If Italy is neutral what does its air force look like by Sept 1942 (1 Viewer)

[Elan Vital]

Interestingly enough, per a report from a visit of Italian engine manufacturers (originally to look for 1000 and 300hp engines for tanks) in or before December 1939, it was reported that FIAT could offer the 1000hp 14 cyl twin-row radial A76 and the 18 cyl derivative to France in 10 months. I just got that report.

Though I suspect that by late 1940 those Italian radials would no longer be so interesting with France ramping up its own production and receiving American radials.

 

[TM06]

While this is a topic primarily about aircraft, I would like to bring attention to the massive implications a neutral Italy would have on Italian tank design.
Italian tanks were highly influenced by the Germans and Russians.
For example; the prototype P 26/40 underwent a major redesign upon Italian troops capturing a T-34, specifically regarding the sloped armour and gun.
Both the Panther and the early T-34-85 were instrumental in the designs of the P.43Bis and P 35/43, with the P 35/43's initially planned engine even being a copy of the V-2 that powered the T-34. The famed Semoventes were also inspired by the StuG and StuH directly.
If Italy is neutral, then they'd be completely removed from these influences, which would almost certainly make Italian tank design even more pitiful than it was historically.

 

[marathag]

Italian tanks were highly influenced by the Germans and Russians

Neutral, they will get examples of both German and Allied Armor, as Sweden did.
It would be different, but not worse.

a dual purpose 75-90mm main armament makes sense after 1941, as with sloped armor, and a big enough engine to move it all around.

 

[GrauGeist]

I am certain that a Neutral Italy would be observant about battlefield equipment success and failures.

The Swiss, who were neutral, adopted the Jagdpanzer 38 as the G-13 into their Army directly postwar. They obviously observed what was going on and decisions were made.

 

[TM06]

Neutral, they will get examples of both German and Allied Armor, as Sweden did.
It would be different, but not worse.

a dual purpose 75-90mm main armament makes sense after 1941, as with sloped armor, and a big enough engine to move it all around.

Sweden arguably had either just as bad or worse WW2-era tank design compared to Italy historically, so I don't know if that's exactly the best example.
While a neutral Italy would have some samples and testing models, I highly doubt that they'd be getting or even seeing the crème de la crème of either side's tanks - especially the Panther.
And while they might come to those conclusions themselves via observation or pure convergent evolution, I don't have the highest faith in them producing a Panther-class tank (or even a Sherman-class tank really) without the hands-on experience they had historically.

 

[marathag]

Sweden arguably had either just as bad or worse WW2-era tank design compared to Italy historically, so I don't know if that's exactly the best example.
While a neutral Italy would have some samples and testing models, I highly doubt that they'd be getting or even seeing the crème de la crème of either side's tanks - especially the Panther.
And while they might come to those conclusions themselves via observation or pure convergent evolution, I don't have the highest faith in them producing a Panther-class tank (or even a Sherman-class tank really) without the hands-on experience they had historically.

Sweden had one of the best pre-war light tanks

Stridvagn L-60 M/38
Torsion bar suspension
8 tons
Later versions were uparmored and upgunned

Italy's L6/40 also used torsion bars

Problem with both, for economic reasons, didn't plan on 30 ton tanks being a requirement, and didn't have the excess Industry to repurpose for doing that when the War started.

Both could observe what was happening on the battlefield.

Just like the USA did a lot of rethinking about the utility of the Machine Gun Cathedral M2 Medium after the Fall of France

And then decided that while the hull and running gear of that was very good, the upperworks wasn't for how armored combat turned out to be.

Now Italy neutral?
Would observe the same thing, that the German tanks worked really well against the French, and the Polish campaign wasn't a fluke, and the M11/39 wouldn't be enough rather than finding out against the British the hard way.

For starters, would need to have a hull big enough for a turret with 50mm AT or 75mm howitzer armament, rather than sponson

11 tons wouldn't be enough for all that, and not being in an actual shooting war, not as much pressure to make the above into the interim13 ton M13/40 for immediate use in active combat theaters in North Africa and the Balkans

The German have a 25 ton medium with a 50mm gun and 30mm of armor, with 300 horsepower.

