They seem to have found a way. There is a picture of a 14 July 1945 message from General Headquarters South West Pacific Area detailing the TO&E of Operation Olympic tank battalions at this link --
History Friday: Secrets of the Pacific Warfare Board — Pershing Tanks for Operation Olympic
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/43946.html
NB: This was a standard TB for Olympic --
Two Comp. (17 ea) M4A3 (76) HVSS with one M4A3(105) HVSS howitzer tank
One Comp.(17 ea). M26 Pershing with one M4A3(105) HVSS howitzer tank
One Comp (17 Ea) M24 Chaffee
Three ea. M4A3(105mm) HVSS for assault gun platoon plus three M4A3 (76) HVSS battalion HQ tanks
Plus 10 ea M5-4 Flame tanks in M4A3 in two provisional platoons of five flame tanks.
As both the M4A3 (76) HVSS and M26 were too heavy for an LCM-6. They were both going to be landed by LCT or LSM.
The shipping issue was less a problem with enough Pershings than of having enough American factor built flame tanks.
The two battalions with the most Pershings, over an above the standard TO&E above, were the 706th and 767th. Both of which were to stage from Hawaii.
M26 Pershing vs Japan
-
Mil-tech Bard
- Member
- Posts: 678
- Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 16:50
Re: M26 Pershing vs Japan
There were three issues with shipping a Pershing versus a Sherman to the Pacific.
The first issue was actual room in a ship. It worked out that you could move three Shermans for two Pershings in a Liberty ship or LST.
The second issue was cranes. There were not that many ships with 50-ton cranes...but the same was true for 35-ton cranes. As the late model M4A3 let alone M4A3 (HVSS) were too heavy for 30-ton ship cranes.
The third issue was lighterage. The landing craft getting tanks from ships to shore.
As with the Pershings. the late model M4A3 let alone M4A3 (HVSS) were too heavy for LCM-6. At Iwo Jima the USMC had to use LSM landing ships for its M4A3's for just that reason.
All that having a up-armored M4 Sherman bought you compared to a Pershing -- in terms of landing craft -- is the ability to use the LCT-5 rather than getting up to an LCT-6 landing craft.
Given the numbers of LSMs and LCT-6 to be used in Operation Olympic, ship to shore lighterage for the Pershings was not a problem
Both the 76mm and 90mm were much more accurate within their range than the 75mm -- high velocity versus medium velocity does that.
The late model M4A3(76) had the same high power optical sites as an M-18 Hellcat and the Pershing ditto with late model M-36 SPAT.
This means that the 90mm on the Pershing was going to be pounding the same spot on a bunker at 800 yards, with a more powerful shell, the way a Sherman with a 75mm gun did at 300 yards. Given the limited anti-armor capability of the Japanese anti-tank guns and the armor protection of M-26, that is the difference between life and death.
This applies for both shooting at apertures/gun-slits of bunkers and for punching out their sides.
In terms of delivered, protected, combat power the M26 Pershing's front turret and hull were proof from Japanese 47mm gunfire at point blank range -- unless you hit the machine gun ports -- and the side turret and hull side covering the crew compartment required the 47mm to be at 150 yards or less to get a penetration.
The M4A3 Sherman's turret gun mantle had that point blank level of protection versus a 47mm gun. E.B. Sledge's book has a passage where he describes a shoot out between Marine Shermans and 47mm guns where 47mm's bounced off the front turrets of a pair of Marine M4s and their return fire killed the 47mm's.
However, late model M4A3's hull and non-gun mantle turret armor could be punched through by a 47mm at 500 yards and both the turret and hull side could be punched through at a thousand yards.
Between it's armor, and the hitting power of the 90mm gun versus concrete/hard rock -- which the Sphinx Project of May-Aug 1945 said was double that of a 76mm let alone to the medium velocity 75mm gun on USMC's Operation Olympic tanks-- the combat power of three Pershings versus a 47mm armed Japanese anti-tank gun line supporting cave positions represented roughly that of 10 Sherman's.
If you had to take 10 Shermans to do the job of three Pershings, where is your shipping space savings?
The first issue was actual room in a ship. It worked out that you could move three Shermans for two Pershings in a Liberty ship or LST.
