WesWorld

First, see here for the last official info. The things I would like to have going at the close of 1943 follow.

1. Indtroduction of a new tank modeld after the OTL T-43 in charicteristics to replace the M26/39. Units would begin reequiping at the end of 1943
   
2. A new Tank Destroyer based around a 100mm gun. Would be in the final stages of testing at the end of 1943.
   
3. Improved mechanization of the four Celeri divisions. I would envision one division almost compleated with a second at about 75-80% of its level. The other two would be closer to 50% of the top level. Call 1946 a target date for all four approaching complete mechanization.
   
4. Introduction of a improved man-portable Anti Tank weapon
   
5. Refinements to existing equipment
   [/list=1]
   
   Any thoughts on this list?

Quoted

A new Tank Destroyer based around a 100mm gun. Would be in the final stages of testing at the end of 1943.

Fielding a tank destroyer with a 100mm gun might be a valid response to the appearance of tanks with guns in the 88-90mm class. It would, unfortunately, drive the next round of tank gun development. From Germany's perspective, I can deal with it; others might have differing views.

Quoted

Improved mechanization of the four Celeri divisions

What exactly do you mean by "Mechanization"? It can be taken in a number of ways. Could you add some more detail before I express a detailed opinion?

The 100mm TD is not going to be prefect, there will be problems. Also as I understand it, the historical SU-100 is coming online within a shorter timeframe. Mostly its a platform for further development of Italian armor. I want casemated TDs to fail hard so way (think almost the end of the 1940's or early 1950's) further down the road there is experience to more tords a "Universal" tank made to both kill other tanks and support infantry.

With regards to the Celeri divisions, first a quick quote from the ency.

Quoted

2 Celeri Divisions were created in 1932/33. Essentially they were the standard infantry divisions equipped with bicycles and trucks.

From this, I would qualify improved mechanization to mean shifting more of the transport assets to motorized means as opposed to human or animal powered. The first portion of this would be the logistical assets, which from the description given could be considered common practice for these divisions. The second level would be tactical mechanization (halftracks, Jeeps etc) and from the description it sounds like this was not attempted. The goal by the end of 1943 would be to have one division approaching a very (1940's) modern level of mechanization with the second within about 75-80% of these levels. The remaining two would at the end of 1943 have very good levels of logistical assets, say the thrid at the level of the other two and the fourth at about 75-80% of that, but very little done on the tactical front. Does that make sense?

The difference, in my mind, is where "Motorized" stops and "Mechanized" begins. To put my view into perspective,

The US 1944 Model infantry division could be viewed as motorized, in that it had vehicles assigned to it in sufficient quantity that it could move all its elements by truck - even if that involved using the supply trucks and artillery tractors to move troops in the very short term.

Mechanized in my mind means that the unit has tactical vehicles allocated to it full time - such as half tracks, other style infantry carriers, 4x4, 6x6 or 8x8 wheeled vehicles - and these are organic to the unit. The 'ideal' OTL German panzergrenadier divisions, or the armored infantry battalions of US armored divisions typify the 1940s mechanized division.

"Lorried infantry" to borrow a British term, sounds like what you are describing - a unit that has organic vehicles to move the troops to battle but the troops dismount for the attack.

Does this clarify where I am coming from?

Yes. To put in that terminology, by the end of 1943 I plan on having one division almost completely Mechanized with another close to completing. The other two would be closer to the "Lorried Infantry" at the end of 1943 and would be slowly upgraded to mechanized from late 1944 on. Say by 1946ish, the Italian Army would have 4 totally Mechanized divisions (Note, this does not include potential "Lorrification" of the standard infantry division).

If you choose to go that route, I'd commend to your consideration this breakdown of the US armored infantry battalion

If you start toting up all the vehicles assigned to it, and then multiply by the number of battalions in a division, they start to mount precipitously. And then there is the logistics tail. The Heer is still churning out halftracks as fast as possible and still had unfilled requirements. Going the mechanization route will have a burden on your automotive industry.

I feel that given the lengthy time frame of approximently 6 years and the existing (if I am understanding what RA ment in his ency entry) motorized aspects of these divisions that it is not a unreasonable goal. If you have production figures that say far otherwise, I would be glad to review them, work with them in light of WWTL developments compared to OTL, and revise my plans.

No, I'm not suggesting a modification is in order. I was unaware of the period over which these developments would have taken place.

OTL, the Italian automotive industry was extremely handicapped vis a'vis its German and Allied counterparts. I do not know if these same handicaps apply in WW - given RA's progress in other areas, I would doubt it.

I point out the information as background in quantifying the task at hand, not suggesting impossibility.

My apologies for any confusion generated due to lack of clarity on my end.

A good study for the subject is: Iron Arm - The Mechanization of Mussolini's Army 1920-1940

Of course the conclusions of the author are based upon OTL Italy, and Wesworld Italy is far different, but he does touch upon aspects of the military industrial complex worth remembering.

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan

Quoted

A new Tank Destroyer based around a 100mm gun. Would be in the final stages of testing at the end of 1943.

Fielding a tank destroyer with a 100mm gun might be a valid response to the appearance of tanks with guns in the 88-90mm class. It would, unfortunately, drive the next round of tank gun development. From Germany's perspective, I can deal with it; others might have differing views.