That's what they need to match for 1940, before they could worry about doing 33 ton M4 Shermans with 50-65mm armor and 75mm guns and 400HP for 1941

The Pesante 26 was designed in 1940 to be a 'Heavy' of 26 tons, to use a 330HP V-12 diesel engine that didn't yet exist,

then redesigned in 1941 to incorporate more slope for the armor

Being Neutral, they follow this path, but have more options, like getting 'gifts' from both sides to sway their politics.

Lean towards Allies?
They get Allied Engines.
Lean German? get Maybachs

Now in a bidding War, the Allies can offer more to Italy, mostly in being able to supply Oil and Coal, that Germany can't match, but if are looking for a higher HP, can look to the USA. Kermath who just lost contracts to Hall-Scott and to Packard in 1942-3

 

[Elan Vital]

Sweden had one of the best pre-war light tanks
View attachment 825938
Stridvagn L-60 M/38
Torsion bar suspension
8 tons
Later versions were uparmored and upgunned

Italy's L6/40 also used torsion bars

Problem with both, for economic reasons, didn't plan on 30 ton tanks being a requirement, and didn't have the excess Industry to repurpose for doing that when the War started.

Both could observe what was happening on the battlefield.

Just like the USA did a lot of rethinking about the utility of the Machine Gun Cathedral M2 Medium after the Fall of France
View attachment 825939
And then decided that while the hull and running gear of that was very good, the upperworks wasn't for how armored combat turned out to be.

Now Italy neutral?
Would observe the same thing, that the German tanks worked really well against the French, and the Polish campaign wasn't a fluke, and the M11/39 wouldn't be enough rather than finding out against the British the hard way.View attachment 825943
For starters, would need to have a hull big enough for a turret with 50mm AT or 75mm howitzer armament, rather than sponson

11 tons wouldn't be enough for all that, and not being in an actual shooting war, not as much pressure to make the above into the interim13 ton M13/40 for immediate use in active combat theaters in North Africa and the Balkans

The German have a 25 ton medium with a 50mm gun and 30mm of armor, with 300 horsepower.

That's what they need to match for 1940, before they could worry about doing 33 ton M4 Shermans with 50-65mm armor and 75mm guns and 400HP for 1941

The Pesante 26 was designed in 1940 to be a 'Heavy' of 26 tons, to use a 330HP V-12 diesel engine that didn't yet exist,
View attachment 825951

then redesigned in 1941 to incorporate more slope for the armor

View attachment 825952

Being Neutral, they follow this path, but have more options, like getting 'gifts' from both sides to sway their politics.

Lean towards Allies?
They get Allied Engines.
Lean German? get Maybachs

Now in a bidding War, the Allies can offer more to Italy, mostly in being able to supply Oil and Coal, that Germany can't match, but if are looking for a higher HP, can look to the USA. Kermath who just lost contracts to Hall-Scott and to Packard in 1942-3
View attachment 825962

M13/40 was already specified in 1938 and already ordered in production in early 1940, so that will stay.

Carro Pesante was also specified in 1938, and was on ongoing project during mid 1940, and probably was started before the Fall of France so would probably not have been cancelled by continued Italian neutrality. The P26/40 that resulted was delayed by at least 3 events: analysis of a captured T-34 which apparently led to the big redesign (sloped armor and 75/34 gun instead of 75/32), bombardment of the factory where it was to be made in 1942 I believe, continued production of the M13/M15 series. Likely all these factors will not happen for a neutral Italy.

In general the advantage of a neutral Italy is that in spite of reduced mobilization and no new combat experience, the Italian forces of 1942 will probably end up being more efficient than their IRL counterpart simply because trained personnel, ammunition and materiel won't be expended in combat but instead will accumulate over time. Reduced manpower mobilization in the armed forces will leave more (skilled) personnel for the industry, while reduced urgency should reduce teh amount of corner-cutting that is normal in wartime. The buildup of ammunition stockpiles and ready materiel will allow some branches like the tank forces to train more properly, something which ended up being impossible IRL.

In the particular case of Italy staying neutral because metropolitan France holds, the Italian industry may also get orders from France as happened before May 1940, that is if the more hawkish fascist leaders in Italy accept more exports instead of blocking them as happened with the British Re 2000 or Italian-built French 25mm AA. The presence of a fierce battlefront in Europe during the June 1940 - June 1941 period (which was instead a relative lull IRL) instead of just the North African theater might also spook the Italians into intensifying their own rearmament efforts, moreso than the IRL North African theater which involved the Italians more directly but was still on another scale than a late 1940-Spring 41 Northeastern France/Benelux theater.