"M7 (Priest) in US Tank Battalions - actual usage?" Topic

I may well have asked this question before, and just forgotten the answer, so will risk the repeat.

A comment in another thread reminded me of an old query. From late 1943 onwards the US Tank Bn was supposed to include six M4 tanks armed with the 105-mm howitzer. I think it is reasonably well documented that the numbers available for the ETO in Jun/Jul 1944 were not adequate to meet T/O needs.

I often see it said that, as an interim measure, the M7 (Priest) Howitzer Motor Carriage was issued in lieu. The M4 with the 105-mm and the M7 HMC were different vehicles with different capabilities and crew requirements. Aside from the ammunition, it has never felt to me like a natural alternative.

But, not being a tank guy, I don't even know where to look. So I was wondering if any of the actual tank guys do know where information on the issue of M7s to Tank Bns can be found? It would be interesting to know how many units received them and for how long if possible.

Gary

The M4 with 105 was for direct close support when engaging Infantry, etc.

The M7 was Self Propelled Field Artillery to use primarily for indirect supporting fires. Like any FA piece. And being an SP it can more easily keep up with the advance of AFVs.

The M7 was standard in the tank battalions from what I've read, through much of 1944.

I think the Sherman 105s started arriving rather late in the year. Don't know if they replaced the Priests or were available in addition to them.

Both could be used in the direct fire and indirect fire modes, though I believe the M7s primarily provided indirect support.

From some accounts I've read of the Ardennes, and a couple being present for various engagements, I suspect they may have been parceled out in pairs to the tank companies, as needed, instead of being kept together as a full platoon of six. That's purely my conjecture on the subject, but would seem to make sense in the hilly/mountainous, and wooded terrain of the Ardennes, where coordinating fire from a full battery from a distance could be problematical.

In 40 years I've never seen M7's listed as organic to armor battalions. I'd be curious to see a source for that info.

M7s would support armor (and infantry) battalions in an indirect fire role, as designed, as artillery support. Perhaps the confusion comes from artillery batteries firing in support of battalions. During the Battle of the Bulge it's possible that in the confusion and retreat that units got mixed up and M7s found themselves too far forward. But just because artillery gets mixed up with maneuver battalions it doesn't mean they were organic.

I think the Sherman 105s started arriving rather late in the year. Don't know if they replaced the Priests or were available in addition to them.

No they didn't replace the M7s. The Sherman with 105 in the turret was considered an "assault gun". Which was good in a direct fire role to take on Infantry, etc. To support the M4 MBTs. And was part of the Tank Bn IIRC …

But just because artillery gets mixed up with maneuver battalions it doesn't mean they were organic.

Very true …

IIRC, at some point M7s replaced the M8 75mm HMCs with the armored infantry battalions.

My source was the old Strategy and Tactics magazine on the subject, decades ago.

3 x Mdm. tank cos.

1 x Light tank co.

1 x M-7 Priest battery/platoon of 6 vehicles.

HQ units

Thanks for the replies.

Just to clarify, as noted above, the authorised equipment of the Tank Bn did not include the M7 105-mm HMC. From the reorganisation of the Armd Divs in late 1943 the Tank Bn was authorised one 105-mm armed tank per Medium Coy, and an Assault Gun Pl with three more in its HQ Coy.

Tactically it was possible for the six to be concentrated in a single unit, or dispersed out to the Coys as required.

The reality was that the M4s with 105-mm main armament did not arrive in time for the Normandy landings, and it is generally reckoned that they started reaching units in the later months of 1944. What I am interested in is the idea that, as an interim measure, Tank Bns were issued with six(?) M7 HMCs to undertake the role of the M4 105-mm tank.

If this is detailed in contemporary documents, reports or memoirs I'd just like to know where so I can get an idea myself.

Don, the Armd Inf Bns did start with the M8 HMCs mounting a 75-mm. If you recall the old "US Army Handbook" by George Forty, that identifies the Armd Inf Bn as having three M7s with 105-mm howitzer in its Aslt Gun Pl. The actual T/O for the Bn though states it was to receive three "tank, medium, w/armament (105-mm howitzer)" under a change of Sep44, with the crew being five men, including a bow gunner. The M7 had a crew of seven and no need for a bow gunner. Similarly to the Tank Bn, I am sure I've seen it said that they actually got the M7 'in lieu' but again I don't know where that comes from.