The second issue was cranes. There were not that many ships with 50-ton cranes...but the same was true for 35-ton cranes. As the late model M4A3 let alone M4A3 (HVSS) were too heavy for 30-ton ship cranes.
The third issue was lighterage. The landing craft getting tanks from ships to shore.
As with the Pershings. the late model M4A3 let alone M4A3 (HVSS) were too heavy for LCM-6. At Iwo Jima the USMC had to use LSM landing ships for its M4A3's for just that reason.
All that having a up-armored M4 Sherman bought you compared to a Pershing -- in terms of landing craft -- is the ability to use the LCT-5 rather than getting up to an LCT-6 landing craft.
Given the numbers of LSMs and LCT-6 to be used in Operation Olympic, ship to shore lighterage for the Pershings was not a problem
Both the 76mm and 90mm were much more accurate within their range than the 75mm -- high velocity versus medium velocity does that.
The late model M4A3(76) had the same high power optical sites as an M-18 Hellcat and the Pershing ditto with late model M-36 SPAT.
This means that the 90mm on the Pershing was going to be pounding the same spot on a bunker at 800 yards, with a more powerful shell, the way a Sherman with a 75mm gun did at 300 yards. Given the limited anti-armor capability of the Japanese anti-tank guns and the armor protection of M-26, that is the difference between life and death.
This applies for both shooting at apertures/gun-slits of bunkers and for punching out their sides.
In terms of delivered, protected, combat power the M26 Pershing's front turret and hull were proof from Japanese 47mm gunfire at point blank range -- unless you hit the machine gun ports -- and the side turret and hull side covering the crew compartment required the 47mm to be at 150 yards or less to get a penetration.
The M4A3 Sherman's turret gun mantle had that point blank level of protection versus a 47mm gun. E.B. Sledge's book has a passage where he describes a shoot out between Marine Shermans and 47mm guns where 47mm's bounced off the front turrets of a pair of Marine M4s and their return fire killed the 47mm's.
However, late model M4A3's hull and non-gun mantle turret armor could be punched through by a 47mm at 500 yards and both the turret and hull side could be punched through at a thousand yards.
Between it's armor, and the hitting power of the 90mm gun versus concrete/hard rock -- which the Sphinx Project of May-Aug 1945 said was double that of a 76mm let alone to the medium velocity 75mm gun on USMC's Operation Olympic tanks-- the combat power of three Pershings versus a 47mm armed Japanese anti-tank gun line supporting cave positions represented roughly that of 10 Sherman's.
If you had to take 10 Shermans to do the job of three Pershings, where is your shipping space savings?
Last edited by Mil-tech Bard on 28 Apr 2015, 16:46, edited 1 time in total.
-
Carl Schwamberger
- Host - Allied sections
- Posts: 10063
- Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
- Location: USA
Re: M26 Pershing vs Japan
Hmm.. I'll have to check. Thought the common variant of the Liberty ship came with one fifty ton crane. A smaller number had a 75 ton crane & a few special models were outfitted with a 100 tonner. 35 ton were the standard for the other crane. but, maybe I'm misremembering here.Mil-tech Bard wrote:...
The second issue was cranes. There were not that many ships with 50-ton cranes...but the same was true for 35-ton cranes. As the late model M4A3 let alone M4A3 (HVSS) were too heavy for 30-ton ship cranes. ...
-
Mil-tech Bard
- Member
- Posts: 678
- Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 16:50
Re: M26 Pershing vs Japan
Carl,
See:
S.S. Lane Victory Virtual Tour
Welcome to the Main Deck and Cargo Handling Gear!
http://www.lanevictory.org/laneVtour_mast_boom.php
The major difference between a M4A3 (76) HVSS and a Pershing is the inability of the Pershing to use a LCT-5.
As there were going to be 80 LCT on LST transports and another 50 odd LCT self-deploying from Okinawa. Plus both the Pershing and the M4A3 (76) HVSS could use the US Navy's knock down cargo barges with outboard motors to be lighterage transferred from Liberty ships -- of which 80 were going to Kyushu for Olympic -- getting Pershings ashore on Japan was not going to be an issue.
