Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: cmort@ncoast.org
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: WWII Italian Armor, Why so Bad?
Keywords: design questions?
Message-ID: <1991Apr24.054500.18605@amd.com>
Date: 23 Apr 91 11:00:57 GMT
References: <1991Apr23.053445.22865@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: North Coast Public Access Un*x (ncoast)
Lines: 25
Approved: military@amd.com


From: cmort@ncoast.org


	[8 lines quoting the entire article deleted. --CDR]
>From: hhm@ihlpy.att.com (Herschel H Mayo)
>I began to wonder why most, if not all, of the Italian tanks and
>armored vehicles were so bad and poorly designed.

It's pretty simple really, for the same reason that the Japanese had similar
deficiencies.  Both of them based their procurement on their contemporary
adversaries.  It doesn't take a KV to run over Chinese or Ethiopian infantry
with swords.  Both countries were rather ambivalent over attacking a perceived
capable foe.  When they finally did, it was too late to field anything really
serious.  As close as the Italians came was the Semovente.  I believe the 
Japanese got as high as the Chi-Nu.  I'd have to look the designation up.  In
any case, they never fielded in quantity, anything that was much of a challenge
to US armor.  My last day on active duty, I met a former National Guard tanker
who'd been in the Philippines when the war started.  He said that if he'd
had better ammo, they could have inflicted worse damage on the Japanese armor.
He wanted AP-HE.  He said that their shot tended to just pass through the 
Japanese tanks.

cmort@ncoast.org --- Chris Morton
"These opinions are mine, MINE, ALL MINE!!!!"