DonCarnage
Fun discussion.
However, I do believe that you are overly cautious when it comes to the production numbers of semoventi 75/46.
Possibly, but there is too much which remains unknown. Of the sources we have discussed so far, the only book where I am certain a significant degree of research is behind their statements is
Gli autoveicoli. The other sources offer some good primary information and shouldn't be ignored, but they don't attempt to fully answer the question.
Panzer Tracts doesn't attempt to reconcile the German data into totals and match those against Italian sources.
"Rearmament" - i think this is a mistranslation from German.
Agree. Without having the original documents (or copies), we don't know whether the translation is accurate. I have often found mistakes when comparing the original to a translation. This is often caused by the translator not having a military background or not familiar with the military terms used by that nation.
This suggests that the two semoventi "completed" in january/february are not identical with the two from february/march, because unarmed tanks could hardly have been listed as completed.
Here we are not on solid ground and shouldn't be treated as a validated assumption. The German report in several places uses completed but unarmed. For example:
Twelve competed Stu. Gesch (but with out guns) are located....
Is but one example.
The two vehicles in this category are mentioned as both armed and supplied to the troops in february/march and should be identified with the two vehicles listed earlier under the same time period.
This is another example.
Why state completed but add a qualifier which basically means 'not completed'? A likely answer is that the report reflects the Italian factory data as I previously stated.
I don't think that this warrants doubts about existance of engines in other vehicles listed as "completed", especially that Ansaldo was tasked with instalation of all parts and Germans had contract only with it and not SPA.
We don't have the actual contract, but it wouldn't be that simple. Contracts can work many ways. Germany needs to guarantee the raw materials as it controls them. Germany need to guarantee the work force, transport, etc. Given that Ansaldo is both producing the main assembly and is also responsible for assembling the final product, billing the Germans for the completing their assemblies is how companies must operate. You can't withhold payment from the prime contractor for work they have done because a sub-contractor didn't deliver their assembly to finish the product. Ansaldo certainly reported that they have completed x number of assemblies and that these assemblies are still awaiting other components (see above). As the 75/46 was an effective c.a. gun which was also needed, there would be completing priorities which the Germans are the ones making the decisions. A possible scenario is that the two M43 da 75/46 were completed in Jan-Feb and then finished and delivered in Feb-Mar.
I am not saying that is what happened, but it is certainly a possibility and entirely logical.
An unverified assumption that has underpinned this discussion is that the seven M43 da 75/46 completed in 1944 were actually finished and delivered in 1944. We don't know that. The two vehicles delivered in Feb-Mar 45 might have been from the 1944 production that finally received their armament. I am not saying that is what happened but it is a possibility which can't be ruled out with our current information.
What is clear is the
Panzer Tracts data is a mix of two different categories, completed and finished/delivered. None of the data given uses both types of numbers consistently in every report. It would be great if we had data on the 75/46 production and were those guns were used.
There is a better than average argument for 11 vehicles being finished/distributed during the 1944-45. The question then is why did Pignato and Cappellano believe only 7 vehicles were finished? The paragraph I quoted is in someways unclear. If it wasn't for the inclusion of the number 11, I could say they were only talking about 1944. But if they were only discussing 1944, the discrepancy should be been between 8 and 7, not 11 and 7.
Guglielmi book should clarify this (i hope - i don't want you to regret the purchase).
I had considered buying this book when it was first published, but the post Sept 43 period is of less interest. I had read good reviews of the book, so I am not worried. If it is only of average quality, it is still better than anything else I have. We will see if it has some answers.
Pista! Jeff