Gary

IIRC, at some point M7s replaced the M8 75mm HMCs with the armored infantry battalions.

I'm not sure about that ? But I could be wrong ?

The M8 HMC's 75 is short and meant for close Fire Support vs. Infantry. The M7s 105 was much more powerful and had a longer range. And generally fire indirectly.

Now could M7s be attached from an SPFA Bn to an Inf or Tank Bn ? Like we do today … I'd say "yes" …

This is not a contemporary document, report or memoir, but in his Osprey Battle Orders book on US Armored Divisions Steve Zaloga writes "The Assault Gun Platoon was supposed to be equipped with the M4(105) ….. In fact, these were slow in arriving, so some battalions in France used the M7 105mm HMC in its place until the standard assault gun was available".

From "The Sherman Tank Site", posting on the Tank Battalion:
link

Sherman Company, Late 1943

HQ Section: (2) Sherman Tanks (1) Sherman 105 tank or M7 GMC (1) Jeep

Tank Platoons: X3 (5) Sherman tanks

Maintenance Section: (1) M32 ARV (1) M3 Half Track (1) Jeep

Admin, Mess and Supply Section: (1) 2 ½ Truck with trailer

Personnel: (5) Officers (112) EM

I know we are looking for primary, or at least contemporaneous sources. This is the best I've come upon so far.

Sources listed for this site are:

Sources: The 100thwwII.org websites page on the 784st TD, Armored Thunderbolt, US Tank and Tank Destroyer Battalions in the ETO 1944-45 by Zaloga, Yeide's TD and two separate tank battalion books, Sherman by Hunnicutt, Combat Lessons, The Rank and file, what they do and how they are doing it 1-7, and 9. The Sherman Minutia Site, Son of a Sherman by Stansell and Laughlin, M4 Sherman tank at war by Green, Tanks are a Might Fine Thing by Stout, the Lone Sentry, TM9-731B M4A2, TM9-750M3, TM9-752 M4A3, TM9-754 M4A4, TM9-759 M4A3, TFKSM 17-3-2 Armor in Battle, FM17-12 Tank Gunnery, FM17-15 Combat Practice firing, FM17-30 The Tank Platoon 42, FM17-32 The Tank Company medium and light, FM17-33 The Armored Battalion, FM17-67 Crew Drill and Service of the Piece M4 Series, Another River, another town by Irwin

Many of these are secondary, or even tertiary sources. But a few are primary.

I have several of those sources. Heck, I even did some of the research for one of them. I have FM17-33 (The Armored Battalion), and FM17-32 (The Tank Company), but only the 1942 versions. At that time the assault guns were T30 HMCs.

Still looking …

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Hunnicutt's book "Sherman, a history of the American medium tank" lists M4(105)s being accepted into service as from February 1944. So how can they be in T.O.&Es from late 1943 unless this was an aspirational organisation with M7s temporarily taking the 105s place?

I could understand the assignment of a platoon or battery of M7 GMCs to a tank battalion HQ as a replacement of the M4 assault gun platoon.

Howeverm the idea of parcelling individual Priests to tank company HQs instead of the single M4 105 mm that they were supposed to have sounds like a recipe for trouble, considering that the Priest does not have a rotating turret, is open-topped and has lighter armour than a Sherman.

Not really, since direct fire support happened quite frequently for both sides, from their SPGs.

A lot of the units that fought in the Ardennes were small, ad hoc units, or task forces, created to try to stem the tide. An American tank or two, a platoon or three, and other very small mixed units were used all the time, in order to try to plug the holes in the defenses. I do recall reading recently that there were a couple of Priests present in one, or more units.

The Light Armored Divisions had 3 Tank Btns, 3 Armored Infantry Btns, and 3 Self Propelled Artillery Btns . Divided into 3 Combat Commands, each divided into 2 Task Forces. This meant that a lot of equipment was moved around. But as has been said above, those two equipments were meant to serve different purposes. Direct fire and indirect fire.

See the note 2 at the bottom of link for an M-4 105 date. clicking the link "Aggregate" gives a break down of what goes where.

For independent TBs, you can crawl through link .

