why was italy unable to make effective armored vehicles during ww2?

why was italy unable to make effective armored vehicles during ww2?
obviously they weren't as industrialized as the other players, but what sort of industry is required in order to produce armored vehicles that the italians were lacking?
it seems bizarre because italy was capable of building engines, large trucks, trains, aircraft, artillery, warships, etc, it just seems odd that they couldn't put it altogether to build a passable armored fighting vehicle.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    they were not capable of building building engines, large trucks, trains, aircraft, artillery, warships, etc like gb, germany, france or fricking usa

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They made great plane and ship engines, moron

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        nta, they had great engineers and dogshit industrial capacity.
        take their medium bombers, most were three engine designs because they had to make up for low-numbers of better engines with more shitty engines that were easier to produce.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          this is (according to the luftwaffe) the best fighter plane of ww2

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            of course.
            do you know what this is?
            because they didnt even know what hit em.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's not powered by an Italian engine. It's powered by the same Daimler-Benz engines found in 109s/110s/410s

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          they're neat designs given what they had to work with
          i'm just mystified that when it came to tonks they just went with m13/40 2.0 and then 3.0 versions that didn't have a chance doing anything

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The trimotor thing was as much institutional inertia as anything else. The Fiat Br.20 was twin-engined, they had the engines by the the war, but things like the SM.79 and Z.1007 were all derivatives of earlier designs.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >best Italian fighter of the war, the Folgore
        >DB 601 engine
        >MG 151 cannons

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    > put it altogether to build
    Their tanks were designed for their only land border. Pastas weren't interested om the German moronic adventure and their industrial base was mediocre.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Their tanks were designed for their only land border. Pastas weren't interested om the German moronic adventure and their industrial base was mediocre.
      Hitler literally asked Mussolini NOT to join the war, anon.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Ah yes the moronic Italian adventure in Greece was ordered by the Germans, of course.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Their tanks were designed for their only land border

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >africa
        The air force and tankettes were enough against camels.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    doctrinal usefulness aside, their bad quality is only due to a single factor:
    welding.
    early in the war England had the same problem: all the welders were being sucked up by the navy, and the army was stucked with riveted armor. thanks to the lend-lease, the UK got over this problem, Italy however, did not.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      cromwell wasn't terrible (or at least italian level terrible) and it was riveted
      i don't think anything italy fielded would have been markedly better if they were welded and not riveted

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        the P40 would've ahve been a good tank but it came too late, since italian manufacturing was very artisanal, as well as big limitations in size and weight. not too mentiont that the italian war machine almost completely collapsed post 8 September 1943, and so the new RSI couldnt really design a new tank, let alone build it.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The difference between Bong riveted tanks and Spaghetti riveted tanks is that the Bong ones were, for the most part, quite well designed while the Spaghetti tanks were designed by schizophrenics who still seemed to be stuck in the interwar-era of design and struggled to keep on top of what worked and what didn't, and in many cases apparently didn't care. P40 could have been good but each one was lovingly handcrafted by a team of artisans in a single shed in Genoa so it was too little too late. Still should have been fricking welded though, what the frick were they thinking making something that looked like a Panzer III in 1943 and using rivets?

        They built some damn sexy ships though, gotta give em that.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          > bong tanks
          >not stuck in the interwar-era

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And yet they invented the first MBT.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              in 1945, way after Italy stopped building tanks. if you look at the contemporaries of italian tanks, you'll se all kinds of ideas like the "infantry tank", or the "cruiser" which were kinda obsolete

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Well it's not their fault that Italy gave up early.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Actually it is.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No it definitely is their fault.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              In 1958,entering service in 1966.20 years after VE day.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              They invented the T-55!?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >T-55 is an MBT
                then so is the Panzer IV, Cromwell and Sherman

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I knew I should have corrected myself as soon as I hit submit: early war bong tanks weren't great. The difference between them and the spaghets though is that they started to learn quickly and change their designs based on evidence of what sucked and what didn't.

