WesWorld

Two types of wheeled vehicles designed with a view towards export potential. The design originated as a replacement for the AB34 armoured car and continues the Italian trend for wheeled tanks. The main driver in this case being the significantly lower costs compared to tracked vehicles. These designs take onboard the previous experience gained and aim for better reliability and cross country performance for operations in the diverse and demanding terrain in Ethiopia. Large numbers are expected to be built to make up for a lack of tank numbers and to serve as infantry carriers in Bersaglieri regiments.

The AutoCarro mounts a 75/46 in a well sloped turret based on current tank designs on the drawing board. This gun is more than sufficient to deal with the large numbers of Indian tanks expected to be encountered. The armour is limited due to the need to save weight. A design with heavier armour like the Atlantean T-3 was considered, but rejected due to cost and insufficient cross-country performance.

AutoProtetto 40
Crew: 2 + 10
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

AutoCarro 40
Crew: 4
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

Given the derisory level of protection quoted for the AutoCarro 40, I can see such vehicles falling as quick victims to any reasonable antitank gun - certainly to the guns of a Bharati Arjun, and to the concentrated antitank guns of the specialist units the Bharati army is planning to field, they would be mincemeat.

They might survive in low-intensity combat where the hostile forces are not equipped with antitank guns in significant numbers; otherwise, they seem poor value for money.

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
Given the derisory level of protection quoted for the AutoCarro 40, I can see such vehicles falling as quick victims to any reasonable antitank gun - certainly to the guns of a Bharati Arjun, and to the concentrated antitank guns of the specialist units the Bharati army is planning to field, they would be mincemeat.

True enough, similar sorts of things can be said about modern armoured cars like AMX 10, Rooikat or MGS. (or IFVs like the M2 or BMP) The thing is that wheeled vehicles are about an order of magnitude cheaper than tracked. Against Indian 90mm and 105mm anti-tank guns it doesn't stand much of a chance. Against the 50mm guns it's a bit more even given the difficulty in hitting beyond 500m or so. Ethiopia is fairly rough terrain with limited infrastructure. It's going to be a real pain dragging anti-guns around the place so a self-propelled wheeled vehicle was preferred instead. Argun and Satyaki tanks are going to be forming the bulk of Indian armoured forces for some time to come - this doesn't stand too bad a chance at dealing with them.

It'd be nice to simply have lots of tanks, but with limited building capacity and cost a major consideration it's not really feasible. It's not a great solution, but it'll probably do for the next few years.

Quoted

Against the 50mm guns it's a bit more even given the difficulty in hitting beyond 500m or so

It's not entirely clear, but if you mean that the nature of the terrain limits firing opportunities beyond 500 meters, I might agree. Otherwise, if the vehicle is a target, it is dead, given the penetration properties of a 5cm PAK, as can be seen here

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
It's not entirely clear, but if you mean that the nature of the terrain limits firing opportunities beyond 500 meters, I might agree. Otherwise, if the vehicle is a target, it is dead, given the penetration properties of a 5cm PAK, as can be seen here

The terrain is an issue depending on where exactly you are, but penetration is also an issue. I've been reading an interesting UK report on the Desert War in WWII recently which specifically looks at the armament question. It's quite interesting noting just how close things had to be in order to get hits with the available armament. The vast majority were under 500m. The small calibres were part of the problem, being inherently less accurate (coupled with limited optics and rangefinding). It's only once you get up to high velocity 75mm or the 88mm guns that you can reliably hit at 1000m.

On the armour issue itself, the highly inclined 30mm plates on the forward hull should be able to withstand 50/60 fire at 500m+. It's not going to immune to lots of fire, but it should be enough to be effective. At the same time it's staying fairly light, cheap and deployable.

Quoted

On the armour issue itself, the highly inclined 30mm plates on the forward hull should be able to withstand 50/60 fire at 500m+. It's not going to immune to lots of fire, but it should be enough to be effective. At the same time it's staying fairly light, cheap and deployable.

The armour penetration table would disagree with that assessment, but it is not that important. The greatest threat, I think, could be mobility kills. And once the vehicle is immobile, it's a coffin.

Cheap, yes; deployable, yes; combat-worthy, questionable.

The fact that the infantry carrier pays homage to the BTR 80, and the wheeled tank resembles an AMX10 in broad outline, the assemblage looks rather like something from the 1970s, rather than 1940.

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
Cheap, yes; deployable, yes; combat-worthy, questionable.

