"Proportion of various Shermans in late war US tank company?" Topic

Hello,

Following the release of the new FOW supplement (mine's on the way), I'm a bit suspicious of the proportion of shermans on steroids that seem to appear in the players' list.

On a basis of a 17 tanks US Company, around Oct-Dec 1944, I was thinking that the "realistic" proportion of shermans would be as follow:

2 x Easy 8
2 x M4A3 Late 76mm
3 x M4A3 76mm
10 x M4A1 75mm

Am I far off?

thanks if the specialists in US hardware could provide some insights on this.

a jumbo or two? now if they had upgunned the jumbo..hmm but they didn't ..

M4s/M4A1s and M4A3s would not be mixed. These were kept in separate units for logistical purposes (M4/M4A1 had a different powertrain than the M4A3). Also it is way too early for the M4A3 HVSS "Easy 8" based on the timeframe you gave.

What's a "Late" M4A3 76mm?

Damon.

I'm with Damon in terms of the mix and the issue of logistics.

Ok, good point Garand. That would be continental Engine Vs Ford Engines.

As for M4A3 "Late", I made a mistake :-)

I would also think that there would be no "realistic" proportion, and that it varied widely from division to division.

here, the production table may give an idea about proportion:

link

There actually was an upgunned version of the M4A3E2 Jumbo but they were pretty rare. There is a picture of one in the old Squadron Signal Sherman book (#14 I think). Overall the Jumbo is pretty rare I think that less and 100 were made and very few of those were upgunned to the 76.

I think you need to get your hands on some unit OBs to check for the proportions but generally I believe they tried to keep the vehicles as similar as possible including the guns for the same logistical reasons that M4A3s and M4A1 were not mixed because of the power train. Certainly not saying that it didn't happen but its a lot easy to deliver 75mm or 76mm ammunition to a unit than a mix of it.

Yeah, I have heard mention of 76mm Jumbos. Apparently sort of an ad-hoc thing.

Wasn't there though, can't say for sure.

Oh, and the ten vanilla Shermans can probably all have different field mods… cutters, extra armor, sandbags, fascines, etc.
-Kle.

I think the 76 jumbos were rare and regular 76mil armed shermans with field expedient armour welded on. About 100 total iirc.

Well, Battlefront says the 'late' M4A3s had the larger hatches and steeper glacis plate (47deg?), but I don't know that the US Army would have made such a distinction.

I'd expect not more than one platoon of 76mm-armed tanks of whatever type per company, the rest of the tanks being 75mm-armed.

ALL 76mm Shermans used by the US Army had the "large hatch" hulls, so if BF really is making that a distinction, it would be wrong.

IMHO, the difference between an "early" M4A3(76)W and a "late" would be in details (i.e. the loader's hatch changed from the wide, round style to the smaller oval style).

Damon.

US Armored divisions, data from beginning of month:

Percent 76mm
October 1944 21.9%
November 1944 18.6%
December 1944 33.1%
January 1945 27.3%

Data from US Armored Divisions: The European Theater of Operations 1944-45 in the ETO 1944-45 by Steven J. Zaloga.

US 12th Army Group separate tank battalions, data from beginning of month:

Percent 76mm
October 1944 6.8%
November 1944 20.4%
December 1944 25.2%
January 1945 27.1%

Data from US Tank and Tank Destroyer Battalions in the ETO 1944-45 by Steven J. Zaloga.

254 or 255 Jumbo Shermans were built (I've seen both numbers given). Initially all had the 75mm but around 100 had the 76mm fitted as a field modification. Although I had thought that the 76mm didn't fit into the standard Sherman turret…..

Well, here's the "Sherman Spotting" article where BF talks about the differences: link BF is making the distinction between early and late M4A3 (75mm), all the 76mm guns are on the late hulls.

17*.2=3.4, so I would not expect to see more than 2-3 Sherman 76mm, (4-5 by January 1945). The entire company should be the same A#, so I'd expect to see a Jumbo or two, 3 76mm (by definition on the late A3 hulls), and all the rest 75mm (mix of early and late A3).

Etranger, all you need to do is hook a crane up to the 75mm turret and pull, then drop a 76mm turret in place.

thanks guys, lot's to think about.

