Question about a Sherman variant

I was looking through one of my books today, and it showed a model M4A3 Sherman tank with a 105mm howitzer as its primary armament, and I am just curious as to why they would outfit a sherman with a howitzer. Would it be used almost like a mobile piece of artillary? Would it be used in the close support role by supporting infantry? Any help would be very greatful!

 

Don't quote me on this, but I think that I have read (forget where) that the M4A3s with the 105mm were only sent to Headquarters Companies, and used as self-propelled artillery.

I think they were only made for about a single year, and production ceased shortly after the war in Europe ended.

 

My source lists the 105 M4A3 in two versions. Five hundred built by Detroit Arsenal in Aug-Dec 1944, and 2539 with HVSS built at that location between Aug 1944 and May 1945. Designed in 1942 and standardized in 1943. Was designed for close support.

Additional info: blocks of 800 produced in Feb-Sept 1943, and 841 in Sept 1944- Mar 1945, but lists no ID other than M4.

 

Here are some links and selected quotes that might prove useful:
M4 Sherman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sherman with a 105mm - Armchair General and HistoryNet >> The Best Forums in History
Medium Tank M4 Sherman
llist a bit over 4,000 accepted in various variants
The History of the M4 Sherman 105mm Howitzer

 

Thank you very much for the responses. That deffinately clears up all the questions and curiosities i had about the tank.

 

brndirt1,

The T/E for ETOUSA as of late December 1944 was 6 - 105mm M4 tanks per tank battalion and 3 - 105mm M4 tanks per armored infantry battalion. If memory serves the former were divided up among the battalion and medium tank companies, and used both as self-propelled artillery (direct and indirect fire) and in the anti-tank role. The latter were assigned to battalion headquarters company as assault guns, but were also used against hostile tanks.

Duckbill

 

Thanks for that my man. I was going off old memories from something I read once upon a time in the last thirty or forty years.

 

The Sherman 105s appeared in several different variants although the main version was the purpose produced M4A3/105 there were several other models - the M4A3E2 Jumbo which was a version with massively increased armour intended to be used as an assault tank in the advance to the Rhine phase of the war, the M4A3E9 which was a late model Sherman differing only significantly by the substitution of the 105mm howitzer. There were some conversions of earlier models (M4/105 in particular) especially carried out by the Canadians and British.
The Jumbo was an assault tank, the other 105 models are probably best described collectively as CS (close support) tanks, being used to attack bunkers, anti-tank guns and dug in infantry. This vehicle would only be used as SP artillery in extreme cases, that job being largely taken on by the M7 Priest and similar vehicles.
The 105mm howitzer on the Shermans (M101/M4/M52 mount) was supplied with a HEAT round although i can find no evidence of it being used, the HEAT rounds were definitely issued for the field carriage version of the same gun so it is likely the tanks carried at least a few and a penetration of approx 100mm of armour would have made this a useful round, especially in Sherman units without the 17-pounder Firefly or the 3-inch M10 in support. The most common rounds fired were HE and smoke, including coloured smoke rounds. I have seen rumours of a canister round for this gun, but no evidence so far - it seems unlikely in Europe as the Germans in the late war period if ever were not likely to try mass infantry assaults. perhaps was a field mod (suspect marines in pacific theatre if so) but most likely this was a mis-ident of a later NATO round.

Hope this helps

 

Sorry to spoil this for you, but the Jumbo had the plain 75mm. Some were given 76mm in the field, as the Jumbo used the T-2x turret which was used on the Sherman 76 and T-2x prototypes. The 105 was mounted in the stock Sherman turret only.

 

I believe you're right. Not sure where I got that from - think must have been sherman 105s being mis-designated 'Jumbos' because of the upgunning.

 

It happens, but it would only make sense to put the 105 in if you are going to do all that work. I wonder why they didnt. Perhaps its because the 75 has a really impressive rate of fire, like 20-25 rounds a minute, it really lays down the lead.

 

It's an interesting question - for the role the jumbo was designed for i would expect the 105 would have been much more useful. Perhaps the 105 wasn't available in enough numbers or at all when the jumbos were built, and then when they were available, the jumbo was already seen as not worth putting any more effort into. Haven't looked for dates on that yet but would make some sense.

 

Cribbed from Hunnicutt:
The 105 variant was envisioned from day one for Sherman, work on fitting it began in '42 with two M4a4s being mounted with M2a1 105s for testing at Aberdeen, under the OC nomenclature 'M4a4e1'. The trials were problematic, and only by February '43 was a finished but limited design completed. In August '43 the next attempt was with the 'T8' 105, this incorporated changes to the mount that were a far more satisfactory solution. It was eventually accepted for issue as the M4(105) & M4a3(105), but production only began in early '44.

As to why have a 105?
It's a Howitzer, it's better at the indirect fire stuff that will crop up. Why not have that variant available on an identical chassis to the rest of the tanks?

Mounting the 105 Howitzer on a Jumbo doesn't really suit the role; Jumbo was intended as a spearhead when entering the built up and heavily defended areas encountered in Europe - that job requires the direct fire of the 75, without mucking about with the inappropriate bagged charges of a 105 Howitzer. A 17pdr might have been nice, but they were in rare enough supply, and given the time and effort involved in up-armouring Jumbo I'd imagine the increased time required to squeeze any decent HV gun in would have meant no Jumbos in Europe at all. Even if the US had achieved the 'sherman fit' HV gun at all, they'd have been rushing them into more useful Shermans than the Jumbo.

~A

 

The US army continued the practice of building "artillery tanks" beyond the sherman 105 variant. After the war they produced a small number of M-26 Pershing tanks armed with a 105 howitzer, designating them "M-45." If I remember correctly, these saw limited action in Korea before the US Army abandoned the artillery tank concept.

 

The 105 mm artillery tank variant of the Sherman tank was a poor choice for armor-to-armor engagements because it lacked powered turret traverse. The speed for taking the first shot was exceedingly slow, and the charge bags made reloading slow. The 76 mm gun was a far superior weapon to arm a vanguard tank with.