I'll note my disquite as it's a little early- but not much. The OTL Italians had a very nice 90/53 gun they used for AT purposes. The Semovente 90/53 was a 1942 weapon, fixed citadel, light armor- a good parallel to the 88mm Nashorn.

The SU-100 and M36 Jackson - both heavily armored, one a 100mm the other 90mm, were both September 1944 vehicles.

Good point Kirk. I'd say the 90mm will be more than adequate for tackling WW tanks. In North Africa facing British cruiser tanks the 90mm would still be deadly (most are early 1940s Crusaders). A 100mm TD would mean more impetus by Britain to field heavy tanks.

On the 100mm armed TD. It is my understanding that the Russians are introducing the historical SU-100 by this point, so there is game president for a 100mm gun on a fixed casemate. Below is a historical piece that looks like what I imagin this first version to look like.

Basicly just a gun on tracks, next to no armor, limited gun traverse, and other such issues resulting from the open mounting. Something like the historical SU-101 (aka Uralmash-1) would be the second generation of this type, and would not see service until later 1945 or early 1946. As far as the choice of gun, I have not been able to find any mention that the histroical 90/53 was developed in WW (tho if that 90mm gun does exist, it will find its way onto the upguned notT-43). However, there is a 100mm AA gun which would be modified for use in this case. Also, as stated, this first model would not be entering service until approximently spring 1944 and even then in very limited numbers.

I must admit that I don't recall the 90mm gun or any discussions with RA on the subject. Using the 100mm AA gun would be an obvious choice, and probably more practical than starting a fresh 90mm design.

I admit I had just presumed RA fielded the 90mm, it was a really nice gun in both army and navy service.

Curiously, his Army thread has the 100/65 AA but states that as a converted naval gun, it's very heavy and so generally confined to emplacements. Then in the Navy thread, there is no 100/65, just 100/47s.

Here we come to another "I don't know why" but I've run across references repeatedly about naval guns being heavier than their army counterparts. Usually that seems to be for higher pressures and longer lengths, but there also seems to have been more a tendency to overbuild naval guns.

So..as to why or why not to employ the 100/65- it's down as a particularly heavy piece, which means the vehicle will be heavier, more stress on the running gear and use more fuel than needed. A more modern gun with improved metallurgy would be more suitable, particularly for the hilly/mountainous terrain along the northern borders, where vehicle performance would matter more.

Plus there's my long standing pet peeve which I'll air not pointed at the thread's author, but just to maintain the objection. - there still never has been a vote to allow non-aerial equipment to be fielded in advance. It's supposed to be justified by a historic piece being put in service. Just because someone else is bending the timeline with an SU-100 doesn't mean everyone should follow. Esp as the original SU-100 was a reaction to extensive combat experience seeing the T-34 upggunned to 85mm, and here pretty much everyone has None.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk

Here we come to another "I don't know why" but I've run across references repeatedly about naval guns being heavier than their army counterparts. Usually that seems to be for higher pressures and longer lengths, but there also seems to have been more a tendency to overbuild naval guns.

I suspect that it is not so much a tendency to overbuild naval guns as the need to keep land-based artillery as light as possible to maintain mobility in the field.

A naval gun does not need to be hauled around, can be served by powered mounts and hoists, and all sort of other aids. A field piece of the same caliber needs to be hauled by some sort of tractor or - in the good old days - horses. This gives the carriage designers a powerful incentive to come up with innovative ideas and marry these to as powerful a gun as they can get away with.

For land-based artillery that does not need to be hauled around much - such as coast artillery - the size, weights and performance do not differ that much.

Some baseline stats for the pre-production version of the man-portable AT weapon. It is a man-portable rocket launcher firing a fin stabilized HEAT round of 57mm caliber. Development began in Q4/41 and the type is expected to enter into mass production and service adoption in late 1944. Stats are derived from the Bazooka.

Length: 1300 mm
Caliber: 57 mm
Weight: 6 kg
Warhead: 1.5kg fin stabilized HEAT.
Range, Maximum: 350 m
Crew: 2, operator and loader, tho can be operated by a single man in emergencies.

While talking about light tanks with Brock on IRC, he pointed me to this post by RA on the subject. These look to be early 1940's designs that might have been introduced should RA not have left. Given the 1940 date on them, I would place service introduction in approximently 1942. I present the following for consideration as the standard armored car and armored personel carrier of the Italian armed forces.


Armicustos top, Velites bottom

Armicustos
Crew: 2 (Commander & Driver) + 10 infantry
Weight: 10tons Length: 6.18m Width: 2.62m Height: 1.92m
Engine: Isotta-Fraschini L1507 liquid-cooled petrol, 250hp
Speed: 80km/h Power/weight: 25hp/ton Range: 700km
Armament: 1x20mm Anti-Tank Rifle, 1x8mm MG
Armour: 10 - 5mm

Velites
Crew: 4 (Commander, Gunner, Driver, Loader)
Weight: 14tons Length: 6.74m Width: 2.62m Height: 2.28m
Engine: Isotta-Fraschini L1506 liquid-cooled petrol, 300hp
Speed: 80km/h Power/weight: 21hp/ton Range: 500km
Armament: 1x75/46, 1x8mm MG
Armour: 30 - 5mm

Seems fine to me. I had no problems with the designs back then and still don't now.