No M36 in Italy?

[Darkmath]

The M36 entered in service on april 1944.

It appeared that M36 was first used in the ETO on october 1944.

So,I'm surprised to see no M36 in CMAK.

Is there really no one M36 in Italy, even when allied assault in this theater resume on march 1945, that is, nearly 6 months after their first use in Europe?

[Kingfish]

Correct, the M36 did not see service in the Med. My guess would be the allies wanted to deploy the limited numbers where the Germans still had a sizeable AFV fleet. In Italy there were fewer German tanks, and of those only a tiny percentage could not be handled by the numerous M10s or M18s.

[Darkmath]

Did M36 have been frequently encountered during battle of the Bulge, in comparison with M10?

Were there some M36 during Normandy campaign?

[JasonC]

There were no M36 yet in Normandy. The US TD fleet was still all M10s on D-Day. It transitions to a mix of M36, M18, and M10 throughout the fall. There were some M18s around by the time of the early Lorraine battles in late August and early September, but M10s were still far more common. By the time of the Bulge the M10 portion was below half, M36s were around in numbers, and proved highly useful. By the end of the war the older M10 was less common than either of the other more advanced types, taken separately, but some units still had them.

[Kingfish]

Did M36 have been frequently encountered during battle of the Bulge, in comparison with M10?

Judging from the production numbers listed on this site, and then counting only those that were produced before Dec '44, it appears the M10 fleet was bigger by a wide margin, with 6706 M10s vs 1213 M36s. However, that is total production, and does not account for losses in combat or those shipped to the Med / Pac. Still, even if you cut the M10 fleet in half it is still twice that of the M36.

Were there some M36 during Normandy campaign?

Again according to the same site the M36 first saw service in July '44, so yes it did see limited action in Normandy.

[JasonC]

Kingfish - there simply weren't that many deployed. The deployed TD battalions were half filled by just the M36s and M18s by the time of the Bulge. Yes they had lots of M10s, but when they had enough of a better vehicle they upgraded a battalion to the better type. They didn't drive M10s when they had M36s available. It is not like field strength of TDs was 8000 or something, not remotely.

[Kingfish]

I agree, which is why I pointed out that the figures were for total production, not specifically in the ETO in Dec '44. That said, even if the TD fleet was only 3000 it still meant a greater percentage was M10 / M18 as opposed to the M36, which is what Darkmath had asked.

Edit: The guy to ask would be Harry Yeide, who is our resident tank destroyer expert.

[Buq-Buq]

Steven Zaloga, in the New Vanguard books M18 Hellcat Tank Destroyer 1943-97 and M10 and M36 Tank Destroyers 1942-53 charts this breakdown for M10-M18-M36 TDs in the ETO, by month:

--------------M10--------M18--------M36

June44------691--------146----------0

July44-------743--------141----------0

Aug44-------758--------176----------0

Sept44------763--------170----------0

Oct44--------486--------189---------170

Nov44-------573--------252---------183

Dec44-------790--------306---------236

Jan45--------760--------312---------365

Feb45--------686--------448---------826

Mar45--------684--------540---------884

Apr45---------427*------427*--------1054

May45--------427*----- 427*--------1029

{Arghhhh! No effing tabs!!!}

Another thing to bear in mind when looking at those production figures for the M10 is that they include the M10A1; the lion's share production of M10A1s went to conversion into M36 TDs. Some 200 M10A1s were also converted to M35 Prime Movers. Finally, that 6700 figure for M10 production is also reduced by Lend-Lease vehicles; Hunnicutt's Sherman gives that number as 1855. Some 6 battalions of M10s went to the PTO; an unknown number served in the MTO. Still, it is interesting to see that of the 3000-odd M10s left, monthly quantities in the ETO never exceeded 800. Zaloga gives a total of 540 combat losses of M10s in the ETO.

Mark

*It is interesting to note that the figures for both M10s and M18s are identical for the last two months of the war; I wonder if there is an error in the charts here.

[Darkmath]

Why they did not renew their fleet in Italy? Because it was useles for this theater?

Even in march 1945, when they broke through the Gothic Line?

In CMAK, M18 "Hellcat" appears on January 1945.

This means that new tanks are still sent in Italy in 1945. So why not the M36?

[ February 10, 2006, 09:22 AM: Message edited by: Darkmath ]

[John Kettler]

A most interesting and informative thread! My thanks to all who contributed so much delightfully detailed information.

