A decent Italian tank - the P40

Carro Pesante P26/40
"heavy tank 26 tons, design year 1940"



Time to shed some light on a nation not known for producing the best WW2 vintage equipment...

I never knew of this tank before. It seems suprisingly decent - roughly comparable to other medium tanks of the war. It has sloped armor with at 60 mm maximum value, and a 75 mm L/34 cannon. The 1,200 unit order was not completed before Italy's surrunder in '43, although 5 served with the German army under the designation of Panzerkampfwagen P40 737(i).

Without knowing the complete truth and all the facts about this vehicle, I think this shows that the Italian industry could produce something adequate by WW2 standards!

Anbody have any more info?

 

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/italy/tanks ... 26_40.html

Note that while design year was 1940, it didn't go into produciton until 1943. Looks like it was really a medium (29 tons), it's not even a heavy tank for a 1943 medium (M4 = 33 tons). Speed doesn't seem too bad (25mph max on road), but the armor looks weak, 50-60 max frontal armor. It also looks like the armor was riveted from the picture you posted. The 75L34 gun probably was adequate for anti-infantry and soft targets, but can't have been much of an AT gun, mv must have been around 600fps based on similar sized weapons of other nations. Depending on which horse power rating you use, HP/Wt was poor (9.4hp/ton with a 275hp engine) to excellent (14.4 with a 420 hp engine). Tracks look narrow, probably resulting in high ground pressure = poor mobility on soft terrain.
It might have been a world beater in 1940, strictly second class by 1943 standards.

 

I agree. If Italy fielded the P26/40 during the Desert War, Rommel would have surely put them to good use. I've read that the Italians designed this tank to fight specifically in the North African desert, instead of relying on constant upgrades to make tanks desert worthy.

 

Hmmm, that gun seems a little too short for a heavy tank to me. Also the armor seems a bit too thin. The Sherman had an 85mm maximum, and it was a medium tank. What do you guys think?

 

It was desinged in 1940 so I think it was decent armour for the time. What do you mean it had a short gun for heavy tank the KV-2 had a pretty short gun if I remember correctly.

 

The KV-2 was not a heavy tank but an SP assault gun. However, the KV-1 did start the war with a particularly short barrel - as did its inferior German counterpart of the early war years, the Panzer IV. These guns were still powerful enough to be used on heavy tanks to good effect simply because armour was relatively thin on all vehicles.

I agree with Canambridge. By 1940 standards, this tank would be right up there with the Somua in terms of quality, even posessing a better gun. By 1943, though, it was less than adequate.

 

Definitely a step in the right direction... and likely superior to what the Japanese were fielding at the time... if that's any consolation.
It sure doesn't have the lines of a Ferarri, nor likely the ride of a Bugatti. I was never sure why the Italians, with a flair for automobile design and innovation, were so backwards when it came to armor?
Hmmmm.

Tim

 

Oh No !

It's a FIAT !!!

 

Hoosier, Bugatti is French...

As has been stated, it's excellent for a 1940 tank - up there with the early T-34 IMO. With a few upgrades, it could have been a decent 1943 tank as well. Also, as to its "class" -- it reminds me a bit of the PZ IV, being designed as a heavy tank but ending up serving the role of a medium. I wonder if there are any combat records?

 

Not all Shermans had an 85 mm maximum. 60 mm on the front was more than the T-34 had, and in 1941, it was regarded as nearly invincible to German guns of the time. By 1940 standards, the gun is also excellent.

 

Really? That is news to me because I always thought it was a heavy tank. I guess I was mistaken than?

 

Well, the KV 2 was not designed as a tank - rather a slow moving bunker buster, and unsuited for WW2 type warfare. It could do it's job, but was arguably not worth the resources used for development and production. It was used during a time when the Soviet Union was on the defensive, they arguably did not have need of a large bunker buster in the same way that the Germans did not have use for the Sturmtiger.

The turret was heavy and hard to traverse on level ground. The extra weight of turret and gun stressed an already overtaxed chassis.

 

Panzerman:
Well, there you go then!
I stand corrected.

My attempt was intended to call attention to the suspension system. It looks to ride only marginally better than a buck-board wagon. Still a hint of M-10 and touch of T-34... a British cruiser-style turret... and what, 6-pounder equivalent? Yes, it would probably have been an improvement over what the Italians were forced to crew in North Africa.

Tim

 

It's got a 75L34 gun, probably roughly equivalent to the 75L31 on the US M3, meaning better muzzle velocity than the 75L24 on the original PzKw Mk IV. I would guess around 600mps (not fps as I wrote in my first post). The KV-2 had a 152mm gun.

Low velocity gun, thin, riveted armor, and three years too late.

 

I beg to differ... by 1940 standards, it would have been above adequate! Compare to the other tanks of the time. It outclasses early Pz IVs, is a more modern design than the French tanks of the time, and is definitely up there with the Char B1 Bis, like Roel said. It did come late, but it also disproves that the Italians were completely hopeless at tank design.

IIRC, the problem was the way their industry was organized. At most, they had a small percentage of the industrial power of larger nations such as France or Germany (10-15%).

 

FIAT = Fix It Again Tony

 

That's deep...

 

?????

 

You don't understand what you typed? :lol:

 

No, what you typed.