RESEARCHABLE heavy tank for Italy please

The Tas was fully built, so it is more realistic.

Yet, every component was built. And to my knowledge even assembled. So it is much better than Gaijin’s imaginary vehicles.

What makes you say that? Where did you find information saying that it was fully built and every component was built and assembled? Can you show us the sources?

*To my knowledge. Should have added it.

The hull/chassis was fully completed and in running condition before the factory was bombed.

It seems that it was already made and tested, but was further developed and improved because it wasn’t fully ready. I wouldn’t call final tweaks to a functioning gun “a long way off”.

Yes, I think officially the 75 mm 43.M gun was a prototype, but several had been made and it was fully functional and fully complete. I don’t think it was being developed further so it essentially was a fully ready gun rather than a prototype.

If by this you mean a proposed 700 hp Weiss Manfred engine, then that idea was abandoned as far as I’m aware, so it’s not fair to say “it was a long way off” when they weren’t even going with that idea.

No it wouldn’t. 520 hp for a 37+ ton tank is not that bad. A hp/ton ratio of 12-14 is not bad, it’s just not light tank level. Many great mediums and heavies had a hp/ton ratio in this range, so for the Tas medium/heavy tank this would have been fine. Also, the idea of using tested, reliable, widespread engines that are in mass production for this tank was the best idea.

Yeah, this part I agree with. It really depends on what mood Gaijin decides to have when they consider this tank.

1 Like

Ok, I’m not doubting you, I’m genuinely interested where you’ve come across such information.

Absolutely. At least with the 75 mm gun if they aren’t feeling the 80 mm.

Sorry, i meant that line as “i should have added it (that to my knowledge)”.

I don’t really remember. I’ve read about it a few years ago.

That’s why saying it is “more realistic than the E-100” was contested, since it’s pretty much the same situation with regards to assembly.

1 Like

Having a prototype chassis with an ad hoc substitute powerplant is not running condition. more importantly the prototype chassis was made out of iron, not even mild steel or hardened steel as the hungarians were having issues welding thicker steel plates.

There was a different 80mm conversion of the 80mm AA gun from 1942 for a different project from before design work on the 44m even started, that is probably what you’re thinking of. the 80mm for the 44m only managed to produce a single prototype which had numerous problems and was in not state for serial let alone mass production. a realistic timeframe for it’s mass production, even given an optimistic period to fix is issues, was well outside the invasion and occupation by the soviets.

Well, they had only produced 2 examples of the 75mm by the time the factory was destroyed, which isn’t several. and being a prototype inherently means it isn’t “fully comeplete”.

Multi engine setups increas complexity, decreasing reliability and losing power to transmission linkages using a multi-engine setup. for example the multi engine GM 6046 was a good adaptation that had a single output shaft, and it was still the least reliable of all the inline engines used in the shermans. there are reasons they are scarcely used and never for long. even in a perfect world it would have been underpowered, and tank weights only go up.

You say this like it was still years from being ready. We have to remember the Hungarians made ‘prototypes’ of the Turan III and Zrinyi I and basically these were fully complete functional vehicles that were accepted into service without really even being changed.

The double Turan engine setup was not an “ad hoc substitute”, but the final confirmed design. There was no plan to replace these engines with some non-existent super alternative that they didn’t have. So it isn’t an “ad hoc substitute” of anything.

Running condition means running condition, no matter whether you don’t like the engine setup or the classification of the vehicle. The fact is that it was a complete, functional tank chassis, thus it was in running condition.

As I think we have said before, there were 2 prototype chassis. One was iron and one was fully armoured (maybe mild steel if I remember correctly).

Ok, our speculations of exactly how close to being complete the 80 mm gun was is pointless, what matters is that it did exist in some functional form and therefore is not a problem.

