Jim F
SMF Supporter
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2015
- Messages
- 335
- Points
- 63
- First Name
- Jim
Hi Steven, I don't want to cause more confusion but do you know if he served in a standard M10 or the British version the M10 Achilles ? regards Jim
Operable engine hatch hinges
- Thread starter Sander69
- Start date
Sander69
SMF Supporter
Well I don't know. Were there any American units that drove the Achilles?
Until I get some information on his time overseas I don't think I will be able to answer that. His daughters inherited all of his papers, photographs, and metals and they are not keen on sharing even a photo-copy. I know the story about the three tanks because I went to his funeral at Arlington and was able to meet his tank mates. My mother has some information, but she cannot find it. It's in the attic of her house, so it will be a long time before we stumble upon it.
I wish I knew more. Sorry, Jim.
And re-reading my post - I apologize for my horrible grammar and misspellings.
Until I get some information on his time overseas I don't think I will be able to answer that. His daughters inherited all of his papers, photographs, and metals and they are not keen on sharing even a photo-copy. I know the story about the three tanks because I went to his funeral at Arlington and was able to meet his tank mates. My mother has some information, but she cannot find it. It's in the attic of her house, so it will be a long time before we stumble upon it.
I wish I knew more. Sorry, Jim.
And re-reading my post - I apologize for my horrible grammar and misspellings.
Last edited:
Jim F
SMF Supporter
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2015
- Messages
- 335
- Points
- 63
- First Name
- Jim
Hi Steve, I'm no expert on Allied armour but I believe the main difference was the gun the British Achilles used a 17 pound gun and the US was a 76.2mm. So if your Uncle served in the US army it would be the standard US vehicle. regards Jim
I didn't think the 17pdr was around in the desert. Happy to be corrected though.
Jim F
SMF Supporter
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2015
- Messages
- 335
- Points
- 63
- First Name
- Jim
Hi Karl the M10 production started in 1942 so I doubt they made North Africa but the 17 pounder's production didn't start until 1943 so wouldn;t have been used in North African campaign, as stated I do not profess to being an expert on Alllied armour and my original post was to alert Steven to both variants as he wants to reproduce an accurate version of his Uncles vehicle. regards Jim
M10s appeared at the battle of El Guettar in Tunisia as part of the 899th TD battalion 23rd March, 1943.
Jim F
SMF Supporter
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2015
- Messages
- 335
- Points
- 63
- First Name
- Jim
As previously stated I do not profess to be an expert on allied armour which t=you obviously are so I will leave you to advixe Steven, all I did was advise him that there were more than one variant as he wanted to replicate his uncles vehicle. regards Jim
Not trying to berate you, thought it might be of interest.
I think it was the only time TDs where used as envisioned, a mobile blocking force against tanks, and the loss of a lot of M3s and 7 M10s that day led to Patton thinking they weren't much use.
Sander69
SMF Supporter
In the book "M10 Tank Destroyer In Action" by David Doyle (Copyright 2015 Squadron/Signal Publications) there are several photos of M10s in Africa (March 1943) and Italy (October 1943). See below:
page 18 of text
(from page 26 of text). The text at the bottom of the photo says, "An M10 tank destroyer crosses a pontoon bridge over the Boltumo River in Italy on 13 October 1943. The gun motor carriage is approaching the photographer, and its turret is traversed to the rear. A white star with no circle is at the upper center of the glacis. (US Army Engineer School History Office)
Sander69
SMF Supporter
Jim & Samson, I appreciate your comments and suggestions.
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2018
- Messages
- 10,797
- Points
- 113
- First Name
- Jakko
The periscope slides into a hollow rectangular bracket, which you can see in Karl’s photo. It’s held in place by a knob that goes in the slot you can see on the face of that bracket in the photo: the knob is turned tight, and there’s often a small latch on the bracket that goes underneath the knob so the periscope can’t actually fall out if the knob works its way loose.
This is why you usually see the turret turned to the right, over the co-driver’s hatch, when the vehicle is on the move outside of combat:
Since we’re striving for accuracy here, I need to address this
The official American name for the vehicle is 3-inch Gun Motor Carriage M10 — this is what it says on the front cover of the vehicle’s technical manual, TM 9-752 of 25 November 1943, which I have on my shelf.
