Video captures from the Paris victory parade. Other shots indicate that the tanks might be from the 741st tank battalion. The cammo sure looks like 2nd AD though.



Mike Canaday

The black over OD camouflage was standard in all First Army units, not only 2nd Armored Division, even though not everyone may have painted their tanks that way. All units in First Army were supposed to apply the camo prior to Operation Cobra on 24 July.

Thanks for the info Steve. It does make sense thinking back to other unit pictures such as the 4th and 3rd Armored Divisions.

Was the camouflage was applied by 1st Army Ordnance maintenance units as opposed to the divisional units?

It's too bad the FM wasn't followed more rigorously, then the US tanks would have more interesting paint jobs than the Germans!

thanks
Mike Canaday

I've never seen any evidence one way or the other about who applied the camo paint, though I suspect it was the division itself. First Army actually requested that all US tanks supplied from stateside come pre-painted in OD/black, though obviously this was never carried out. One of the reports I found in the archive last month refers to an attached drawing of the pattern, but this hasn't turned up yet.

The color plate of a Sherman in TM 5-267 shows a very broad lobey pattern much like what actually shows up in the photos, but it shows a three color pattern; black over sand with white counter shading. Black over OD is suggested as an option using an M7 as an example. The white counter shading was much like what shows up on British tanks, under the cannon barrels and sponsons. I've never noticed white counter shading on a photo of a US tank, but that's not to say it's not there. Did the records indicate anything like that?

The manual is unfortunately very general in scope and really is more like a field manual rather than a technical manual.

After re-examining the film footage it seems that all of the tanks in the parade and most of the US tanks filmed on the show had at least two colors of camouflage applied to them. Could it be our thinking of US camouflage practice has been clouded by post war practice?

thanks for the insights Steve.

Mike Canaday

Hey Mike:
Check out pp. 184-185 of Hunnicutt. There's an M4A1 that has the white under its gun tube, its suspension and even under its transmission housing!

On p. 185 you see some countershading on another M4A1. Both of these are Italian theatre vehicles.

On p. 14 of Squadron/Signal's "US SP Guns" you see an Italian theatre M7 with white suspension and lower hull, too.

Yup! I must say this really looks like a large-hatch, 75mm M4A1. And it looks like it's been in action for quite a while too (hedgerow cutter, missing front fender, etc.).

What's even more interesting is that the turret appears to have a loader's hatch as well. So, is it a rare, late low-bustle with loader's hatch, or a final, high-bustle turret? Hard to say considering the quality of the pic, but there doesn't seem to be a bulge on the side of the turret where the pistol port should be...

Great find, Mike!

Think you could dig up a picture of the abominable snowman? Or the UFO at Area 51?

Cheers!

Charby

Mike,
Nice job! What equipment are you using for the capture? Software?

My assumption is that the big Hatch 75's were manufactured by the same factory that got the rush 100 DD tank contract for D-Day and then assembled the left over units as straight gun tanks until the 76mm turrets arrived.

So to the questions:

Are there any US DD's that don't have a loader's hatch?

Is there any correlation between Small hatch hulls and low bustle turrets vs Big Hatch and High Bustles in the known DD's.

mike

Thanks Mike,

>Nice job! What equipment are you using for the capture? Software?

It's a Matrox Rainbow Runner and its organic software.

>My assumption is that the big Hatch 75's were manufactured by the same factory that got the rush 100 DD tank contract for D-Day and then assembled the left over units as straight gun tanks until the 76mm turrets arrived.

I do not believe that they were leftovers. The last batch of dry stowage M4A1's, just like all of the 75mm armed M4 series produced after October 1943: the M4 (composite), the M4A2, the M4A6, and the M4A3 (albeit delayed until wet stowage came in), incorporated the large driver's hatches. Also the hulls had the armor reinforcement for the dry stowage ammo bins cast into the sides just like the previous batch of small hatches did. They were just part of a series.

>So to the questions:

>Are there any US DD's that don't have a loader's hatch?

Haven't seen one yet, but am still looking!

>Is there any correlation between Small hatch hulls and low bustle turrets vs Big Hatch and High Bustles in the known DD's.

All the M4A1 DD's seem to have the late high bustle turret. There are a few pictures of late small hatch M4A1s with cast in side armor reinforcement that have the high bustle turret fitted. The high bustle turret seems to have come in just before the switch to large hatch hulls.

Mike

OK, were there any high bustle turrets sent to NWE on any variant that did not have the oval loaders hatch?

Kenneth Daigle

Ken,
As far as I know, all high bustle 75mm turrets had the oval hatch, unlike the T23 turret which played with the old ring hatch.

According to Dyer, the high bustle turret came after the hatch had been incorporated onto the late-model low bustles turret.

So, the hatch had become a standard requirement by the time they raised the bustle to clear the Big Hatches, (I imagine, much to the relief of the loaders).

hth,
mike

Hey Charby!
Thanks. It still isn't as good as the find a friend of mine made in discovering that the M4A3 dry stowage went into WWII combat! He should be the one finding the UFO pictures...!

