Com-Central.net

I was reading "Gli Autoveicoli da Combattimento dell'Esercito Italiano Volume Terzo (1945-1955)", by Pignato and Cappellano. Talking about the M10, they say none survived in Italy, but the one at APG was donated by the italian Army in the '60. Can anyone confirm this?

Massimo

doen't remember speciffically what vehicles were involved, But Bob Smart has mentioned on his tours that some were returns from Italy, evident beacuse the barrels had been shortened to improve mobility in urban settings., So It's entirely possible. Hey Bob or Neil what's the 411?

The shorter barrels sounds weird to me... Never heard of such a thing.

I know for sure quite a bunch of surviving M47s were returned to the USA. In Italy they were still in active service up to late '80 (a bunch went to Somalia too). But I am talking about something happened in the '60.

Massimo

Yep, that's the story - at least what is claimed:



www.flickr.com/photos/...474291167/

According to the museum file it was acquired from the Italian Army in 1967.

The Ordnance Museum Guide CD says the following: "Used by US forces in Europe between 1944 and 1945. After the war, it was turned over to the Italian Army and used for several years. In 1967, the Italians donated this M10 to our museum where it remains today. The 3-inch gun on this, and other Italian M10s, were shortened by the Italian authorities and a counterweight collar was added to restore balance."

Neil

Thanks Neil. This confirm what Pignato/Cappellano say, but I never heard about shortened guns and the book doesn't mention this either.

Massimo

I just checked a dozen or so pictures showing M10s in italian service, none of them had that collar/counter-weight...

Massimo

A little further info from the draft of a 1990s museum guidebook project that was never published:

"This vehicle reflects modifications implemented by the Italian forces, most notably to the 3" gun barrel. According to sources, the Italians never liked the long 3" gun tube since many Italian streets are narrow and have difficult corners, making maneuvers with such a vehicle difficult. As a result, the Italian authorities responsible shortened the barrel tube appropriately and added the collar as a counterweight to compensate for the shortened tube."

Neil

This really doesn't makes that much sense, alongside the M10s there were many M4 Firefly in service, the 17pdr tube is even longer.

Pignato and Cappellano are the most respected authors in this field, think the italian equivalent of putting together Thomas Jentz and Steve Zaloga, and they don't mention this in a 500 pages book dedicated to AFVs in the Italian Army 1945-55.

I'll keep a mental note and try to investigate this. Thanks again.

Massimo

I had always assumed the fitting was a bore evacuator, certainly the barrel doesn't seem any shorter to me, and that's what I wrote in my original manuscript about APG, now online (#103):

preservedtanks.com/Loc...0&Select=4

It's not unique, though. I first saw an M10 like that on the back cover of After The Battle magazine no. 18 from 1977 (I've just found it again). It was displayed at the Italian War Museum at Monte Lungo along with an M4A3 Sherman.

Of course, it's possible it could turn out to be the same vehicle, but from the photo's it looks unlikely.

Edit: Feeling lucky, I just had a trawl through the ferreamole website. Here's Monte Lungo:

digilander.libero.it/p...elungo.htm

plus I've found another one, less obvious, at Cassino:

digilander.libero.it/p...assino.htm

Here is a photo nearly identical in pose to the elungo picture listed above but taken from the other side of the vehicle. The collarless barrel appears about 15% to 20% longer to my eye

This should make the comparison easier. I flipped and ghosted the elungo image over the other one and it appears there is a difference in length HTH

When the M10 was sitting outside the warehouse at Aberdeen it was very near the M6 Heavy tank which also had a 3" gun. The gun on the M10 was noticeably shorter than the gun on the M6. The muzzle also appeared to have thicker tube walls which I attributed to having the barrel cut off further back from the muzzle (I never actually measured it) Yes I heard the same story about the Italians shortening the barrel but since my source is the same as the others that doesn't count as corroboration.

Here's something to consider:

Italaeri (an Italian model company) issued a kit of a Sherman with a similar device on its barrel but placed further back such that it appeared as if there was a step in the tube. Eventually a tank matching the exact configuration of the model was found in Italy. It was also learned that the tube had been severed completely as a de-militarizing action and a sleeve welded over the joint to provide a cosmetic cover.

That would be my guess here as there is no way you can cut a gun tube and rejoin it such that it would be functional, let alone safe to use.

KL

- piney

This should make the comparison easier. I flipped and ghosted the elungo image over the other one and it appears there is a difference in length HTH

Interesting - you may be right about the length, but it seems more obvious to me that if you have the photo's matched well the Monte Lungo barrel has a smaller calibre. That may be an optical illusion, though, as the APG one seems larger.

- Kurt_Laughlin

Italaeri (an Italian model company) issued a kit of a Sherman with a similar device on its barrel but placed further back such that it appeared as if there was a step in the tube. Eventually a tank matching the exact configuration of the model was found in Italy. It was also learned that the tube had been severed completely as a de-militarizing action and a sleeve welded over the joint to provide a cosmetic cover.

Kurt, are you thinking that on leaving service the Italian M10's had their barrels cut half way and the collar added? That could explain why they haven't been seen in service with the collar.

My biggest issue with the "Cut tube to negotiate narrow streets" statement is that it doesn't pass the common sense rule. I remember a few years back commenting on the Aberdeen M10 and was told this explanation.

(Edit) Also, a much more practical counterbalance would be at the end of the tube, requiring less material and much less work to attach, early M3 Mediums come to mind (Edit)

Why do that with one particular type vehicle and not with all these offending long tubes.

I also have an issue with ballistics. You just don't lop off a given amount on the end and than expect it to perform the same way in regards to accuracy and velocity. Keeping in mind that they used ballistic reticles and had no real FCS, It still would require a new set of firing tables for each type of round fired and then modification of the sights. These tubes would be unique and would require some one to sit down and test fire, crunch the numbers, and then confirm the results. I doubt all this would be deemed practical just so you could operate a vehicle in narrow streets, something US forces did with the same TD's when operating in urban areas.

Kurt's explanation makes much more sense. Looking at Piney's photo comparison, keeping in mind it's not an exact comparison, the barrel thickness appears greater on the "cut" example. Being it is not that much shorter than the standard tube, I have to wonder if it even is the same type or just any old tube they found. One sure fire way to know if the tube was cut and then spliced is to scope the barrel. There would be an obvious seam/cut where the two were joined. That is if it isn't plugged at both ends. That would put an end to the argument.