Technically, the British name for this vehicle was Achilles, but nobody ever seems to have used that. British troops, reports and so on all simply called it an “M10”, to the best of my knowledge. Achilles Mk. I was apparently the version with triangular counterweights, the Mk. II with the elongated “duckbill” ones, say most sources. However, I suspect this to be an error by 1960s/’70s AFV authors (who are not exactly unknown to have made ones like these that still haunt us today), and my theory is that the Achilles Mk. I was actually the M10, while the Mk. II was the M10A1.
Officially, the British variants armed with the 17-pounder gun were the Achilles Mk. IC and Mk. IIC (the letter C, not the Roman numeral C). However, in practice these vehicles were called “17-pr M10” by British troops. I suspect that if you were to take a time machine to 1944 and asked about “that Achilles over there”, nobody would understand which vehicle you were talking about.
Again largely due to those 1960s/’70s AFV authors, people nowadays are under the impression that the 17-pounder versions only were called Achilles. The Wikipedia article does nothing to dispel this myth, and I suspect that rewriting it will just get people annoyed with you and revert the changes …
The US Army deployed early M10s to North Africa, indeed. Note that these are the type in which the upper rear wall of the turret slopes inwards, like you can see in the photo you posted. Most model kits, though, have the vertical rear wall that was introduced a bit later to give a little more room inside.
I’m not sure of British use of M10s in Africa, though.
Last edited:
Sander69
SMF Supporter
Thank you for that information!The periscope slides into a hollow rectangular bracket, which you can see in Karl’s photo. It’s held in place by a knob that goes in the slot you can see on the face of that bracket in the photo: the knob is turned tight, and there’s often a small latch on the bracket that goes underneath the knob so the periscope can’t actually fall out if the knob works its way loose.
This is why you usually see the turret turned to the right, over the co-driver’s hatch, when the vehicle is on the move outside of combat:
View attachment 402083
Since we’re striving for accuracy here, I need to address this
The official American name for the vehicle is 3-inch Gun Motor Carriage M10 — this is what it says on the front cover of the vehicle’s technical manual, TM 9-752 of 25 November 1943, which I have on my shelf.
Technically, the British name for this vehicle was Achilles, but nobody ever seems to have used that. British troops, reports and so on all simply called it an “M10”, to the best of my knowledge. Achilles Mk. I was apparently the version with triangular counterweights, the Mk. II with the elongated “duckbill” ones, say most sources. However, I suspect this to be an error by 1960s/’70s AFV authors (who are not exactly unknown to have made ones like these that still haunt us today), and my theory is that the Achilles Mk. I was actually the M10, while the Mk. II was the M10A1.
Officially, the British variants armed with the 17-pounder gun were the Achilles Mk. IC and Mk. IIC (the letter C, not the Roman numeral C). However, in practice these vehicles were called “17-pr M10” by British troops. I suspect that if you were to take a time machine to 1944 and asked about “that Achilles over there”, nobody would understand which vehicle you were talking about.
Again largely due to those 1960s/’70s AFV authors, people nowadays are under the impression that the 17-pounder versions only were called Achilles. The Wikipedia article does nothing to dispel this myth, and I suspect that rewriting it will just get people annoyed with you and revert the changes …
The US Army deployed early M10s to North Africa, indeed. Note that these are the type in which the upper rear wall of the turret slopes inwards, like you can see in the photo you posted. Most model kits, though, have the vertical rear wall that was introduced a bit later to give a little more room inside.
I’m not sure of British use of M10s in Africa, though.
Sander69
SMF Supporter
It appears that every single one of my M10 kits (I have 4 m10's in 1/35 scale) has the mid-production turrets with the wedge-shaped counterweights. I guess I will need to find a conversion kit (which I do not think exists) or learn how to build it from scratch using polystyrene.
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2018
- Messages
- 10,797
- Points
- 113
- First Name
- Jakko
Hang on, I got a few details mixed up, and remembered the kits wrong. The very earliest M10s had no counterweights at all, with an inward-sloping turret upper rear. The main production ones had the same turret but with wedge-shaped counterweights. After that came the “duckbill” counterweights that have a flat top with a hollow in it, a sort of rounded underside and are much longer; these vehicles also have a vertical rear wall to the turret.
