Update on American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II

[Rick]

Popped up on my Kindle Wednesday. About 1/5 of the way through it and a superb read so far. Interesting on how much influence General Gladeon Barnes had.

[Harold Jones]

It landed on my doorstep yesterday. I had forgotten it was due out this month so it was a nice surprise.

[shootER5]

 

Mine arrived yesterday as well. It's freaking HEAVY! 😆

[Leo Niehorster]

Yep. So did mine. Very impressive. So far I have only paged through, but this is going to be a landmark!

[RichTO90]

9 hours ago, shootER5 said:

 

Mine arrived yesterday as well. It's freaking HEAVY! 😆

🤣 Yep, just about 1.9 pounds or not quite a kilo. I was trying to out Chris Lawrence Chris Lawrence.

[DogDodger]

Congratulations! I knew what the page count was going to be obviously, but was surprised by its dimensions. Looking forward to it!

[Rick]

Finished via Kindle a day ago. Interesting book even for an ex-sailor and I notice this Grate Site was mentioned on page 702 in the footnotes 🍻

[sunday]

On 5/7/2024 at 6:10 PM, sunday said:

(...)

 

Unfortunately, I could no longer recommend that book.

Edited June 6, 2024 by sunday

[RichTO90]

4 hours ago, sunday said:

Unfortunately, I could no longer recommend that book.

Wounded me to the quick.

[Harold Jones]

Finished it, I think my favorite line was about a home brewed rocket launcher used in Italy.  "It wasn't well liked but it was well used."  I have a question about the m4/105. The Brits received a bunch, but the book makes it clear they didn't want nor use them.  I can get not wanting them because of the non-standard ammo, no power traverse and no real doctrinal role, but did the Brits ever consider swapping in a 25 pounder?  I'm sure it wouldn't have been simple to do and probably pointless since they had other SP mounts for the gun.

[RichTO90]

26 minutes ago, Harold Jones said:

Finished it, I think my favorite line was about a home brewed rocket launcher used in Italy.  "It wasn't well liked but it was well used."  I have a question about the m4/105. The Brits received a bunch, but the book makes it clear they didn't want nor use them.  I can get not wanting them because of the non-standard ammo, no power traverse and no real doctrinal role, but did the Brits ever consider swapping in a 25 pounder?  I'm sure it wouldn't have been simple to do and probably pointless since they had other SP mounts for the gun.

No, I've never seen anything about trying to mount a 25-pdr in place of the 105mm.

It is interesting that they actually created an organizational place for them and requested them as part of Lend-Lease, but didn't have any enthusiasm for actually deploying them. I wonder sometimes if they originally thought it would be a way to get more tanks that could be converted to 17-pdr, since the usual types were no longer manufactured, and somehow missed that the power traverse was not installed? Or it may simply have been a knee-jerk request given that British tank manufacture was nearly at a standstill, so something, anything, was a want?

[Stuart Galbraith]

When exactly were they asking for 105mm Shermans? One wonders if they asked for them as an insurance against the 95mm CS and maybe the petard mortars development not paying off.

 

 

[RichTO90]

15 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

When exactly were they asking for 105mm Shermans?

18 March 1944. At least for Northwest Europe. It would have been about the same time that "bids" for new production were submitted by the joint Tank Committee.

Quote

One wonders if they asked for them as an insurance against the 95mm CS and maybe the petard mortars development not paying off.

Possibly, but the initial request was for six each for 22 regiments, so they were not seen as a Petard replacement. Since the Petard was intended for the AVRE that would have been odd anyway.

[Stuart Galbraith]

That is odd. It cant have been just for 79th Armoured then as I was thinking.

[RichTO90]

9 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

That is odd. It cant have been just for 79th Armoured then as I was thinking.

What? the 105mm? No, it was never intended for the 79th Armoured. It was intended as a C/S tank for Sherman-equipped regiments, just as it was in the American tank battalion. I suspect though it was a knee-jerk request, because the dedicated C/S tank in the British armoured regiments was pretty much a thing of the past and the 17-pdr hole-puncher was seen as the way of the future.

[R011]

12 hours ago, Harold Jones said:

Finished it, I think my favorite line was about a home brewed rocket launcher used in Italy.  "It wasn't well liked but it was well used."  I have a question about the m4/105. The Brits received a bunch, but the book makes it clear they didn't want nor use them.  I can get not wanting them because of the non-standard ammo, no power traverse and no real doctrinal role, but did the Brits ever consider swapping in a 25 pounder?  I'm sure it wouldn't have been simple to do and probably pointless since they had other SP mounts for the gun.

They certainly used 105 mm Sherman's.  Usually three in each squadron HQ by 1945.

[Stuart Galbraith]

14 hours ago, RichTO90 said:

What? the 105mm? No, it was never intended for the 79th Armoured. It was intended as a C/S tank for Sherman-equipped regiments, just as it was in the American tank battalion. I suspect though it was a knee-jerk request, because the dedicated C/S tank in the British armoured regiments was pretty much a thing of the past and the 17-pdr hole-puncher was seen as the way of the future.

There was an audio tape I once possessed called the sherman tapes with interviews of British veterans fighting in Normandy, and one described being in a Sherman firefly and having to take out a building with ap shot, because there was no accompanying 75mm tanks. They had to resort to the expedient of bouncing the shot off a road, and using it to take corners of buildings out.

