WesWorld

What Snip wants is the equivalent of the PT-76 chassis which the Soviets adapted for a whole host of other vehicles. I feel this was probably a production decision made later than at the start of development, but historically the USA and Britain were already looking at families on common chassis (M24, Centurion, FV201 etc.) due to lessons from wartime mass production. Most of these Western attempts failed.

In WW Britain is certainly looking at two common chassis, heavy and light to use as the future basis for a whole range of APCs, SPGs, command vehicles etc. as a way to save costs.

A PT-76 clone would be great for Italy. I wouldn't get hung up about the whole amphibious issue (the L14/48 doesn't seem to have waterjets etc.), realistically Italy is looking for fording capacity, what matters is weight. Italy faces combat in mountainous terrain and desert flats, in both of those cases weight matters more and I feel its logical that the Italian Army will want to keep size and weight down (shipping space to North Africa etc. plays a role too) for its support vehicles and easing the logistical burden makes sense. I can see logic in this move. For the record, the PT-76 was designed in 1949 - very reachable for a 1948 WW tank, the only remarkable thing was its waterjet, without that its a bog standard light tank.

Quoted from "Hood"

the only remarkable thing was its waterjet, without that its a bog standard light tank.

Thanks for the comment Hood. The post 1950 version will have something similar to the waterjet, but that would place it after the PT-76's OTL introduction.

At risk of pushing what's likely a sore subject by now... I think what Bruce and I keep harping on is that these designs seem to spring ex nihilo, out of nothing. I don't understand where these designs come from because there doesn't appear to be any doctrine to tie it all together. It feels like you just went through Wikipedia and made a list of Cool Stuff I Want. There doesn't seem to be any underlying doctrine that makes it all play nicely together, just a couple of buzzwords thrown about. That doesn't make the designs bad, per se, it just makes them totally incomprehensible.

I'm pretty weary of trying to get this point across without any sign of success, and so I'm going to refrain from commenting on Italian designs in the future.

Quoted from "Brockpaine"

At risk of pushing what's likely a sore subject by now... I think what Bruce and I keep harping on is that these designs seem to spring ex nihilo, out of nothing. I don't understand where these designs come from because there doesn't appear to be any doctrine to tie it all together. It feels like you just went through Wikipedia and made a list of Cool Stuff I Want. There doesn't seem to be any underlying doctrine that makes it all play nicely together, just a couple of buzzwords thrown about. That doesn't make the designs bad, per se, it just makes them totally incomprehensible.

I'm pretty weary of trying to get this point across without any sign of success, and so I'm going to refrain from commenting on Italian designs in the future.

I fail to see how pushing for a trio of common chassis for the goal of simplifying AFV logistics makes things incomprehensible. I attempted to belatedly explain my thoughts here, but evidently I failed. In addition this is also meant to tie into some major changes to the Italian Army's OrBat (the current is derived from RA's tenure, most likely dates from the 1930's, and is due for a modernization) during the same game time period, but I wished to clear the technical aspects of the necessary designs first before moving to that. Perhaps this approach was incorrect.

As to why two tracked chassis are needed (as opposed to just using the M37.5/45 and eventual M45/XX for everything), I feel it is a matter of having the most efficient chassis for the job, both in size, mechanical commonality, and construction efficiency. Sure, a chassis designed for a 37.5t tank is going to carry a 105mm howitzer just fine, but it is going to be the most efficient way of doing so? I don't feel it is the optimal solution, that is for sure and a smaller chassis makes sense to me. Also, Hood mentions the size aspect. Seeing as Italy has several theaters that are difficult environments for armor to operate effectively, a lighter and smaller chassis is more flexible then one in the size range of a "modern" medium tank. On the mechanical commonality side, my goal was to have both the wheeled chassis (expressed initially as the AB.47, will be re expressed later under the same designation) and the small tracked chassis share as much mechanical commonality as possible. Seeing as wheeled chassis are not as effective at some rolls (at least with current technology) as a tracked one, both are needed so I feel they should be as close together mechanically as possible in order to simplify the logistic situation created by the additional chassis (in comparison to the current threeish (AB.42, M34/M37.5 and M/26.39 based designs plus some unique) which do not have a great commonality of parts. The effective of minimizing the number of chassis under construction and the parts used in such also simplifies the manufacturing process as well as it allows for larger orders of parts and the other common benefits from similar lines of production.

To address the subject in current game items, I present the following. This is a rough approximation of what I had when I picked up Italy, what I have moved to since, and what I am moving to. The classes are approximate, and chassis are noted along with comments.

