Home > Discussion Groups > Allied

Message posting guidelines:
1.

Full real names must be used at all times.

2.
A valid e-mail address must be provided. (This is not optional)
3.
Images must be posted at low resolution (72 dpi) and no larger than 760 pixels wide, and copyright/trade mark owners must be credited whenever reasonably possible.
4.

From 20 April, registration is compulsory if you wish to post messages on the Discussion Groups. For further information, please see the following message: http://www.network54.com/Forum/message?forumid=47208&messageid=1113823018

Please read our Community guidelines before posting.
By contributing to this discussion group, you indicate your agreement to the Terms and Conditions of Use.
Posts that violate the guidelines or Terms and conditions of Use of the Missing-lynx.com discussion groups will be erased, and repeated violation of this policy may result in termination of the violator's account.

Advertisement

 Return to Index  

I found data from Richard Anderson

December 15 2008 at 3:01 PM
claude Gillono  (Login claude_GILLONO)
Missing-Lynx members
from IP address 83.202.81.181


Response to Harry Yeide - Steel Victory for the M4A3E2

Richard kindly posted that in early 2004 on another DG (onwar forum?)
quote
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 Battalions 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 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.
end of quote
PS: he may have found more since
HTH



Plastic modelling is holding history in your hands

 
 Respond to this message   


Terms and Conditions of Use
Report abuse