The 3-inch Gun Motor Carriage M10A1 was an alternative version of the well-known M10 GMC. The two were almost identical, except for one key difference: the M10A1 was powered by a 500 hp Ford GAA engine, which gave it improved mobility over the M10. Despite both versions being mass-produced, the US Army ultimately chose the M10 for combat deployment, keeping the M10A1 at home for training. Still, hopefully, we’ll see this speedier brother of the Wolverine roaming the virtual battlefields of War Thunder.
History
When the M10 finally entered production in 1942, the US Army was desperate for tank destroyers. The need was so urgent that the M10 was given the AA1 production priority rating, higher than the M4 Sherman! However, there were concerns that the production of the M4A2 chassis, on which the M10 is based, would not meet demands, so the Ford Motor Company was contracted to produce a vehicle similar to the M10 but based on the M4A3 chassis. This became the M10A1.
The M10A1 used the 500 hp Ford GAA V8 gasoline engine from the M4A3. Its outward appearance was the same as the M10 save for two small details. It used the wide-grill type rear deck doors and had an exhaust deflector at the rear, both due to the different engines. In all other aspects, it was identical to the M10.
Production of the M10A1 began in October 1942. The US Army decided to only deploy the M10 overseas and keep the M10A1 at home for training due to the higher production rate of the M10. The two were tested side-by-side in September 1943 by the Tank Destroyer Board, who reported in February 1944 that the M10A1 had better automotive performance, but by that time the Army’s mind was set. A total of 1713 M10A1s were produced, including 300 delivered in January 1944 without turrets for conversion into M36s, a fate which most, if not all, M10A1s met.
Specifications
Crew: 5
Mass: 29 t (64000 lbs) combat load
Armour: same as M10
Armament: 3-inch gun M7, 54 rounds, -10˚/+30˚; .50 HMG, 300 rounds
Max speed: 48 km/h
Engine: Ford GAA, 500 hp gross
Power-to-weight: 17.2 hp/t
More pictures
Notice the gridded exhaust deflector attached to the lower rear
Grills on the rear deck are wider than that of the M10
In-game
The 500-horsepower engine is a significant improvement for the Wolverine. Its power-to-weight ratio is actually higher than that of the M24 light tank! However, the M10A1 is still hampered by the slow manual turret traverse, and the generally inadequate protection stays the same. Therefore, its role will be similar to that of the M10—a long-range sniper—but the increased mobility will allow it to get to good positions more quickly or even flank the enemy to some extent. Given that this was also a production vehicle, it’s a perfect candidate for inclusion in the tank destroyer line of the US tech tree, ideally foldered with the regular M10.
correct me if im wrong, but I remember reading somewhere that the M10A1 had a mechanical turret traverse (in addition to being based on the M4A3), is that true?
Also, why not suggest the later version that had the 76mm M1
Edit: Ok I tried looking for the powered traverse thing and I think when I had read it initially I had gotten confused by the “M36 has powered traverse, is based on the M10A1” or something like that. Checked the manual, it does not have powered traverse.
Additionally, regarding the M1, if the M7 could fire M93 (HVAP), which I don’t think it could, then I’d say let it be. But if not, then I think it should be switched out for the M1 cannon.
If you are referring hydraulic power traverse, then I’m afraid that’s not true. Both TM9-731G and Hunnicutt explicitly say that the M10A1 used the same manual gear traverse as the M10. Hunnicutt mentions a test vehicle that was fitted with Oilgear power traverse but did not specify whether it was the M10 or the M10A1.
I’m pretty sure all production M10A1s used the 3-inch M7? Only ones that used the M1 were the experimental T72 GMC that was based on the M10A1, but I was having a bit of trouble gathering info on that, so I left it for later (the main sticking point was that I couldn’t ascertain whether the T72 had power traverse or not; if it didn’t, it wouldn’t be much different from the M10A1).
Yeah, I clarified and I think it was just that I got the M10A1 chassis + M36 turret confused with the base M10A1. Oh well. And I also did add about the M1 cannon versions, supposedly it was the last 300 fully complete M10A1s that were fitted with the M1
I was originally hesitant to mention the M1 because Hunnicutt and Zaloga make no mention of it, but apart from the websites you gave I also found AD1045347, which says “The
later produced M10s would also mount the 76-mm as the 3-in. Gun was phased out, but this variant
did not see widespread use.”, so I agree that the M1 was mounted on a notable number of M10 or M10A1 chassis.
On the other hand, several sources (Hunnicutt’s “Sherman” and “Stuart”, Zaloga’s “M10 and M36” and “M18”, the Tanks Encyclopedia article, AD1045347) say that the M93 was produced as 3-inch rounds for the M7. Additionally, Standard Ordnance Items Catalog says that the M88 smoke round was produced in 3-inch as well. So even if we kept the M10A1’s armament as the M7, it would have access to all ammunition types available to the M1 too.
And it probably was an M10, so giving the M10A1 such roof armour would be a bit unhistorical. I’d prefer justifying a higher BR by giving the M10A1 smoke and HVAP rounds.
