History Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread VIII

Why were Italian tank designs in WWII so...inferior to the designs of all the other European powers and the US? And for clarification, I'm not asking why they performed so poorly as I know it's because of a general lack of supplies and equipment the Italian Army suffered from during the war. I'm asking why the designs themselves were so objectively terrible compared to the designs the other powers were putting out.

I mean, did Italy just not have the technical expertise the other powers had? Was it too much interference from Mussolini's government?
 
it's a sign of decay in authoritarian regimes . You stab people in the back , people stab you in the back , gotta get fixated on how right and unfallible you are . If you can't fail , well nobody can outperform you . Italians were world leaders in 1932(?) , certainly not so in '42 . That they were the "least" of Great Powers also helped , too late to boost output when everybody was working hard . Considering even Germany was swamped by American Industry . Militaristic regimes should start early to make an unassailable lead , Italians couldn't .
 
Italians were actively designing tanks in the interwar period, and produced some of the more commercially successful designs of the 30s... Tankettes. It was only in the late 30s that design started on actual turreted tanks, and there was a limited manifacturing capability to produce them.

It seems that they managed to produce in quantities a fairly decent light and medium tank, the L6/40 (which was sort of a Stuart-looking Panzer II, started production in '41) and the M13/40 respectively.

It seems that a failure to properly upgrade these models, which were not suitably gunned to deal with newer, better armoured tanks, and suffered from a weak bolted hull construction limited their ability to perform. The M14/41, the M13/40's successor/replacement, addressed the construction problem, but because they needed to produce it in numbers and therefore to make relatively few changes, they kept the obsolescent 45mm gun. On top of that, they had overheating problems, which was a huge liability in Africa, the main theatre of operations for Italian armour.

All in all Italian armour was not too dissimilat from contemporary European designs, but suffered from some critical shortcomings that they never has either the time or the production ability to fix properly.

Apparently they worked on a couple fairly good designs from 1941 onwards, the M16 and P26, which were hampered by delays resulting in the cancellation of the M16 (it was a cruiser tank for the desert, and the Brits had just pushed the Afrikakorps into Tunisia) and a very limited number of P26 built (entering production in '43, shortpy before the capitulation).
 
In the map below, where we see the Gulf's shore in its famous ancient shape, do we also have to achknowledge that the rivers had different lanes?
Is it possible, for example, that the Euphrates' stream used to run exactly through Uruk, Babylon and Sippar, and not just beside them?
upload_2018-8-21_1-18-3.png
 
Was there ever a socialist-leaning government that the US did not meddle in?
 
Israel.

Well okay, they meddled. But not with every Israeli government.
 
Last edited:
Now I want to hear about CIA operations in Andorra.
 
They were behind the overthrow in a police action by Spanish forces of Boris I, self-proclaimed King of Andorra in the 1920s.
 
They were behind the overthrow in a police action by Spanish forces of Boris I, self-proclaimed King of Andorra in the 1920s.
lol, very nice deep cut

fwiw, for non-Catalans: this actually happened and it was GLORIOUS, but it was in the 1930s and the Americans weren't actually involved (certainly not the CIA which didn't exist yet)
 
Ah, dangit, didnt quite remember if 20s or 30s.
 
oh , how do we know that ? Maybe they captured the Bell of Nazis ?
 
I'm writing a fictional novel that I want to be at least somewhat historically accurate.

I need a female character of the following description:

28 years old, attractive, living in Roman Briton in a villa owned by father, she comes from wealth and there could even be slaves on her father's plantation.

The trick is she isn't married, and I know girls were married at literally half that age at the time. For her not to be married would mean there would have to an exception to the norm. I'm sure there were exceptions at some point like there are for almost everything else. But: what would be a plausible exception?
 
She could previously have been married and is now living in her late husband's home, looking after his children? If she was in her 30s and in Rome, she'd be a shoe-in for a retired Vestal Virgin.
 
Christian with a vow of chastity?

Keep in mind, though, that most of these scenarios will severely affect the sorts of stories you will be able to tell.

Just because you might find an excuse to not have your protagonist encumbered by a husband doesn't mean you're now free to have her do whatever you want. The fact that you're looking for a plausible excuse, any excuse, for your protagonist to be unmarried is a bit of a worrying start for the basis of this story.
 
Ok. I can do 'previously married' perhaps. Her ex-husband died or something... and she's looking for a new husband. Is that plausible?

edit: Or I'll just screw what's plausible lol.

thanks everyone
 
Last edited:
It should be her family looking for the husband, romans being patriarchal... I guess she'd have to lack male direct relatives (father, uncles, brothers...) to be on her own doing that?
 
have her attached to some dictator or whatever . Even if the times were flexible in Rome .
 
Back
Top Bottom