#46 Gallery V, More Sherman Photos, Some Maybe Not As High Res
Gallery V, More Sherman Photos, more Comments, Maybe Fewer Resolutions.
US Army M4 crew, probably somewhere in the ETO or MTO. The crew are wearing a HBT coverall that was not all that popular. Later they would would wear the same things the infantry did. Being color you can see the black on OD green camo used, and a red air ID panel on the back of the tank. The top hat was not standard issue. M4 Crab, with the 739th TB.British Sherman V based Crab, 1944.M4 Crab Breinig 1944. A Sherman IC Firefly probably with the British 11th Armored Division, in the town of Putanges, 20 August 1944.A captured M4A1 75 tank, an early DV model, being tested by the Nazis. This tank was probably captured in North Africa.An M4A4 based Crab up survives to this day in Canada.An M4A2 75 large hatch tank, this is one of the rare dry ammo rack large hatch tanks. It must have been going pretty fast when it hit that mud, note the tanker bar on the left about to fall off.An M4A3 76w HVSS tank is climbing up a muddy road in this HUGE image. Note the commander has a 1919 mounted in front of him. The caption says 11th US Armored Division Einheiten Der Germany 1945. You can see a Jumbo and another A3 76 tank , this one VVSS in the background.M4 Sherman with a M1 Dozer blade drivers through a whole in the Siegfried lines Tank Trap belt. The tank is a M4 75. Close up of the T34 Calliope, being loaded by the crew, it shows lots of detail of the T34 installation. This is an M4 Sherman in Italy that hit a large Anti tank mine, or maybe a pair of them in the same hole. The tank is a DV tank, with an M34 gun mount. This picture was taken during the staging in the UK just before 6 June 1944. Note the left-hand tank has the characteristic arm for mounting a dozer blade (barely visible running along the suspension); the hydraulic jack and blade are missing. 741st Tank Battalion after action reports indicate that among the eight dozer tanks they had scheduled to land in Wave 2, one of them, commanded by LT Kotz, did not have a blade attached. The 741st’s tanks on Omaha Beach came in three flavors. B and C companies had DD tanks. Co. A had M4A1 tanks and the tank dozers (six of their own and two from the 610 Engineer Company) were M4A3s, if I am not mistaken. If these are 741st tanks, then the photo was taken at the Portland ‘hards’ in the UK, where they out-loaded. Also note the M8 armored ammunition trailer. Each of the eight LCTs carrying Co. A embarked two standard tanks and a dozer tank. They also carried an engineer gap assault team and towed an LCM behind. Off the Normandy coast, the engineers boarded their LCM and followed the LCT ashore, where the dozer tank was supposed to support and work under the direction of the gap assault team leader. Also, on the way in, the two standard tanks were to fire over the LCT’s bow ramp, providing suppressive fire as they neared the beach. The ammo trailers were there to ensure they had plenty to shoot. One pair of Co. A’s tanks reported firing 450 rounds of 75mm on D-Day. Love your site. Caption Info, thanks to Chuck Herrick.M4A3 or A2 76w Sherman somewhere in Europe 1945, that almost looks like Soviet numbering on the side of the turret. A pair of M4 small hatch 75mm tanks coming off an LST-77 at Anzio, Italy, May 1944; note the small barge capsized in the background.A line of French Sherman tanks in Paris after the city was liberated by French forces. The tanks are a mix of small and large hatch Shermans, one is a M4 or M4A3 105 and there is a 76 gun sticking out down the row. Vive La France!An UK M4 and an M4A1 pass through a fence in an urban area. It could be an M4A4 in front I suppose. M4A4 Crab. Another Sherman Crab. M4A3 based flamethrower tank, probably with the Marines on Iwo Jima. These tanks used a Navy Mark 1 Flame-Thrower. M4A1 76w with extra plate armor added to the front hull, it’s from the 3rd Armored Division on the outskirts of Korbach 30 March 1945, also note the Commanders and loaders hatches have been swapped. There is also a pair of boxing gloves hanging on the front armor! An M4A1 76w and an M4A3E2 Jumbo of the 3rd Armored Division, probably during the Battle of Hürtgen Forest. 14th Armored Division M4A1 76W with sandbags, the tank has a threaded and capped M1A1 gun and the split loaders hatch. M4A1 North Africa, 1943, the tank appears to be rather dirty. M4 based Scorpion mine clearing tank.M4 Sherman coming out of a gully, this is a command tank, note the extra antenna on the front right of the hull. Soviet M4A2 75’s crew play an accordion and pal around. This tank is another rare large hatch hull with dry ammo racks, you can make out the armor over the ammo racks on t he side of the hull. Most, it not all of these tanks went to Russia. Also note the drivers side head light and guard are nearly ripped off. A pair of M4A2 76w Shermans serving with the Soviets, these tanks are just like the one above. Crewmen of a M4A3 76w Sherman loads ammo into the floor ammo racks. The manual says the rounds should be stored nose up.