I found one nugget via a Google book search, from "The Infantry's Armor" by Harry Yeide. Next to a photo the caption reads "All six M4A3 105-mm assault guns from a tank battalion fire in battery in France in mid-July 1944. The 105-mm assault gun served in standard tank battalions, though outfits in Italy and the Pacific made do with the M7 self-propelled howitzer until late 1944".

And from the same book "The 752d and 757th Tank Battalions finally received M4A3 105-mm assault guns to replace their M7 Priests in December 1944". Both those units appear to have gone from North Africa to Italy, and were in the latter when they seemingly traded their M7s.

The links to the tank returns on Leo Niehorster's site are also interesting, looks like the Tank Bns had mostly received their 105s by late July 1944.

I had found some figures for ordnance items on Fold3, but they are hard to put into context. Those for June 44 do suggest the ETO requirement was for 450 M7s (25 SP FA Bns) with that number held. There doesn't seem to have been an excess to equip units that didn't have them on their T/O&E 'wants' list.

Gary

"The Assault Gun Platoon was supposed to be equipped with the M4(105) ….. In fact, these were slow in arriving, so some battalions in France used the M7 105mm HMC in its place until the standard assault gun was available".

finally received M4A3 105-mm assault guns to replace their M7 Priests in December 1944".

That all sounds correct.

Hunnicutt's book "Sherman, a history of the American medium tank" lists M4(105)s being accepted into service as from February 1944.

Production of the M4 105mm Sherman started in February of 1944. It ran through March of 1945, and totaled more than 1,600 units.

Production of the M4A3 105mm Sherman started in May of 1944 and ran through June of 1945. It totaled more than 3,000 units.

From the production schedules, only about 210 had been produced by April of 1944 (M4 only, no M4A3), for all commitments including training and new units equipping state-side, as well as for deployment in units committed to ETO on D-Day or immediately after D-Day.

In other words, many formations would have gone into ETO without their M4 105s.

The question is, did they go ashore with:
- T30 75mm HMCs?
- M7 105mm HMCs?
- Some other vehicle I have not yet seen referenced?
- Or with nothing filling the assault gun role?

I have reviewed a few tank battalion AAR reports in my collection and that I could find online. In general they report the number of medium tanks, light tanks, and assault guns that are serviceable, in battalion repair, and turned over to higher level repair. There is no distinction I can find as to what vehicles are serving in the assault gun roles. However, the "nothing filling the assault gun role" option seems not to have been evidenced. At least that's what I've found in my readings so far.

Howeverm the idea of parcelling individual Priests to tank company HQs instead of the single M4 105 mm that they were supposed to have sounds like a recipe for trouble, considering that the Priest does not have a rotating turret, is open-topped and has lighter armour than a Sherman.

But it was better than a half-track with a 75mm howitzer in the same role. Which is what it would have replaced.

So how can they be in T.O.&Es from late 1943 unless this was an aspirational organisation with M7s temporarily taking the 105s place?

Exactly.

The 752d and 757th Tank Battalions finally received M4A3 105-mm assault guns to replace their M7 Priests in December 1944.

Yiede's research is top notch. Almost all based on primary sources. And the timing is exactly as I would have predicted from the production schedules and typical deployment times. So I don't doubt the veracity of those two cases. The question remains though as to how widespread this issue was.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

More info on timing of first deployments of the M4 105mm Shermans from the Sherman Minutia website:
link

The Army wanted to get some 2nd Generation Shermans, particularly those with the new 76mm and 105mm guns, into the hands of US combat troops as soon as possible. Consequently, 160 M4A1(76)s and 210 M4(105)s were shipped to Great Britain in the weeks and months leading up to D-Day, June 6, 1944. These were made available, but there appears to have been a reluctance on the part of armor commanders to adopt them into the Table of Organization and Equipment (TO&E) before the Invasion, since the troops had not trained with them. At present, we don't find evidence that any M4(105)s landed and fought on D-Day. …

In the Spring of 1944, it was reported that "76mm tanks can be seen (also 105mm Tanks) at Depot G-25…11 mi. NE of Cheltenham [UK]." Available evidence suggests that several of the Armored Divisions slated to land in Normandy in the weeks following D-Day adopted the M4(105)s into their TO&Es. Among these were the US 4th and 7th Armored Divisions, as well as the French 2nd Armored Division. According to FM [Field Manual] 17-25 "Assault Gun Section and Platoon," published in September, 1944, the standard configuration in a Tank Battalion consisted of a "platoon" of three 105 Shermans (referred to as "Assault Guns") in the Headquarters Company, and a "section" of one in each of the Battalion's three Medium Tank Companies.

