Breda Uomo EPS
Improved Man-Portable Anti-Armor weapon introduced in 1948. Larger projectile for improved penetration. The current Breda Uomo EP cannot pen the Triarii or Princeps from the side, so there would be concerns that if possible OPFOR designs were to match the side armor on the Italian tanks that they would be unkillable by the Uomo EP anywhere bu the rear armor. Also, the Uomo EP does not give much margin of error on some current possible OPFOR tanks for anything other then a perpendicular impact. Pen is calculated on 150% of boar diameter, lower then a German weapon being introduced 3 years earlier.
Length: 1450 mm
Caliber: 85 mm
Weight: 6.5 kg Unloaded
Warhead: 4kg fin stabilized. HEAT and HE warheads available.
Range, Maximum: 900m
Range, Effective: 300m (stationary target), 170m (moving target)
Crew: 2, operator and loader, tho can be operated by a single man in emergencies.
Penetration : 127.5mm at 0 degree AoI with 85mm EPS Mod.48 HEAT round.
I'm not entirely sold on the breakthrough doctrine. I could see what you've outlined working well in the deserts of Libya or the EAS, but against well dug in Yugoslav positions in mountainous terrain its going to be harder to aim any kind of breakthrough. Southern Europe is not really suited for tank combat, you need more of an all-arms approach with paras etc. The Germans made great gains in 1941 by surprise and strength and parachutists. It took the Allies a lot of effort to get that territory back with air and material superiority, and In WW most of the area is heavily defended with modern weapons and organised armies. Yugoslav forces wouldn't have to react to an armoured thrust if they can delay an Italian advance and make it costly in losses. I can't really envision an opposite scenario where the Yuogslavs would attack Italy, except perhaps as a spoiling counterattack to threaten your northern cities in that area. I think airpower is the going to be the key here, no matter how many APCs you have operating with tank units.
Now that I understand the reference, I can make a proper reply.
I am reluctant to endorse or argue the projected penetration performance of the weapon, but I am leery of using the PaK45 as the sole justification for it. When I proposed the PaK45 - which I still consider under peer review - I was taken to task to provide some armor penetration value for its munitions, and quoted the only immediately available value I could find. I don't know if this was the result of range testing or how it was derived - I provide it from Wikipedia with all the usual caveats.
I researching the question I found this item which touches upon the question of comparing historical armor penetration performance to modern testing methods - which suggests that one should be careful in the use of historical data. The "Rule of 2" - the relationship between warhead diameter and penetration - was worked out in the postwar era, using standard test conditions, and could yield results that differ from historical. I am not an ordnance engineer, I merely hung around a place where they worked.
As the weapon in question is not expected to be fielded until 1948, I see no reason to make that big a deal about it.
Forum Software: Burning Board® Lite 2.1.2 pl 1, developed by WoltLab® GmbH