11 thoughts on “#46 Gallery V, More Sherman Photos, Some Maybe Not As High Res”
Re: The M4A3 76mm HVSS crossing a small river (captioned as “11th AD crosses the Muhl River in Austria” by Army Historical Center). In addition to TC having a .30 MG mounted in front of his hatch, it also looks like the .50 M2 has been relocated in front of the (non split)loaders hatch. Note the 2 toy animals just above the main gun. The Driver & Loader are wearing standard steel pots, but the TC seems to be wearing an AAF helmet (M5?) with ear protectors, hard to tell from the photo.
Interesting site.
That M4A3 flame tank is COED 40 of Company C, 4th Marine Tank Battalion firing its POA-CWS H1 Flamethrower during the battle of iwo jima, the battalion had 4 of these main armament flamethrower tanks.
I must thank all involved. My grandfather was part of Navy Combat Demolition Unit 138. He went in at Fox Green Omaha with Gap Clearing Team 15. He was aboard LCT 2043 and watched as the DD tanks of the 741st went down from the LCM(3). I’ve been wanting to know about the men who were also on LCT 2043 and make a roster for prosperity. The information here is very helpful. I think the Army Combat Engineers were Company C of the 299th with NCDU 138.
I need to clear couple of things up. Did LCT 2043 carry 3 M4A1(75) DD Tanks, and a tank dozer with ammunition trailer? Were the Army/Navy Commanders on the Princess Maud or the Ancon? Did the LCM 15 skipper drop the men hundreds of yards away and the men hiked back to their sector, or did the skipper have to travel back West and drop them off? Did LCT 2043 take a mortar round and sink on the first wave?
I apologize for not seeing your post earlier. I think I can help with some of this.
First of all, let me confuse you by trying to clarify the difference between the Landing Tables Index Number and the actual craft number. The index number was used to identify a group of personnel or equipment due to land at a specific place and time in the same craft. The Navy then assigned specific craft to carry each passenger/cargo load. The craft hull numbers could, and did, change during the lead up to the invasion as maintenance failures caused some craft to be switched out. The info I list below is based on the landing tables that were developed the month before the landing. I’ve updated them with changes I have stumbled across, but probably missed some info.
LCT 3 had two separate Index numbers. The first was 2007, which was keyed to its landing its embarked armor. That armor consisted of 2 M4 tanks, 2 M8 Armored Ammunition Trailers, and 1 tank Dozer. They were scheduled to land on Fox Green at H-Hour.
LCT 3’s second Index Number was 2043, which seems to be the one your grandfather was in. It refers to Gap Assault Team 15’s landing.
Now, to really blow your mind, the Navy confused the hull numbers for us. A group of LCTs had been given to the British, who added 2000 to the hull numbers, so what was LCT 3 in US service became LCT 2003 in British service. These were then up-armored so they could withstand fire and land the initial wave of tanks; and returned to US service for the invasion. But . . . many Navy records continued to use British hull numbers. So depending on which source or document you find, your grandfather’s LCT can be referenced by one of two index numbers (2007 and 2043) or one of two hull numbers (LCT 3 or LCT 2003). Head hurt yet?
As you probably know, the GAT consisted of 40 men, 32 of which were Army Engineers (299th Eng Bn). The Army Engineer platoon leader also commanded the GAT, but I haven’t found his name for GAT 15. There were 8 Navy men: 6 from the NCDU (NCDU 138, ENS Allon) and two sailors added to handle the NCDU’s rubber boat. Although the GAT crossed the Channel aboard the LCT 3, a couple miles off Omaha Beach they disembarked into an LCM (which the LCT had towed across the Channel), and followed the LCT into shore, landing 3 minutes behind the LCT’s beaching.
