"M4A3/76mm - when issued and to which units??" Topic

Any Shermanaholics out there that can tell me when the M4A3/76mm started to be issued and who got it first?

I know that the M4A1/76 was issued in time for Cobra to the 2nd and 3rd AD's. AFAIK, these were the only US units to receive the M4A1/76 and all other US armoured and tank units got the M4A3/76 variant.

Able Company of CCA, 4th AD, had a mixed inventory of 75mm
and 76mm Shermans during the Arracourt battle
(September '44). CCB and CCR of 4th AD also had mixed
units of 75/76mm-armed Shermans

Sorry, IDK exactly when the vehicles were issued, but given
that CCA had mixed units, the tanks may have been issued
as replacements for vehicles damaged/destroyed in combat.

Essentially, very few until late 1944. Zalogas book on the 76mm Sherman has summary strengths.

In Armored Divs (only), strengths being

Aug 44 96 (I guess 2nd and 3rd Armored)
Sep 44 117
Oct 44 202
Nov 44 406
Dec 44 418

The demand for them just wasn't there until after the experience of fighting lots of German tanks in the Bulge.

The really big issues were in 1945, so 987 on hand in May 1945.

Thanks, guys. Looks like probably only 2, 3 and 4 AD had 76's until the # almost doubled in October and then doubled again by November. I am guessing that the AD's got them and then the tank battalions.

Numbers went up in the tank battalions too, they seemed to be around a month behind the armored divs.

Bear in mind those numbers are reported strength, not issued. Tanks got 'used up' quite quickly, like artillery ammo and infantrymen.

Thanks, guys. Looks like probably only 2, 3 and 4 AD had 76's until the # almost doubled in October and then doubled again by November. I am guessing that the AD's got them and then the tank battalions.

Beginning of August 1944:
2nd Armored Division had 45 76mm M4s.
3rd Armored Division had 50 76mm M4s.

The data is as of the beginning of each month, so that while the 2nd and 3rd Armored Divisions had some in late July 1944, they wouldn't show up here as it wasn't at the beginning of the month.

Beginning of September 1944:
2nd Armored Division had 68 76mm M4s.
3rd Armored Division had 65 76mm M4s.
4th Armored Division had 18 76mm M4s.
5th Armored Division had 19 76mm M4s.
7th Armored Division had 12 76mm M4s.

Note: these numbers for September are different than Martin's book (a total of 182 versus 117), so one of our books may have a typographical error. I'm guessing his book is perhaps Armored Thunderbolt, which in Appendix B has two charts that seem to give different totals:

Chart 4. Which has the breakdown per ETO Armored Division and when tallied gives a total of 182 76mm M4s for the beginning of September (the same chart used in US Armored Divisions: The European Theater of Operations, 1944-45).

Chart 6. Which gives a general total of 117 76mm M4s within the U.S. 12th Army Group's Armored Divisions. Perhaps at a different point in September?

Pages 340 and 341 of Armored Thunderbolt, if anyone has it (I don't, I used Google Books).

I am guessing that the AD's got them and then the tank battalions.

The separate Tank Battalions started getting them on August 10th, 1944.

Information from US Armored Divisions: The European Theater of Operations, 1944-45 and US Tank and Tank Destroyer Battalions in the ETO 1944-45 by Steven J. Zaloga.

18 x 76's – That's only 2 per company!

Do you think they were held back like fireflies for tiger and Panther hunting?

Were any M4A1/76's issued after July? Or to any US units other than 2 and 3 AD?

Independent Tank Battalions started receiving M4A1 (76) tanks in August of 1944. In fact, they received small numbers at the same time as 2nd and 3rd Armored.

The first 100 76mm armed M4 series tanks in ETO were indeed M4A1 (76)s. These were expedited to the UK prior to D-Day, but the ground forces commanders did not accept them for issuance prior to the invasion as they were concerned about the logistics and training disruption, and did not perceive the need.

Priorities changed after the initial experiences in the Boccage. The M4A1s in UK were shipped and issued in early/mid July.

So the first 100 were indeed M4A1s. Subsequent shipments to ETO were primarily M4A3 (76)s. But M4A1 (76) remained in production and was issued in fairly large numbers.

The key issue was the effort to minimize the complexity of mechanical support. The M4A3 was the Army's favorite Sherman, but it only came into production in late 1943.

Tank units did not discard their existing stock of Shermans when the new model came along. So the intent was to slide new tanks in to the existing logistics structure. Any tank units that was already overseas prior to 1st quarter 1944 had shipped with M4 and M4A1 Shermans (with radial engines). Replacement M4 and M4A1s continued to flow into ETO and MTO to keep those units supplied. The initial M4A3 Shermans (with the V8 engine) were issued to divisions that were stateside, so that they shipped over with equipped entirely with M4A3s.

As the Sherman was upgunned, this process was continued. The Sherman (105) was built on both the M4 and the M4A3 chassis, so that both radial-equipped and V8-equipped units could receive Sherman (105)s. The Sherman (76) was built on both the M4A1 and the M4A3 chassis for the same reason.

Over time the preference for the superior automotive performance of the V8 in the -A3, and the imperfect mix of which gun and which engine were available at what time in what depot led to mixing within divisions and even battalions. And surprise surprise it wasn't that bad. As ETO got priority call for preferred weapons, eventually most of the M4A3 (76)s went to ETO. That left MTO to get most of the M4A1 (76)s.

As to tank divisions vs. independent battalions … the independent battalions got the 105s quicker, the tank divisions got the 76s quicker. But still, both got a mix. Just a question of which was the mix was biased.

