# Italian Tanks of WWII-Why So Bad? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 14, 2015, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/italian-tanks-of-wwii-why-so-bad/727833 "2015-08-14T14:32:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2015, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/italian-tanks-of-wwii-why-so-bad/727833/21 "2015-08-16T19:29:47Z")
> [@DeptfordX](#): > > As to the ‘shot bouncing off’ again we’re drifting into History channel territory here. The resistance of tanks to enemy fire is often wildly exaggerated. Yes the KV1 could bounce 37mm AT guns, or short barrel 75mm Panzer IV fire. Yes the Sherman probably couldn’t kill a Tiger from the front. But to concentrate on the Sherman vs Panther. The Sherman was perfectly capable of killing the Panther. Especially with the later improved AP rounds. It’s worth noting German steel quality dropped precipitously during the war as well due to shortages of the required raw materials for high grade steel. Being especially prone to shattering/spalling under fire. It’s not drifting into Hitler Channel territory; all of the examples I gave are true, none of them are wildly exaggerated. That the KV-1 (and the T-34) could bounce 37m AT shells off of it _consistently from any angle_ wasn’t something the Germans could shrug off during Barbarossa; 37mm was all the Germans had as an AT gun. Most losses of KVs and T-34s were from mechanical dropouts during Barbarossa; the only effective means of defeating them the majority of the German army possessed was using field artillery in direct fire, which wasn’t a very satisfactory answer as it was horse-drawn, it meant the field artillery wasn’t doing its actual job, and usually resulted in at best a 1:1 loss rate. From [Ziemke, Moscow to Stalingrad: Decision in the East:](http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-EF-Decision/USA-EF-Decision-5.html) > [@](#): > > Against the Soviet tanks, the armies were having to rely more and more on their field artillery, most of which was not mobile enough or powerful enough to cope with the T-34s. In the fall, the Germans had tested what they called Rotkopf (“redhead”) ammunition, a hollow-charge artillery shell that could penetrate the Soviet armor, but Hitler had recalled the shells in November. The thought had struck him that if the Russians learned the secret, the hollow-charge would be vastly more effective against his own lightly armored tanks. Almost daily pleading by the army group and the armies had not persuaded him to release the Rotkopf ammunition. Regarding the Sherman being perfectly capable of killing a Panther while it probably couldn’t kill a Tiger from the front: the Panther was **more** heavily armored frontally than the Tiger at 5.5in vs 4.72in, what it lacked was the substantial side and rear protection on the Tiger. The performance of the Sherman as being perfectly capable of killing a Panther was rather [underwhelming](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank#American_and_British): > [@](#): > > U.S. awareness of the inadequacies of their tanks grew only slowly. All U.S. M4 Shermans that landed in Normandy in June 1944 had the 75 mm gun. The 75 mm M4 gun could not penetrate the Panther from the front at all, although it could penetrate various parts of the Panther from the side at ranges from 400 to 2,600 m (440 to 2,840 yd). The 76 mm gun could also not penetrate the front hull armour of the Panther, but could penetrate the Panther turret mantlet at very close range.[117] In August 1944, the HVAP (high velocity armour-piercing) 76 mm round was introduced to improve the performance of the 76 mm M4 Shermans. With a tungsten core, this round could still not penetrate the Panther glacis plate, but could punch through the Panther mantlet at 730 to 910 m (800 to 1,000 yd), instead of the usual 91 m (100 yd) for the normal 76 mm round. However, tungsten production shortages meant that this round was always in short supply, with only a few rounds available per tank, and some M4 Sherman units never received any. ---
**Author:** ![Isilder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/cc9497/32.png) [@Isilder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isilder)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2015, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/italian-tanks-of-wwii-why-so-bad/727833/22 "2015-08-17T00:56:00Z")
Perhaps the tanks were not so bad, perhaps its because they faced a superior enemy to be judged against. To wit, at the battle of Bardia. In two days of fighting (January 3–4, 1941), the Australians suffered 456 casualties while the Italians lost 45,000 men captured. ---