See:
S.S. Lane Victory Virtual Tour
Welcome to the Main Deck and Cargo Handling Gear!
http://www.lanevictory.org/laneVtour_mast_boom.php
Both the 2nd generation M4A3 (76) HVSS with 2.5 inch hull armor and the M26 Pershing were limited to the Liberty ship's #4 hold in any sort of amphibious assault or early post-assault logistics-over-the-beach situation. The other Liberty ship holds could be used if these tanks were being administratively transferred to a port with heavy shore side cranes.This is why LST and LSM were used to transfer them in the Pacific. All the USMC 2nd Generation M4A3 VVSS used by the USMC on Iwo Jima and Okinawa were moved by LSMs.The ship also has a pair of jumbo booms that was used for loading heavier cargo. There is a 50 ton boom mounted on the aft of the main-mast to service cargo hatch #3. There is a 30 ton boom mounted forward of the mizzen mast to service cargo hatch #4. The jumbo booms require four winches to operate both up/down and left/right movements. These booms are currently installed on the S.S. Lane Victory but not certified for use as the Coast Guard generally considers shoreside or floating cranes safer for loading/unloading heavy cargoes.
The major difference between a M4A3 (76) HVSS and a Pershing is the inability of the Pershing to use a LCT-5.
As there were going to be 80 LCT on LST transports and another 50 odd LCT self-deploying from Okinawa. Plus both the Pershing and the M4A3 (76) HVSS could use the US Navy's knock down cargo barges with outboard motors to be lighterage transferred from Liberty ships -- of which 80 were going to Kyushu for Olympic -- getting Pershings ashore on Japan was not going to be an issue.
-
Mil-tech Bard
- Member
- Posts: 678
- Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 16:50
Re: M26 Pershing vs Japan
The tables in the photo below are from a July 1945 "Pacific Material" handbook and show the penetration abilities of various US Army Ordnance guns and howitzers through medium and hard rock.
Please note the capability of the 90mm gun in those tables.
Please note the capability of the 90mm gun in those tables.
- Pacific Material Handbook July 1945, rock Penetration Appendic
-
ChristopherPerrien
- Member
- Posts: 7051
- Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
- Location: Mississippi
Re: M26 Pershing vs Japan
How many Pershings were available for Coronet? I am sure the US could have sent whatever number that was. The 90mm and thicker armor of the Pershing was at least a valuable addition. 90mm is a much bigger cannon than a 75 or 76, and has more hitting power.
As to Pershings , what are we talking, 500? as opposed to Sherman's, 5000? Obivious the brunt of fighting will be done by Shermans. Siege ops against fortification will not be common. Japanese have no tanks of note, and 47mm AT guns , and no idea of how to fight armor/infantry battle. It would be a slaughter. And even the Japanese who hid in fortifications would be either isolated or bombed into ineffectiveness.
I.E. the Allies simply don't need a 90mm Pershing in Japanese. It might have helped in isolated circumstances , at the US forces choosing. Even then the US could have brought up heavier weapons and engineers to support. the Pershing was meant to fight other tanks. Japn had "no" tanks.
As to Pershings , what are we talking, 500? as opposed to Sherman's, 5000? Obivious the brunt of fighting will be done by Shermans. Siege ops against fortification will not be common. Japanese have no tanks of note, and 47mm AT guns , and no idea of how to fight armor/infantry battle. It would be a slaughter. And even the Japanese who hid in fortifications would be either isolated or bombed into ineffectiveness.
I.E. the Allies simply don't need a 90mm Pershing in Japanese. It might have helped in isolated circumstances , at the US forces choosing. Even then the US could have brought up heavier weapons and engineers to support. the Pershing was meant to fight other tanks. Japn had "no" tanks.
-
Carl Schwamberger
- Host - Allied sections
- Posts: 10063
- Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
- Location: USA
Re: M26 Pershing vs Japan
I wonder how fanatic they were with spread loading cargos? We avoided too many like items on a single ship so a sinking would less cripple a unit or system. The airstrikes against the fleet off Okinawa gave the USN a good scare. It might have been prudent to keep up the precautions.Mil-tech Bard wrote:Carl,
See:
S.S. Lane Victory Virtual Tour
Welcome to the Main Deck and Cargo Handling Gear!
http://www.lanevictory.org/laneVtour_mast_boom.php
Both the 2nd generation M4A3 (76) HVSS with 2.5 inch hull armor and the M26 Pershing were limited to the Liberty ship's #4 hold in any sort of amphibious assault or early post-assault logistics-over-the-beach situation. ...The ship also has a pair of jumbo booms that was used for loading heavier cargo. There is a 50 ton boom mounted on the aft of the main-mast to service cargo hatch #3. There is a 30 ton boom mounted forward of the mizzen mast to service cargo hatch #4. The jumbo booms require four winches to operate both up/down and left/right movements. These booms are currently installed on the S.S. Lane Victory but not certified for use as the Coast Guard generally considers shoreside or floating cranes safer for loading/unloading heavy cargoes.