18 x 76's – That's only 2 per company!

Do you think they were held back like fireflies for tiger and Panther hunting?

Unit commanders issued their few Sherman (76)s as they chose. Some concentrated them, some disbursed them.

The interesting thing, often overlooked by students of WW2 history and gaming enthusiasts, is that most US armored unit commanders were fairly indifferent to the Sherman (76) in the fall of 1944. What they clamored for were more Sherman (105)s! And more Jumbos … the independent tank battalions really liked the Jumbos.

There was a brief cry for more anti-armor gunpower in July. By mid-August that voice fell silent. As noted by another poster, it was not until the Bulge that the cry went out again for more 76s.

For a well rounded (and documented) review of who wanted what when, check out this article:
link

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

One of the reasons for lack of demand for the 76 was that the 75mm HE round was better. The majority of tank operations, especially for the American tanks wasn't anti-AFV but rather infantry support. And the 75 was better at it. Its funny that the Jumbo, which was designed for Infantry Support wound up being sought after as an anti-tank weapon. In 1945, 3rd Army, which had managed to acquire spare 76mm guns were rearming their Jumbos with them. Since the Jumbo's gun mount was derived from the 76mm it was an easy thing to do. I think that one of the American production mistakes was only making 250 Jumbos. The Jumbo could take and survive hits from the 75 and the 88 and it didn't lose al that much in mobility or reliability because the transmissions were re-geared to take the added weight.

This doesn't mean that the US Army was oblivious to the idea of better anti-armor capabilities. Part of the problem was that the 76mm wasn't all that much better against say a Panther than a 75 was. Once British production of the 17 pounder caught up there was a plan to arm the Americans with Fireflies but the 17 pounder had problems of its own, mainly accuracy problems. And the size of the rounds limited the carrying capacity. When production goals were being set for 1945 and beyond the consensus in Europe was that they didn't want anymore 76mm armed tanks, they wanted the 90mm and 105mm. There was of course a plan to put the Pershing turret (with it's 90mm) on a Sherman hull (since the had the same size turret ring). It was felt that this would slow down Pershing production though, although had the war gone on into the summer who knows what might have happened. Of course production of the HVAP round would also be a priority, HVAP gave the 76 a chance against German armor but production of it was painfully slow.

Just to echo the comments above, despite what wargamers might think seems sensible, contemporary US tank commanders weren't that bothered about 76mm guns until late 1944 for the range of reasons mentioned.

In the British OR reports on 75mm vs 76mm HE efficiency, the 76mm wasn't hugely worse (approx 20%), the recommendation was simply to fire more of the 76mm shells to achieve the same effect. The Panther had the same problem of course.

The interesting thing, often overlooked by students of WW2 history and gaming enthusiasts, is that most US armored unit commanders were fairly indifferent to the Sherman (76) in the fall of 1944. What they clamored for were more Sherman (105)s! And more Jumbos … the independent tank battalions really liked the Jumbos.

There was a brief cry for more anti-armor gunpower in July. By mid-August that voice fell silent. As noted by another poster, it was not until the Bulge that the cry went out again for more 76s.

Of course, no US tank colonel would have been able to foresee the brief resurgence of the Panzerwaffe at the Battle of the Bulge. I would guess that most US army officers thought that the Boche had been licked once and for all in Normandy and it was just a matter of mopping up his infantry and fortifications and trying to end the war by Xmas.

HVAP ammo for the 76mm went mostly to the Tank Destroyer battalions equipped with M18 Hellcats. Sometimes tankers would swap a few rounds of HE to the TDs to get some HVAP.

Many tankers clammered for more armor, such as the Jumbo, to improve their survivability, not realizing that a better gun would also do that. If you kill the other guy first, he can't kill you. On the other hand, HVAP doesn't help against an anti-tank gun, which might have been what US tanks were more often up against than panzers (be they towed or SP, such as Marders).

So did any units in Italy receive the 76mm Sherman's?
I think 1st armored division was in Italy and maybe other tanks. Currently building some m4a1 Sherman's a few of which are 76mm.

So did any units in Italy receive the 76mm Sherman's?
I think 1st armored division was in Italy and maybe other tanks. Currently building some m4a1 Sherman's a few of which are 76mm.

M4A1/76's went to the British and SA AD's, IIRC.

Lots of British/Commonwealth units in Italy had 76mm Shermans, iirc 1st Polish AD in NWE also had 76mm Shermans.

Yes, in Italy the British 1st & 6th Armoured Divisions, as well as the 6th South African Armoured Division became almost completely-equipped with Sherman IIa (i.e. M4A1 76W) by the end of 1944, having received the first deliveries in July 1944. They also had a pair of Sherman Ib (M4 105) in every squadron.

The other British/Canadian/New Zealand/Polish armoured brigades in Italy then received priority on Firefly deliveries, which began from October 1944 onwards. They also all received a pair of Sherman Ib in each squadron. IIRC, 7th Armoured Brigade was unique in achieving a complete mix of 75, 76, 105 and 17pdr (pity the Quartermaster…)!

1st Polish Armoured Division in NW Europe completely replaced its 75mm-armed Shermans with Sherman IIa during the winter of 1944/45. The division retained its Fireflies, so had a very potent mixture of 76mm and 17pdr tanks in each troop. The reason for this was that the division was withdrawn from the line during the winter to absorb and train the large numbers of ex-Wehrmacht Polish recruits that had been acquired from PoWs. It then made sense to completely re-equip the division with new tanks at this time.