Somebody pointed me as well to:

Osprey Battle Orders 10 – Us Tank And Tank Destroyer Battalions In The Eto 1944-45

The mantlet on the M4A3E2 turret (note that it is neither the standard Sherman turret nor is it a T-23 turret) was essentially an up-armored 76mm mantlet. Therefor rearming Jumbos with the 76 was quite easy to do. 3rd Army had been collecting spare 76mm guns and after the Bulge set about rearming many of their Jumbos with this weapon. "Cobra King", the first tank into Bastogne was rearmed in this way. 3rd Army also was busily adding additional armor to many of its M4A3E8s and M4A3 (76) tanks to bring them closer to Jumbo standards, this procedure called for cutting the glacis plate off of a jumked M4A3 and welding it on, adding additional armor to the sponsons and sometimes replacing the .30 caliber coaxial MG with a .50 caliber. This uparmoring program was successful enough that 12th Army Group acquired one of the tanks as an example of how to improve the Sherman.

Although I had thought that the 76mm didn't fit into the standard Sherman turret…..

It did, but it was a tight fit. Many such tanks were supplied post-war, and Pakistan was a big user. A few also managed to find their way to Yugoslavia too…

Damon.

I think we gave some of this a going over here:

TMP link

and before that here:

TMP link

Yes some of the Jumbos were re-armed to 76mm, and yes it took place relatively late, December and after. 3rd Army launched a deliberate campaign to upgun ALL of their Jumbos to 76mm, but it is not clear that they ever completed that effort.

And no, it is not so easy as taking off one turret and putting on another. Not if you want to carry any ammo, that is. All of the ammo stowage needs to be changed out too. 76mm cartridges do not fit in 75mm bins. Call it an "ad hoc" task, but it was done in depots, with heavy equipment and dedicated fitters in factory fashion, not in the field.

And no, it was not considered wise to mix M4 + M4A1 in units with M4A3. But it happened often, particularly in the summer and fall of 1944. The first 76mm armed Shermans to hit the ground in ETO, in Normandie, were all M4A1 76mm. The first 76mm armed M4A3s did not arrive until about September. Then the flow was almost exclusively M4A3s into ETO, with the M4A1 76s going mainly to MTO. You bet that units equipped with M4A3 75mm Shermans were willing to suffer the logistical difficulties of mixed engine types if it meant they got a couple 76mm guns into their units in July-September, just as M4A1 units would grab available M4A3 76s in October-December.

So also all of the jumbos were M4A3s. Units equipped with M4s or M4A1s were willing to accept the log burden to get a couple Jumbos.

Add to this that by late August ETO was falling behind on their tank unit TOEs. There were not enough US Shermans in theater to replace losses in the Normandie campaign. So units often took ANY Shermans that came down the pipeline, rather than trying to remain "pure" to one engine version and going out short handed on their next mission.

An Autumn 1944 Sherman unit might be 100% M4A3 75mm (new arrivals in theater often were), but if they were a veteran unit they probably had a mish-mash of 2, 3 or 4 kinds of Shermans in their inventory. 76mm guns would have been rare, maybe 2 per company. 105mm guns would also have been rare, at about the same levels, but more often concentrated into a battery at battalion level. Jumbos would have all had 75mm at this time, and would been a bit more prevelant, maybe 1 per platoon, maybe with 2 in the lead platoon.

-Mark 1

Found some information on M4A3E2 and "erzatz jumbo" distribution. I've got this as hardcopy but it a while to track down the source. Enjoy.

O90 on 05 Jan 2004, 18:17

Andy H wrote:
Andy H

Andy,

IIRC (and yet again I can't locate my file documenting it) the US Third Army contracted with French steel firms to produce 108 "Ersatz Jumbos" in January 1945, with delivery in February. It was intended to allocate 36 each to the 4th, 6th and 10th AD. As applique armor, but apparently factory installed with some control over the plate quality, these were probably not quite as well protected as the true Jumbos. It appears that many, if not all of these were converted from 76mm armed Shermans.

There were also a large – but unknown – number of field conversions done by army and divisional heavy ordnance maintenance units. Photos such as have been posted here document some of those conversions. It appears that units in First, Third and Ninth Army all converted Shermans to these standards, some using armor from scrapped Shermans, some armor from scrapped German tanks (Panthers were a favorite) and some from other materials, such as reinforced concrete. As such the quality of the conversions probably varied considerably, in particular in the armor taken from scrapped tanks where the plate may have been subjected to high heat or other hits and even partial penetrations affecting the armor quality.

