Rich90TO

About 250 Jumbos were factory remanufactured from standard M4A3's. However, a further 108 were remanufactured in the ETO by a Third Army contract Jan-Mar 1945, using vehicles in the repair pipeline. In addition, somewhere I have a document that mentions at least a further 100+ being manufactured for the Third Army in the fall of 44. I would also assume that some number were remanufactured in a similar way by the First and Ninth Army, but I have no conclusive evidence for that. The Jumbos evidently were originally intended as assault tanks for the seperate tank battalions attached to the infantry divisions. The numbers manufactured and shipped imply that the dozen-odd battalions staged in England for OVERLORD would each have had about 15 (allowing for spares) enough to outfit one platoon per medium tank company. That said, I have no conclusive evidence that they were actually issued to the seperate battalions. Instead, it appears that they were in fact issued to the armored divisions (2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and possibly 7th) staged in England. By the evidence I have seen (unit tank strength reports) it appears that approximately 50 were issued to each of these divisions. How they were organized in the divisions is less clear. IIRC, by December 1944, it appears that the 4th AD utilized them as a platoon in each medium tank company, while 6th AD appears to have organized them as a single company in each tank battalion. By that time each division had about 20+ operational. The 108 produced in 1945 were intended to be split evenly between the 4th, 6th, and 8th? AD, giving them 36 each. I doubt that they were ever requested by or offered to the British, since they were intended as a "one off" production run for a specific purpose that in the British Army was filled by the AVRE's of 79 AD (I know, not really the same vehicle, but intended for the same doctrinal purpose, to breech heavily fortified positions). My two cents worth on that. Hope it helps.

The original Army Map Servics map series are available through the US National Archives and Record Administration in 1:25,000, 1:50,000, 1:100,000 covering most of the ETO and MTO. There are also a limited selection of 1:10,000 maps available. If you know the map reference (in original documents it is usually denoted as GSGS, then a four-digit number, then a map scale, then the number of the sheet, thus: GSGS 4347, 1/25,000, Sheets 31/18 NW, 31/18 NE, which cover the vicinity of Ste. Mere Eglaise) for the grid you need you can order them from the Archives.

The US 90mm guns in use in World War II, according to the Ordnance Department Terminal Ballastics Manual were: The AA Gun M1, M1A1, and M2. The Tank Gun M3 on Medium Tanks T25E1 and T26E1, the Gun Motor Carriage T71 (prototype M36) and T71E1 (standardized M36), and the Heavy Tanks M6 and M6A1. These were all the same L54 gun with detail improvements (direct controls, auto ramers and so forth on the AA gun, the M3 tank gun was also available with or without muzzle brake). There was also an experimental higher-velocity 90mm gun the T15E1 "needle gun" which was mounted in one (?) T26E1-1 tank. It was an L/73 monster that required mounting equilibrators outside the turret to balance it. See Belton Cooper's "Death Traps" for info on the single one of this type that got to the ETO. Postwar the T15E2 gun with fixed ammunition was developed and mounted in an improved turret with internal equilibrators, but only two were built as the T26E4. It is old but the Profile Publicatations "Armoured Fighting Vehicles in Profile Volume 4 American AFV's of World War II" has some good info. Part of the confusion may be that postwar the M3 90mm gun was redesignated the T119 gun in the M47. Depending on the gun mounting and muzzle brake design it was remeasured as either an L/40.9 or L/43. It was later produced with a longer barrel as the T139 L/48 in the M41 tank. The difference in the TM cited is probably due to those guns with the muzzle break being capable of developing higher chamber presssures from slightly more powerful cartridge case loads. Or it could be test variations or a comparison between the M3/T119 gun and the T139 gun. In either case it is doubtful if their was a marked performance difference between the US 90mm guns in use in World War II except in the ammunition utilized. The APCBC round, HVAP round and T round all had different performance characteristics, but only the APCBC was available until very late. And yes, the US Army does try to be confusing on purpose. It is all part of the mystique. Hope this helps. OOPS Sorry for the duplication. [This message has been edited by Rich90TO (edited 01-05-2001).]

Hey guys, just visiting. JaJa posted part of a reply in another forum and I thought I would pass the info I have found back to you all. 90mm guns in use in World War II, according to the Ordnance Department Terminal Ballastics Manual were: The AA Gun M1, M1A1, and M2. The Tank Gun M3 on Medium Tanks T25E1 and T26E1, the Gun Motor Carriage T71 (prototype M36) and T71E1 (standardized M36), and the Heavy Tanks M6 and M6A1. These were all the same L54 gun with detail improvements (direct controls, auto ramers and so forth on the AA gun, the M3 tank gun was also available with or without muzzle brake). There was also an experimental higher-velocity 90mm gun the T15E1 "needle gun" which was mounted in one (?) T26E1-1 tank. It was an L73 monster that required mounting equilibrators outside the turret to balance it. See Belton Cooper's "Death Traps" for info on the single one of this type that got to the ETO. Postwar the T15E2 gun with fixed ammunition was developed and mounted in an improved turret with internal equilibrators, but only two were built as the T26E4. It is old but the Profile Publicatations "Armoured Fighting Vehicles in Profile Volume 4 American AFV's of World War II" has some good info. Part of the confusion may be that postwar the M3 90mm gun was redesignated the T119 gun in the M47. Depending on the gun mounting and muzzle brake design it was remeasured as either an L40.9 or L43. It was later produced with a longer barrel as the T139 L48 in the M41 tank. And yes, the US Army does try to be confusing on purpose. It is all part of the mystique. Hope this helps. Richard Anderson