            The Italians saw what worked and what didn't and ignored it for the most part, with small research projects that could have been decent getting sidelined. I'll be fair to them though, I doubt having decent armored vehicles would have been much help to them and their industrial base was too small to support mass manufacture of such vehicles, so it's understandable why they didn't seem to give a frick. They had bigger priorities.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              not to mention as

              https://i.imgur.com/nn8peus.jpeg

              >why was italy unable to make effective armored vehicles during ww2?
              Their early war tanks were about as effective as anyone else's early war tanks. It was the whole shifting production to newer designs that they failed at. That was the big issue with not being as industrialized as the other players, combine that with bombing, invasion and the country falling apart in 43 and you don't have the best environment to rapidly shift production and build the new tanks at scale.

              said, Italy's factories got bombed to hell and back, meanwhile the UK's factories were still mostly intact, even after the battle of Britain

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >The difference between Bong riveted tanks and Spaghetti riveted tanks is that the Bong ones were, for the most part, quite well designed
          Not a single "quite well designed" british tank was fielded throughout the entirety of WWII.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            the valentine practically is a prewar design

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        doctrinal usefulness aside, their bad quality is only due to a single factor:
        welding.
        early in the war England had the same problem: all the welders were being sucked up by the navy, and the army was stucked with riveted armor. thanks to the lend-lease, the UK got over this problem, Italy however, did not.

        The difference between Bong riveted tanks and Spaghetti riveted tanks is that the Bong ones were, for the most part, quite well designed while the Spaghetti tanks were designed by schizophrenics who still seemed to be stuck in the interwar-era of design and struggled to keep on top of what worked and what didn't, and in many cases apparently didn't care. P40 could have been good but each one was lovingly handcrafted by a team of artisans in a single shed in Genoa so it was too little too late. Still should have been fricking welded though, what the frick were they thinking making something that looked like a Panzer III in 1943 and using rivets?

        They built some damn sexy ships though, gotta give em that.

        Okay, give it to me straight. Why is riveting worse than welding? Do the plates fall apart if they get hit? I know about the rivets turning into bullets inside the cabin.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Do the plates fall apart if they get hit?
          the short answer is yes
          the other major drawback is that the rivets add a lot of extra weight to the vehicle

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Its not so much the rivets that adds weight, it's the frame you rivet the plates onto which adds weight.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Its not so much the rivets that adds weight, it's the frame you rivet the plates onto which adds weight.

            Rivets are lacking in the strength to hold up against sudden impacts like you'd expect a tank to be experiencing, the rivets tend to shear or if they don't shear they get ripped out of their holes. It was only used because it was cheaper and there were a lot more riveters available than there were skilled welders, both the brits and wogs had their welders prioritised for ship-building. The brits had a shit ton of riveters because of their locomotive building industry, and riveting generally requires far less skill than welding (if you want an example of what happens when you have low-skilled welders, look no further than mid-war Soviet tanks)

            There's a reason everyone ditched it as soon as they could.

            never done basic carpentry?
            nailing shit together < using really really powerful glue < carving the whole thing out of one piece
            i.e.
            riveting < welding < casting

            [...]
            >They built some damn sexy ships though, gotta give em that.
            perhaps unsurprisingly, the Italian navy got the bset engineers (for what it's worth)
            even in the air, the Italian fighter arm (Macchi C.200 Saetta) was backward compared to its maritime bomber (Savoia-Marchetti SM.79 Sparviero)

            [...]
            generally, bong tanks were good
            the only actual gap is in 1942 when the German Panzer IV G proved able to accommodate the 75mm KwK and the British Crusader couldn't match the weapon
            this interregnum between the Crusader and the Cromwell had to be filled in with the Lee, and after that the Allies standardised on the Sherman by choice
            and that's all the substance there is to that myth

            [...]
            depends how nice italian women are to me

            [...]
            >Why didn't they do cast hulls
            casting is expensive and competes with other critical war industries such as engine production for literally everything
            also, funfact: casting moulds must be remade, they don't last forever. so mould-makers are constantly employed rebuilding moulds
            once again, this is significant labour and resource consumption which all engine and armoured vehicle makers competed for in WW2
            t. daddy was a caster

