[quillin]

From reading this topic, the major problem would be supplying the army. I wonder, did Graziani used the port of Sollum? O'Conner did it, not that it was enough to completly supply his army but it reduced the pressure on his transport system.
So, if the Italians where to march beyond Sidi Barrani then the question would be, how good can the navy supply the troops. I mean, are there other small ports that can be used to dock a ship and sent supplies once you get beyond Solum?

Then there's also the question of the British tanks. The British had pulled back to Mersa Marthut (can remember the right spelling). So, the Italians had to face the Western Desert Force at Mersa. So, they have to take it on against the 7th Armoured Division that was mainly equiped with cruiser tanks and a handfull of Mathilda's. How good are the 47mm AT gun and M-13 tanks against the cruiser tanks? If they can't handel those cruisers, the 7th AD can easely destroy the Italian Tank force and then take on the infantry.

[falco]

IIRC Cruiser tanks could be dealt with: not easily but it could be done. I don't know however, if the 37mm gun of the M13/39 was enough to deal with them. Anyway the big problem were the Matildas in my opinion. Italians learned that in order to stop them with the 47mm AT gun they had to let themselves literally overrun by the tank, possibly having some sort of obstacle to surpass or something to make the tank show its underbelly. In fact also heavier gun's shells did often bounce off (EP rounds still weren't in big supply at that time, i think).

For me the idea to explore would be: tanks and the most artillery which was possible to convert to "autocannoni" (lorry mounted) launched along the via Balbia, just how to resupply it? Maybe could a combination of "motozzattere" and airlifts be a part of the solution? Then the main body should follow... by foot parhaps? Anyway Graziani's Army was in the 200.000 men region, maybe he had enough material to motorize say half of them?

[quillin]

I don't think so, Falco. The Italian army was short in trucks. They even borrowed trucs from private coörperations to hold parades with their motorized units.
Supply by air. I wonder how the Italians are going to do that. They need to build airfields or repair damaged British airfields. All that would also need supplies and that would mean, less supplies that can be delivered to the troops.
I stay by supplying as much as possible by sea in order to lower some pressure of the transport system.

[Davide Pastore]

quillin said:

I wonder, did Graziani used the port of Sollum? O'Conner did it, not that it was enough to completly supply his army but it reduced the pressure on his transport system.

I seriously doubt it. Sollum was basically a naked harbour (the term "port" is totally misleading) with minimal capability.
During the El Alamein campaign at Sollum were unloaded only about 100t per day, or about 3% of the total Axis supply.

quillin said:

I mean, are there other small ports that can be used to dock a ship

The only ports in Libya were: Tripoli, Bengasi, Tobruk, period.
Ships could not approach anywhere else.
Minor harbours (Marsa Matruh, Sollum, Derna, Ras Ilal, Bardia) could only receive small trawlers.

quillin said:

How good are the 47mm AT gun and M-13 tanks against the cruiser tanks?

Italian 47/32 is as likely to hole a cruiser as British 2pr is likely to hole a M13, so there was no difference in paper capabilities (actually many British observer claimed the Italian gun had better performance, since it carried an explosive warhead).
The real differences were doctrine and training (other than the hugely difference in mobility between cruiser and M13), and here Italians were totally helpless.

[falco]

Davide Pastore said:

quillin said:

How good are the 47mm AT gun and M-13 tanks against the cruiser tanks?

Italian 47/32 is as likely to hole a cruiser as British 2pr is likely to hole a M13, so there was no difference in paper capabilities (actually many British observer claimed the Italian gun had better performance, since it carried an explosive warhead).
The real differences were doctrine and training (other than the hugely difference in mobility between cruiser and M13), and here Italians were totally helpless.

M13 had a 37mm gun though. It is true taht 47/32 had good anti-personnel capabilities thank its explosive warhead but I read somewhere that this very characteristic hampered its A/T capabilities since armor piercing rounds were not in big supply at the beginning and the weight and stiffness of the explosive warhead wasn't enough to deal with heavier tanks. In addition to this, the barrel lenght was a compromise in order to use explosive shells as well as AP shells so it could not fully exploit the possibilities of the AP rounds because muzzle velocity was not optimal. The variant mounted on the M14/42 had a longer barrel just for this purpoise, I think. The problem was partially solved with EP (Effetto Pronto) rounds, nicknamed Effetto Pernacchia (raspberry or bronx cheer effect) because they were still too light for heavier tanks.
I'd add communication to the points highlighted by Davide :)

Any thoughts about the points brought up earlier?

Regards

[Davide Pastore]

falco said:

M13 had a 37mm gun though

No, of course.

The M11/39 was the tank with a 37mm gun.

falco said:

The variant mounted on the M14/42 had a longer barrel

The correct tank is the M15/42.

The M14/41 had the same gun as the M13/40.

falco said:

The problem was partially solved with EP (Effetto Pronto)

However the shaped-charge shells (EP & EPS) were not particularly effective in the 47mm caliber (the effect increasing with the calibre). Quite possibly the 47mm EP / EPS was less effective than the normal AP shot at short range - although the penetration was unaffected by distance, so at long range it was superior.

[falco]

OUCH!
Thank you for correcting me: the guy has few ideas, but confused :) :)

So the correct geneaqlogy is:

M11/39 with 37mm gun in the hull
M13/40 with 47/32 gun in the turret
M14/41 with 47/32 gun in the turret
M15/42 with 47/XX (longer tube) in the turret

Both the hull of M13 and M14 were used to produce the Semovente da 75mm. right?

Is this correct? I wonder if the M15/42 saw service in North Africa and, if its gun proved somewath more effective than the earlier models.

IIRC the M13/40 and M14/41 are very difficult to tell one from the other looking at the outside: I wonder where the additional ton came from and which were the major improvements, but I don't know if this goes too far off topic.

Regards

[Carl Schwamberger]

Earlier in this thread there was a refrence to removing combat material and soldiers from the Tunisian frontier to reinforce the eastern Egyptian frontier. What was the strength, composition and location of this Tunisian frontier corps or group? Any source describing it would be welcome, & thanks.

[Davide Pastore]

falco said:

M15/42 with 47/XX (longer tube)

47/40 to be precise.

falco said:

Both the hull of M13 and M14 were used to produce the Semovente da 75mm. right?

Correct. However they are identified as M40 and M41 (and M42 too).

falco said:

I wonder if the M15/42 saw service in North Africa

I don't think so but I might be wrong.