-
Mil-tech Bard
- Member
- Posts: 678
- Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 16:50
Re: M26 Pershing vs Japan
Christopher Perrien,
There were going to be 23 tank battalions in the independent tank battalions and the armored divisions for Operation Coronet.
The sums are 17 * 23 = 391 in the TO&E establishment in the Coronet Tank battalions plus however many would be in the "wastage" reserves. Between 500 and 600 would be a good round number for US Army Pershing requirements in the Pacific. And note, that is assuming that the USMC _DOESN'T_ change its mind and wants Pershings as well.
In addition, each infantry regiment under the "R" for redeployment Infantry Divisions were replacing the 57mm AT gun with nine 90mm Pershings and the six 105mm towed guns would be replaced by a nine tank M45 Pershing (105) company.
The Pacific Army did not like the "R" division TO&E equipment for the infantry regiment in the AT-gun company and went for M-18 Hellcats for reasons of mobility/trafficability.
Logistically, the reality was there were not going to be enough M45 Pershings built in the USA and in the Pacific shipment pipeline for the March 1946 Coronet landings. The Pacific Army would have to make due with the M4A3 (105) HVSS.
There were going to be 23 tank battalions in the independent tank battalions and the armored divisions for Operation Coronet.
The sums are 17 * 23 = 391 in the TO&E establishment in the Coronet Tank battalions plus however many would be in the "wastage" reserves. Between 500 and 600 would be a good round number for US Army Pershing requirements in the Pacific. And note, that is assuming that the USMC _DOESN'T_ change its mind and wants Pershings as well.
In addition, each infantry regiment under the "R" for redeployment Infantry Divisions were replacing the 57mm AT gun with nine 90mm Pershings and the six 105mm towed guns would be replaced by a nine tank M45 Pershing (105) company.
The Pacific Army did not like the "R" division TO&E equipment for the infantry regiment in the AT-gun company and went for M-18 Hellcats for reasons of mobility/trafficability.
Logistically, the reality was there were not going to be enough M45 Pershings built in the USA and in the Pacific shipment pipeline for the March 1946 Coronet landings. The Pacific Army would have to make due with the M4A3 (105) HVSS.
-
Mil-tech Bard
- Member
- Posts: 678
- Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 16:50
Re: M26 Pershing vs Japan
>>Siege ops against fortification will not be common.
Actually, the US Army in the Pacific assumed there would be continuous siege ops.
That was the gist of Training Circular 34 CAVE WARFARE dtd 11 Aug 1945.
The method described in the circular boiled down to a four step process as follows --
1. Defoliate Japanese positions to the expose firing apertures,
2. Devastate the exposed apertures with direct fire,
3. Excavate with high explosives, either hand emplaced or delivered by 155mm(+) howitzers/guns and
4. Exterminate with flamethrowers or bulldozers.
Rinse and repeat, leaving no unsealed firing apertures behind you.
If that isn't "continuous siege ops," I don't know what is.
Actually, the US Army in the Pacific assumed there would be continuous siege ops.
That was the gist of Training Circular 34 CAVE WARFARE dtd 11 Aug 1945.
- Training Circular (TC) 34 Cave Warfare -- 11 August 1945
1. Defoliate Japanese positions to the expose firing apertures,
2. Devastate the exposed apertures with direct fire,
3. Excavate with high explosives, either hand emplaced or delivered by 155mm(+) howitzers/guns and
4. Exterminate with flamethrowers or bulldozers.
Rinse and repeat, leaving no unsealed firing apertures behind you.
If that isn't "continuous siege ops," I don't know what is.