Medium Tanks: M26/39 -> M34/44 & M37.5/45 -> M45/XX Fairly standard development to match compatible WW designs. All have there own chassis due to being the largest AFVs

Light Tanks: None [the AB.42 Velites could count here] -> L14.48 The L14/48 is meant to fill a gap in the current inventory created by the increasing size of Medium tanks. Own chassis.

Self Propelled Assault Guns: Semovente 105/25, 75/18 and 47/32 [Modified M26/39, both assault gun and indirect fire] -> S105/44 [M34/44, both assault gun and indirect fire] -> S105/XX [L14/48, indirect fire only] When the M45/XX enters service, there should not be much need for an assault gun mounting a 105mm so that design will draw down alongside the mediums whos chassis it is built on.

Indirect fire Artillery: Semovente 149/19 [Custom] -> S149/44 [M34/44] -> S149/48 [L14/48] Moving to the S149/XX is meant to provide a more cost effective platform for the 149mm gun

Anti-Aircraft: None [towed guns] -> L14/48-based The L14/48 chassis provides a more stable firing platform then a wheeled platform without additional bracing of the firing platform. (Assumption based on lack of wheeled SPAAA until the mid/late 1980s to my knowledge)

Armored Personal Carriers: AB.42 series -> AB.47 series [not the previous AB.47 presented in the thread] -> AB.XX series [previous AB.47 design] Incremental improvements to add utility and commonality with the L/14.48 chassis.

Scout/Armored Cars: AB.34 -> AB.42 -> AB.47 -> AB.XX All from the AB.42 up are based of the APC chassis and share its improvement goals at each iteration.

I believe that covers all the combat types, and I hope it is helpful in answering some questions. Please let me know if I can clarify anything further or if I should just stop trying.

Well it makes sense to me. Italy has a smaller manufacturing base so more common parts = less manufacturers and easier logistics, Italy has to ship vehicles by sea if it wants to get them to North Africa or EAS, remember even if Libya becomes part of the homeland it is across the sea... Shipping space favours smaller and lighter vehicles, as does the terrain of most Italian territory. Points Snip has made in the post above, points that seem pretty obvious.

I'm not sure what all this "doctrine" stuff is about, the vast majority of equipment ever put into service was not the product of some grand strategical and economic vision. Each bit of kit fulfils its own operational requirement, very rarely has any government or Treasury allowed a grand plan to be fully implemented across several items of equipment.

Once upon a time "it looks cool" was an acceptable if it had acceptable specs to go with it. 90% of all armoured vehicles in WW are based on real-world tanks and the same, to a lesser extent, holds true for aircraft. Some folks lack the skill and sources to dream up a totally fresh design that works. We tried Tanksharp but found serious flaws in it. I'd much prefer someone to base something on real-life than simply picking figures out of thin air. I also feel Snip has been very fair in posting these for peer review some time before they are due to appear in game. Much better than the scores of aircraft and tanks that just appear in the encyclopaedias as a fait accompli. No-one here has found serious faults in the specs apart from the water range. So in my view that's a rubber stamp of approval.


I don't want to cause any further trouble or hijack this thread, but it seems only certain people get targeted by this, Jason just reported the P-80 and P-59 jet fighters and no-one mentioned what the engines were, what the specs were, who designed and built the engines and where the tech to do so came from, the doctrine for a short-ranged jet fighter force when it has no major bomber threat next-door etc. Very different to the questioning of Walter's twin-jet nightfighter a few weeks ago. Kirk went too far the other way and attempted an overly in-depth doctrinal approach and was torn to pieces in the process. No-one has ever questioned me setting out exactly the same kind of common-chassis ideal Snip postulates here either. In fact most of my future Army/ RAF threads get zero comments which either means everyone accepts everything or isn't bothered.

Quoted from "Hood"

I'm not sure what all this "doctrine" stuff is about, the vast majority of equipment ever put into service was not the product of some grand strategical and economic vision. Each bit of kit fulfils its own operational requirement, very rarely has any government or Treasury allowed a grand plan to be fully implemented across several items of equipment.

And the reason people generate those operational requirements is doctrine.

Quoted from "Hood"

I don't want to cause any further trouble or hijack this thread, but it seems only certain people get targeted by this, Jason just reported the P-80 and P-59 jet fighters and no-one mentioned what the engines were, what the specs were, who designed and built the engines and where the tech to do so came from, the doctrine for a short-ranged jet fighter force when it has no major bomber threat next-door etc. Very different to the questioning of Walter's twin-jet nightfighter a few weeks ago. Kirk went too far the other way and attempted an overly in-depth doctrinal approach and was torn to pieces in the process. No-one has ever questioned me setting out exactly the same kind of common-chassis ideal Snip postulates here either. In fact most of my future Army/ RAF threads get zero comments which either means everyone accepts everything or isn't bothered.

