BlairWitch749
Banned
You're absolutely right, if Italy wanted to field any significant amount of tanks they really had no other choice than to rivet the armor. I do wonder what would happen if they'd had a small number of competent tanks instead of the much larger number of crappy tanks.
Now, the riveted tanks did make a lot of sense for the interwar Italian escapades, as there was little to no AT fire. It's just that the North Africa campaigns decisively showed how flawed the M13/40 was.
The Italian command then produced two upgrades to the M13/40, the M14/41 and the M15/42. The M14/41 was no better than the M13/40, in that it was fragile, cramped and underpowered, while prone to mechanical failure. The M15/42 was a desert-prepared variant of the M14/41, with a better engine and air filters. By the time it was introduced, the allies were in Sicily and Italy, and the North Africa Campaign was over.
In contrast, the Servomente 75/18, a SP gun on a M13/40 or M14/41 chassis, actually had a stellar (for the Italians, at least) service record. With a lover profile, heavier gun, and ability to fire either as direct fire AT/infantry support or as indirect artillery, it was arguably the best Italian AFV of the war.
While there was no choice, really, for the Italians to avoid riveting, there was a choice to modify many, if not most of the Italian M13-15 series to the S75/18 or similar SPG platforms, and increase their performance (as antitank weapons and survivability) by a good margin. However, that would have meant that the Italian command shifted their production and strategy to a defensive stance as early as mid 1941. It's rather unlikely.
To sum it up, the M14/41 and M15/42 should not have been introduced.
you have basically described my tl manstein in africa