Finally, here is my last notes regarding the true Jumbos, from my work in progress. Note that although 254 were built, only 250 (or possibly 252 ) were shipped to the ETO. So it is a little unclear if the remaining 2 or 4 stayed in the US or remained "unaccounted for." Which makes one wonder if there is some old GI somewhere (or possibly a French or Belgian dockyard worker ) with an M4A3E2 in shipping condition parked in his garage?

Hope this helps answer some questions.

The M4A3E2 Jumbo in the ETO. This information is taking from a number of sources including: the Armored Fighting Vehicle and Weapons Section of the US Forces in the European Theater of Operations (USFET), the Armored Section of the US 12th Army Group, the Armored Section of the US First Army, and the Armored Section of the US Third Army.

In January 1944 the War Department offered the M4A3E2 "Jumbo" to fill the ETO request for the T26 Medium-Heavy Tank (as it was referred to in the message traffic I have examined). The offer was accepted by the ETO and preparations were made to ship the vehicles.

On 14 August it was noted that 115 were at the embarkation port (Boston or New York) and were loading or preparing to load on board convoys to Britain. At the same time there were 135 in the CONUS authorized on release for shipment to the ETO. However, a memo of 10 September remarks that the first 12 were not shipped until sometime prior to 24 August, an additional 29 had "been floated" between 24-30 August, 35 between 30 August and 2 September, 48 between 2-5 September, and 84 between 4-8 September, a total of 208. All of these were expected to arrive in UK waters between 8-15 September. In addition, 11 were at the port waiting to load, 28 were en route to the port, 5 were processing at CONUS depots, and 2 were canceled as unavailable. There is no explanation for the cancellation, they were probably retained in the US for further testing and evaluation or may have been so worn out by previous testing as to have been written off.

The first shipment of 128 (another memo cites the number as 126) arrived at Cherbourg and began unloading sometime on or before 22 September 1944. The whereabouts of the remaining 80 (or 82) presumably shipped to that date are not remarked.

By 14 October 36 had been received by the First Army. They were issued 15 each to the 743rd and 745th Tank Battalion's and 6 to the 746th Tank Battalion. It appears that 9 more were received and issued to the 746th by 9 November, giving each battalion 15 and the First Army at least 45 on that date. By 18 October it was noted in a visit to the beach depots that they had 17 on hand, 24 released to the armies and 19 en route to Third Army for a total of 60. On 20 October, it was noted that 99 were on hand with the troops. That implies that 140 had been unloaded on the continent (counting the 17 on hand and 24 released at the depots, but not counting the 19 en route to Third Army – which evidently were counted as "with the troops" whether or not they had actually arrived). Note that the total unloaded was 68 fewer than the 208 noted as being "afloat" over a month prior and only 12 more than what had been unloaded on 22 September. It is evident that shipping and unloading priorities for the Jumbo were in practice somewhat low. On 24 October the allocation for the delivery of the Jumbo was confirmed as lots of 15 each until the following was achieved: First Army 105, Third Army 90, and Ninth Army 60. Why they planned for 255 when only 250 were being shipped is unclear, the USFET may have been under the impression that more were to be manufactured in the US, an error that apparently persisted into April 1945.

On 5 November it was noted that 180 were in the theater. However, on 10 November 1944 it was noted that 118 had been delivered to the armies and that 26 were in depots or were unloading, implying that a total of 144 had arrived, only 16 more than on 22 September. On 22 November, 40 were reported as having been issued to Third Army units. Five each were issued to the 10th AD, 702nd, 712th, 735th, and, 761st Tank Battalions, and 15 to the 737th Tank Battalion. On 28 November 154 were on hand, 4 were en route from ETO ports to depots and 55 were afloat in ETO waters for a total of 213. Note that this is only 5 more than the 208 that had been noted as being "afloat" by 8 September.