In the last frame the pistol port comes into view. I didn't think to check if it was a high or low bustle turret.

The fenders have some sort of fence welded onto them that are kind of turned up.

Mike

What kits would you combine to create a model of this
tank? I hate to admit this but...the turret descriptions have overwhelmed what little brain power I can muster this morning.

Well thanks for some more reference pics, this is making my Italeri M32 conversion to a M4A1 LG hatch alittle easier. Now if I could only find the time.
- Shawn

Hey Mike,

Is this the Italieri kit with the Tamiya M4A3 turret? Or is it the early Tamiya turret?

Brian

Brian, Bob,

It would be the Tamiya M4A3, DML M4 Composite flamethrower, or the Italaeri Calliope turret, which are all high bustle turrets.

The hull should have the cast in armor reinforcement added too.

Mike Canaday

Thank you, Mike. You've cleared the fog. The cast in reinforcements do not seem to be too difficult to achieve and I do have access the the mentioned turrets.

Bob,
In case you need it, this is a sketch of the placement of the reinforcing armor I came up with. The dimensions should be divided by 35 to convert them to model dimensions. Mike Foncannon sent me some nice shots of the actual castings which showed the extra armor between the right side reinforcements.
Mike

Mike,
Thank you! The drawings are a great help.
There is much more to the casting addition than my inexperienced eye was able to pick up.

Hardest thing to replicate is the blending. On the tank I photographed, the reinforcement was so subtle I didn't notice at first.

The transition areas around the reinforcement were smooth and gradual. It was hard to get the light right so that it showed up in the photographs.

Not like applique at all.

It was only when I got down and looked up that the difference became apparent in that it hung out over the skirt attachment rail.

hth,
mike

One small detail makes me think this is a DD Sherman. In the first picture I've circled an area of the glacis plate. It shows the remains of 2 brackets that were cut off. These brackets held the support struts for the Shroud. The second picture shows the upper bracket and lower part of the support struts from a Sherman V DD.

Also being the 741st TB makes it a good fit. As they were one of the 3 tank battalions equiped with DD tanks for the Normandy invasion. This would make it a pretty rare Sherman since only 5 made it to shore.

The lack of fenders looks alot like a 2nd AD M4A1 big hatch I posted a couple months ago. It makes me wonder if that one was from the 2nd AD or from an independent tank battalion that may have been operating in the same area.

That's an interesting thought Dan. I had read that the DD's were recalled and the using units received replacement tanks, but I don't know when that would have happened. It is interesting that there are at least two large hatched tanks in the parade. Neither seem to have the travel lock which I thought was odd, and might indicate that the tank had been a DD. There is also the picture of the ex-DD large hatch M4A1 that Steve has in his book which has had the DD skirt supports removed. The blow up of the hull front shows that there are fenders, just odd short ones.

If these are ex-DD's and this is the 741st Tank Battalion, then these would have to be two of the 5 DD's that weren't lost at sea on Omaha.

I believe this DD is from the 70th TB. If I remember correctly the caption put it in a suburb of Paris. At the time the 4th ID was involved with the liberation of Paris with the 2nd French AD. The 70th TB was attached to the 4th ID at the time.




Here is another 70th TB small hatch M4A1 DD. Check out the star on the commander's open hatch. No time or location on this one.



I was always under the impression that the units ran the DDs until they dropped or where knocked out.

Interesting, the 70th battalion small hatch also has the high bustle turret.

Maybe the British were the only ones to call them back. It sounds like the two big hatches in the 741st might need the DD gear.

Thanks

Mike

Mike,
Does the video show a side-on view of the idler? If it has the extra plate to keep the track from being thrown it would confirm a DD.

Belonging to the 741st does incline me to think DD, but....

As for recall, I believe Ordnance did scour the collection points for usable/repairable/recoverable DD's and DD attachments to make sure enough were on hand for the Dragoon Landings.

However, both the 70th and 741st were heavily engaged after the landings and my research indicates that the DD's in the field were used until they had to be replaced.

Plus, if these are the two remaining DD's from the 741st, there might have been more than a little sentimental attachment involved for the crews and the unit. Are these the first two tanks in the parade?

One other thought comes to mind....where did the DD Battalions draw Shermans for their non-DD company tanks from? Were they issued M4A1's off the same assembly line as the DD's or were they issued from the general stockpile in England?
I seem to recall seeing LCM's with welded hull M4's and wading stacks.

Curious,
mike

Mike,

Here is a picture of the 743rd TB a little after the landings. There are about 6 M4A1 DDs followed by an M4 from the HQ section.

Nice picture Dan! I think the tanks were numbered in the 1-20 range for each company. I wonder how soon after the landings these pictures were taken. The skirts have all been neatly cut off.
A company and HQ were in regular tanks and B and C were DD, The 743rd used large alpha numerics for tank ID. It looks like the nearest DD is B12.
Always looking for good picture sof the 743rd!

Thanks Dan!

Mike Canaday