**Author:** ![Askance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askance/32/8281_2.png) [@Askance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askance)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2015, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/italian-tanks-of-wwii-why-so-bad/727833/23 "2015-08-17T01:39:23Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > I was looking at a few Youtube videos, of WWII tanks. The Italians seem to have built some of the worse tanks of WWII-underpowered, thin armor, small guns. they were so weak that they were no match for even older allied tanks-a British Valentine tank could destroy the Italian tank at maximum range. > The Italians had a reasonably competent industrial base-why were they still producing such inferior tanks, well into WWII? They looked to be fine against lightly armed African/Ethiopian troops, but against modern allied tanks, they were hopeless. > The men who manned them must have been very brave. Don’t forget Italy was the first of the major (well, major-ish) powers to re-arm and mechanise after WWI. When they first designed and built those tanks (and planes, BTW, where similar factors applied) they were as good as anyone’s. But Italy, having just a weak economy, simply couldn’t afford to rebuild that whole army of tanks every few years, as required. They had to fight with the army they could afford, not the one they wanted. It was a full 17 years between Mussolini coming to power and WWII starting. Germany also suffered from this, to some degree. They invaded Russia with a fleet of tanks including Panzer II and Czech T38, well outdated by then even if the Russians hadn’t had T34s. They never managed to replace the Me109 design with enough of anything else newer and better to make a difference (eg FW190) so were fighting with obsolete planes when the 1,000 bomber raids started in 1943. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2015, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/italian-tanks-of-wwii-why-so-bad/727833/24 "2015-08-17T14:05:07Z")
I think you are right-Italy had a modern air force in 1933-but by WWII, they still were flying biplane fighters. late in the war, italy made some very good fighters (like the Macchi), but never in large enough numbers. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2015, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/italian-tanks-of-wwii-why-so-bad/727833/25 "2015-08-17T14:07:49Z")
> [@Askance](#): > > Germany also suffered from this, to some degree. They invaded Russia with a fleet of tanks including Panzer II and Czech T38, well outdated by then even if the Russians hadn’t had T34s. They never managed to replace the Me109 design with enough of anything else newer and better to make a difference (eg FW190) so were fighting with obsolete planes when the 1,000 bomber raids started in 1943. Well, yeah, but they did have the FW-190 and substantially improved it as the war went on, just as the British kept using the Spitfire but made it better. They didn’t just stop building Spitfires the day they invented the Tempest. Continuing to produce some models made economic sense. The British continued building the Halifax bomber even when they preferred the Lancaster because it was just way, way more economical to produce Halifaxes in the facilities, and with the parts suppliers set up and dies cast and all that, than it was to convert those facilities to producing Lancasters. There is a tradeoff in converting entirely to a new vehicle or system whereby a full switch may not actually be sensible. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2015, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/italian-tanks-of-wwii-why-so-bad/727833/26 "2015-08-17T16:33:53Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > I think you are right-Italy had a modern air force in 1933-but by WWII, they still were flying biplane fighters. late in the war, italy made some very good fighters (like the Macchi), but never in large enough numbers. Pretty much every nation still fielded some biplane fighters right at the start of WWII, with the exception of Germany. Italian aero designers were well-regarded, but the problem was their beautiful, well-machined products could not be mass-produced sufficiently quickly to keep up with the pace of combat, let alone the productivity of their enemies. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2015, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/italian-tanks-of-wwii-why-so-bad/727833/27 "2015-08-17T19:30:43Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > Pretty much every nation still fielded some biplane fighters right at the start of WWII, with the exception of Germany. Technically, Germany still did, albeit as [night fighters](https://books.google.com/books?id=AvTgjHwl1sMC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=germany+luftwaffe+ww2+biplanes&source=bl&ots=fJ5rMv5JUE&sig=T-YN6lZofzV3ygXRpyKCtBOXW-Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAjgKahUKEwjRoOSq67DHAhUJTpIKHQb-BBs#v=onepage&q=germany%20luftwaffe%20ww2%20biplanes&f=false): > [@](#): > > By the time the Second World War began on 3 September, 1939, most Ar 68s served as advanced trainers with the Jagdfliegerschulun but some were retained for a short time as night fighters with the units 10.