Sander69
SMF Supporter
I will need to do more research on this. I cannot find many pictures of the early production models so I’m not getting a good sense of what they looked like. There are several in the "M10 tank Destroyer in Action" book but none of them give me a real perspective on what the turret looks like. Jakob, thanks for your comments - they are really making me think about what I am doing! I want to do this correctly and appreciate your opinions and remarks.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2018
- Messages
- 10,797
- Points
- 113
- First Name
- Jakko
Here you go:
This is a PDF version of the book I mentioned earlier. It doesn’t cover absolutely everything — only the stuff the crew needs to deal with on a daily basis — but does give good views of all kinds of details in gloriously airbrushed photographs.
If you look at pages 7, 9 and 10 (the number shown on the pages themselves, not by the slider at the bottom of the page), you’ll see a very early M10, with grousers on the rear of the turret. Page 11, though, is of a more standard type, with the counterweights on the turret and a grouser rack on the side of the hull.
TM 9-752 3-Inch Gun Motor Carriage M10, 1943 : United States. War Department : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
TM 9-752 3-Inch Gun Motor Carriage M10, 1943-11-25 CONTENTS PAST ONE - VEHICLE OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS Paragraph Page Section I Introduction 1 5-6 II...
archive.org
This is a PDF version of the book I mentioned earlier. It doesn’t cover absolutely everything — only the stuff the crew needs to deal with on a daily basis — but does give good views of all kinds of details in gloriously airbrushed photographs.
If you look at pages 7, 9 and 10 (the number shown on the pages themselves, not by the slider at the bottom of the page), you’ll see a very early M10, with grousers on the rear of the turret. Page 11, though, is of a more standard type, with the counterweights on the turret and a grouser rack on the side of the hull.
Sander69
SMF Supporter
Thank you I will take a look this weekend!Here you go:
TM 9-752 3-Inch Gun Motor Carriage M10, 1943 : United States. War Department : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
TM 9-752 3-Inch Gun Motor Carriage M10, 1943-11-25 CONTENTS PAST ONE - VEHICLE OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS Paragraph Page Section I Introduction 1 5-6 II...archive.org
This is a PDF version of the book I mentioned earlier. It doesn’t cover absolutely everything — only the stuff the crew needs to deal with on a daily basis — but does give good views of all kinds of details in gloriously airbrushed photographs.
If you look at pages 7, 9 and 10 (the number shown on the pages themselves, not by the slider at the bottom of the page), you’ll see a very early M10, with grousers on the rear of the turret. Page 11, though, is of a more standard type, with the counterweights on the turret and a grouser rack on the side of the hull.
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2018
- Messages
- 10,797
- Points
- 113
- First Name
- Jakko
Looking at the photo you posted above:
This looks to me to be an early type of M10, without the counterweights. It has a grouser rack on the hull side, though, and there is something on the turret rear but it doesn’t look pointed enough to me to be the counterweights — though the angle under which the photo was taken might be tricking the eye here, of course.
Aha, but this photo, taken at Bit Marbott Pass in Tunisia, may explain the turret rear:
Flat boxes/bins on the turret rear instead. Note that this vehicle doesn’t have grouser racks on the hull sides, but it is carrying grousers: the flat bars with the two eyes on each end.
Also note stamped wheels but spoked idlers, which is something of a rare combination in Shermans and their variants, because the spoked idler was replaced by a stamped one that was less prone to deformation of the rim when stuff got trapped between it and the track.
This looks to me to be an early type of M10, without the counterweights. It has a grouser rack on the hull side, though, and there is something on the turret rear but it doesn’t look pointed enough to me to be the counterweights — though the angle under which the photo was taken might be tricking the eye here, of course.
Aha, but this photo, taken at Bit Marbott Pass in Tunisia, may explain the turret rear:
Flat boxes/bins on the turret rear instead. Note that this vehicle doesn’t have grouser racks on the hull sides, but it is carrying grousers: the flat bars with the two eyes on each end.
Also note stamped wheels but spoked idlers, which is something of a rare combination in Shermans and their variants, because the spoked idler was replaced by a stamped one that was less prone to deformation of the rim when stuff got trapped between it and the track.