Landships II

The Armoured Cars in 'bianchi3.jpg'  are Autoblinda FIAT TERNI (Tipo Tripoli) cars. An excellent 1:72 model of these is made by Il Principe Nero (The Black Prince):

http://www.ilprincipenero.it/Autoblindo%20Terni.htm

Mario

There is, to say the least, considerable difference between accounts of early Bianchi armoured cars, for example there is a two year discrepancy between the dates ascribed to their design by works such as George Forty’s Armoured Cars of the World and Crow& Icks’s Encylopedia of Armoured Cars compared to B.T White’s Tanks and other Fighting Vehicles. The first two put these vehicles as being developed before Italy entered the war whilst the latter puts the date at 1916. Giulio Benussi’s Autocannoni, Autoblinde e Veicoli Speciali del Regio Esercito Italiano nella Prima Guerrea Mondiale acknowledges the existence of the turreted Bianchi shown in my previous posting but does not date it in any way. In general accounts do seem to agree that Bianchi produced a turreted prototype (in 1912 according to both Forty and White) and subsequently developed it. It is here that there is a divergence, According to Forty there were two models, an improved turreted version (which is that shown in his book and in Benussi’s) which he calls Model A and an open topped car called Version B. Both were produced in 1914. (Crow and Icks have a similar chronology) However White’s version of events is that the further turreted prototype was produced in 1915 and the open topped version was developed from this in 1916.
White’s illustration appears to have been taken from the two photos I attach. Unfortunately it appears to contain some errors. He appears to have misinterpreted the strut at the back as a second machine gun, and the view showing the port side has no flap on the cab side (looking at the side view of the starboard side in the attached photo the inside of the raised port flap can be seen). There are also differences between the two views. I have annotated the illustration and enclose this. However looking at the two photos it is clear that these are of two different cars and indeed it is possible that they are two different models (possibly from different manufacturers). I enclose an annotated photo highlighting the differences. I suspect that either White did not pick this up or ignored it and as a result there are discrepancies between the two views in his illustration. (There is also an oddity in the angled view, as one front wheel appears to be much  further forward than the other!)

Now the questions are – whose dates are correct? And were there two different versions of open top Bianchis or is one of these a different manufacturers car?

As far as the first is concerned Forty’s dates seem more reasonable especially as the turreted car looks much like the Isotta of 1911 and the Fiat of 1912 (indeed the only significant differences from the Isotta appear to be solid wheels, a different bonnet and a top to the turret). With regard to the second I confess some bafflement. No one mentions two models of the Bianchi version B. Italian armoured car designers of the time do appear to have come up with suspiciously similar designs. Some sources designate the first of the two photos as an Autocar rather than a Bianchi. This could be a mistranslation of Autocarro or possibly Bianchi bodywork was fitted to an imported Autocar chassis. This latter would explain the difference in the position of the front wheels.

Over to you gentlemen

Mario

It isn't just Forty, Icks also ids the same as an updated Bianchi and I've found an Italian site that does the same.

Mario Wens wrote:

---

Centurion wrote: Mario It isn't just Forty, Icks also ids the same as an updated Bianchi and I've found an Italian site that does the same. well: Centurion wrote: The various web sites that attribute the 'Terni' armoured cars to Fiat all use information from the same source (the photos, their arrangement and the cropping of one of the pictures is identical (as in most cases is the accompanying text)). This does not mean that the information is incorrect (or for that matter correct) but we should be careful of the 'a lot of sources say this' effect when what is happening is a lot of sources are repeating a single original source. This applies to your answer too. A more in depth answer will follow tonight I hope, Mario

---

Centurion wrote:

---

As I'm digging into this I thought it needed its own thread. Information so far.

1.Bianchi built a number of models of armoured cars, one distinctive feature of these was the bonnet (hood) was rounded and sloped.

---

Well, yes, the one in the picture is a Bianchi, and it has a rounded nose, but other Bianchi's did not have this feature! Your Armoured Cars that didn't quite... thread has a drawing of an armoured car without turret and with machine gun and wire cutter: this is a Bianchi chassis and armour, though not a version I could trace.It looks a lot like the lower half of this one:

Mario Wens wrote:

---

Centurion wrote: Only if they all can be traced to the same source Have you checked wether Forty lists Icks or vice versa (don't have either book, so can't say which is oldest) in their bibliography? The one could well be the source for the other. It takes a while to find what you are looking for in 1200 pages of Italian text, but I still found no reference to Bianchi whatsoever in regard to the FIAT Tipo Tripoli cars. Mario

---

No they don't quote each other at all. Forty shows two abandoned Italian ACs in Libya (Tripolitania)  and describes them as being Bianchi hulls remounted on Spa 38r chassis. Icks (and Crow) list a number of different Bianchi  armoured cars as having been sent to Tripoli Circa 1913-1915 and then list the same as having been modernised by the addition of Spa 38r chassis in the early 30s. They do not list the Terni at all. I have also found an Italian web site that shows the same photo as Forty but the text is different, however it still defines them as Bianchi. 

There are numerous armoured cars described as 'Fiat' from a number of countries (the UK, Russia, Mexico etc etc) where the Fiat connection is that someone has taken a Fiat chassis and added an armoured body to it, the Fiat company has no direct connection whatsover (in the same way that Rolls Royce did not design the clasic Rolls Royce armoured car). My concern with the Terni label is that as far as I can see Terni hived off its weapons business to OM in 1904 (I believe that OM is still with us as an Italian company but that Terni having once passed to  Thysson Krupp is now defunct). If this is so it seems strange that Terni would have designed an armoured hull although they might still have built one to someone elses design. Given that a great many different sources indicate that the Autocarro Fiat 15 ter was chosen as the standard model for use in Tripoli it would make sense for any armoured car design for use in Tripoli should use the same chassis to ease the issue of spares. I think that my original thesis of a car designed by Bianchi on a Fiat chassis with armour fabricated by Terni still makes sense