Regards,

John Kettler

[JasonC]

DarkMath - it was simply a matter of priorities. The available M36s went to the ETO because they faced far more German armor and the war was being decided there. There wasn't that much German armor left in Italy, and being marginally better at dealing with what there was, wasn't going to make much of a difference in the overall war.

In December and January, in contrast, the ETO guys got hit by the Ardennes and Alsace counterattacks, with 2000 AFVs between them. There was a lesser attempt to counterattack with armor around Remagen. Where would you put the stuff that can punch through Panthers from the front?

In late war Italy, on the other hand, most of the TD units spent their time firing indirect as SP artillery, for lack of armor to chew on. The last major commitment of German armor to Italy was at Anzio in early 1944. Once the front opened in France, they couldn't afford to send more armor there. In fact they stripped mobile formations out of the theater to hold at the westwall when France fell.

[Harry Yeide]

Sorry for being a no-show, but I've been traveling. I think that one reason the Med theater received no M36s is that nobody asked for them, as the M10s had proved effective in every substantial engagement with German armor. Guys in the ETO, by contrast, were hopping up and down after learning the 3-inch/76mm gun could not take out a Panther from the front.

The 704th TD Bn landed with the first M18s in Normandy on 13 July and first saw action during Operation Cobra. The first M36 deliveries took place in September. The First and Ninth armies channeled them into battalions supporting armored divisions, so in those cases the M10s were supplanted. Third Army, however, used the M36 to convert towed battalions to SP ones.

Most of the TDs in the Ardennes sector on 16 December fielded towed guns. The 803d TD Bn, attached to the 4th Infantry Division, was equipped with the M10. The 814th TD Bn brought the first M36s into the battle zone on 17 December, though the outfit was still partially equipped with the M10. I've never sat down and figured out the proportion of TD types in action at the peak of the engagement.

Cheers.

[Richie]

On this line of thinking does anyone have some sort of figures for Sherman 76 / Sherman 75 ratios per armoured unit over time?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Harry Yeide:

Sorry for being a no-show...

Harry, a word of appreciation. I recently acquired and read Steel Victory and Tank Killers. The latter I especially enjoyed. Seemed like by the time you got around to writing that, you had settled in to the job and had a clearer idea of how to go about it.

What I am wondering is whether you are planning any other books on WW II subjects? I do hope so. Tank battalions in the Pacific might be nice, if I may drop a hint. Not so much material there I suppose though...

Michael

[Harry Yeide]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Harry Yeide:

Sorry for being a no-show...

Harry, a word of appreciation. I recently acquired and read Steel Victory and Tank Killers. The latter I especially enjoyed. Seemed like by the time you got around to writing that, you had settled in to the job and had a clearer idea of how to go about it.

What I am wondering is whether you are planning any other books on WW II subjects? I do hope so. Tank battalions in the Pacific might be nice, if I may drop a hint. Not so much material there I suppose though...

Michael </font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Harry Yeide:

I have a book called "Weapons of the Tankers" coming out in April (Weapons of the Tankers) as part of MBI's Battlegear series. I cover not only the tank battalions in all theaters--albeit in short fashion--but also the amphibian tank and tractor battalions.

Good. Coverage of the amphibs was something I was hoping for.

I have a few ideas for a next project, including looking again at whether there is a book to be had on the WWII armored cavalry outfits.

Goody, goody, goody! As I was finishing up Steel Victory, I kept thinking that armored cav. was one you ought to take up. I hope it comes about and I get to see it soon.

It doesn't seem to me that much has been written on the subjects that you mention, at least in a readily accessible popular book, so I wish you continued success.

Michael

[Other Means]

Originally posted by Darkmath:

The M36 entered in service on april 1944.

It appeared that M36 was first used in the ETO on october 1944.

So,I'm surprised to see no M36 in CMAK.

Is there really no one M36 in Italy, even when allied assault in this theater resume on march 1945, that is, nearly 6 months after their first use in Europe?

If you're designing a scenario, use a British Achillies instead. This has the 17pdr which has similar (for CM purposes) performance using the same chassis (it looks).

http://cmak.jemian.com/php/result_unit.php?armorid=366

[Wisbech_lad]

Achilles is an M10 with a 17pdr. So yes, same chassis

Does nasty, nasty things to opposing armour. Less effective against infantry...

