HOME | DD
history-nerd — A small cameo...
Published: 2014-03-17 17:28:57 +0000 UTC; Views: 1421; Favourites: 13; Downloads: 6
Redirect to original
Description
At first, I hadn't noticed it, when watching Episode 5 of GuP.When I did, I wanted to punch myself in the face for missing it.
Anyway, here is a model of the first Italian tank ever, the Fiat 2000! Only two prototypes were completed, in 1917, because the tank proved to be too slow and too prone to get stuck in the mud. Still, it was one of the very first tanks in which the main armament (in this case a 65 mm gun) was mounted in a fully rotating turret.
Related content
Comments: 20
interesting, with some littel modification, biggen, better engine and a bit less weight, for eg less guns it could have worked out perfectly
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Perhaps we can safelu assume that now, but then it was pretty much unknown country, and there was even uncertainty about the opportunity of developing such weapons for a theater in which the terrain was rather unfavorable (since the Italian-Austrian frontier was mostly mountainous).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
XD pretty unknown country, lol I wouldn't say that. But true the Isonzo front was pretty difficult terrain, but we still kicked your ass pretty good, with just a quarter of our army, or I even could say 1/5th. I hope no harsh feelings.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, since we idiots were attacking and you were mostly defending, yes, I say you did well, even though when our front broke we managed to get our stuff together before you could walk all over us. No harsh feelings, I can confirm that!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well at Caporetto we managed to break your line and surround most of your troops. Just the French support and the lack of armaments for deep advancement (such as tanks) from our side, allowed the front to stabilize at the river Mincio, any other way our army could reach Venice easily.
Don’t worry, I have no harsh feelings either, although back then Italy attacked its allies when switching sides to the Entent. Plus I don’t really think it was worth it, yeah okay you came out on the winning side, (buy sheer luck and the economic support of the US, not by any military victory) in an economic and social state on the level of the losers… not as if there would be any real victors in First World War…
Whatever, I always say soldiers were/are heroes, no matter which side they are on, their victories are worth remembering as glorious events, while their defeats are worth for remembering cuz of their tragic sense, once again no matter the side they are on.
Leaders and ideologies are to blame from both sides, not the brave men who fight for their King and Country.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually, it was Anglo-French support (some 11 divisions in all), and I think it was the Piave river in which the advance finally stalled.
You're right, in the end it wasn't worth it, not for us (we were barely beginning to transform into an industrialized nation, and our society and institutions were rather old-styled and could not cope with the trauma of the war), and not for anyone else, save perhaps for the United States.
I completely agree!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
True XD Piave I was looking for that… thanks… and yes our advance stopped there… while the next offensive in oct 1918 catastrophically failed on the tired famished troops and their moral, still after the Italian counter we managed to hold out and secure the line, till from back home the new revolutionary Republican leaders betrayed and called back the troops, even letting most of them be captured. As I said leaders and ideologies are to blame.
Well I would be happier with Italy fighting on the Central Powers side, with the Central Powers winning the war, we could have avoid a lot more horrors in the 20th century…
USA gained the most on it that’s for sure, but I wouldn’t call then winners either, the great economic crisis got to them too. As clear consequence of destroying the old world.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
To be completely honest, the initial attacks were aimed at the Monte Grappa massif, where the defenders were helped by the terrain, and on the Piave, where the situation was more favourable, the river was swollen by the rain, therefore it took some time before enough troops could be ferried on the other side. While the resistance was initially ferocious, mutinies and disorders were as much as a factor as the uncertain leadership from Wien, I think.
It is true that the high command made quite a blunder and its announcement caused many soldiers to get captured. However, I think that the Republicans had little to do with it, since Emperor Charles didn't formally retire from state affairs until November 11, long after the armistice with Italy.
I don't know... it is possible, but how do we know we wouldn't have had different horrors to deal with? We can hardly assume that a different course would ensure no genocides, no wars and such.
Their crisis took them a good 10 years after the war; so they had plenty of time to enjoy their position as premier economic power of the world.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Maybe so, but the devices factor still was the starving state of our troops.
Yes Charles just withdraw from politics on the 11. of November, but already from the 14 of October (when he issued the order for every nationality to form National councils, in Charles hopes the new bases for the federal Empire) power shifted from his hand, also from the hand of the old Governments and the High Command.
Then the Aster revolution is Hungary came, Archduke Joseph was forced to make Mihály Károlyi the head on the new Hungarian Government, against the clear order from Charles.
The seize fire achieved by Charles, was actually still very favorable for us, an all fronts, including the Italian the A/H troops stood on enemy territory, then these national councils, the later first Governments of the new Republics, just simply called their "own" troops home Kárily even said, he doesn't want to see anymore soldiers. He agreed with the Italian high command to capture almost half of the pulling out Hungarian contingent, so he doesn't have to bother with re-assimilating into society, for a couple more months. These action allowed the Entent troops to march in on us without any opposition and to take from us any room left (fought for by Charles) to negotiate.
In fact some of these councils, namely the southern slave ones withdraw their troops, even before the Seize fire and the Piave offensive.
Well a definitely a very grime time of our History... full with betrayal... and bad decisions made one after an other.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you for these details, I didn't know them.
Alas, history is often full of betrayals and lukewarm (at best) decisions that thereafter prove to be blunders.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No problem, this is actually the filed of my interest and expertise, next to WWII weaponry
True, unfortunately its very much so like that
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Nice catch! I would like one of these from the show :3
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks.
But I think it would be unlikely. These things aren't up to WWII standards.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
they seem more like WWI than WWII
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
So there wasn't only the Renault FT-17 who had a fully rotating turret !
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, the Renault was the first to have a modern architecture; the Fiat 2000 still drew upon the British Mark-series tanks, so its turret was kind of awkward.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes indeed. However this tank can fire everywhere, since there is a gun on each side (except rear, but there is the turret to compensate) and on each corner
The mobility of such a tank would have been very low, but it would be used as a mobile (well...) bunker
(it's what I call a "typical WW1 tank fantasy", a slow and big tank with a gun on each side at least, but maybe as much as possible, in the designer's head...)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually, there was a 65 mm gun in the turret, and the rest were machine-guns... this model is not 100% accurate... ^^'
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh... at least, enemy infantry couldn't come near ^^
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, that wouldn't have been advised...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0