipment, as British equipment, Italy principal enemy at the time. Some modern equipment - M13 medium tank and field guns for example - was lacking at the start of the conflinct, but was soon putted into production.
Italy really needed:
quantity of modern equipment
doctrine for modern equipment, expecially for Navy and Air Force
training for modern equipment
and, of course, a clear strategic objectives.
Which is Your opinion?
Ciao Mario

[Davide Pastore]

Some modern equipment - M13 medium tank and field guns for example - was lacking at the start of the conflinct, but was soon putted into production.

Just to call the M13 "modern" requires much faith

Probably the only field where the Italians were in the first tier (about quality) were the torpedoes.

Davide

[Tim Smith]

Italy's technological mistakes were:

1. Modernising the four old battleships Cavour, Ceasare, Doria and Duilio instead of building Roma and Impero at the same time as Littorio and Veneto.
2. Not building an aircraft carrier until it was far too late. Aquila could have given the Italian fleet a badly-needed fighter umbrella in 1940-41.
3. Sticking with biplane fighters (Fiat CR42) for too long. Italian fighter pilots resisted the introduction of new monoplanes because they weren't as agile as the biplanes.
4. Not learning the lessons of the Spanish Civil War quickly enough in respect of tank design. M11/39 and M13/40 tanks were developed and introduced a year too late.
5. Not learning from the German experience in France, and using the excellent 90mm AA gun in an anti-tank role, like the German 88mm gun.

[Mario Raspagliosi]

Hallo Davide,
my personal opinion is that M13-40 tank was not so bad, expecially compared with British tanks used in North Africa during the early war years, Cruisers MkI-II-III-IV, MkII, MkVI and Matilda. I think that the Cruiser tanks and M13 have about the same rate of armour, armament, offroad speed, mechanical reliability.
Only as an example of British armoured doctrine flaws early during the war Cruiser tanks weren't deployed with HE rounds, even if they are available, and don't extended fighting operation during darkness hours.
CIAO
MARIO

[Mario Raspagliosi]

Hallo Tim,
I fully agree with You for 3 and 4 statement.
1 I think that, under the Washington agreement, Italy can't built new battleships, only modernising the old until late thirties, but maybe I'm wrong, no book at hands now.
2 about the aircraft carrier, a lot was written and said, my personal opinion is that was much more needed a good Air Force - Navy cooperation and Air Force antiship training. Also for these two points Italy gots too few, too late.
5 also the 8.8cm gun role as AT was much discussed, my personal opinion is that Germany, like almost other countries needed good AT guns from the start of the war, not big and expensive AA guns used as AT.
CIAO
MARIO

[luigi]

My very personal opinion is that the equipment of the foot soldier was, more or less, on the height of its time, the problem was that wars weren't won anymore by huge masses of rifle carriers by foot: boots could have been improved though, to go around with nails in the sole like the ancient romans was definitely out of the time, when one thinks that vibram (which up to today stands for rubber soles in mountaneering world) was already invented and developed in Italy.
The much bashed '91 rifle was in reality a good tool for its intended work, rugged, relaiable and precise enough out to 300-500 mt. albeit the cartridge and bullet could have been somewhat better (the study on the 7,35 cartridge was maybe the right direction, but the decision to enter the war 3 to 5 years too early made the changeover stop).
MG were needlessy complicate and needed a lot of maintenance to be kept in function, a good way to take garrisoning draftees occupied, bad in the Greek mud and North African sands, though. Anyway when they worked, they worked properly and the Breda 37 even saved the spended cartridges for later reloading.
Lack of motorization, quantity of equipment, doctrine and training: these are the fields where our poor performance was born.
Further, armour: you can compare speed and thickness of armour, but is you meet a welded steel or casted ballistic steel construction sitting in a bolted bad-quality-steel-plates construction, the match is un-even. If, in addition, you don't have any better than a 47mm gun which is called AT but is ot optimized for that work... well... If they only had given maximum priority to the construction of the semovente da 75, but no... the went further with those miserable death traps...
On airplanes and navy, I think that all the important things have already been said above.

Regards

[Davide Pastore]

I think that the Cruiser tanks and M13 have about the same rate of armour, armament, offroad speed, mechanical reliability.

armour - maybe more or less the same in thickness, but the Italian one was very inferior in quality. See Ceva & Curami, La meccanizzazione del Regio Esercito, for a detailed discussion.

armament - maybe more or less the same.

offroad speed & mechanical reliability - your source is badly wrong. In these fields the M13 was worse (occasionaly VERY worse) than any other tank it met.

Only as an example of British armoured doctrine flaws early during the war Cruiser tanks weren't deployed with HE rounds

Their AP rounds were effective just the same. As all the modern ones are.