[JasonC]

I've never found really satisfactory information on the upgrade to 76mm Shermans and how it progressed through the campaign, but I'll share the few facts I've been able to put together. Take it with salt, some of it is extrapolation.

The first thing to understand is that US armor divisions arrived in several waves or "generations". 1, 2 and 3 were "old" pattern, 1942 era divisions, with a tank heavy structure. 1st was in Italy, 2nd and 3rd in Normandy. These had been around quite a while. I have not seen any evidence they had 76mm Shermans in Normandy and some against it. They were also the only ones that fought in what we usually think of as the Normandy campaign, proper, rather than the breakout and race across France. 2nd had a combat command in action as early as 13 July, defeating the Carentan counterattack by 17SS. The 3rd only entered combat in early July, during the push south to St. Lo.

I'll cover independent battalions working with infantry divisions later, after the ADs. Just for now, those appear to have been short 75s almost exclusively as well, during the Normandy fight proper.

All formations included a small number of 105mm Shermans, 6 per battalion, which were meant to act as an organic form of artillery or as assault guns. They were quite well liked, and more always sought. While meant for anti-infantry bunker-busting type fighting, they were also effective against tanks, firing 105mm HEAT. And they were the earliest "upgunned" Sherman in service - probably one reason they were sought. As late as the Brittany campaign the officers are calling for more of them and calling them the most effective weapon in the division - to me a sign there weren't 76mm Shermans around.

The second wave of ADs were the ones unleashed for the Cobra breakout itself, and a few that lagged them slightly but participated in the race across France. These include the 4th and 6th, Patton's spearheads, both of which entered combat on 28 July, and the 5th and 7th, which entered combat in August, 2nd and 14th respectively. The French 2nd armored landed in the south of France, also in August. At the westwall it transfered to Patton's Third army.

The ADs in this second wave were late enough that they might have had a few of the earliest 76mm Shermans in their force mix, but I have not found any sign of it. All the pics I've seen of Patton's columns in the race period show short 75 Shermans. Accounts of the fights against German armor in the Lorraine fight in September feature US TDs with their 76mm, but the Shermans seem to again be short 75s. One engagement by the French 2nd armored, it clearly has just short 75s on the Shermans. While there are cases of Shermans KOing Panthers in this fighting, they are flank ambushes or short range stalking in fog. They are also KOed frontally, but by TDs under 200 yards, which was already seen in Normandy.

Might there have been a small number of M4A1{76)s in these ADs? Possible, but not proven, and I doubt it.

The 8th is a strange case from its division number, only entering combat in February 1945. 13, 16, and 20 are so late they hardly count at all. All of these could have had large numbers of 76s and the last 3 probably had uniform 76s in their composition. That only matters because it bumps the end of the war stats on 76 portions, without reflecting actual 76s in use.

The third wave of ADs reached France in the fall, but entered actual combat quite late in the year, many of them only for the battle of the Bulge. The 9th had a few elements in action as early as October, but the whole division only entered combat as a reinforcement to Patton's Third during the Bulge fighting. The 10th was earlier, a few seeing action in late September in Lorraine, and the whole fighting with Patton as XX corps AD (and Patton's 3rd, with 4 and 6) through the rest of the fall campaign.

Meanwhile, in late November and early December, prior to the bulge, the 12th and 14th joined VII army. And the 11th joined Patton's Third for the Bulge on 23 December.

These later ADs certainly had some 76mm Shermans. I don't know how many in the 9th and 10th, which are in theater sooner than the others, but they were probably the first to have any appreciable portion of them. The others might have had uniform 76s when they shipped.

Understand, shipping space was scarce, and to save it, the rear echelon types wanted to send tank upgrades with whole units rather than separately, if possible. Took fewer ships, they looked at it as a twofer. That did mean the longest suffering units had to wait for a trickle of upgrade tanks while the late arrivers showed up all tricked out with the latest gear.

Some reports I've seen say the portion sporting 76mm guns at the end of the war had risen to one half. But that may be based on overall production statistics, in which case it would not actually follow. People fail to appreciate how small the actual fielded armor force was compared to the production totals. It was not tanks that were scarce in the US army, it was trained tankers, and shipping to get all of it to Europe. Nothing like the 40,000 Shermans produced saw action in France. The fleet at any one time is more like 3000 or 4000. So production was sufficient to transition to uniform 76s by the end, had the shipping etc been available to do so.