On 3 December 1944 a clearer picture was given. A total of 250 had arrived in the ETO of which it was noted that 10 had been destroyed in combat (in fact 14 had been destroyed to 28 November and 17 to 5 December). There were 40 with the First Army (which had lost 6 to 28 November and 8 to 5 December), 59 with the Third Army (5 had been lost to 25 November and 6 to 2 December), and 30 with the Ninth Army (3 had been lost to 28 November), a total of 129. En route were 14 to the First Army, 5 to Third Army, and 6 to Ninth Army, a total of 25. En route to ETO depots from the ports and unallocated to the armies were an additional 28. Afloat in ETO waters, but as yet unloaded, were 46. Finally, it was remarked that 12 were unaccounted for, either unloaded, but unreported, or simply unaccounted for. This is the last information on shipments to the Continent and appears to account for all 252 shipped (or 250).

By 22 February 1945 the First Army reported losing 22 Jumbos, in fact the weekly reports indicate that 24 had been lost. As of that date Third Army had lost 8 and Ninth Army had lost 6. An additional 5 were lost by First Army, 3 by Third Army, and 15 by Ninth Army prior to the end of the war.

Tank units in the ETO with Jumbos on hand (the assignment of units to armies is as of mid December). This listing appears to account for all units issued with the Jumbo.

First Army

3rd AD 6 (16 Dec)
5th AD 3 (19 Dec)
70th TkBn 4 (11 Feb)
743rd TkBn 15 (14 Oct, 3 lost as of 3 Dec)
745th TkBn 15 (14 Oct), 1 (15 Dec)
746th TkBn 6 (14 Oct), 15 (9 Nov), 5 (21 Dec)
774th TkBn 10 (16 Dec)

The 70th Tank Battalion's tanks were in very poor condition in mid December. Unit diaries note that they were all "original issue" and worn out. Thus it appears that the Jumbos assigned to the 70th Tank Battalion may have been from some of the last available. These units account for about 37 in mid December and a total of 22 were lost to 28 January. That total of 59 is very similar to the 54 on hand and en route as of 3 December. It is likely that all 40-odd of the remaining 105 allocated to the First Army were utilized as replacements and to equip the 70th Tank Battalion.

Third Army

4th AD 20 (22 Dec)
6th AD 11 (29 Dec, this may include the 5 reported en route on 3 December)
10th AD 5 (22 Nov)
702nd Tk Bn 5 (22 Nov), 5 (29 Jan)
712th Tk Bn 5 (22 Nov), 1 (11 Feb)
735th Tk Bn 5 (22 Nov), 2 (12 Feb)
737th Tk Bn 15 (22 Nov), 5 (15 Dec), 3 (29 Jan)
761st Tk Bn 5 (22 Nov)

The available reports tend to indicate that this is a fairly accurate picture of all the Jumbos assigned to the Third Army. By mid December some 68 may be accounted for including 7 that had been lost. This closely matches the 59 on hand and 5 en route count for 3 December. It may also be concluded that 10 were probably withdrawn from the 737th Tank Battalion prior to 15 December and were assigned to the 4th (or less likely 6th) AD. The remaining 30-odd allocated to the Third Army were probably utilized as replacements in these units during 1945.

Ninth Army

709th Tk Bn 1 (19 Dec)
747th Tk Bn 5 (27 Nov, plus 10 en route)
778th Tk Bn 4 (27 Jan)

This appears to account for only 20 of the 36 on hand or en route as of 3 December. Three had been lost to that date and another was lost between 21-28 December. The remaining 12 or 13 may have been issued later (likely to the 709th Tk Bn), may have been issued to other units (possibly the 3rd AD), or they may have been retained as replacements. It appears probable that the remaining 24 of the 60 allocated to the Ninth Army were never in fact shipped, given the strategic situation in mid December, the losses sustained to date, and the reduction in the number shipped from 254 to 250.

It does not appear as if the 2nd, 7th-14th, 16th, or 20th Armored Divisions were ever issued Jumbos.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RichTO90
Member


Posts: 2968
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03
Location: Newport News, VA, USA

cheers

Sorry, I left out the link for the above. link

cheers

Based on Zalogas %s, you are looking at a maximum of one platoon of 76mm tanks per company, probably less.

Would they generally concentrate all the 76s togther in one subunit, or allocate them out to the other platoons (like Fireflies)??

Would they generally concentrate all the 76s togther in one subunit, or allocate them out to the other platoons (like Fireflies)??

Martin, I think I discussed that in one of the links I posted above…

The answer is the latter.