Hi,
maybe the Autoblinda Lince?
This was a licence of Daimler Dingo.
Built in acceptable number (250 pcs).
regards:
TGR
Hello Tiger205. 
You are, of course, correct.
I should have specified the period prior to September 1943.
Though from memory even in the case of the Lince, true production did not get underway until after the British had delivered to Autoblinda a number of the relevant British welding jigs.
Memory says that Italy in general terms had few facilities available
for welding. Again I’m open to the idea I may be wrong about that, I have forgotten a lot of what I once knew.
Kind regards, Uyraell.
and let you imagine the HUNGARIAN industry - licence of the Italian Fighters 
plus - our first “tanks” were CV-33/35
regards:
TGR
One more comment:
Anyway, riveted or not, the Semovente was very useful - like our Zrinyi - SO the self-propelled-guns had higher respect than our(and Italian too) tanks.
regards:
TGR
The Zryni was a rather better vehicle than may have been suggested by it’s appearance.
And though the Semovente is mentioned more often, I think I’d prefer the Zryni or Zryni II.
I’m not certain I’d say the same of Turan, because I always felt it to be under-gunned.
All in all, Hungarian industry had better designs than were predicted or expected by any of the larger nations. Yes, Hungarian industry handicapped itself by never deciding on adequate allocation of limited resources, and by allowing an ever-expanding task-base or set of goals to exist alongside the resource allocation issue.
However: in general the Hungarian designs were well-thought-out, innovative, and very produce-able. In the field, they would have worked well.
The same cannot be said in regard to Italian vehicles.
Kind Regards Tiger205, Uyraell.
Dear Mr. Uyraell,
Thanks a lot in the name of our industry 
OFF
The fact is that we lost the war and 2/3 of our country (!) worsened by the Antant contorll and small-Antant (CZ, SHS, RUM) revulsion about our re-arming.
Until 1938 nothing important hapenned!
So later we have bought the licenses for a Czech tank and a Swedis one.
The first became the Turan (Basic of Zrinyi), the later is the Toldi.
The riveted and thinny armour, the complicated power-train and track system was not outstanding (troublesome) even at the time of purchase, BUT noone else wanted to sell tanks to us (see Mezek aircraft and Israel after war).
The Czech gun was not adequate during the tests, so we installeed the well knowen amd good bofors licence 40 mm one.
For a much stronger (long barell) gun the diameter of the turret was inadequate.
(anyways, in Turan II. the need for infantry support motivatedd us to install short barell 75 mm).
The Zrinyi (named after a Hungarian Hero (family)) was derived from this construction with its disadvantages (small interior (more details later, if you need) and the advantages of SPGs.
Maybe open a topic about this issue???
Regards:
TGR
Dear Mr Tiger205,you’re more than welcome.
I’m aware Hungarian industry was, to a large degree, handicapped by the prior decades, and that the resulting vehicles suffered issues as a direct consequence.
Some of the Turan, Toldi, Zrinyi, details I am aware of, but I’d make no claim to complete expertise on those vehicles. Yes, I have some knowledge, but by no means vast.
As to a thread, Why not? Damn good Idea, I’d say, because vehicles in general from that part of the world remain relatively unknown even today.
I do have a book on Czech designs, but would have to dig it out from where it has spent many years buried, along with various other reference books.
Suffice to say I’d welcome a thread on Hungarian AFVs and relevant soft-skinned vehicles.
A parallell thread might well be topical for Czech vehicles, organised in similar manner.
Alternately, a single thread, covering both nations, and a second thread covering Licence-derived vehicles as in the case of the various Carden-Lloyd Carriers that became, for example, the Bren/Universal Carrier, Renault UE, CV33/35, Panzer 1; or the Czech vehicles Licence-produced in Sweden; and the Russian vehicles Licence-produced.
Thinking on it, a “Licence_Derived_Vehicles” thread would make a lot of sense, provided it clearly identified the original and subsequently Licence-Derived vehicles and distinguished between each case.
The forum has more than enough expert members to provide contributions.
Kind Regards, Tiger205, Uyraell.
Mr. Uyraell!
I have prepared both threads you adviced, so please USE them!