For my own part, I tend to question things brought forward by the ahistorical powers in game (or countries which post technological capabilities that they didn't have in actual history). With historical powers like the US and UK, because you guys generally use pretty historically-based equipment and characters to match, I already have a sense of how the doctrinal issue looks. But let's take Italy. Before the war, their armoured doctrine was simply appalling, and their equipment was a good generation behind everyone else. But here in Wesworld, they have cloned OTL Soviet equipment, and I'm trying to understand how Italy thinks it needs X piece of equipment when the need for that equipment was driven by a doctrinal requirement.

If the reason is "because it looks cool", then that's fine - I'll stick to commenting on the technical specifications. I inquire about doctrine as I do because I'm trying to provoke deeper thought and more discussion, but the response is usually hostile and defensive. After awhile I don't see a reason to bother anymore.

I'll note that for my own self I have repeatedly tried to post not just the specs of a particular piece of equipment, but show why my doctrine required it and how the piece of equipment makes some pretense at filling that requirement. But rare is the occasion when anyone engages on that with me, even when I push the envelope a little bit.

I think the doctrinal aspects are more complicated, we must remember this is an RPG, not an attempt at an Military Industrial Complex simulator. Folks put in and get out different things in the sim according to their interests and knowledge. I assumed a lot of stuff and did the "that's cool" stuff when I began playing Argentina, today I've toned things down a lot and if I refought the SA War I would do things very differently. The logistical elements alone go a far way to explaining snip's choices, I actually think that light tanks and chassis adaptions are fairly close to the OTL Italian Army doctrine, more so than heavy medium tanks with 90mm guns.

Perhaps as the British player my tanks have been too closely orientated to European land operations than jungle and desert operations. I know the Centurion operated well in the desert OTL, but if I were to play an North African campaign in WW how would that fare? I think everyone has been stepping around that Soviet tank army elephant in the room that doesn't exist, whether that's dressed up as Italian or Indian super-tanks in WW. (Just like we step around the Pacific Campaign that's never happened but always seems to have happened when carriers vs battleships is discussed).

I think the biggest danger I have observed in basing vehicles and aircraft on OTL stats (especially without an accompanying picture) is the mental image issue. Snip says L14/48 and you 'see' the PT-76 because its specs closely match and because snip said he's taken it from that. Every time I see your Char-6 Bruyere I 'see' the AMX-13. Parador once posted a Mosquito picture and we all 'saw' the Mosquito despite the stats he posted, RA posted an LSD drawing that looked like an LSD and got panned even though the SS report was fairly standard, most of his tanks and vehicles got panned because they 'looked' very 1960-ish in the drawings. Hindsight dogs everything we do here but we should try and examine these things through a WW-centric prism.

Ok, now for some Anti-Armor tech. I have already introduced a Man-Portable HEAT rocket into the Italian inventory, stats here. It is akin to the M1 Bazooka so at some point, call it late 1945-early 1946, some revisions will be made to the weapon along the standards of the M9. Most of the changes would be to things affecting portability, aiming and safety. The rocket itself would likely see similar changes, with a minor increase in performance to a penetration of approximately 90mm at a zero degree angle (the previous having 75mm under the same conditions). Considering the weapon is meant to be used for flanking a tank rather then a frontal penetration, the goal of the improved rocket is to make the penetration more consistent on side and rear armor.

For Anti-Armor shells for tank guns, I have a bit of a issue to sort through first. Historically, the 47/32 Mod35 had a shaped charge shell referred to as EP (effect ready) and EPS (emergency special effect) but I have been unable to locate much data on it besides that it preformed "erratically". What I do know is that it entered service and was used against Allied tanks by late 1942, could be ether better or worse then the standard AP round, and it was supposedly more akin to HESH then HEAT but was not quite ether in Allied terms. I am going to assume that similar developments took place in WW given the lack of heavy AT guns. I would like to introduce a more refined version of the EPS shell in 1945. Penetration for this shell would be about 60-70mm (approximately 150% of bore, which is about right for early era rounds). A further improved version would likely come later, call it 1949, that would have approximately 115mm (250% of bore, the upper bound for shells of the era). Does this sound reasonable?