Davide

[Mario Raspagliosi]

OK for armor quality, as in Ceva and Curami.
For mechanical reliability I know the "voices", for example the test between four German PzIII and four Italian M13-40 sponsored by Rommel (I think that PzIII was the most reliable of German panzers) during which three Italian tanks broke down, but I don't know the facts: operative tanks vs tanks under repair, North Africa, German vehicles vs Italian vehicles.
D. Guglielmi in his book on Italian AFV used by Germans puts some data about how many Italian M14 were operative/inoperative, but maybe the situation was different (spare parts, older tanks, mechanics, etc.).
Tigers in Combat I and II by W. Schneider and K. Munch Combat history of SPzAbt. 654 shows that German heavy tanks broke down quite often, but mechanically they are really different from medium (PzIII and PzIV) tanks.
I "heared" that GB tanks, expecially Cruisers weren't much reliable, but I don't have any real data on the subject.
HE rounds, for use against light armoured vehicles, guns, infantry, etc. were not given to Cruiser tanks, see N. Pignato "Carri armati ne deserto".
Ciao Mario

[Tim Smith]

Hallo Davide,
my personal opinion is that M13-40 tank was not so bad, expecially compared with British tanks used in North Africa during the early war years, Cruisers MkI-II-III-IV, MkII, MkVI and Matilda. I think that the Cruiser tanks and M13 have about the same rate of armour, armament, offroad speed, mechanical reliability.
Only as an example of British armoured doctrine flaws early during the war Cruiser tanks weren't deployed with HE rounds, even if they are available, and don't extended fighting operation during darkness hours.
CIAO
MARIO

M13/40 tank was roughly on equal terms with British Cruiser Mks I and II. Inferior to later Cruisers which all had Christie suspension, and totally outclassed by Crusader series.

M13/40 was almost helpless against the Matilda II (Infantry Tank MkII) which had 78mm frontal armour, 40+25mm sides, and 55mm rear. The Italian 47mm Fiat 47/37 M37 L/32 tank gun could only penetrate a Matilda II's side and rear at under 100 metres range, and couldn't penetrate the front at all. While the British 2-pounder 40mm gun could penetrate the M13/40 at 1000 metres.

[Tim Smith]

Hallo Tim,
I fully agree with You for 3 and 4 statement.
1 I think that, under the Washington agreement, Italy can't built new battleships, only modernising the old until late thirties, but maybe I'm wrong, no book at hands now.
2 about the aircraft carrier, a lot was written and said, my personal opinion is that was much more needed a good Air Force - Navy cooperation and Air Force antiship training. Also for these two points Italy gots too few, too late.
5 also the 8.8cm gun role as AT was much discussed, my personal opinion is that Germany, like almost other countries needed good AT guns from the start of the war, not big and expensive AA guns used as AT.
CIAO
MARIO

Hi,

Littorio and Veneto were laid down in 1935. Roma and Impero could have been laid down at the same time if the older battleships had not been modernised. Even in their WWI state, the four old battleships would be good enough for convoy escort duties, which after 1940, was all they were used for anyway.

The Matilda II was almost impervious to all 1940 German and Italian AT weapons. The Germans had to use their 88mm Flak gun against it in France. The Italians could have taken note of the Battle of Arras, and sent some 90mm guns to North Africa ready for the British offensive in November 1940. If they had, the British might have been stopped long enough to save the Italian 10th Army from near-total annihilation.

Neither Germans nor Italians expected to have to face such a heavily armoured tank as the Matilda II, therefore no preparations were made pre-war.

[Christian W.]

Roma and Impero could have been laid down at the same time if the older battleships had not been modernised.

According to what?

[Comsubin]

We were called "Armata Cirio" ( Cirio is an alimentary industry wich produces tins of tomatoes) because our tanks were so easy to destroy....in 1943 my grandfather in Tunisia cuold take an English armoured car but our tools didn't work to repair it...

[TRose]

The early m11/39 and 13/40 tanks lacked sand filters, which meant the tended to overheat after 30 minutes of going. The later M13/40 and 14/41 where fitted with sand filters and where more reliable
As for anti tank guns, the Italian 47/32 had slightly better penatration then the British 2 pounder and could fire a HE shell, so I would rate it a better gun
As for the 90/53 gun, while a very good gun for all purposes, including tank killing, it was always in short supply, and Italy could not build them fast enough to meet the demands. Im sure the Italian Army would have loved to have a few extra regiments of them to use in the anti tank role, but the guns where just not availble.
Italy had the smallest industrial base of any of the so called major powers, and lacked resources to boot.And their Militiary suffered heavy because of this.

[luigi]

TRose, I accept the statement that the 47/32 was better than the 2pounder, but still, the armour of the british tank could withstand the 47/32 shots, while the italian armour could not withstand the 2pounder shots, and this is what matters.
The only armoured vehicle which could be a match to what opponents were fielding, was the semovente da 75/18 and later developments. While still having troubles in the quality of the armour, its design with a very low profile and compact dimensions made for a very difficult target. When ranges were closing up, however, I guess that the lack of a turret made itself patent.

[TRose]

One of the problems ,according to a book I have, with the armor on Italian tanks was that the steel had a high sulfer content ,which made it brittle. I not sure wether this was because Italy only had access to poor quality ore if it was a problem of the manufacture proccess.
Another thing I wonder about is did Italy have welding rods capable of makeing welded armor for its tanks. The U.S ,I know at first did not have such welding rods, which is way the M3 Grant had bolted armor. The U.S overcame this problem, but Italy with its much smaller industrial base may not have been able to make such rods at a reasonable cost.