:lol:
TGR
Many Many Thanks Tiger205.
I shall read them and follow up where able, be assured.
Currently, various realworld matters limit My on-forum time, for which I make apology in cases where I might have otherwise been sooner able to reply.
Kind and Warm Regards Tiger205, Uyraell.
THE SAME?
THE SAME!!!
:lol:
Currently, various realworld matters limit My on-forum time, for which I make apology in cases where I might have otherwise been sooner able to reply.
Sorry for that,
TGR
For GermanSoldier. Italian tank picture in color. The picture shows a 47mm Ansaldo 47/32 Gun. This tank was very much used in North Africa. With a AA gun and great muzzle velocity gave it a great fighting chance.
It is no doubt that Italian tanks played an important role in many of their victorys, but I would not want to be a tanker in one of the Italian tanks.[/QUOTE]
First sorry for my very bad english. This photo had not a realy photo but a model made by a great modeler. Y write the name of the modeler and the address site in another post because, y have lost the address sory.
Friendly Fred
For veldm. keitel, the photo of Semovente is took in the Ansaldo farbric in Génes in 1st february 1943, the Semovente in your left is a Semovente M42 da 75/18 and the Semovente in your right is the prototype of Semovent 105/23 (Bassoto). For more explanation go to Italie 1935-45.com.
PS: Sorry for my english
Friendly Fred
Sorry gentlemen but my english its very poor also y answer in french, translate for me please.
Votre question est trés interéssante, car elle souléve l’un des principaux problème de l’Italie avant son entrée en guerre, car tout simplement elle n’y a jamais été prête, Mussolini c’est lancé dans un guerre sans aucune infracstructure conséquente, son tissu industriel date des années 20 donc adapté a un temps de paix, mais pas pour une production de guerre, si vous regardez des photos d’usines Italiennes de l’époque, vous remarquerez de suite le manque de modernisme des installations et surtout la petitesse des chaines de montages, de plus la production de métaux que cela soit pour les avions ou pour les chars est trés inférieurs à ce qu’elle devrait être, la livraison de minerais étranger en est de même, n’oubliez pas messieurs que l’Italie est un pays essentielement agricole, il n’a pas encore fait sa révolution industriel comme l’on déja fait l’Allemagne l’angleterre et la France du coté européen. Un autre problème se gréve dessus , les aciers produits sont de piétre qualité, ce qui handicapera beaucoup de matériel. Lorsque vous demandez s’ils étaient capable de sortir des nouveaux blindés et autres engins, ma réponse et oui et non, oui parce que de tout temps les ingénieurs Italiens ont été de grands découvreurs et non car d’un autre coté l’archaïsme de leur conception de montage les a toujours freinés. Le terme de rationnalisation n’a jamais fait parti du vocabulaire Italien en temps de guerre je m’entend. Pour vous donner un exemple, il faut savoir que, je parle ici d’aviation, le chasseur le plus produit de la guerre est un biplan, le Fiat CR42, il a été produit à 1950 exemplaire et sa conception remonte aux années trente, cela ne veut pas dir que les ingénieur italiens soit défaillant dans la conception et l’étude de chasseurs performant, l’Italie produira un chasseur supérieur au Meeserschhmitt 109K de l’époque, le Fiat G55, il est vrais qu’il avait un moteur DB603, mai seulement… 113 exemplaires furent construit. Il en va de même avec l’armement terrestre, les ingénieur Italiens avaient dans leurs tirroires de bons projets, mais pas d’infrastructures adéquats pour les mettrent en oeuvre, ainsi beaucoups de véhicule qui étaient prometteurs ne dépassérent pas le stade de la planche à dessin ou ne furent construit que sous la forme de prototype, ou arrivérent trop en retard dans la guerre pour être d’une quelquonque utilité. J’éspére vous avoir éclairé un peu plus sur ce passionnant sujet, pardonnez moi d’avoir écrit dans ma langue, mais je ne mannis pas assez bien l’anglais pour faire une telle réponse.