The two tanks in the LCT fired suppression over the bow ramp of the LCT on the run in, and once landed, were to provide “drenching” fire (which is why they had the ammo trailers). The tank dozer was supposed to support the GAT, and the rear of the tank dozers had large numerals corresponding to their GAT painted on the rear exhaust vent so that the GAT could home in on it on the beach.
As mentioned above, the GATs themselves and the tankers crossed the Channel on their LCTs, so were not aboard any of the attack transports, LSTs, etc. The tanks were M4A1a and the tank dozers were M4A3. The GAT Support/Reserve teams were embarked on the British LSI Princess Maud; they were delayed loading their LCMs, were swept far to the west, landing late and on Fox Red.
My records do not show LCT 3 being hit. Of the 8 LCTs carrying GATs in the 16th RCT sector, one hit a mine and sank 20 miles off shore (the GAT managed to load into its LCM and landed more or less on time); one was hit by shell fire, but its tanks were offloaded; and one had a ramp problem and did not offload until 0800 hours (90 minutes late).
You may be referring to the mortar round that hit the rubber boat belonging to your grandfather’s NCDU. The rubber boats (the Army element had one and the NCDU had one) were used to carry in the reserve explosives – the men could only carry so much). The Army element had debarked the LCM first (they were to clear higher on the beach) followed by the NCDU element. As the sailors were pulling their rubber boat through the surf, it was hit by a mortar round which detonated the explosives in the rubber boat. That killed 3 and wounded 4, essentially taking GAT 15’s NCDU out of the battle. This was not an isolated incident. GAT 11’s NCDU saw its rubber boat hit by a shell, killing all but one of the 8 sailors. Another shell hit GAT 14’s LCM, detonating its rubber boat as well, killing the entire NCDU.
According to the Army official history, only 4 men of GAT 15 made it to the shingle unwounded. In addition to the rubber boat’s detonation, they were met with machine gun fire when the ramp went down, causing several casualties. The surviving Army troops assumed the Navy’s task of blowing the first (seaward) row of obstacles consisting of Belgium Gates, but were unable to successfully blow them due to mounting casualties. Fox Green was a real mess during the first hour, and GAT 15’s casualties reflect that.
The landing time was scheduled so that the beach obstacles would be uncovered by the tide, so the engineers could clear them. So H-Hour was about 1 hour after low tide. However, that meant the waterline was 250-300 yards from the shingle embankment that marked the shoreline at high tide.
I do not know exactly where GAT 15 was dropped, but the volume of fire would indicate it was in front of the E-3 draw, which was covered by two German strongpoints. And, sorry, but I have no info on whether they came straight in, or were swept too far east and had to track back.
Only one of the tanker’s action reports mention which LCT they rode in on, and that was the group riding with GAT 10. No other clue to names of the folks in your grandfather’s craft. Sorry.
Hope this helps. There a good deal of contradiction among the reports and memories of that day, but this is the best I can sift out. Good Luck!
I, Sean. As you must know, your grandfather’s NCDU was a part of the Special Engineer Task Force, a special interest of mine for many years. Your question about the other men on the LCT intrigues me, and I can answer part of it. I’ve been able to identify all (*probably* all) the men aboard his LCM(3) – except the 4 crewmen of the LCM(3) itself – but never attempted to identify men not associated with the SETF. For what it’s worth, you are correct that the Army men on his Gap Assault Team were from C/229th, and they were led by Lt. W.L. McGuire. A handful from the 2nd Infantry Division were present too. Anyone is welcome to send me an email on this topic (john_antkowiak@yahoo.com).