            Thanks for your answers.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Rivets are lacking in the strength to hold up against sudden impacts like you'd expect a tank to be experiencing, the rivets tend to shear or if they don't shear they get ripped out of their holes. It was only used because it was cheaper and there were a lot more riveters available than there were skilled welders, both the brits and wogs had their welders prioritised for ship-building. The brits had a shit ton of riveters because of their locomotive building industry, and riveting generally requires far less skill than welding (if you want an example of what happens when you have low-skilled welders, look no further than mid-war Soviet tanks)

          There's a reason everyone ditched it as soon as they could.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          never done basic carpentry?
          nailing shit together < using really really powerful glue < carving the whole thing out of one piece
          i.e.
          riveting < welding < casting

          The difference between Bong riveted tanks and Spaghetti riveted tanks is that the Bong ones were, for the most part, quite well designed while the Spaghetti tanks were designed by schizophrenics who still seemed to be stuck in the interwar-era of design and struggled to keep on top of what worked and what didn't, and in many cases apparently didn't care. P40 could have been good but each one was lovingly handcrafted by a team of artisans in a single shed in Genoa so it was too little too late. Still should have been fricking welded though, what the frick were they thinking making something that looked like a Panzer III in 1943 and using rivets?

          They built some damn sexy ships though, gotta give em that.

          >They built some damn sexy ships though, gotta give em that.
          perhaps unsurprisingly, the Italian navy got the bset engineers (for what it's worth)
          even in the air, the Italian fighter arm (Macchi C.200 Saetta) was backward compared to its maritime bomber (Savoia-Marchetti SM.79 Sparviero)

          > bong tanks
          >not stuck in the interwar-era

          generally, bong tanks were good
          the only actual gap is in 1942 when the German Panzer IV G proved able to accommodate the 75mm KwK and the British Crusader couldn't match the weapon
          this interregnum between the Crusader and the Cromwell had to be filled in with the Lee, and after that the Allies standardised on the Sherman by choice
          and that's all the substance there is to that myth

          be nice to italy

          depends how nice italian women are to me

          https://i.imgur.com/UnQdMec.jpeg

          >welding

          Why didn't they do cast hulls like the australian tanks then?

          >Why didn't they do cast hulls
          casting is expensive and competes with other critical war industries such as engine production for literally everything
          also, funfact: casting moulds must be remade, they don't last forever. so mould-makers are constantly employed rebuilding moulds
          once again, this is significant labour and resource consumption which all engine and armoured vehicle makers competed for in WW2
          t. daddy was a caster

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          When riveted tanks get hit, even if the shell doesn't penetrate, they have a nasty habit of popping rivets off and sending them bouncing around the crew compartment as shrapnel. Like spalling with extra steps.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >welding

      Why didn't they do cast hulls like the australian tanks then?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        casting? do you think steel grows on trees? also cast armor is obscenely heavy and a chore to repair, riveted armor was sold with the premise of being super easy and cheap to fix, since you just unplug the rivets and replace the plate.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        ha, dick gun.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Combination of three reasons.
    1) Lack of industry
    2) Poor
    3) Military was geared around mountain warfare

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Italy is full armor is full of stories of 'almost good'.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      ah yes, T-34 at home

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Not even, its more like the Crusader we have at home

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >why was italy unable to make effective armored vehicles during ww2?
    Their early war tanks were about as effective as anyone else's early war tanks. It was the whole shifting production to newer designs that they failed at. That was the big issue with not being as industrialized as the other players, combine that with bombing, invasion and the country falling apart in 43 and you don't have the best environment to rapidly shift production and build the new tanks at scale.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It really wasn't too different what the British were fumbling around with in the early war. The issue was they didn't have anything in the works to replace their lighter tanks. The age of 30 ton tanks armed with 3" guns was something that the Italian designers failed to be ready for after some fairly successful lighter tanks

