GHQ Models Forums

Hey folks. Real life issues have kept me at bay for a while (I blame Kent State for insisting that I actually PASS my courses ) and anyway, now that summer has arrived, I want to start anew on some of my WWII stuff. I have good reference books on WWII British/American tanks and AFVs, and one on German vehicles (Chamberlain and Ellis) but need to find something on our Red friends vehicles. Id like a general overall reference for now, money is tight (college student!!) and I cant afford to get a whole pile of books from Osprey (I wish I could, they are great). Anyone recommend an overall "compendium" style book? (dont know if ill ever get to the Russians, I have hordes of T34s waiting for paint...)

Also, regarding the Sherman (In U.S. units) it seems that M4A1s and M4A3s were by far the most common in the summer/early fall of 1944, what ratio (approximately) were these in? Would some early M4s still be around? And how many 105s vs 75s (approx, just need a rough idea) would be appropriate for the period from landing to say, November 1944? Regarding the British, how many Fireflies would they have had to standard 75mm gunned shermans during this time? The breakout period is my chief interest. Thanks!

CA-68 wrote:...now that summer has arrived, I want to start anew on some of my WWII stuff.

Start anew, restart, re-invigorate, re-commit ... whatever... go get 'em, and please make sure to post lots of pics!

Thought I might try to address your second question first...

Also, regarding the Sherman (In U.S. units) it seems that M4A1s and M4A3s were by far the most common in the summer/early fall of 1944, what ratio (approximately) were these in? Would some early M4s still be around? And how many 105s vs 75s (approx, just need a rough idea) would be appropriate for the period from landing to say, November 1944? Regarding the British, how many Fireflies would they have had to standard 75mm gunned shermans during this time? The breakout period is my chief interest. Thanks!

US Army settled on the M4A1 and M4 as their standard Shermans in 1941. The M4A1 was produced more quickly and in larger numbers, and so became the dominant version in US Army service in 1942.

Then, in 1943 the switched to the M4A3 as the new standard, and reclassified the M4A1and M4 as alternate standards.

By November of 1944, in France, the M4A3 would have been about half of the total medium tank strength. The remainder was made up of the M4 and M4A1, with the M4A1 being a little more common than the M4. Maybe about a 5 to 3 to 2 split (M4A3 to M4A1 to M4).

Individual units tried to stick with one version. This was particularly true of the M4A3 vs. the other two, because the Ford GAA engine in the M4A3 was a very different beast ... the performance of the tank was higher, the care and maintenance was different, and there was no commonality in engine parts (beyond the gas). Units operating M4s and M4A1s saw the two as more interchangable, as they had the same engine and performance.

At the time of the Normandie landings there were proportionatly fewer M4A3s and more M4s and M4A1s in action. Most were the mid-war upgrades with the M34A1 (wide) gun mantlet and applique armor plates on the hull sides and (less often) turret front/sides, but with the smaller protruding hull hatches.

In the MTO (by this time mostly the Italian campaign, but then also the Anvil/Dragoon landings in Southern France) the M4A1 was the more common version. M4s were second, and M4A3s were rare, if present at all. This is because the Overlord build-up had most of the new formations, which were generally entirely equipped with the newest vehicles, and the M4A3 was the last of the US Army versions to ramp up production.

The Sherman 105s were always in high demand and short supply. They were grouped into 3-tank assault gun platoons at the battalion HQ level. Very popular, but production only really caught up with TOE levels at about the end of 1944. Whatever the TOE said, they were often attached at the company level, or even parcelled out individually, depending on the mission.

British Sherman squadrons typically tried to field Fireflies at 1 per every 3 75mm armed Sherman at the Normandie time frame, going up to about 2 per every 2 75mm armed Sherman by the end of the year.

Or so I believe. All from memory at the moment, so if anyone knows better, please do correct.

Heavy Cruiser Baltimore,

I have a very strong leaning towards WW2 Soviet forces and have for years. I can recommend two books on the subject, that I reference frequently. Russian Tanks and Armored Vehicles 1917-45, from Schiffer Publishing is a good source, and offers more updated information than the John Milsom book; Russian Tanks 1900-70. My favorite book on the subject is Steveb Zaloga's work titled; Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two. I see that both are available through Half dot com.

Good luck and happy gaming,

What kind of book? Tank specs or painting guide?

According to TO&E 17-25 15 Sep 1943 there was an assault gun platoon in the tank battalion HQ company with 3 X M4/105 assault guns as well a an additional M4/105 in the HQ section of each medium tank company. This same organization was continued in the 12 Feb 1944 and 18 Nov 1944 revisions. At least according to Steven J Zaloga in his Osprey books on US Armored units.

http://www.amazon.com/Armored-Africa-It ... 255&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/US-Armored-Divisi ... 310&sr=1-1

Cav Dog wrote:According to TO&E 17-25 15 Sep 1943 there was an assault gun platoon in the tank battalion HQ company with 3 X M4/105 assault guns as well a an additional M4/105 in the HQ section of each medium tank company. This same organization was continued in the 12 Feb 1944 and 18 Nov 1944 revisions. At least according to Steven J Zaloga in his Osprey books on US Armored units.