That could be said about anything other than a heavily armoured main battle tank though. There's always seemed to be a place for second line vehicles, whether they're light tanks, armoured cars or IFVs. If I was going down the well protected route you end up with a 40-50t tank, which isn't cheap or deployable (or probably reliable).

Quoted

The fact that the infantry carrier pays homage to the BTR 80, and the wheeled tank resembles an AMX10 in broad outline, the assemblage looks rather like something from the 1970s, rather than 1940.

That can be easily solved by modifications to the drawing. This was one of the earlier drawings that I knocked up;

For Colonial duties a wheeled tank makes sense.
OTL the Germans did well with up-gunning there 8x8 series and even South African built an 8x8 wheeled tank with a 6pdr gun.
Africa is best for this sort of warfare. I reckon they would be useful in the expanse of the Libyan desert and the Sahara.

The APC is very interesting, one of the few real attempts in WW to protect the troops fully and with a decent armament to ward off armoured cars etc.
Might want some roof vents though so the troops inside don't get too hot in the summer heat.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
The APC is very interesting, one of the few real attempts in WW to protect the troops fully and with a decent armament to ward off armoured cars etc.
Might want some roof vents though so the troops inside don't get too hot in the summer heat.

The main eye is towards Ethiopia or Libya where the country is a bit more open and reliability/range/availability are more pressing concerns than performance per se. In the rather more enclosed terrain of Northern Italy they're not so suitable.

There have been quite a few attempts in WW for protecting infantry. Most commonly are the BMP-esque vehicles operated in numbers by India and Russia. Further down the scale there are quite a few protected halftrack carriers. Wheels are just cheaper and easier at the expense of cross country performance.

Quoted

Originally posted by exigeant

My main question with the infantry vehicle is where is the engine? I assume that they will exit the rear, so the engine must be forward, won't this interfere with the weapon placement?

Looking at the drawings of the infantry vehicle, I presume that engine placement is in the rear - in common with the wheeled tank; the drawing, which seems to show an engine cover, implies that.

This, together with the firing ports, suggests that either there is a side hatch on the right side of the vehicle (which is not shown) or the infantry does not dismount. There are no obvious roof hatches - but this is not impossible - but climbing up and over seems a sub-optimal way of exiting the vehicle.

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
This, together with the firing ports, suggests that either there is a side hatch on the right side of the vehicle (which is not shown) or the infantry does not dismount. There are no obvious roof hatches - but this is not impossible - but climbing up and over seems a sub-optimal way of exiting the vehicle.

For that one, the hatches were in the roof. It's not a great location, but really the engine needs to be mounted aft in the armoured car.

I've had a bit of a re-draw with this one, and gone over to 6x6 arrangement which gives some space for a side door.

Changing to a 6x6 configuration certain will be appreciated by the troops, and the side doors for egress will certainly be used.

It also shifts the hommage from the BTR-80 to the Ratel - Dorman Long would be honored, but the assemblage remains far in advance of 1940 automotive practice.

I don't think it looks that modern. It looks more 1940ish than the previous drawings.

6x6 might be better for siimplicity and ease of maintainence.

I think the issue will be the 75mm gun in the design plus the armor will cause a lot of engine troubles. The vehicle weights as much as a Puma armed with 50mm gun and similar armor. Put the extra weight of a 75mm in a turret ( I know a version of the Puma carried a short 75mm in the vehicle but it was not in a turret) and you have the recipe for a vehicle that will suffer a lot of engine, transmission and shock absorbers problems.

But the design IMO is douable. Perhaps the picture looks like the Ratel but that was an issue before. Difficult to get pictures of designs so they look like something else.

I hope they have doors in both sides also.

I don't think it looks overly modern now. It's basically a stretched AB41 with the turret off the P43 tank. I don't think it's particularly advanced

Weight might be off by a few tons, but it doesn't seem overly difficult to carry the 75/46 on an armoured car this size. Quite a few vehicles in the same weight class with similar or larger armament. Take the M3 Portee for example with 75mm and 105mm guns at around 10t.

I think the 6x6 one looks fine for the 1940s.

In my eyes they look quite real and beautifully !

I don't know if beautiful is the word I was looking for. Bland might perhaps be more appropriate.

I think the 6x6 version looks excellent, though I'm still doubtfull about the APC version. Still quite expensive for the task when trucks and halftracks can do the same job on the cheap but then again unless I'm mistaken Italy has no halftracks (unless they use Danish ones?).