-
Mil-tech Bard
- Member
- Posts: 678
- Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 16:50
Re: M26 Pershing vs Japan
>>I wonder how fanatic they were with spread loading cargos?
Troops were combat loaded. The US Navy liked the battalion lift sized APA. MacArthur's SWPA liked, or at least used four LCI(L) in lieu of a single APA to move a battalion in Kamikaze filled skies on the west coast of Leyte, Mindoro and many Division plus to regimental sized landings after the corps sized Northern Luzon landing in Jan 1945.
Ammo was concentrated in specialist ships.
Two transports at Okinawa with all the spare 60mm, 81mm, and 4.2-inch mortar ammunition for the operation were destroyed by Kamikaze early in the Okinawa operation. There was a long period in May thru June 1945 that mortar ammo was airlifted in to 10th Army before spare ammo from the West Coast could arrive.
Troops were combat loaded. The US Navy liked the battalion lift sized APA. MacArthur's SWPA liked, or at least used four LCI(L) in lieu of a single APA to move a battalion in Kamikaze filled skies on the west coast of Leyte, Mindoro and many Division plus to regimental sized landings after the corps sized Northern Luzon landing in Jan 1945.
Ammo was concentrated in specialist ships.
Two transports at Okinawa with all the spare 60mm, 81mm, and 4.2-inch mortar ammunition for the operation were destroyed by Kamikaze early in the Okinawa operation. There was a long period in May thru June 1945 that mortar ammo was airlifted in to 10th Army before spare ammo from the West Coast could arrive.
-
sdmahaneysc
- Member
- Posts: 6
- Joined: 26 Apr 2015, 21:32
- Location: South Carolina, USA
Re: M26 Pershing vs Japan
[quote="Mil-tech Bard"]>>Siege ops against fortification will not be common.
Actually, the US Army in the Pacific assumed there would be continuous siege ops.
That was the gist of Training Circular 34 CAVE WARFARE dtd 11 Aug 1945.
Well, I'm quite happy to see that, as it's more or less exactly what I presumed for the last many months of writing.
In fact, it got quite dull and depressing for a while. Hopefully that was successfully parlayed into a crisis of conscience for both the main character and a fed up old master sergeant he meets.
To sum up my reaction to the expansive technical exposition laid out above (I really do love this stuff too, just ain't got time for it at the moment - I have a short redheaded editor to satisfy), that spiffy 90 mm gun can crush rock for sure. But which rock? Fire discipline by Japanese defenders was repetitively detailed by Green, Sledge, and others. It would be quite a show, but mostly at close range.
Actually, the US Army in the Pacific assumed there would be continuous siege ops.
That was the gist of Training Circular 34 CAVE WARFARE dtd 11 Aug 1945.
Well, I'm quite happy to see that, as it's more or less exactly what I presumed for the last many months of writing.
In fact, it got quite dull and depressing for a while. Hopefully that was successfully parlayed into a crisis of conscience for both the main character and a fed up old master sergeant he meets.
To sum up my reaction to the expansive technical exposition laid out above (I really do love this stuff too, just ain't got time for it at the moment - I have a short redheaded editor to satisfy), that spiffy 90 mm gun can crush rock for sure. But which rock? Fire discipline by Japanese defenders was repetitively detailed by Green, Sledge, and others. It would be quite a show, but mostly at close range.
www.xdayjapan.com - Front Line Reporting at the Greatest Invasion and the Dawn of Nuclear Warfare
-
sdmahaneysc
- Member
- Posts: 6
- Joined: 26 Apr 2015, 21:32
- Location: South Carolina, USA
Re: M26 Pershing vs Japan
Ultimately it's a political decision (even if the deciders are in uniform). The debate surely did happen between staff and command officers, and it would have been interesting to hear. Having sweat out details of the process in previous battles, some voices would certainly be wary of changing anything.Mil-tech Bard wrote:There were three issues with shipping a Pershing versus a Sherman to the Pacific.
If you had to take 10 Shermans to do the job of three Pershings, where is your shipping space savings?
The last number to consider is just how many tanks fit onto each ship, e.g. an LST. Considering that any new system being introduced would require different support gear to come along with it, I expected an initial non-assault delivery of Pershings would be 'not even half' the number of Shermans in the same boat.