(N)/JG 53, 10.(N)/JG 72 and 11.(N)/JG 72. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2015, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/italian-tanks-of-wwii-why-so-bad/727833/28 "2015-08-17T22:26:51Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > Technically, Germany still did, albeit as [night fighters](https://books.google.com/books?id=AvTgjHwl1sMC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=germany+luftwaffe+ww2+biplanes&source=bl&ots=fJ5rMv5JUE&sig=T-YN6lZofzV3ygXRpyKCtBOXW-Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAjgKahUKEwjRoOSq67DHAhUJTpIKHQb-BBs#v=onepage&q=germany%20luftwaffe%20ww2%20biplanes&f=false): Well, since they were up against marvels like the Amiot 143, they would do just fine. The German Heinkel He 50 and the Soviet Polikarpov Po-2 served until the end of the war, doing night harassment and recon. The Soviet \*Nočnye Ved’my \*(Night Witches) were flown by female pilots, who were rather notorious. The North Koreans still used them as late as 1953, the infamous Bedcheck Charlie. The Fairey Swordfish was mostly responsible for the eventual sinking of the Bismark. Dont laugh at well built Biplanes. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2015, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/italian-tanks-of-wwii-why-so-bad/727833/29 "2015-08-18T12:36:03Z")
> [@Askance](#): > > Don’t forget Italy was the first of the major (well, major-ish) powers to re-arm and mechanise after WWI. When they first designed and built those tanks (and planes, BTW, where similar factors applied) they were as good as anyone’s. > > But Italy, having just a weak economy, simply couldn’t afford to rebuild that whole army of tanks every few years, as required. They had to fight with the army they could afford, not the one they wanted. It was a full 17 years between Mussolini coming to power and WWII starting. > > Germany also suffered from this, to some degree. They invaded Russia with a fleet of tanks including Panzer II and Czech T38, well outdated by then even if the Russians hadn’t had T34s. They never managed to replace the Me109 design with enough of anything else newer and better to make a difference (eg FW190) so were fighting with obsolete planes when the 1,000 bomber raids started in 1943. Did the Italians deploy their M13/40 tanks in Russia? I expect that that would have been a disaster. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2015, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/italian-tanks-of-wwii-why-so-bad/727833/30 "2015-08-18T14:11:38Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Did the Italians deploy their M13/40 tanks in Russia? I expect that that would have been a disaster. Sir Wiki says this: > [@](#): > > **Operational use** > > The M13/40 was used in the Greek campaign in 1940 and 1941 and in the North African Campaign. The M13/40 was not used on the Eastern Front; Italian forces there were equipped only with Fiat L6/40s and Semovente 47/32s. Beginning in 1942, the Italian Army recognized the firepower weakness of the M13/40 series and employed the Semovente 75/18 self-propelled gun alongside the tanks in their armoured units. > **[M13/40 tank](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_M13/40)** > > The Carro Armato M13/40 was an Italian World War II tank designed to replace the M11/39 in the Royal Italian Army at the start of World War II. It was the primary tank used by the Italians throughout the war. The design was influenced by the British Vickers 6-Ton and was based on the modified chassis of the earlier M11/39. Production of the M11/39 was cut short in order to get the M13/40 into production. The name refers to "M" for Medio (medium) according to the Italian tank weight stand The M13 ... ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2015, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/italian-tanks-of-wwii-why-so-bad/727833/31 "2015-08-18T14:40:00Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > The performance of the Sherman as being perfectly capable of killing a Panther was rather [underwhelming](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank#American_and_British): Here’s something I’ve never really understood; if the 57mm rocket fired by the M9 Bazooka could penetrate 4"/102mm of armor, it seems like a 75mm HEAT round ought to be able to penetrate about 5.25"/134mm of armor, since HEAT performance is primarily due to the diameter of the shaped charge. Why didn’t the US arm them with HEAT rounds? Seems like they would have been more effective in that era versus APBC or HVAP rounds. Was it just bureaucratic inertia and production priority, or were there technical difficulties? ---