Perhaps to the British this rather commended building a dual role tank gun, rather than just shopping around for C/S weapons.

3 hours ago, R011 said:

They certainly used 105 mm Sherman's.  Usually three in each squadron HQ by 1945.

Ive got a nagging feeling Ive seen one at Bovington. I wouldnt swear to it though.

[RichTO90]

13 hours ago, R011 said:

They certainly used 105 mm Sherman's.  Usually three in each squadron HQ by 1945.

No, sorry, not in NWE. As of 21 January 1945 there were none with 21st Army Group units or in reserve. By 30 June 1945, there were 33 in the UK for training purposes and 82 with 21st Army Group, of which 32 were assigned to units and the rest were in reserve. Those present were only with 5 Canadian Armoured Division and 1st Canadian Armoured Brigade, which had brought them from Italy. Scale of issue was nominally 6 per regiment - 2 per squadron, so they were short 10. 

[R011]

6 hours ago, RichTO90 said:

No, sorry, not in NWE. As of 21 January 1945 there were none with 21st Army Group units or in reserve. By 30 June 1945, there were 33 in the UK for training purposes and 82 with 21st Army Group, of which 32 were assigned to units and the rest were in reserve. Those present were only with 5 Canadian Armoured Division and 1st Canadian Armoured Brigade, which had brought them from Italy. Scale of issue was nominally 6 per regiment - 2 per squadron, so they were short 10. 

The units redeployed from Italy were reequipped with new tanks in NW Europe.  That should have applied to the 105 mm tanks as well as I don't believe they had them before redeployment.  Mind you, I'm basing this mostly on the GGHG regimental history.  They were equipped as an  armoured division recce regiment in Italy with Stuarts and 75 mm cast-hull Sherman II left over from North Africa becoming reorganized as a armoured regiment in NW Europe.

Thanks for the correction on numbers in the SHQ.  I was going by memory and clearly was wrong.

[RichTO90]

3 hours ago, R011 said:

The units redeployed from Italy were reequipped with new tanks in NW Europe.  That should have applied to the 105 mm tanks as well as I don't believe they had them before redeployment.  Mind you, I'm basing this mostly on the GGHG regimental history.  They were equipped as an  armoured division recce regiment in Italy with Stuarts and 75 mm cast-hull Sherman II left over from North Africa becoming reorganized as a armoured regiment in NW Europe.

Thanks for the correction on numbers in the SHQ.  I was going by memory and clearly was wrong.

My understanding and memory was the opposite, which was they left all but the 105mm M4 in Italy.

We were both wrong. 😀 

CMHQ Report #181, "OPERATION "GOLDFLAKE", the Move of 1 Cdn Corps from Italy to North-West Europe, Feb-Mar 1945" makes it clear they took all their tanks with them. 5 Canadian Armoured Division moved 455 tanks, 1st Armoured Brigade does not specify the number, but it is clear they took their "tracked vehicles" with them too. What they received in NWE that they had not had were 17-pdr Sherman.

Edited June 18, 2024 by RichTO90

[R011]

1 minute ago, RichTO90 said:

My understanding was the opposite, which was they left all but the 105mm M4 in Italy. We were both wrong. 😀 CMHQ Report #181, "OPERATION "GOLDFLAKE", the Move of 1 Cdn Corps from Italy to North-West Europe, Feb-Mar 1945" makes it clear they took all their tanks with them. 5 Canadian Armoured Division moved 455 tanks, 1st Armoured Brigade does not specify the number, but it is clear they took their "tracked vehicles" with them too.

Thanks for that.

It seems that some units, at least, reequipped with new Shermans including Fireflies on arrival.  GGHG, for instance, had Sherman II in Italy (apparently one of the few Canadian units which did) and welded hull Shermans in NW Europe, mostly V and Vc IIRC.  They also got some turreted Stuarts whereas the ones in Italy were turretless.

[RETAC21]

Great work Rich, finally got through the book and it's just about anything one can want that isn't in Hunnicut. There's stuff for 2 books here, one on organisation and use (including the mythbusting and the tank scandal) and another on production and models.

The only "criticism" is that the articles from contemporary military publications would have been better in an annex rather that at the end of each chapter IMO.

I also wonder, no feedback was received from the MTO? it kinds of fades once the Normandy landing happens.

Top notch in any case.

[Ol Paint]

So far, my only complaint is the binding of the hardcover--it has started to separate from the end covers during normal reading.

Doug

[shootER5]

1 hour ago, Ol Paint said:

So far, my only complaint is the binding of the hardcover--it has started to separate from the end covers during normal reading.

Doug

 

Same.

[RichTO90]

21 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

Great work Rich, finally got through the book and it's just about anything one can want that isn't in Hunnicut. There's stuff for 2 books here, one on organisation and use (including the mythbusting and the tank scandal) and another on production and models.

The only "criticism" is that the articles from contemporary military publications would have been better in an annex rather that at the end of each chapter IMO.

I also wonder, no feedback was received from the MTO? it kinds of fades once the Normandy landing happens.

Top notch in any case.

Yeah, sorry about the weight. Couldn't get the idea of two volumes past the Stackpole publications committee.

MTO gets covered in the excerpts from lessons learned. And in other places.

Thank you!