Ah, thanks for that. So there was a 105 assigned to each company per TOE, and the platoon at battalion HQ was incremental? See that, you can learn something new every day.

But ... per my readings, and discussions I've had with (relatively few) WW2 tankers, and (more) historians and historical authors, the 105mm Sherman was rare in ETO until the second half of '44. The TOEs were, in this case, ahead of the availability.

This is often the case, as the Army often establishes the quantity it needs for a new weapon by "authorizing" it's distribution within a TOE.

Most Army's medium battalions went in to Tunisia, Sicily and Italy without their "assault guns". At that time the actual available assault gun was the half-tracked T30 75mm HMC. This was a useful enough increment to the firepower of light tank units (any 75mm gun bolstered the firepower of Stuarts), but it provided no incremental benefit to M3 or M4 (Lee or Sherman) units, and so they simply did not take them along.

I have seen descriptions of a few Sherman units in Italy and ETO that had M7 Priests on strength as assault guns. When I first saw these I presumed they were errors on the part of writers who perhaps saw a mention of a tank with a 105mm howitzer and presumed it was an M7 (not being aware of the 105mm M4). But I have since been dis-abused of the idea that these were errors ... that in fact they were units that did operate M7s as there were not yet enough 105mm M4s to equip all units.

MK1 True. TO&E organizational equipment can vary between pipe dreams and something the S4 has on the books but the troops in the field never see because if he issues it then he wouldn't have it on hand per the TO&E. Plus throw in battle losses and maintainance non-runners, a commander's actual strength could vary widely from the official organization so I think gamers shouldn't get too concerned about fielding every piece of kit on the books. it works the other way too. I read a reference once where an infantry company in the 2nd ID had a tank platoon permanantly attached!

As for the sherman assault guns, I haven't seen any references to the Sherman assault guns in use until Normandy. Another example is the M-8 armored cars that were called for in the TO&E of the mechanized cavalry units as early as 1941 but weren't widely available until late 43 as best I can tell. The cav used either halftracks or M3 scout cars. That was true in the tank destroyer units as well .

Cav Dog wrote:As for the sherman assault guns, I haven't seen any references to the Sherman assault guns in use until Normandy. Another example is the M-8 armored cars that were called for in the TO&E of the mechanized cavalry units as early as 1941 but weren't widely available until late 43 as best I can tell. The cav used either halftracks or M3 scout cars. That was true in the tank destroyer units as well .

Oooh, I'd be interested in any published TOEs that showed M8s in the early war period.

My current understanding is as follows:

The M3 Scout Car was in fact the vehicle that the Cav wanted. Or at least that they thought they wanted. Cav doctrine during the early period of mechanization focused on both mounted and dismounted action, and the M3, with 1 x .50cal M2 and 2 x .30cal M1917s was seen as just the thing. Lots of firepower for mounted action, and carried a full fire team per vehicle (a squad per 2) for dismounted.

However, in Tunisia they found the vehicle to be a real disappointment. Much of the early action in Tunisia was in the winter of 42/43, and the M3s, even with their 4wd, did not handle the mud well at all. Also the .50cal, which was considered an AT weapon by the Army, was found in actual experience to most decidedly NOT be an AT weapon.

The M8 Greyhound armored car was initially developed by the Tank Destroyer board as a TD. It was intended to replace the "Fargo" 37mm M6 GMC (gun mounted on the back of a light truck). However, by the time development of the M8 was nearing completion, the TD board had been dis-abused of the notion that it should have a "light" TD with a 37mm gun at all. Since the Armored Cav was looking about for a solution for the M3, they latched on to the TD's 6x6 M8, and by the time of the Sicily landings all (or almost all) Armored Cav units had been re-equipped.

The TDs kept the sister of the M8, the M20 Scout Car, as a replacement for their own M3s at battery, company and battalion level. TD formations had scout assets on their TOEs, all the way down to battery (platoon). But their scout cars were for scouting and control only, and were not intended to fight screening or recon-in-force actions, so an HMG and a bit more space for crew were considered the right mix.

Oddly, the M3 Scout Car was very popular with lend-lease clients. The French operated them in large numbers and seemed to like them well enough, and the Soviets thought they were just brilliant, to the point that they modelled both light (BTR-40) and heavy (BTR-152) APCs on them in the post-war period. Interestingly, from what I have seen the Soviets seemed more inclined to assign US halftracks to recon formations, though, and used the M3 Scout Cars mostly as infantry carriers in their "Motorcycle" companies.

Or so I believe from my readings...