**Author:** ![Mogle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mogle/32/12021_2.png) [@Mogle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mogle)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2015, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/italian-tanks-of-wwii-why-so-bad/727833/32 "2015-08-18T15:46:04Z")
> [@bump](#): > > Why didn’t the US arm them with HEAT rounds? Seems like they would have been more effective in that era versus APBC or HVAP rounds. Was it just bureaucratic inertia and production priority, or were there technical difficulties? After reading the wiki on HEAT rounds I’m getting the impression it was a technical issue. Apparently HEAT rounds are less effective when rapidly spinning because the centrifugal force will disperse the jet, so they can’t be used, or at least not easily, with a rifled barrel, which is what I assume the tanks in that era had. ---
**Author:** ![smithsb](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smithsb/32/12107_2.png) [@smithsb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smithsb)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2015, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/italian-tanks-of-wwii-why-so-bad/727833/33 "2015-08-19T00:13:53Z")
> [@Mogle](#): > > After reading the wiki on HEAT rounds I’m getting the impression it was a technical issue. > Apparently HEAT rounds are less effective when rapidly spinning because the centrifugal force will disperse the jet, so they can’t be used, or at least not easily, with a rifled barrel, which is what I assume the tanks in that era had. Bingo. Workarounds like twisted shape charge liners, slipping obturators and sabots came later. Finally a switch as most main battle tanks now use smooth-bore guns. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2015, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/italian-tanks-of-wwii-why-so-bad/727833/34 "2015-08-19T17:53:19Z")
> [@smithsb](#): > > Bingo. Workarounds like twisted shape charge liners, slipping obturators and sabots came later. Finally a switch as most main battle tanks now use smooth-bore guns. Indeed, the _Rotkopf_ ammunition that Hitler finally (re-)released after daily pleading by his Army and Army Group commanders on December 22, 1941 to cope with Soviet armor was for field artillery and support tanks such as the Pz-IV with a short barreled 75mm howitzer, not for rifled AT guns or tanks armed with them. The 37mm continued to remain useless against the T-34 and KV until the introduction of some tungsten ammunition, at which point it merely became [suicidal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3.7_cm_Pak_36#Operational_history): > [@](#): > > By late 1941, however, the widespread introduction of Soviet medium tanks quickly erased the gun’s effectiveness; miserable performance against the T-34 on the Eastern Front led to the Pak 36 being nicknamed Heeresanklopfgerät (literally “army door-knocking device”), for its inability to produce any effect on the T-34 aside from notifying the tank of its presence by futilely bouncing rounds off its armor (regardless of the angle or distance). > > The Pak 36 began to be replaced by the new 5 cm Pak 38 in mid-1940. The addition of tungsten-core shells (Pzgr. 40) added slightly to the armour penetration of the Pak 36. Despite its continued impotence against the T-34, it remained the standard anti-tank weapon for many units until 1942. With tungsten core rounds, the Pak 36 crews could finally achieve kills on T-34s, but only via a direct shot to the rear or side armour from point-blank range, an unlikely and rather suicidal scenario. An interesting work-around was developed in 1941, the [Stielgranate 41](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stielgranate_41), which was basically a oversized shaped charge round fired from the 37mm like a rifle grenade. It wasn’t very accurate, and reloading it required someone to expose themselves and place another in the barrel. ---
**Author:** ![Jim\_s\_Son](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19adc/32.png) [@Jim\_s\_Son](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jim_s_Son)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2015, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/italian-tanks-of-wwii-why-so-bad/727833/35 "2015-08-20T00:09:55Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > Do you think Hitler would have listened to them? He wouldn’t listen to his own generals! As A J Baime’s book “Arsenal of Democracy” relates, when an American P-51 Mustang fighter was shot down over Aachen, Germany Hermann Goering refused to believe it-and don’t try to confuse him by saying you have the wreckage. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2015, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/italian-tanks-of-wwii-why-so-bad/727833/36 "2015-08-20T00:23:47Z")
> [@engineer\_comp\_geek](#): > > The German Tiger tank was probably the best tank of WWII. It was also one of the worst things that Germany could have produced. That may seem a little counter-intuitive, so let me explain. Or, as they say, “Quantity has a quality all its own”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/italian-tanks-of-wwii-why-so-bad/727833.md?page=1)