Idk, I remember reading that 3 were made (3 counts as several), but that’s not that important. Again here, the 75 mm 43.M tank gun was mounted on both the Turan III and Zrinyi I ‘prototypes’ which were both tested and accepted into service and their guns were clearly finished and didn’t need any changes (or else the vehicles wouldn’t have been accepted into service and the guns would have immediately been dismounted and redesigned). I’m not sure why they kept the classification of the gun as a ‘prototype’ (or whether they changed this later and we just don’t know about it), but they were clearly done and fully functional, so what words you use doesn’t matter because they functioned like fully ready guns rather than partially complete non-working prototypes.

Alright, of course two engines working together is not the most optimal solution, but who cares? We aren’t discussing whether it would have had the best powerplant in the world or not, so long as they work ok, it would have been fine. Besides, this tank would have been used to (almost statically) defend Hungary rather than to cover thousands of miles invading the USSR, so long-term reliability and top speed were no real priorities.

It would have been fine, not underpowered at all. It is not a light or highly mobile medium tank, but rather a well-armoured medium or heavy tank. Even if we are really pessimistic and say it would have had a hp/ton ratio of 11, that would still be more than enough for a heavy tank used for defensive purposes.

1 Like

Ideally it would be. there are always issues with new designs that need to be ironed out. that development times were shortened during the second world war is not because those problems got fixed faster but because those problems are tolerated due to urgent materiel needs.

It was literally an ad hoc substitution. the vehicle was not designed for it, the planned engine wasn’t ready so they used what they had as was needed and available. that they settled on it doesn’t change the fact that it was an ad hoc choice. you might need to brush up on your definitions.

Why are you fighting the obvious fact that this wasn’t a complete vehicle? there was a what was actually demonstrators, not a prototypes (because it was made of iron and mild steel and not hardened steel). That could move under it’s own power without a turret or any armament for that matter and was destroyed before it could even undertake trials as far as we know. it’s like you’re trying to equate it to a serial production vehicle.

The second was mild steel and the first one built in steel, therefore a demonstrator. prototype literally means first impression as they are intended to be the initial example of a finished product. mild steel is used because it is far easier to use than hardened steel, and while there can be mild steel prototyped this was not. it had no turret or weapons and was not armed. sure, gaijin could go the paper vehicle route and make estimations on it’s capabilities it it was completed to serial production but it would still be a paper vehicle.

That the hungarians had functional 80mm guns is far from being the same as the 44M examples that existed being able to carry an 80mm gun. i have no doubt that given time they would have been able to mount an 80mm gun in the turret. the problem is that the one turret example that was supposedly build was persumably, with regards to lack of documentation and the development level of the cassis, built in mild steel too. it was also apparently built to carry the 75mm.

as far as i have been able to see there are nno publicly available primary sources on the program. the books that are available are all in hungarian and i’m not even sure if any of them have been translated, but they indicate 2 chassis’ built, 1 iron and 1 mild steel. Yes, the 43M 75 mm L/43 was a functional in production tank gun. i would wager that it was classified as a prototype because they hadn’t been able to develop the design to their desired level due to the dire wartime conditions. there seem to have been at least a few serially produced examples.

That’s the whole reason they settled on that power plant solution, it was the best they could do under the conditions they were in. it certainly was far from ideal, given that they planned to have a 700hp engine. reliablility and power would likely have been issues, but it was better that to have nothing at all. the problem is it’s potential implementation in game.

Actually, tanks with poor reliability often do more harm than good compared to producing and using mature predecessors. as exemplified by early Pz. 5s and 6s. an immobile tank is extremely vulnerable and almost tactically useless and unless it can be recovered is a waste of resources. the engines were also gasoline fueled so torque would probably be a real issue even if they were reliable.

Overall gaijin would have to make alot of assumptions with it’s implimentation to make it a functional vehicle. there was a time when they did that but they have subsequently backed away from that position. it might end up making it’s way into the game, but like the Panther 2, Tiger 105 and R2Y2s it will be a paper vehicle.

A third one was ordered to be made for the TAS project. * Haditechnika 2006 page 454. {Military technology magazine,} Also mentions it and shares the completion stages and dates . The primary source can be dug up too if and when it is necessary…Haditechnika cites its sources or the historians who write these parts of it usually have other works that mention the documents and where in which archive it can be found


“Not a panther”

Of course, TAS would be a cool non-clone addition for the Italy.