This picture was taken during the staging in the UK just before 6 June 1944. Note the left-hand tank has the characteristic arm for mounting a dozer blade (barely visible running along the suspension); the hydraulic jack and blade are missing. 741st Tank Battalion after action reports indicate that among the eight dozer tanks they had scheduled to land in Wave 2, one of them, commanded by LT Kotz, did not have a blade attached. The 741st’s tanks on Omaha Beach came in three flavors. B and C companies had DD tanks. Co. A had M4A1 tanks and the tank dozers (six of their own and two from the 610 Engineer Company) were M4A3s, if I am not mistaken. If these are 741st tanks, then the photo was taken at the Portland ‘hards’ in the UK, where they out-loaded. Also note the M8 armored ammunition trailer. Each of the eight LCTs carrying Co. A embarked two standard tanks and a dozer tank. They also carried an engineer gap assault team and towed an LCM behind. Off the Normandy coast, the engineers boarded their LCM and followed the LCT ashore, where the dozer tank was supposed to support and work under the direction of the gap assault team leader. Also, on the way in, the two standard tanks were to fire over the LCT’s bow ramp, providing suppressive fire as they neared the beach. The ammo trailers were there to ensure they had plenty to shoot. One pair of Co. A’s tanks reported firing 450 rounds of 75mm on D-Day. Love your site.
Great catch on the dozer tank, I wonder where the blade was?
There are a few other clues too once you know to look, the hose cover near the bow gun for instance.
LCT 213 in the background has a couple of M7s with kind of a unique splash guard around the crew compartment. For D-Day, LCT 213 was part of the Gunfire Support Group, because the artillery would fire support missions from the LCTs beginning at 0600. For that mission, it carried in M7s from the 62d Armored FA Battalion. The artillery was then scheduled to beach at H+90/0800 hours on Fox Green.
The LCTs carrying in Co. A of the 741st Tank Battalion were also part of the sister Fire Support Group, since they were tasked to fire suppression as their LCT ran into the beach. Special wood platforms had been built that raised the two front tanks high enough to fire over the LCTs’ ramps. If you look closely, you can see the tank on the right of the photo is not only closer to the camera, but sits higher in the LCT. They would beach on Easy Red and Fox Green at H-01. Since the LCT with the tanks is berthed next to LCT 213, it’s pretty safe to conclude we do see Co. A’s tanks in that photo. According to the battalion’s after action reports, the two standard tanks embarked with LT Klotz’s toothless dozer tank belonged to SGTs Coaker and Ball. LT Klotz’s vehicle was from Headquarters Company (the assault gun platoon had been converted to dozer tanks), while Coaker’s and Ball’s tanks belonged to Co. A.
These photos are excellent remembrances of what these and many more men and women did for us, and all that many of them gave up in that effort. We should all think of the lives that we have had, and will have, because they gave theirs up for us. WE owe them so very much and there are so precious few left. Never pass up an opportunity to thank them for their service to our country!
Re: The M4A3 76mm HVSS crossing a small river (captioned as “11th AD crosses the Muhl River in Austria” by Army Historical Center). In addition to TC having a .30 MG mounted in front of his hatch, it also looks like the .50 M2 has been relocated in front of the (non split)loaders hatch. Note the 2 toy animals just above the main gun. The Driver & Loader are wearing standard steel pots, but the TC seems to be wearing an AAF helmet (M5?) with ear protectors, hard to tell from the photo.
Interesting site.
That M4A3 flame tank is COED 40 of Company C, 4th Marine Tank Battalion firing its POA-CWS H1 Flamethrower during the battle of iwo jima, the battalion had 4 of these main armament flamethrower tanks.
I must thank all involved. My grandfather was part of Navy Combat Demolition Unit 138. He went in at Fox Green Omaha with Gap Clearing Team 15. He was aboard LCT 2043 and watched as the DD tanks of the 741st went down from the LCM(3). I’ve been wanting to know about the men who were also on LCT 2043 and make a roster for prosperity. The information here is very helpful. I think the Army Combat Engineers were Company C of the 299th with NCDU 138.
I need to clear couple of things up. Did LCT 2043 carry 3 M4A1(75) DD Tanks, and a tank dozer with ammunition trailer? Were the Army/Navy Commanders on the Princess Maud or the Ancon? Did the LCM 15 skipper drop the men hundreds of yards away and the men hiked back to their sector, or did the skipper have to travel back West and drop them off? Did LCT 2043 take a mortar round and sink on the first wave?
Thank you
Sean,
I apologize for not seeing your post earlier. I think I can help with some of this.