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The issue was they didn't have anything in the works to replace their lighter tanks. The age of 30 ton tanks armed with 3" guns was something that the Italian designers failed to be ready for after some fairly successful lighter tanks
        The P26-40 was supposed to be that. There was just a lot of delays making it work, developing an engine to push 30 tons was not all that easy for them. Germany had a short cut, their Panzer 4 meant to carry a short barreled cannon happened to be big enough to be upgraded. The Americans also did a rush job and just used an Aircraft engine which is why the Sherman is so tall.
        The Italians also were producing hundreds of self propelled guns to attempt to compensate for a lack of real 30 ton / 3" cannon tank production like the Germans initially did. Unfortunately they were producing in the hundreds what Germany and the Allies could produce in thousands. They weren't just sitting on their hands, they really were the distant third in the Axis, it was a war against 3 top tier industrial powerhouses vs 1 top tier powerhouse, a mid tier and an idiot who dragged his mostly agrarian nation into this clusterfrick.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >We have Stug III at home

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          This; it just wasn't up to scale
          Mussolini's hand were basically forced in every decision after the March on Rome tbh ne; he would have made an excellent peacetime ruler

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Italy was perfectly capable of designing effective vehicles. The problem was that they couldn't actually mass produce any of them due to their lack of industrialization and critical resources.

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    muslim dna

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >mediterraneans aren't pasty nordics
      wow, who the frick knew?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        t. mudslime descendant

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    VGH... WHAT COVLD HAVE BEEN...

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Ìtaly designed way more impressive tanks than the p43. Come to think of it, italy was designing proper hardware roughly at the same time the allies did, only to be cut short by the armistice in '43. For example it is known that at least two aircraft carriers were on their way, and mussolini just gave the green light to produce italianized panthers

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        2 more weeks

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          SAAARRR!!!

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No they weren’t. They finished designing an early Sherman or T-34 equivalent with the P.26/40 by late 1942. When it entered production in 1943 it was already outdated while the allies were designing things like the Comet or T-44. Italy was hopelessly behind every major power except Japan in tank design.
        They made some absolutely amazing planes though.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I'm talking about designs, not actual vehicles. btw the main issue with the p40 was the lack of a proper engine. That's why it took so long for them to be deployed

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >at least two aircraft carriers were on their way
        Spaverieo wasn't worth more than an escort carrier, being little more than a liner with a flight deck slapped on top. While Aquila was better, the Italians were still struggling to figure out basic carrier operations

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I wasn't talking about the sparviero, but the impero

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I don't think there were ever any serous attempts to convert Impero to a carrier

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    lack of experience
    They never built and deployed a good tank when the concept was brand new so they didn't encounter the usual failures that you need to overcome.
    They had a good idea of what a tank do but a vague idea of what a tank need to be to do so

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >ideology based around war, virility, modernism and violence
    >ideologically descended from the futurists
    >in complete power over the state from 1922
    >invest state funds into ROMA larping instead of a functioning industry
    what the frick

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Mussolini also struggled to maintain discipline in the classroom when he was a teacher. He actually wrote about this. That pretty much sums up Italian fascism.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The problem for the Italian Fascists is that they were in charge but not very widely or strongly supported. And that their population was full of Italians.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous
        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          ...your point?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            be nice to italy

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      He was conducting spiritual warfare anon

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >obviously they weren't as industrialized as the other players
    You answered your own question, Britain had a bigger industry and even they struggled with armor production and performance until about 1943

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    their armor was designed for fighting in Italy where mountain bridges were small with low weight limits + in North Africa against irregulars

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Czechoslovakia and Sweden despite being smaller and less industrialized produced far better tanks than Italy.
    Italy just kinda sucked.

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Corruption.

    Fascism wasn't neither capitalista nor communist.

    Meaning: Italian companies didnt really fear competition from foreign design.

    Engineers and Company owner didnt fear to get executed if they fricked up.

    The result was the cv33 that cost almost as a panzer 2...add also that they declined the production of the panzer iv and panther (with no royalties to produce the p40)

    I am still angry After 80 years

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Modern navy
    Modern air force
    Modern tanks

    You only get to pick two. One of them has to go.

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No coal or iron

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >but what sort of industry is required in order to produce armored vehicles that the italians were lacking?
    Entire industrial cities. Italy then was like Italy today. How much iron do you see Italy smashing out?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *