'Jumbo'

[James Crowley]

Not on the prelimanary ToE list; will we see the M4A3E2 anytime before the 'odds and sods' module 3?

Always had a soft spot for that model after it's prominent role in the Alpha (?) AAR of CMBO back in the day. I posed a question about it in the forum, at the time, and gave away the fact that it was a Jumbo to the German player - a bit of an 'oops' moment which duly received a mild reprimand!

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Probably not, since it arrived too late to see action in summer '44.

[James Crowley]

I was under the impression that the Jumbo was built specifically for the Normandy campaign, with the complete batch of 254 factory produced models rolled out in May and June 1944 and 'rushed' to Europe. Did none of them arrive by the end of August?

[Rocky Balboa]

I don't think the A3E2's made it in time for the Normandy Campaign and if not mistaken the need was so great for an up armored Sherman that 3rd Army field modified many A2 models after the breakout to add extra armor. This made them roughly the equivalent of a Jumbo.

[Sequoia]

Wikipedia says August '44 but no citation is given. I have spreadsheets of vehicle availability for CMBB and CMAK from the Grossdeutchland website. I think there was one for CMBO somewhere too. Does any one know? Anyway the CMAK spreadsheet does not have the Sherman Jumbo but it only applies to Italy anyway for the late war.

[DaveyJJ]

No, from what I remember the first of these models didn't arrive until late August 44 and even later in the year.

[YankeeDog]

Yes; this is my recollection as well. IIRC, the order to start manufacturing Jumbos went out in March or so, but it wasn't until September or maybe very late August that any of them made it into the hands of front-line units.

This may seem like a long time to get an important weapon system into action, but bear in mind that these tanks had to travel a long supply line stretching all the way from the American midwest, and that until the Allies captured a deep water harbor, moving stuff from the channel across the beaches was something of a bottleneck -- Sandy, shallow water beaches are not ideal for off-loading large amounts of cargo. The Mulberry piers helped, but only so much. First priority had to be given to providing enough petroleum, food, and bullets for the men & equipment already in theatre.

[rune]

Didn't reach units till September, I posted in the beta forums actual counts and locations.

Rune

[MikeyD]

Last I heard Jumbo's all finished and textured for the game but won't make it in til a later module because our best references have it arriving in September. One of the curses of being as factually accurate as possible. A later module's going to add an extra month to the title.

[rune]

This is what I found and posted in the beta forum:

"Here is the available information on the M4A3E2 shipped to the ETO. Note first off that apparently only 250 were actually shipped, the remaining four probably stayed in CONUS for tests and evaluation.

The M4A3E2 Jumbo in the ETO. This information is taking from a number of sources including: the Armored Fighting Vehicle and Weapons Section of the US Forces in the European Theater of Operations (USFET), the Armored Section of the US 12th Army Group, the Armored Section of the US First Army, and the Armored Section of the US Third Army.

In January 1944 the War Department offered the M4A3E2 ?Jumbo? to fill the ETO request for the T26 Medium-Heavy Tank (as it was referred to in the message traffic I have examined). The offer was accepted by the ETO and preparations were made to ship the vehicles.

The effect of producing 254 M4A3E2 at the Fisher Tank Arsenal at Grand Blanc may be looked at in a number of ways. The production of the type itself took two months for an ?average? of 127 produced per month. That could be seen as ?low? priority or low-rate production. However, when examined in light of the total production at Grand Blanc and the overall capabilities of that plant, then the M4A3E2 is more significant.

Prior to February 1944 Grand Blanc was entirely occupied in producing the M4A2 75mm. A total of 4,614 were produced between 4/42 and 5/44 (25 months), an average of just 184.56 per month. Then, between 6/44 and 12/44 2,894 M4A2 76mm (w) were produced at Grand Blanc, an average of 482.33 per month. This appears to reflect a number of realities. For one, the M4A2 had low priority for the U.S. Army, since it was only used by the USMC and for Lend-Lease. But the rapid production increase between June and December is very interesting, since that was the main 76mm-type supplied through Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union (2,095, mostly M4A2, but also apparently some M4A1). It was also supplied in lesser numbers to the United Kingdom, which eventually received 1,335 76mm-armed Sherman tanks (450 M4A1 in spring 1944 and 885 mostly M4A2, but also apparently some M4A1, from fall 1944 through 1945).

Even more significant is an examination of M4A3 production at Grand Blanc. Production of the M4A3 75mm (w) began in February 1944 and ran 13 months until March 1945. In that time 3,071 were built, an average of 236.23 per month. From September to December 1944 another 525 M4A3 76mm (w) were built, an average of 131.25 per month. But it is most significant to look at M4A3 production overall, recalling that this was the type chosen by the U.S. Army as its preferred standard. Between February 1944 and March 1945 a total of 3,880 M4A3 were built, an average of 298.46 per month. In other words, the M4A3E2 were completed at 42.55 percent of the average production rate of all M4A3. This implies that if all M4A3 completed at Grand Blanc were built to M4A3E2 standards, then the total production would have been nearly half that actually produced run ? or the time required to produce the same number would have nearly doubled.

Note also that between September and December 1944 the average production of all M4 types at Grand Blanc was M4A2 76mm (w) at 482.33, plus M4A3 75mm (w) at 236.23 and plus M4A3 76mm (w) at 131.25 per month for a total ?average? of 849.81 per month. For June and July 1944 that ?average? was M4A2 76mm (w) at 482.33, plus M4A3 75mm (w) at 236.23 and plus M4A3E2 at 127 per month for a total of 845.56 per month. By this calculation it could be assumed that production rates and priorities remained about the same throughout the period, but that emphasis shifted from producing the more heavily armored Jumbo to production of the 76mm-armed Sherman. However, that is not precisely true, since the Jumbo was really just a ?one-off? specialty type.

Overall, the 254 M4A3E2 was a fraction of the total of 10,906 late-production M4A3. But if these figures are considered illustrative, then the result of producing those M4A3E2 (and the M4A3 76mm, which also materially slowed production rates) was to reduce the monthly output of tanks by a significant fraction, not unexpected, since they were essentially hand-crafted. Now it is probably true that more M4A3E2 could have been built, if the authorization had been given, but it is likely that the slowing of production resulting - however temporary - would have further exacerbated the problems with medium tank shortages in the fall of 1944, just when they were most serious. Like everything the possible benefits of such an action - improved armor protection - must be balanced by the possible problems caused by such an action - an increased shortage of tanks.

On 14 August it was noted that 115 M4A3E2 were at the embarkation port (Boston or New York) and were loading or preparing to load on board convoys to Britain. At the same time there were 135 in the CONUS authorized on release for shipment to the ETO. However, a memo of 10 September remarks that the first 12 were not shipped until sometime prior to 24 August, an additional 29 had ?been floated? between 24-30 August, 35 between 30 August and 2 September, 48 between 2-5 September, and 84 between 4-8 September, a total of 208. All of these were expected to arrive in UK waters between 8-15 September. In addition, 11 were at the port waiting to load, 28 were en route to the port, 5 were processing at CONUS depots, and 2 were canceled as unavailable. There is no explanation for the cancellation, they were probably retained in the US for further testing and evaluation or may have been so worn out by previous testing as to have been written off.

The first shipment of 128 (another memo cites the number as 126) arrived at Cherbourg and began unloading sometime on or before 22 September 1944. The whereabouts of the remaining 80 (or 82) presumably shipped to that date are not remarked.

By 14 October 36 had been received by the First Army. They were issued 15 each to the 743rd and 745th Tank Battalion?s and 6 to the 746th Tank Battalion. It appears that 9 more were received and issued to the 746th by 9 November, giving each battalion 15 and the First Army at least 45 on that date. By 18 October it was noted in a visit to the beach depots that they had 17 on hand, 24 released to the armies and 19 en route to Third Army for a total of 60. On 20 October, it was noted that 99 were on hand with the troops. That implies that 140 had been unloaded on the continent (counting the 17 on hand and 24 released at the depots, but not counting the 19 en route to Third Army ? which evidently were counted as ?with the troops? whether or not they had actually arrived). Note that the total unloaded was 68 fewer than the 208 noted as being ?afloat? over a month prior and only 12 more than what had been unloaded on 22 September. It is evident that shipping and unloading priorities for the Jumbo were in practice somewhat low. On 24 October the allocation for the delivery of the Jumbo was confirmed as lots of 15 each until the following was achieved: First Army 105, Third Army 90, and Ninth Army 60. Why they planned for 255 when only 250 were being shipped is unclear, the USFET may have been under the impression that more were to be manufactured in the US, an error that apparently persisted into April 1945.

On 5 November it was noted that 180 were in the theater. However, on 10 November 1944 it was noted that 118 had been delivered to the armies and that 26 were in depots or were unloading, implying that a total of 144 had arrived, only 16 more than on 22 September. On 22 November, 40 were reported as having been issued to Third Army units. Five each were issued to the 10th AD, 702nd, 712th, 735th, and, 761st Tank Battalions, and 15 to the 737th Tank Battalion. On 28 November 154 were on hand, 4 were en route from ETO ports to depots and 55 were afloat in ETO waters for a total of 213. Note that this is only 5 more than the 208 that had been noted as being ?afloat? by 8 September.

On 3 December 1944 a clearer picture was given. A total of 250 had arrived in the ETO of which it was noted that 10 had been destroyed in combat (in fact 14 had been destroyed to 28 November and 17 to 5 December). There were 40 with the First Army (which had lost 6 to 28 November and 8 to 5 December), 59 with the Third Army (5 had been lost to 25 November and 6 to 2 December), and 30 with the Ninth Army (3 had been lost to 28 November), a total of 129. En route were 14 to the First Army, 5 to Third Army, and 6 to Ninth Army, a total of 25. En route to ETO depots from the ports and unallocated to the armies were an additional 28. Afloat in ETO waters, but as yet unloaded, were 46. Finally, it was remarked that 12 were unaccounted for, either unloaded, but unreported, or simply unaccounted for. This is the last information on shipments to the Continent and appears to account for all 252 shipped (or 250).

By 22 February 1945 the First Army reported losing 22 Jumbos, in fact the weekly reports indicate that 24 had been lost. As of that date Third Army had lost 8 and Ninth Army had lost 6. An additional 5 were lost by First Army, 3 by Third Army, and 15 by Ninth Army prior to the end of the war.

Tank units in the ETO with Jumbos on hand (the assignment of units to armies is as of mid December). This listing appears to account for all units issued with the Jumbo.

First Army

3rd AD 6 (16 Dec)

5th AD 3 (19 Dec)

70th TkBn 4 (11 Feb)

743rd TkBn 15 (14 Oct, 3 lost as of 3 Dec)

745th TkBn 15 (14 Oct), 1 (15 Dec)

746th TkBn 6 (14 Oct), 15 (9 Nov), 5 (21 Dec)

774th TkBn 10 (16 Dec)

The 70th Tank Battalion?s tanks were in very poor condition in mid December. Unit diaries note that they were all ?original issue? and worn out. Thus it appears that the Jumbos assigned to the 70th Tank Battalion may have been from some of the last available. These units account for about 37 in mid December and a total of 22 were lost to 28 January. That total of 59 is very similar to the 54 on hand and en route as of 3 December. It is likely that all 40-odd of the remaining 105 allocated to the First Army were utilized as replacements and to equip the 70th Tank Battalion.

Third Army

4th AD 20 (22 Dec)

6th AD 11 (29 Dec, this may include the 5 reported en route on 3 December)

10th AD 5 (22 Nov)

702nd Tk Bn 5 (22 Nov), 5 (29 Jan)

712th Tk Bn 5 (22 Nov), 1 (11 Feb)

735th Tk Bn 5 (22 Nov), 2 (12 Feb)

737th Tk Bn 15 (22 Nov), 5 (15 Dec), 3 (29 Jan)

761st Tk Bn 5 (22 Nov)

The available reports tend to indicate that this is a fairly accurate picture of all the Jumbos assigned to the Third Army. By mid December some 68 may be accounted for including 7 that had been lost. This closely matches the 59 on hand and 5 en route count for 3 December. It may also be concluded that 10 were probably withdrawn from the 737th Tank Battalion prior to 15 December and were assigned to the 4th (or less likely 6th) AD. The remaining 30-odd allocated to the Third Army were probably utilized as replacements in these units during 1945.

Ninth Army

709th Tk Bn 1 (19 Dec)

747th Tk Bn 5 (27 Nov, plus 10 en route)

778th Tk Bn 4 (27 Jan)

This appears to account for only 20 of the 36 on hand or en route as of 3 December. Three had been lost to that date and another was lost between 21-28 December. The remaining 12 or 13 may have been issued later (likely to the 709th Tk Bn), may have been issued to other units (possibly the 3rd AD), or they may have been retained as replacements. It appears probable that the remaining 24 of the 60 allocated to the Ninth Army were never in fact shipped, given the strategic situation in mid December, the losses sustained to date, and the reduction in the number shipped from 254 to 250.

It does not appear as if the 2nd, 7th-14th, 16th, or 20th Armored Divisions were ever issued Jumbos

Rune

[James Crowley]

An impressive piece of research, Rune; thanks for sharing. Certainly answers my question, in spades!

Given the plethora of information on German tanks, such that you can near enough track each one down on an individual basis; there is a real scarcity of similar information on allied tanks. Too many of them, I suppose!

[weapon2010]

I have already pre-ordered and can not wait for the game.There are many things I can live without in the game.Fire is not one of them.Fire and all the mayhem that comes with this natural delight must get in at some point.You can leave out horses and motorcycles without much argument from me.But fire, along with smoke, dust , and explosions is an essential product of the violence of war and must be simulated and done well.Its hard to find any war footage without fire at somepoint.Indirectly its already in because something is causing that smoke.But the pyromaniac in me is just not satisfied,lol.I need it to spread and cause panic.I need it to change the battlefield and your plan of action.I need houses to be completely engulphed randomly.Fire is the main ingredient of chaos.The original fire model from CMBO I thought worked beatifuly.I just want something similar back.

[Pvt. Ryan]

If there are no Jumbos in the game, there can be no burning Jumbos.

[Rocky Balboa]

I have already pre-ordered and can not wait for the game.There are many things I can live without in the game.Fire is not one of them.Fire and all the mayhem that comes with this natural delight must get in at some point.You can leave out horses and motorcycles without much argument from me.But fire, along with smoke, dust , and explosions is an essential product of the violence of war and must be simulated and done well.Its hard to find any war footage without fire at somepoint.Indirectly its already in because something is causing that smoke.But the pyromaniac in me is just not satisfied,lol.I need it to spread and cause panic.I need it to change the battlefield and your plan of action.I need houses to be completely engulphed randomly.Fire is the main ingredient of chaos.The original fire model from CMBO I thought worked beatifuly.I just want something similar back.

Nice hijack attempt ... and oh yeah I agree 100% btw

[James Crowley]

I have already pre-ordered and can not wait for the game.There are many things I can live without in the game.Fire is not one of them.Fire and all the mayhem that comes with this natural delight must get in at some point.You can leave out horses and motorcycles without much argument from me.But fire, along with smoke, dust , and explosions is an essential product of the violence of war and must be simulated and done well.Its hard to find any war footage without fire at somepoint.Indirectly its already in because something is causing that smoke.But the pyromaniac in me is just not satisfied,lol.I need it to spread and cause panic.I need it to change the battlefield and your plan of action.I need houses to be completely engulphed randomly.Fire is the main ingredient of chaos.The original fire model from CMBO I thought worked beatifuly.I just want something similar back.

Is 'fire', as in burning tanks and buildings, not in?

I've done a quick search but not seen anything obvious; what makes you think it is not in?

Fire does seem to be a fairly integral part of tactical level combat. I was aware that flamethrowers were not part of the first game but didn't realise that this was because there is no fire at all. Is that the reason?

[ChrisND]

Fire does seem to be a fairly integral part of tactical level combat.

I don't think that fire is important at all in the larger scheme of things WRT tactical combat. In fact, I would think that the situations where it becomes an important factor would be rare.

[weapon2010]

How do i make When will fire be in? its own thread

[ChrisND]

How do i make When will fire be in? its own thread

You might was well not because you won't get an answer.

[Rocky Balboa]

How do i make When will fire be in? its own thread

On the main page you should see a "New Thread" button.

[James Crowley]

I don't think that fire is important at all in the larger scheme of things WRT tactical combat. In fact, I would think that the situations where it becomes an important factor would be rare.

Important is a relative term. Sherman tanks were not nick-named 'ronsons' for no reason. So I would expect a reasonable number of knocked-out shermans to catch fire, which would in turn force their crews to bail. That would be important in my book.

The occupants of a bunker or trench being subject to a flamethrower attack would think that it was quite important, as did the paratroopers at Arnhem when the houses they were defending were burnt out from under them.

In many instances fire played a part in tactical combat and a tactical level game needs to be able to portray those instances IMO.