Again, no contemporaneous evidence of M7s, but reasonable evidence that the tank battalions committed from D-Day through a few weeks after D-Day would not have had M4 105 Shermans for the assault gun roles, and that it was several weeks after D-Day that units with M4 105 Shermans started coming ashore. Missing is evidence either way about units that were already ashore taking (or not taking) M4 105mm as in-situ replacements. This tends to suggest that units already committed had something else serving in the role. Yet, comments I've seen from several tank battalions during the fall and winter indicate such a strong positive reaction to the 105mm Sherman that I do wonder if they simply didn't have assault gun platoons/sections prior to receiving them.

BTW I have reviewed FM17-25 from Sept 1944. I find no mention of substitute vehicles for the M4 105mm.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Very interesting … Thanks !

I asked at Axis History Forum and got a good reply.

"No, the 105mm HMC M7 was never substituted for the Medium Tank M4 (105mm) in the ETOUSA. Anecdotally that was done in a few cases in the MTO and PTO.

In the run-up to NEPTUNE, the Separate Tank Battalions in the ETOUSA were provisionally assigned six additional Medium Tanks M4 (75mm) to replace the authorized vehicles. In the three assault battalions it seems they mostly ended up manning the tank dozers assigned to the battalion".

"When the 4th, 5th, and 6th Armored Division deployed to England prior to 6 June, they brought 54 Medium Tanks M4 (105mm) with them as did the divisions that arrived afterwards. The first 54 for the Separate Tank Battalions arrived on the Continent from England in late June, early July, and were distributed to the 8 battalions c. 2-4 July. By 8 August, a total of 172 (plus 4 or 5 lost by that date) were with the 12th Army Group in divisions and separate battalions."

link

I do trust the poster and he certainly knows where to find records in the US Archives on all things tank. He also provided the tank figures in the Niehorster pages linked to above.

Overall then, it would appear, the M7 appeared very rarely in Tank Bns, and then in the MTO and the PTO, both theatres were exceptions to authorised equipment were definably common. If anything else pops up on AHF I'll post it here.

Thanks for the responses,

Gary

Would you also trust Zaloga, Gary, who I quote a few posts above? He states the exact opposite.

Yes, I saw the post and searched for the reference you found, and was able to find the same page on an e-book preview to boot. I'm familiar with the poster who offered the contrary view to Zaloga, and also there's Yeide's entry, with the added context that excludes units in France.

I'm not distrusting Zaloga, he's written widely on US tanks and is well respected in the field, and this is a minor niggle regarding a tank that only looks sexy when it's parked next to an armoured recovery vehicle.

I'm sure the reference to M7s standing in for Tank Bn 105-mm armed tanks goes back many years (Thresher notes his source is a few decades old). It's probably something I read in a book that's ten foot away from me now but I can't recall which one.

So I'm not disparaging of Mr Zaloga, and if he provides something further on the limited point that I was curious about I would be very interested to hear it. It's hardly going to undermine his reputation IF it turns out he's in error on this minor issue, and it's not as if he's ploughing a lone furrow on it.

Gary

I do trust the poster and he certainly knows where to find records in the US Archives on all things tank.

Yep, quite agree. Very credible poster.

The poster was Rich Anderson. He is among the best at research -- it's his profession. Worked for the Dupuy Institute for many years.

He has given his sources in the post as well, ETOUSA AFV&W Section in RG 492, NARA, to open up the topic for others to verify. Of course, one would need to dig into the National Archives to find it ( archives.gov/research ).

I will accept it as the best information we have seen. I am now persuaded that M7s did not serve as ersatz assault guns in the ETO tank battalions. Only in Italy (MTO) and the Pacific.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

While looking for something else, I found this reference which states that 105mm SPGs (M7?) were used to replace 81mm mortars in a CC of the 4th Armored Division. They may have been M4 105mm tanks but I think they would have said that more clearly if they were. It's the bottom paragraph of one of the 4th Armored reports.

link

That's a nice spot. From what I've seen contemporary reports by US Tank units do tend to use Assault Gun to refer to the 75-mm M8 and the 105-mm M4, so SP gun is suggestive of the M7. The fuller series the piece posted on AHF is from can be found at the below link at the CARL digital library, see page 18 of the PDF for the one quoted – the reports are in reverse date order for some reason.

link

Also in there, page 118, is a snippet from the 117th Cav Rcn Sqn, circa March 1945, which notes they had replaced their 75-mm M8s with 105-mm M7s 'by special authority'.

