Armored divisions

You asked if the US was ever "short of supplies in the ETO due to shipping or supplying tanks to England through lend-lease", which is a different question. In terms of theater-wide ratios in the ETO, there were roughly 6,000 Allied tanks committed to NEPTUNE as opposed to 1,811 Germans tanks and assault guns in Ob. West on 31 May 1944.

 

That was just an extension of the posts. Did the 6,000 Allied tanks include assault guns/TDs or is that a separate category?

 

For the ETOUSA as of 1 June 1944 there were 2,331 Medium Tank M4 (75mm) with units, 640 Medium Tank M4 (75mm) and 113 Medium Tank M4 (76mm) in depots in England. There were about 1,500 Light Tank M5 and 300 HMC M8 Assault Guns, with units and in depots, and about 118 Medium Tank M4 (105mm) Assault Guns, which had just arrived in depots.

The British figures I have are less precise.

 

How many M10s and M18s did the US have for the ETO breakout for D-Day and after? So no US units had 76mm Shermans as of June 1st?

 

There were approximately 758 M10 and 176 M18 on hand as of the period of the breakout. No, there were no M4 (76mm) with units as of 1 June. The first 51 each were issued to 2d and 3d AD about a week before COBRA.

 

Thanks. Is there a place where all this information is located?

Did the US Army employ many M10s in the Sicilian and Italian campaigns?

 

Yes, on my hard drive and my files, but also at the US National Archives and Records Administration, the Eisenhower Library and the Air Force Historical Studies Division at JBAB have some duplicate paper and microfilm records. Then you could always explore the online holdings at the Combined Arms Research Library Digital Library at Fort Leavenworth and the US Army Military History Institute and Army Historical Education Center at Carlisle Barracks.

Yes, four battalions IIRC with VI Corps initially. On 1 January 1945 four TD battalions were still in the MTO and four were in route from the US.

 

The terrain of the Italian campaign precluded massed armoured warfare.

The 15th Army Group military encyclopedia, Mark Clark's multi national staff review of the Sicilian and Italian Campaign mentions the role of M10s as reinforcing artillery which could out range light divisional artillery, and as an assault guns. (You needed to create a ramp to achieve maximum elevation - does anyone know what the maximum range was?)

The infantry section of the encyclopedia called for an assault gun company to replace the divisional canon company.

The British also deployed M10 tank destroyers in the two out of four of the anti-tank batteries in the divisional anti-tank regiments of the armoured divisions and the corps anti tank regiments deployed in that theatre. From June 1944 British M10s were up gunned to mount British 17 pdr guns which had a much better penetration than the 3" gun. There are accounts of M10s being used in conjunction with heavy artillery. A destruction shoot against a "Tiger" tank hiding behind a cottage resulted in the tank being flushed into the open where it was KO by the M10s.

 

16,100 yards was the maximum range of the 3" Gun M7. Quite a bit more than the 105mm Howitzer M2's 12,500 yards. For the same reason the 90mm AA Gun M1 was used quite often as artillery, in the same way the 8.8cm Flak was. At least until the 155mm Gun M1 came along.

 

Compared to what Germany had in the field vs. the US and its allies in 1943/44, did the Allies have an advantage in tanks and tank destroyer quantity vs Germany?

 

Yes.

 

How much training did tank and TD battalions have in indirect fire?

 

How man infantrymen and tanks were in an US armored division (total personnel)?

 

According to one of the Green books, in Normandy the Allies had a 20 to 1 advantage in tanks. That's pretty wild considering the logistics of shipping across the Atlantic then Across the Channel. So whatever losses the US did sustain in shipping or other logistical issues was pretty menial when it go to the field.

 

It depends on when. The first provisional TO&E 17 of 15 November 1940 had 612 officers, 7 WO, and 12,078 enlisted with 273 light and 111 medium tanks. TO&E 17 of 1 March 1942 had [SIZE=12pt]755 officers, 69 WO, and 13,796 enlisted with 158 light and 232 medium tanks. Personnel strength was then adjusted in two changes, dated 1 August and 29 October, ending with 760 officers, 72 WO, and 13,832 enlisted. The 15 September 1943 reorganization resulted in a division with 596 officers, 53 WO, and 10,288 enlisted with 77 light and 186 medium tanks. Personnel adjustments resulted in TO&E 17 of 12 February 1944 with 602 officers, 54 WO, and 10,339 enlisted, but with the same number of tanks. The last iteration of TO&E 17 was dated 24 January 1945 and had 608 officers, 54 WO, and 10,008 enlisted, with 77 light and 195 medium tanks.[/SIZE]

 

So the number of medium tanks per division and men per division went down as the war went on... Was this because they created more armored divisions and needed more to go around? What was considered a US medium tank in 1940?

 

No, its because the armored division was reorganized to be more flexible and to make better use of existing manpower. The US medium tank in 1940 was the M3 and the proposed T6, which was standardized as the M4.

 

I thought the Grant tank wasn't around until early 1942 when the British began using it in North Africa?

 

Thanks. I read in a few places that the 2nd and 3rd armored divisions kept the 232 medium tank number throughout the war but the rest followed the changes. Any truth to that?

 

Even though the Germans were barely if ever operating at full strength From D-Day onwards, how would a full strength Panzer division compare to the standard US Armored Division in late 1944?