First of all, let me confuse you by trying to clarify the difference between the Landing Tables Index Number and the actual craft number. The index number was used to identify a group of personnel or equipment due to land at a specific place and time in the same craft. The Navy then assigned specific craft to carry each passenger/cargo load. The craft hull numbers could, and did, change during the lead up to the invasion as maintenance failures caused some craft to be switched out. The info I list below is based on the landing tables that were developed the month before the landing. I’ve updated them with changes I have stumbled across, but probably missed some info.
LCT 3 had two separate Index numbers. The first was 2007, which was keyed to its landing its embarked armor. That armor consisted of 2 M4 tanks, 2 M8 Armored Ammunition Trailers, and 1 tank Dozer. They were scheduled to land on Fox Green at H-Hour.
LCT 3’s second Index Number was 2043, which seems to be the one your grandfather was in. It refers to Gap Assault Team 15’s landing.
Now, to really blow your mind, the Navy confused the hull numbers for us. A group of LCTs had been given to the British, who added 2000 to the hull numbers, so what was LCT 3 in US service became LCT 2003 in British service. These were then up-armored so they could withstand fire and land the initial wave of tanks; and returned to US service for the invasion. But . . . many Navy records continued to use British hull numbers. So depending on which source or document you find, your grandfather’s LCT can be referenced by one of two index numbers (2007 and 2043) or one of two hull numbers (LCT 3 or LCT 2003). Head hurt yet?
As you probably know, the GAT consisted of 40 men, 32 of which were Army Engineers (299th Eng Bn). The Army Engineer platoon leader also commanded the GAT, but I haven’t found his name for GAT 15. There were 8 Navy men: 6 from the NCDU (NCDU 138, ENS Allon) and two sailors added to handle the NCDU’s rubber boat. Although the GAT crossed the Channel aboard the LCT 3, a couple miles off Omaha Beach they disembarked into an LCM (which the LCT had towed across the Channel), and followed the LCT into shore, landing 3 minutes behind the LCT’s beaching.
The two tanks in the LCT fired suppression over the bow ramp of the LCT on the run in, and once landed, were to provide “drenching” fire (which is why they had the ammo trailers). The tank dozer was supposed to support the GAT, and the rear of the tank dozers had large numerals corresponding to their GAT painted on the rear exhaust vent so that the GAT could home in on it on the beach.
As mentioned above, the GATs themselves and the tankers crossed the Channel on their LCTs, so were not aboard any of the attack transports, LSTs, etc. The tanks were M4A1a and the tank dozers were M4A3. The GAT Support/Reserve teams were embarked on the British LSI Princess Maud; they were delayed loading their LCMs, were swept far to the west, landing late and on Fox Red.
My records do not show LCT 3 being hit. Of the 8 LCTs carrying GATs in the 16th RCT sector, one hit a mine and sank 20 miles off shore (the GAT managed to load into its LCM and landed more or less on time); one was hit by shell fire, but its tanks were offloaded; and one had a ramp problem and did not offload until 0800 hours (90 minutes late).
You may be referring to the mortar round that hit the rubber boat belonging to your grandfather’s NCDU. The rubber boats (the Army element had one and the NCDU had one) were used to carry in the reserve explosives – the men could only carry so much). The Army element had debarked the LCM first (they were to clear higher on the beach) followed by the NCDU element. As the sailors were pulling their rubber boat through the surf, it was hit by a mortar round which detonated the explosives in the rubber boat. That killed 3 and wounded 4, essentially taking GAT 15’s NCDU out of the battle. This was not an isolated incident. GAT 11’s NCDU saw its rubber boat hit by a shell, killing all but one of the 8 sailors. Another shell hit GAT 14’s LCM, detonating its rubber boat as well, killing the entire NCDU.
According to the Army official history, only 4 men of GAT 15 made it to the shingle unwounded. In addition to the rubber boat’s detonation, they were met with machine gun fire when the ramp went down, causing several casualties. The surviving Army troops assumed the Navy’s task of blowing the first (seaward) row of obstacles consisting of Belgium Gates, but were unable to successfully blow them due to mounting casualties. Fox Green was a real mess during the first hour, and GAT 15’s casualties reflect that.
The landing time was scheduled so that the beach obstacles would be uncovered by the tide, so the engineers could clear them. So H-Hour was about 1 hour after low tide. However, that meant the waterline was 250-300 yards from the shingle embankment that marked the shoreline at high tide.