What appears to have happened instead, is that the late third of ADs (4) got uniform 76s, while the earlier ones (6) had all 75s. The 9th and 10th are transitional cases, and may have been all 75 or might have had some of the newer 76s, but not all. Then everybody else had to wait for upgrade tanks in the replacement pool. Finally, the 1945 ADs, one in late February and 3 too late to matter, got uniform 76s but not much chance to use them.

During the Bulge period, if all of the above is correct, only 1 of the US ADs engaged would have had uniform 76s, and 2 others would have had a portion. There were 2 others in theater with high numbers of 76s, but not in the Bulge sector (they would be available against the Alsace stuff a month later, however).

In all the other ADs and in most of the independent battalions, the tankers would be lucky if they had ever seen a Sherman 76. Some platoons might have had 2 and counted themselves very lucky. I have seen some suggestion that some of the older ADs (2 and 3 e.g.) had received a few 76s by the time of the Bulge, by the replacement trickle mechanism.

Independent battalions also arrived at different times, and a few of them might have had uniform 76s, if they came late enough. Those would probably not be seen in the backwater sector early - those would be older units. But there might have been 1 or 2 in the reinforcement stream sent to the Bulge, after the hit.

What didn't happen was 76s getting high shipping priority and reaching the men in the field as fast as they could be produced and shipped. Men were fighting in worn and obsolete 75s in France, while others trained on 76s.

The brass wasn't really listening to complaints about inadequate guns until after Normandy. By then the crisis appeared to have passed, as German armor evaporated. The new stuff seen in Lorraine was dealt with adequately without any serious upgunning having taken place. There was some complacency as a result, and the rear echelon types got their way (shipping schedules took priority over urgency about getting 76s and HVAP to the men).

The Bugle probably bumped the urgency again - it certainly led to howls for 90mm guns and more HVAP - but some improved stuff had already arrived. The last wave of better stuff in 1945 was too late to make any real difference.

I hope this helps.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by JasonC:

The first thing to understand is that US armor divisions arrived in several waves or "generations". 1, 2 and 3 were "old" pattern, 1942 era divisions, with a tank heavy structure. 1st was in Italy, 2nd and 3rd in Normandy.

N.B. The 1st. transitioned to the Combat Command (balanced armor and infantry battalions within the division) structure of the later divisions during 1943 or early '44.

2nd had a combat command in action as early as 13 July, defeating the Carentan counterattack by 17SS.

I believe you mean 13 June.

The French 2nd armored landed in the south of France, also in August. At the westwall it transfered to Patton's Third army.

He had already had the French 1st. Armored under command for the breakout. It fought at Argentan and was instrumental in the liberation of Paris. Either it or the 2nd.—or both; I'm not clear on this—ended up in 6th. Army Group.

Michael

[JonS]

Originally posted by JasonC:

All formations included a small number of 105mm Shermans, 6 per battalion, which were meant to act as an organic form of artillery or as assault guns. They were quite well liked, and more always sought. While meant for anti-infantry bunker-busting type fighting, they were also effective against tanks, firing 105mm HEAT. And they were the earliest "upgunned" Sherman in service - probably one reason they were sought. As late as the Brittany campaign the officers are calling for more of them and calling them the most effective weapon in the division

AIUI, there weren't any 105mms around for the Normandy Campaign, or at least the early portion of it. DOes anyone know the who, what, and where of the 105s coming into action?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

It fought at Argentan and was instrumental in the liberation of Paris. Either it or the 2nd.—or both; I'm not clear on this—ended up in 6th. Army Group.

Michael

Instrumental in the sense that the Americans were ordered to stop and let the French go on ahead?

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by JonS:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JasonC:

All formations included a small number of 105mm Shermans, 6 per battalion, which were meant to act as an organic form of artillery or as assault guns. They were quite well liked, and more always sought. While meant for anti-infantry bunker-busting type fighting, they were also effective against tanks, firing 105mm HEAT. And they were the earliest "upgunned" Sherman in service - probably one reason they were sought. As late as the Brittany campaign the officers are calling for more of them and calling them the most effective weapon in the division

AIUI, there weren't any 105mms around for the Normandy Campaign, or at least the early portion of it. DOes anyone know the who, what, and where of the 105s coming into action? </font>

[JonS]

Thanks Mike. Seems my recollection was wrong.

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by JonS:

Thanks Mike. Seems my recollection was wrong.

You're welcome Bill