With regards to the 90/53 and its shells, I would like to introduce EPS rounds for it as well. I would intend for these to be closer to HESH rather then HEAT, more for use as general purpace rounds rather then specialized high-pen Anti-Armor rounds like those for the 47/32. I would propose that such a round has no more then 110mm of penetration at 1000m and 30 degrees, this being the figure for the US 90mm M3 APHE shell. This gives it similar figures to the current AP round, which has 101mm under the same test conditions. Does this sound reasonable?

To the best of my knowledge the British were the first to develop effective HESH rounds, and confined their wartime use to bunker busting, not anti-tank use. I think a round is either HEAT or HESH, and wonder if there is justification for introducing a HESH round without foreknowledge.

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

To the best of my knowledge the British were the first to develop effective HESH rounds, and confined their wartime use to bunker busting, not anti-tank use. I think a round is either HEAT or HESH, and wonder if there is justification for introducing a HESH round without foreknowledge.

The only source I have be able to find which details more then the boilerplate "Shaped Charge Projectile" is the Italian wiki. It states "the Italian term to describe the high-explosive anti-tank grenades similar to APHE and subsequent British HESH". Unfortunelty for our use, it does not site a source for this claim or give further information on just how close to British HESH the Italian shells were. I do have a source that does give information on the 47mm EP and EPS rounds (it does not contain any info on the mechanics of the rounds, but on the size and other logistical characteristics), so I am confident that the information Wiki has on them has at least some backing. I will further note that the English wiki page for HEAT makes note of an Italian 65mm HEAT shell, but that is the only reference, it is unsourced and I cannot find reference to it in the same documents as the 47mm rounds, so I don't trust it in comparison to the Italian Wiki's information. Baring something pointing definitively to ether the HESH or HEAT camp for the historic 47mm EP and EPS shells, them being akin to HESH rounds seems to be the best we have to go on. I think this could possibly explain the "erratic" penetration of such rounds, as most sources note was the case, better then them being HEAT rounds.

What I would presume for the shells I wish to develop is that the 47mm ones would be HEAT rounds akin to those on the rocket launcher, as I used HEAT data to give there proposed penetration figures. The HESH rounds for the 90/53 would be developed from the historic EPS rounds (presuming they are indeed HESH rounds), and as such would be more general purpose then Anti-Tank as inside 1000m the current kinetic AP round would be better then the HESH shell. Looking at tank-vs-tank engagement ranges of beyond 1km at this point in time is rather advanced IMO, so I will not be looking to hard at the comparative performance of the rounds beyond 1km.

While I agree with you that finding details of the Italian Effeto Pronto shells is very difficult, I am very confident that they were in no way HESH rounds. The principle of the High Explosive Squash Head round is very different from the High Explosive Anti Tank round. The former relies upon the Burney Principle, which was not discovered until 1944, while the latter relies upon the Munroe Effect, which was well known prior to the Second World War and was the basis of the many HEAT rounds fielded by the several combatants. Two vastly different scientific principles were at work - one utilizing shock waves to spall material off the interior of the tank, and the other using a focused jet of gas to pierce the tank's armor.

So your rounds must be one or the other, or they are some species of mere kinetic energy penetrators; I do not see how you could create a spectrum of effects - the science - as I understand it - is against you.

Edit: here is some additional information on the operation of HESH rounds.

I totally understand that these are different mechanics at work, I meant only to present the data as I have discovered it with regards to the historic rounds. I am however confident that these are indeed shaped charge warheads of some varity as opposed to a kinetic penetration round.

As stated the rounds I want to develop for the 47mm are examples of HEAT, with the only absolute relation to the historical EPS being that the rounds share a common goal of increased armor penetration capabilities. Given the information available on the EPS shells, the proposed 47mm rounds would likely be more similar to the ahistorical Italian 57mm HEAT rocket in use rather then the EPS round.

The 90mm HESH round was meant to be an evolution of the EPS rounds given the characteristics in the Italian wiki (that of "APHE and subsequent British HESH"), not as a hybrid HEAT/HESH. I intended from the outset for such a round to be more of a multiroll munition as opposed to a dedicated penitrator like the 47mm rounds. It could be more appropriate to refer to the proposed 90mm round as APHE rather then HESH, given the relationship between APHE and the EPS rounds seems to be more grounded then the implied HESH-EPS relationship.

Quoted from "snip"

I totally understand that these are different mechanics at work, I meant only to present the data as I have discovered it with regards to the historic rounds. I am however confident that these are indeed shaped charge warheads of some varity as opposed to a kinetic penetration round.