Square footage in a hold is not fungible. If five older tanks could fit abreast, it's a big deal if the new model can fit four or only three across the same beam. I really do wonder just how carefully those long barrels had to be oriented to not pokes holes in things . If someone here (and it will be here if anywhere!) jumps in with an original manifest for an early August 1945 LST packing, I will be amused and unsurprised.
www.xdayjapan.com - Front Line Reporting at the Greatest Invasion and the Dawn of Nuclear Warfare
-
Mil-tech Bard
- Member
- Posts: 678
- Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 16:50
Re: M26 Pershing vs Japan
Checking out this Axis History Forum thread is a must for you --
Operation Downfall
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 3&t=167525
Operation Downfall
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 3&t=167525
-
Mil-tech Bard
- Member
- Posts: 678
- Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 16:50
Re: M26 Pershing vs Japan
If you are writing about a possible invasion of Japan in Nov 1945, I suggest the following columns from over on the Chicago Boyz web log. In particular, pay attention to the 81st Infantry Division tactics on Peleliu.
The 81st would be in the Kyushu invasion and had passed its lessons learned on to 6th Army when attached to in May 1945.
See --
History Friday: MacArthur’s Sioux Code Talkers
21st June 2013
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/36899.html
History Friday: 81st ID’s Peleliu Lessons for MacArthur’s Invasion of Japan
23rd August 2013
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/38212.html
History Friday: Technological Surprise & the Defeat of the 193rd Tank Battalion at Kakuza Ridge
30th August 2013
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/38455.html
History Friday: Mechanized Flame Weapons from an “Invasion That Never Happened”
1st November 2013
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/25969.html
History Friday: Operation Olympic – Something Forgotten & Something Familiar
10th January 2014
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/41192.html
History Friday: Analyzing The Okinawa Kamikaze Strikes & Japanese/US Planning For Operation Olympic
7th March 2014
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/42058.html
History Friday: Secrets of the Pacific Warfare Board — Block III TV in the Occupation of Japan, First of an Occasional Series
20th June 2014
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/43669.html
History Friday: Secrets of the Pacific Warfare Board — Body Armor for Operation Olympic
27th June 2014
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/43831.html
History Friday: Secrets of the Pacific Warfare Board — Block III TV in the Invasion of Japan, Fourth of an Occasional Series
15th August 2014
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/44897.html
History Friday — MacArthur’s 5th Air Force Indian Code Talkers
1st May 2015
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/48301.html
The 81st would be in the Kyushu invasion and had passed its lessons learned on to 6th Army when attached to in May 1945.
See --
History Friday: MacArthur’s Sioux Code Talkers
21st June 2013
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/36899.html
History Friday: 81st ID’s Peleliu Lessons for MacArthur’s Invasion of Japan
23rd August 2013
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/38212.html
History Friday: Technological Surprise & the Defeat of the 193rd Tank Battalion at Kakuza Ridge
30th August 2013
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/38455.html
History Friday: Mechanized Flame Weapons from an “Invasion That Never Happened”
1st November 2013
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/25969.html
History Friday: Operation Olympic – Something Forgotten & Something Familiar
10th January 2014
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/41192.html
History Friday: Analyzing The Okinawa Kamikaze Strikes & Japanese/US Planning For Operation Olympic
7th March 2014
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/42058.html
History Friday: Secrets of the Pacific Warfare Board — Block III TV in the Occupation of Japan, First of an Occasional Series
20th June 2014
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/43669.html
History Friday: Secrets of the Pacific Warfare Board — Body Armor for Operation Olympic
27th June 2014
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/43831.html
History Friday: Secrets of the Pacific Warfare Board — Block III TV in the Invasion of Japan, Fourth of an Occasional Series
15th August 2014
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/44897.html
History Friday — MacArthur’s 5th Air Force Indian Code Talkers
1st May 2015
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/48301.html
-
Mil-tech Bard
- Member
- Posts: 678
- Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 16:50
Re: M26 Pershing vs Japan
The mass change over to 76mm armed Sherman's in MacArthur's 6th and 8th Army's was well underway in the spring-summer of 1945. Most people researching the invasion of Japan are thrown on that point by the following photo from R. P. Hunnicutt's SHERMAN book --
They miss the fact that the South West Pacific Area theater was operating on a 150 to 180 day requisition cycle in getting tanks to replace losses. The above photo was of tanks requisitioned immediately after the Leyte campaign in Dec 1944. In January 1944 the European Theater told the War Department it wanted no further 75mm armed tanks. Instead it wanted Pershing's and all wide track, 76mm armed, and Ford engine (M4A3) tanks it could get.