1 Like

Well, it really isn’t.

Did you forget that the P40 is an early Heavy tank? Another thing is Italy didn’t have many Heavy Tanks. Mind you the word i put there was “Many”.

I stated in the original post that the P.26/40 is a medium tank (because it is). Italy may have classed it as a heavy tank (for propaganda purposes), but its armour and firepower were far too weak to be even remotely considered a heavy tank, and it weighed a meagre 26 tons; nowhere near a heavy tank’s level of weight. It really was simply a medium tank. Now you implied Italy also had other heavy tanks, so please name these.

That was a joke, not me being serious.

In terms of the design when it was designed, it was still more armored compared to tanks of the 1940. However, it had several redesigns until the design that was produced in 1943. I can’t agree less. However, this would not change the fact that it was still a Heavy Tank, propaganda or not. It just wasn’t a very good one.

At least the P40 is more of a heavy-tank than everythig over a caliber of 75 mm… I think the P40 could be classified as a hevy-tank ingame, as it heavier than a Matilda, which is a heavytank but would be very misleading from a gameplay perspective. Maybe keep as a medium but allow to do the heavy challenges somehow?

No, even by 1940 design standards it isn’t a heavy tank. It only had 50 mm of armour, a short 75 mm gun, and weighed 26 tons, that’s completely medium tank level. Just look at the Soviet T-34; it was designed at the same time, has a comparable short 76 mm gun, also weighed 26 tons, and has 45 mm of armour, albeit more sloped than the P.26/40’s armour. So even the early T-34/76 weighed as much, was as well armed and better armoured than this so-called Italian ‘heavy’ tank. And nobody calls the T-34 a heavy tank, in fact, it is the baseline standard typical medium tank.

To continue the comparisons, look at the legendary M4A1 Sherman, designed at the same time too. It has 51 - 76 mm of armour at similar and greater slopes than the P.26/40 (thus it is far more armoured). It weighs significantly more, at 31 tons, and has a better 75 mm gun. So to summarise, the Sherman is a more armoured, heavier, and better armed P.26/40… so if you consider the P.26/40 a heavy tank, logically you consider the Sherman as even more of a heavy tank… yet nobody considers the Sherman a heavy tank, and again, it is a baseline standard medium tank!

Or look at the Panzer III N. It has 53 mm of armour, a similar short 75 mm gun, and weighs 23 tons. Quite similar to the P.26/40, yet everyone knows without a shadow of a doubt that it is a medium tank and clearly not a heavy.

Now if you actually want to see some real heavy tanks from around the era, look at the British Churchill I, which was designed and built slightly before the P.26/40. It has 89 - 102 mm of armour (much more than the P.26/40), weighs 38 tons (much more than the P.26/40), and has a 76 mm gun as well as a 40 mm gun (more firepower than the P.26/40).

Or look at the French Char B1 ter, which was a late variant of a tank designed in the late 1920s! Even this late variant was designed and built before the P.26/40. It has 70 mm of armour (more), weighs 37 tons (much more), and is armed with a short 75 mm gun and a 47 mm gun (more firepower).

Or lastly look at the KV-1, which was also developed around that time. I don’t think I even need to mention specifics, because it clearly had far better armour, firepower, and weighed much more than the puny P.26/40.

And that’s before I mention that the P.26/40 only entered production in 1943! By that time, the real heavy tanks were the Tiger I and IS-1 (to which the P.26/40 looks like a light tank), and the medium tank competition was stuff like the Panther or the early T-34/85, and even those were like heavy tanks to the P.26/40.

So no, the P.26/40 very clearly is not a heavy tank, nor is it remotely close. There are very clearly medium tanks that would make a better case for being a heavy tank, and the P.26/40 doesn’t even compare to heavy tanks of an earlier generation. Unless we ignore history and pretend the P.26/40 is a 1930s tank, there is no way you can pass it off as a heavy tank! So clearly re-classing the P.26/40 as a heavy tank is not the solution.