As stated the rounds I want to develop for the 47mm are examples of HEAT, with the only absolute relation to the historical EPS being that the rounds share a common goal of increased armor penetration capabilities. Given the information available on the EPS shells, the proposed 47mm rounds would likely be more similar to the ahistorical Italian 57mm HEAT rocket in use rather then the EPS round.

The 90mm HESH round was meant to be an evolution of the EPS rounds given the characteristics in the Italian wiki (that of "APHE and subsequent British HESH"), not as a hybrid HEAT/HESH. I intended from the outset for such a round to be more of a multiroll munition as opposed to a dedicated penitrator like the 47mm rounds. It could be more appropriate to refer to the proposed 90mm round as APHE rather then HESH, given the relationship between APHE and the EPS rounds seems to be more grounded then the implied HESH-EPS relationship.

Yes - call it a Armor Piercing High Explosive Round if you wish, but HESH is something entirely different. I also note that the Italian Wiki article that mentions the Effetto Pronto round is entitled "High Explosive Anti Tank", and is caveated as being un-sourced.

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

Yes - call it a Armor Piercing High Explosive Round if you wish, but HESH is something entirely different. I also note that the Italian Wiki article that mentions the Effetto Pronto round is entitled "High Explosive Anti Tank", and is caveated as being un-sourced.

One good non-wiki military (preferably Italian) source would clear the historic rounds up. Just wish we could uncover one. This site notes that APHE rounds were used with guns captured by the Finnish Army, and that at least some of these rounds were Italian. The site does provide sources at the bottom of the page, but does not indicate which one this data came from so I cannot delve further into its claims. While it does not outright mention EP or EPS rounds, I feel it would be a reasonable assumption to conclude that the EP and EPS rounds are APHE rounds but it is in my opinion not enough to entirely rule out them being something else given the notations on the Italian wiki and page 82-83 of this document which notes them as an ambiguous "Hollow Charge". That information had to have come from somewhere and I would like a source to definitively rule APHE as the round type to remove all doubt about the nature of the rounds. I am comfortable with calling them APHE rounds and assessing there characteristics as such, but would like to have another source to lock it in.

For the ahistoric rounds, does 47mm HEAT (60-70mm 1945 round, 115mm 1949 round) and 90mm "Common" [APHE presumed with current documentation, but others possible pending historical documentation/WW developments] (110mm at 1000m and 30 degrees 1946 round) seem reasonable given that we know something shape-charge related was developed OTL and the WWTL developments regarding HEAT rounds?

"Hollow charge" is in no way an ambiguous term. The Munroe Effect, or the Hollow Charge Principle, is the basis of the modern HEAT round. Use of the term "HEAT" is postwar terminology.

As to acceptable performance figures, that is a subject I am not going to comment on. Measurements at 1,000 meters are, IMHO, guesstimates at best. Better that you should *hit* the target at 1,000 meters, which, given the technology of the time, is far harder than it is today with laser-sights and ballistic computers.

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

"Hollow charge" is in no way an ambiguous term. The Munroe Effect, or the Hollow Charge Principle, is the basis of the modern HEAT round. Use of the term "HEAT" is postwar terminology.

Then we seem to have a conundrum on our hands, one source pointing to APHE as the type and another to HEAT. I feel the PDF is the more accurate of the two sources, what do you think?

I fear we are getting too wrapped up in semantics. APHE is not HEAT. HEAT operates on the hollow charge principle. On the basis of the evidence I would consider the EF round to be based on the hollow-charge principle; I haven't had the time to download and read the pdf file, unfortunately.

Edit: I have had the chance to complete downloading and reading the PDF in question. The US Army is quite clear - the EF and EFS rounds were "hollow charge", i.e. some species of HEAT. What Jaegerplatoon is referring to is unknown to me.

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

On the basis of the evidence I would consider the EF round to be based on the hollow-charge principle

Then we are in agreement.

I'm a bit confused by the above discussion.

It sounds like we've determined the EP and EPS rounds are basically similar to the HEAT rounds invented and used elsewhere, and are not HESH. Is that correct?

Does this determination change any of stated figures in the original post, and if so, how?

Quoted from "Brockpaine"

I'm a bit confused by the above discussion.

It sounds like we've determined the EP and EPS rounds are basically similar to the HEAT rounds invented and used elsewhere, and are not HESH. Is that correct?

Does this determination change any of stated figures in the original post, and if so, how?

You are correct.

The figures and shell types for the proposed future rounds as I currently have them are as follows. 47mm HEAT (60-70mm 1945 round, 115mm 1949 round) 90mm APHE (110mm at 1000m and 30 degrees 1946 round)