M4 tank w/105-mm how - substitute eqpt?

[Gary Kennedy]

An old query that has come up for me again. I think I may have already asked the question, but cannot find it via a search so will have to risk a repeat.

Under the Sep43 Tables of Organization & Equipment, each Tank Battalion was authorised six medium tanks, M4, with a 105-mm howitzer main armament. One such tank was allowed per Medium Company (of which there were three), with the remainder in an Assault Gun Platoon within HQ Company. From other queries on AHF I understand that the 105-mm armed M4s did not begin to reach US units in the UK until some months into 1944.

There's a general opinion among internet sources that, as an interim measure, units absent the 105-mm armed M4 were issued with the 105-mm M7 HMC, as found in the self-propelled FA Bns. My questions then are;

1. Is this substitution of equipment detailed in contemporary sources, and if so are any accessible via the internet?
2. Is there a way to ascertain how many units in the ETO may have received alternative weapons to the 105-mm M4, and for how long?
3. Were there any other steps taken to fill in the gaps, such as simply issuing additional 75-mm gun tanks?

Also if this is neatly covered in an existing thread, can anyone else find it?

Thanks,

Gary

[LineDoggie]

Chrysler was sole producer of Factory M4 105 versions. Production was Feb 44 -Mar 45

these were commonly called the "Large Hatch" hulls

210 105 mm versions were in the UK prior to D-Day. First units using them appear to be US 4AD,7AD and FF 2AD & US 743rd Tank Bn which did use one as early as July 10th 44 at St. Jean De Daye

[Richard Anderson]

There's a general opinion among internet sources that, as an interim measure, units absent the 105-mm armed M4 were issued with the 105-mm M7 HMC, as found in the self-propelled FA Bns. My questions then are;

1. Is this substitution of equipment detailed in contemporary sources, and if so are any accessible via the internet?
2. Is there a way to ascertain how many units in the ETO may have received alternative weapons to the 105-mm M4, and for how long?
3. Were there any other steps taken to fill in the gaps, such as simply issuing additional 75-mm gun tanks?

Internet opinion is like an asshole, everyone has one. 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.

1. Yes, but not on the internet that I am aware of? The subject of the 105mm may be found in the records of the ETOUSA AFV&W Section in RG 492, NARA.
2. See above. 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. I am not sure where LineDoggie got the figure of 210 in the UK prior to D-Day? A total of 166 were landed in the UK in June, along with the 54 already there. It is unclear, but it appears those delivered in June include the 18 arriving with the 7th AD during June.
3. See above.

BTW, no, the 2d and 3d AD did not have any initially and instead used the 75mm HMC M8 as called for in their TO&E. From my manuscript For Purpose of Service Test:

"Since the two divisions retained the March 1942 TO&E, various other in-theater adjustments were made to equipment. For example, the obsolescent 37mm antitank guns in the organization were replaced by 57mm guns, although photographic evidence indicates the 37mm guns were retained as ad hoc mountings on half-tracks. One major item missing from the “heavy” division was the 105mm howitzer-armed medium tank; the March 1942 TO&E employed the 75mm HMC M8 in its “Assault Gun” Company. On 22 October, the 2d and 3d Armored Division each were authorized nine of the 105mm-armed tanks. The 2d Armored Division G-4 recorded receiving four that same day and the remaining five on 24 October. By late November 1944, the theater authorization was increased to 27 and was confirmed as such until the end of the war. The 2d Armored Division received 24 by 15 December. It is unclear exactly how they were distributed (probably nine to each armored and armored infantry regiment), but the 75mm HMC M8 was also retained for a while (as of 29 November 2d Armored Division had 20 and 3d Armored Division had 30). By 5 February, 2d AD had 33 Medium Tank M4-series 105mm and only 9 75mm HMC M8, while 3d AD had 33 and 21 respectively. As of 11 May 1945, 2d Armored Division had 42 M4-series 105mm and no 75mm HMC M8, while the 3d AD had 33 and 19 respectively. Complicating matters was the planned replacement of the M8 75mm in all except the mechanized cavalry units of the armored division under T/O&E 17 of 24 January 1945 (see Chapter 17)."

References for that paragraph are:
Donald Eugene Houston, The Second Armored Division’s Formative Era, 1940-1944, PhD diss., Oklahoma State University, 1974, pp. 319-320.
Steve Zaloga, Armored Attack 1944: U.S. Army Tank Combat in the European Theater from D-Day to the Battle of the Bulge, (Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books, 2011), p. 142.
Second Armored Division G-4 History, Second Part, ND [1945], pp. 1 & 5, Ike Skelton Combined Arms Research Library Digital Library.
“Medium Tank Status, [various dates]”, 12th Army Group Armored Section, Adjutant Generals Reports, Box 1788, 99/12-32 to 99/12-39, RG407, Entry 427, NARA II.

[Gary Kennedy]

Rich,

Thanks very much for the detailed reply. I'll confess it's always been a 'niggly' point for me (why you'd give a field artillery piece to a unit in lieu of a tank, and to a unit that was not itself field artillery), but never being a tank guy, having nothing to base it on.

On this one I'm not feeling too harsh towards the internet vibe as I am sure I've seen it stated as such in print going back some years. I asked on another forum and it was pointed out that Zaloga offers the same in his Osprey Battle Orders on the US Armored Division "The Assault Gun Platoon was supposed to be equipped with the M4 (105mm) assault...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". I did find a mention in Harry Yeide's "The Infantry's Armor" of the recorded use of the M7 in two Bns in Italy (752d and 757th) prior to replacement in Dec44.

It may be a case of 'a few' becoming 'a lot' becoming 'most' and sometimes 'pretty much all', without anyone actually quantifying the figures involved.

Thanks both,

Gary

[Yoozername]

http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minu ... 105mm.html

Maybe worth a read

[Richard Anderson]

http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minu ... 105mm.html

Maybe worth a read

Ah, so that's where the 210 number came from. I'll have to ask Joe where he got it from since it doesn't seem to track with other info. For example, the ETOUSA reported 114 on hand 6-20 June (with 4 lost, which would have been in an LCT sinking probably). First Army had 47 plus 3 lost 2-8 July, which loss corresponds to the same number reported by ETOUSA for 21 June-20 July. So 118 actually were shipped to England, arriving sometime in June, with 72 meant for the four armored divisions there (4th, 5th, 6th, 7th), and 46 intended for the separate battalions and as reserves. By 6 July, the 70th, 712th, 741st, 743d, 745th, 746th, 747th, and 749th Tank Battalion had all received 6 each and the 712th had already lost 2 in the assault on Mont Castre. Who lost the third I haven't been able to determine.