I could only find reports from 37th Tank Bn of 4th Armd Div on CARL, had a very quick search through for 105 or assault gun, etc but nothing came up for them at least. Could see AARs for the 8th or the 35th Tank Bns, which I think would be the other candidates.

81st Tank Bn did note they had attached their Medium Coy 105-mms to the Assault Gun Pl to form a six gun 'battery'.

link

Gary

I think it unlikely that priests were used as assault guns in nwe. It is the sort of thing you might find in AAR. Details of actions might not be super reliable but vehicles used should be reasonably so.

One interesting bit about that report is that "mortar personnel has been used to make up a self-propelled gun company of six guns".

On a quick glance, self-propelled mortar platoon had around 25 personnel in four half-tracks. That's not quite enough to man six M4 Shermans at 5 crew each, never mind M7 Priests with their larger crew – and that is without allocating any crew to possible ammo carriers. So this new unit would have needed to obtain personnel also from some other source.

Thought I would take a more concerted look through the AARs on CARL for non-Divisional US Tank Battalions in the ETO. Still not exactly a scientific study, but did turn up few specific refs to M4s with 105-mm main armament or to 105-mm Assault Guns.

781st – Jan 1945 refers to "Reinforced Assault Gun Platoon (6 medium tanks with 105mm Howitzers)" later identified as M4A3s.

740th – Jan 1945 refers to six M4 with 105-mm howitzers being used as a Battery in concert with 456th PFA Bn.

707th – 19 Dec 1944 refers to loss of "6 tanks, medium, 105m howitzer". Received replacements during Feb 1945.

712th – dates in Jul 1944 refer to "105mm Assault Gun" and again Oct and Dec 1944 and into 1945.

737th – Mar 1945 mentions "Six 105-mm Howitzers mounted on M-4 tank".

709th – numerous mentions of Assault Gun Platoon but not really any specifics of weapon types or calibres. There is also an AAR by the leader of the Assault Gun Platoon describing his handling of the tanks as artillery in co-operation with FA units in Aug 1944.

There's also a mention in the 781st history "Up from Marseille" about a similar set-up to that noted for 4th Armd Div. A provisional 'Battery' of the six 105-mm armed tanks was formed and made up of personnel from the 81-mm Mortar and the Assault Gun Pls.

link

Most interesting though comes from 746th Tank Bn, which does go back to Jun/Jul 1944. An entry for 7th June 1944 says "the assault gun platoon (then medium tanks)" then in early July 1944 says "Six 105mm Howitzers (SP) were drawn and issued, 3 to the Assault Gun Platoon of Headquarters Company and 1 to each Medium Tank Company. The six tanks previously used in lieu of these were turned in". By late Sep 1944, reference is to the "Assault Gun Platoon (6, 105mm How)" being used in co-op with Regimental Cannon Coys of Inf units.

link

That seems to be the closest reference to a self-propelled artillery piece rather than an M4 medium mounting a 105-mm howitzer.

Problem with the reports on CARL is that they are largely for the latter part of the campaign in the West, so not necessarily indicative of the equipment of hand through summer of 1944. And a lot of units don't offer any distinction regarding their equipment anyway.

Gary

Special circumstances but here is a clear reference to M7s being used by the 740th Tank Battalion in late 1944.

The Service Company took over the ordnance plant at Sprimont and the Battalion CP was established there. The combat vehicle situation looked a pretty hopeless mess. We assigned a tank crew to any vehicle that they thought they could put into operation. For instance, Sgt Loopey and his crew found an M36 tank destroyer and other tank crews took over MIO assault guns. The light tank company found two brand new M24 light tanks that had arrived in First Army area through error, and seven M5 light tanks, but had to fill up the rest of the company with M8 assault guns with 75 mm pack howitzers. The assault gun platoon drew M7 105 mm assault guns. Very few of these vehicles had radios and the platoon leaders found it necessary to use hand signals for control.

link