This limited what the 6th and 8th Army's in the Pacific could get in terms of replacement tanks until V-E Day.
An agreement between MacArthur and Nimitz during the planning of Operation Olympic would have 6th Army Ordnance providing replacement tanks to the USMC during the invasion of Kyushu. Had the A-bomb failed to get the Japanese surrender, most of the tanks in this Hunnicutt photo would have been used to replace USMC losses on Kyushu, after the small reserve of USMC tanks on Guam and Saipan was chewed up in the assault.
The 6th Army had different ideas than the USMC and wanted as many high velocity 76mm and 90mm armed tanks as it could get to deal with Japanese fortifications after the Battle of Manila. That battle saw 75mm HE shells from Shermans bounce off the Old Spanish Intramuros fort while the Japanese garrison held out in it during Feb-March 1945. The 6th Army requested M4A3(76) HVSS and M26 Pershings. However, the priority for "Europe First" prevented that prior to May 1945. So 6th Army settled for as many M4A1(76)HVSS as it could get. See Manila Ordnance Depot and Pacific Port of Embarkation photos below --
Some M4A3(76)HVSS did make it to the Manila Ordnance Depot by August 1945. See below --
But there is better photographic evidence about the Sherman change over from the 767th Tank Battalion in Hawaii, which was to support the 98th Infantry Division in the assault on Kyushu, that the M4A3(76)HVSS was going to be used in large scale by the US Army. See this photo --
The Signal Corps caption for this photo (above) was dated 20 June 1945 and showed the wide track, 76 mm armed, M4A3 Sherman being used to train infantry replacements. Not mentioned in the photo was the fact the replacements were in jungle camouflage uniforms nor that the tank was on a Chemical Warfare Service Flamethrower training range. The tank pictured had a auxiliary mechanized flamethrower kit installed and just prior to the photo had used it on a "Japanese bunker" training target.
The Hawaii based 767th TB was scheduled to do a change over to M26 Pershings by Sept 1945, so that 20 June 1945 pictured M4A3(76)HVSS above would have been replaced and reissued later to other units in the Olympic assault.
- Hunnicutt Sherman book photo of Manila Ordnance Summer 1945
This limited what the 6th and 8th Army's in the Pacific could get in terms of replacement tanks until V-E Day.
An agreement between MacArthur and Nimitz during the planning of Operation Olympic would have 6th Army Ordnance providing replacement tanks to the USMC during the invasion of Kyushu. Had the A-bomb failed to get the Japanese surrender, most of the tanks in this Hunnicutt photo would have been used to replace USMC losses on Kyushu, after the small reserve of USMC tanks on Guam and Saipan was chewed up in the assault.
The 6th Army had different ideas than the USMC and wanted as many high velocity 76mm and 90mm armed tanks as it could get to deal with Japanese fortifications after the Battle of Manila. That battle saw 75mm HE shells from Shermans bounce off the Old Spanish Intramuros fort while the Japanese garrison held out in it during Feb-March 1945. The 6th Army requested M4A3(76) HVSS and M26 Pershings. However, the priority for "Europe First" prevented that prior to May 1945. So 6th Army settled for as many M4A1(76)HVSS as it could get. See Manila Ordnance Depot and Pacific Port of Embarkation photos below --
- M4A1(76) HVSS and LVT(4) at Manila Ordnance Depot July-August 1945
- M4A1(76)HVSS Sherman's awaiting loading at a tank park at unnamed Pacific Port of Embarkation, Summer 1945
- M4A3(76)HVSS tanks in Mania Ordnance Depot August 1945
- This 20 June 1945 photo showed the 13th Replacement company in Jungle camo Uniforms exercising with M4A3(76)HVSS Sherman's of the 767th Tank Battalion
The Hawaii based 767th TB was scheduled to do a change over to M26 Pershings by Sept 1945, so that 20 June 1945 pictured M4A3(76)HVSS above would have been replaced and reissued later to other units in the Olympic assault.