[ChrisND]

Important is a relative term. Sherman tanks were not nick-named 'ronsons' for no reason. So I would expect a reasonable number of knocked-out shermans to catch fire, which would in turn force their crews to bail. That would be important in my book.

A vehicle on fire is very dissimilar to terrain or buildings catching fire. Brewed up vehicles and secondary explosions from within the vehicles are already modeled.

The occupants of a bunker or trench being subject to a flamethrower attack would think that it was quite important, as did the paratroopers at Arnhem when the houses they were defending were burnt out from under them.

In many instances fire played a part in tactical combat and a tactical level game needs to be able to portray those instances IMO.

We all know the more famous uses of flamethrowers in the ETO, but just how commonly were they actually used in the larger scheme of things (within the ETO)? Let me put it this way - the current set of features to go into the release of the game are more important than fire, and I doubt it's so important that it can't wait for a future module/family.

[James Crowley]

A vehicle on fire is very dissimilar to terrain or buildings catching fire. Brewed up vehicles and secondary explosions from within the vehicles are already modeled.

We all know the more famous uses of flamethrowers in the ETO, but just how commonly were they actually used in the larger scheme of things (within the ETO)? Let me put it this way - the current set of features to go into the release of the game are more important than fire, and I doubt it's so important that it can't wait for a future module/family.

You may well be right about the priority of features - I wouldn't know. I'm certainly glad that burning vehicles are already catered for but I would argue that buildings, in their own way, are every bit as combustible as tanks and for the same reasons. No they don't all have ammunition inside (although some might!) but they are filled with highly combustible materials and some are made of highly combustible materials.

Most house fires in the UK are caused by cigarettes, so exploding shells, grenades and incendiary bullets are not going to have any less of an effect. Look at contemporary photographs of towns that have been bombed, shelled or otherwise attacked and, invariably, you will see burning buildings. And you cannot stay in a burning building; I can attest to that personally! So troops in them are going to have to relocate and that has an impact on the tactical combat sitaution.

How important that is judged to be is obviously up to the developers but it seems fairly important to me in presenting a reasonable depiction of, especially, urban warfare.

[Michael Emrys]

You may well be right about the priority of features - I wouldn't know. I'm certainly glad that burning vehicles are already catered for but I would argue that buildings, in their own way, are every bit as combustible as tanks and for the same reasons. No they don't all have ammunition inside (although some might!) but they are filled with highly combustible materials and some are made of highly combustible materials.

Most house fires in the UK are caused by cigarettes, so exploding shells, grenades and incendiary bullets are not going to have any less of an effect. Look at contemporary photographs of towns that have been bombed, shelled or otherwise attacked and, invariably, you will see burning buildings. And you cannot stay in a burning building; I can attest to that personally! So troops in them are going to have to relocate and that has an impact on the tactical combat sitaution.

How important that is judged to be is obviously up to the developers but it seems fairly important to me in presenting a reasonable depiction of, especially, urban warfare.

I think you are right as far as that goes, but you need to put your argument in perspective. Most of the combat in the ETO prior to the time that the fighting moved onto German soil only occasionally occurred in an urban environment. By far the greater portion took place in a rural environment, and that seems to be where BFC's focus is trained at the moment. And fires just weren't very important in that environment. They happened, sure, but were not a massively critical part of the combat environment.

Michael

[Rocky Balboa]

Buildings catching fire by means other than flame producing weapons is more an issue of game balance imo. Yes if it happens then the mechanics need to be modeled realistically but if it happens is not nearly as important as when it happens.

If it occurs too frequently in game then it becomes a gamey feature that can ruin the tactical aspects of the game. If it only happened very rarely historically, then you have to ask is it worth spending the development time to get the mechanics working correctly?

Add to this the variables involved because some buildings should naturally (and possibly unnaturally) catch fire easier than others. So how do you make that determination in the game to make sure that it happens enough to please some players but not too much to be annoying to others?

[GhostRider3/3]

So basically.... Im in my Jumbo..or better yet for sake of argument with burning buildings and stuff which frankly jacked up the frame rate. Lets say I am in a M4/105 I can still blow a building to Hell right? I mean I want to see Pieces flying and a dang eXplosion! LOL as in CMx1 I would replay those moments....in Awe at the destruction from M4/105's ISU-152, German SiG-33. or other INfantry weapons.