I do not know exactly where GAT 15 was dropped, but the volume of fire would indicate it was in front of the E-3 draw, which was covered by two German strongpoints. And, sorry, but I have no info on whether they came straight in, or were swept too far east and had to track back.
Only one of the tanker’s action reports mention which LCT they rode in on, and that was the group riding with GAT 10. No other clue to names of the folks in your grandfather’s craft. Sorry.
Hope this helps. There a good deal of contradiction among the reports and memories of that day, but this is the best I can sift out. Good Luck!
I, Sean. As you must know, your grandfather’s NCDU was a part of the Special Engineer Task Force, a special interest of mine for many years. Your question about the other men on the LCT intrigues me, and I can answer part of it. I’ve been able to identify all (*probably* all) the men aboard his LCM(3) – except the 4 crewmen of the LCM(3) itself – but never attempted to identify men not associated with the SETF. For what it’s worth, you are correct that the Army men on his Gap Assault Team were from C/229th, and they were led by Lt. W.L. McGuire. A handful from the 2nd Infantry Division were present too. Anyone is welcome to send me an email on this topic (john_antkowiak@yahoo.com).
“A mix of M4 and M4A1 tanks on an LCT”
This picture was taken during the staging in the UK just before 6 June 1944. Note the left-hand tank has the characteristic arm for mounting a dozer blade (barely visible running along the suspension); the hydraulic jack and blade are missing. 741st Tank Battalion after action reports indicate that among the eight dozer tanks they had scheduled to land in Wave 2, one of them, commanded by LT Kotz, did not have a blade attached. The 741st’s tanks on Omaha Beach came in three flavors. B and C companies had DD tanks. Co. A had M4A1 tanks and the tank dozers (six of their own and two from the 610 Engineer Company) were M4A3s, if I am not mistaken. If these are 741st tanks, then the photo was taken at the Portland ‘hards’ in the UK, where they out-loaded. Also note the M8 armored ammunition trailer. Each of the eight LCTs carrying Co. A embarked two standard tanks and a dozer tank. They also carried an engineer gap assault team and towed an LCM behind. Off the Normandy coast, the engineers boarded their LCM and followed the LCT ashore, where the dozer tank was supposed to support and work under the direction of the gap assault team leader. Also, on the way in, the two standard tanks were to fire over the LCT’s bow ramp, providing suppressive fire as they neared the beach. The ammo trailers were there to ensure they had plenty to shoot. One pair of Co. A’s tanks reported firing 450 rounds of 75mm on D-Day. Love your site.
Great catch on the dozer tank, I wonder where the blade was?
There are a few other clues too once you know to look, the hose cover near the bow gun for instance.
Thanks. Good eye on the hose cover, too.
LCT 213 in the background has a couple of M7s with kind of a unique splash guard around the crew compartment. For D-Day, LCT 213 was part of the Gunfire Support Group, because the artillery would fire support missions from the LCTs beginning at 0600. For that mission, it carried in M7s from the 62d Armored FA Battalion. The artillery was then scheduled to beach at H+90/0800 hours on Fox Green.
The LCTs carrying in Co. A of the 741st Tank Battalion were also part of the sister Fire Support Group, since they were tasked to fire suppression as their LCT ran into the beach. Special wood platforms had been built that raised the two front tanks high enough to fire over the LCTs’ ramps. If you look closely, you can see the tank on the right of the photo is not only closer to the camera, but sits higher in the LCT. They would beach on Easy Red and Fox Green at H-01. Since the LCT with the tanks is berthed next to LCT 213, it’s pretty safe to conclude we do see Co. A’s tanks in that photo. According to the battalion’s after action reports, the two standard tanks embarked with LT Klotz’s toothless dozer tank belonged to SGTs Coaker and Ball. LT Klotz’s vehicle was from Headquarters Company (the assault gun platoon had been converted to dozer tanks), while Coaker’s and Ball’s tanks belonged to Co. A.
Hope I haven’t drowned you in trivia!
Chuck,
No way, I love that kinda info, bring it on!
These photos are excellent remembrances of what these and many more men and women did for us, and all that many of them gave up in that effort. We should all think of the lives that we have had, and will have, because they gave theirs up for us. WE owe them so very much and there are so precious few left. Never pass up an opportunity to thank them for their service to our country!