Friendly Fred
Here’s the Google translation:
Your question is very interesting because it raises a major problem in Italy before going to war, because it simply has never been ready, Mussolini is engaged in a war with no consistent infracstructure, its industrial dated 20s then featured in a peacetime, but not for war production, if you look at pictures of Italian factories of the time, you will notice immediately the lack of modern facilities and especially the small assembly lines, production of more metal than it is for airplanes or the tanks is very inferior to what it should be, the delivery of foreign ore is the same, remember that the gentlemen Italy is a predominantly agricultural country, it has not yet made its industrial revolution as we already made Germany the England and France on the European side. Another problem is above strike, the steel products are of poor quality, the handicap lot of material. When you ask if they were able to climb out of the new armor and other gear, and my answer yes and no, yes, because any time the Italian engineers were great explorers and not because of another side of the archaic assembly design has always hampered. The term rationalization has never been part of the Italian language in time of war I hear me. To give you an example, we must know that I am talking about aviation, the most produced fighter of the war is a biplane, the Fiat CR42, it was produced in 1950 copies and its design dates back to the thirties, this dir is not that Italian engineer is faulty in design and performance study of hunters, Italy produce a hunter Meeserschhmitt above 109K at the time, the Fiat G55, it is true that he had an engine DB603 May only … 113 copies were manufactured. It’s the same with land weapons, the Italian engineer had in their drawers of good projects, but no adequate infrastructure for mettrent implemented, and many vehicles were promising that did not go beyond the stage of board design were not constructed in the form of prototype, or arrived too late in the war to be a quelquonque utility. I hope this explains a little about this fascinating subject, forgive me for writing in my language, but I do not Mannis English well enough to make such a response.
Thank you very much fot this translation Byron.
Friendly Fred
Not only the general condition of Italy is bad but also governance by Fascism. Hitler start an invest campaign to raise his industry to certain level that can permit it to sustain a war. While starting with a Germany economically destroyed, Hitler arrive at 1939 with ad industrial complex where young and brilliant designer has all the resources needed to create new projects. The Army has accumulated and huge amount of every type of equipment while spending a lot of efforts in training.
Mussolini, for various reason, never try to follow this path. He supports in various way the growing industry of Italy but Mussolini doesn’t spent resources into specialization of industrial complex in wartime production. Italy doesn’t spent any effort in creation of reserve of military equipment or huge training program for his soldiers. When Mussolini ask to his highest officials when Italy can enter at war in 1939, the best response is 1943, and at this time Italy will only accumulated a reserve of equipment and train an sufficient number of soldier, there is no way that Italy in 4 years can be able to develop a complex industrial complex needed for a modern war. Mussolini use for propaganda purpose single achievement like transatlantic flight or win in Schneider Cup, but in real he knew that Italy cannot sustain his Army, even in a short campaign like France.
I think that the most significant expression of this is a phrase from the diary of a RAF pilot that fight over Malta: “when i see them [the italians] attach with their ruin [the italian airplanes] i don’t know if laugh for derision or cry for emotion”.
Semovente ruotato 90/53 breda 501
Short series armored truck, it was an “portee” with 90 mm Ansaldo AA gun.The 6x6 lorry wasfully plated with 30mm frotal armor and 8 mm on the sides. close range protection was provided by two 8mm Bredas 38.
The 90 mm gun had a 53 calibers tube and a muzzle velocity of 865 mps with High explosive ammunition and 845 mps with armor piercing ammo, was in fact a little more powerful than the infamous 88mm flak.
An diesel V8 142 or 190 hp engine allowed a maximum road speed of 59 km/h.
It came too late to see service in Africa so it was deployed with coastal protection units in southern Italy.
I thought that this may be of interest to you all. This tank is located some 30km NW of Kufra, in the Libyan Desert. Local folk law has it as one of Graziani’s tanks that was destroyed by the Senussi, who were defending Kufra against the advancing Italian Army in 1931. It looks like it could be a Fiat, but the track mechanism is not like any of the photos I have been able to find from this period. Can anyone identify it?
The car is at the same location, although I suspect it has been placed there at a later date. Again, I would be interested in its identity. Could it be similar to those used by the Long Range Desert Group?
It looks like an early Stuart light tank, though I cant place the version,I’ll guess at M-3 (A1)