Com-Central.net

I have found some interesting items as it relates to the Jumbo.

First of all with the currently existing list:



Being able to ID a Jumbo without the benefit of RN or SN data, I have begun to compile a list of vehicles from photos and record the unit/location based off the Turret Number. Then linking that to the RN/SN list based off of records or additional photos.

There appears to be no sequence to RN/SN data and TN's.

an example is M4A3E2 #1 (The first production Jumbo)
SN 50326 RN 3082923 (TN 2)


In Sept-Oct 1944 This tank was used (and destroyed) for extensive impact tests.

Just a little exercise in futility perhaps, but it'll help keep me off the T95 project 'nightmare'


Don

Thanks Don,
Do you have more from the test reports?
SR

Oh yeah, but not 'onhand'.

The 2 month impact testing left Jumbo #1 looking like 'swiss cheese'. The AAR write up is an interesting read as the photo series shows the tank was an excellent upgrade feature.

of the 254 built, 250 are 'released' by the War Dept to the ETO, in late Aug 1944.

In Sept 1944, 3rd Army places a formal request for 150 of the M4A3E2 Jumbos.

Still searching for who got what,...and when.

It looks like 4th Armored may have drawn theirs in Oct 44, but thats not firm yet.

'Digging' & reading continues...

Don

Existing M4A3E2 'Jumbo' Assault tanks (Vers 3-1)



Don

Don,

What's the story on the Carson turret???

I found this photo (sorry for bad quality). It was taken at Ft Carson, date unknown. It is a Jumbo turret (TN is identifiable in original photo) but it seems to be mounted on a regular M4A3 hull.



Thats all I have.....

Don

Enough of this Dontos. Let's get back to the T95 Project!

Ha HA Ha......no, I'm having too much fun actually finding answers and clues.

T95 research is on hold.


Don

Don:

Try this for some pretty detailed info on where the various M4A3E2s went:

forum.axishistory.com/...hp?t=39555


At the beginning, there's some stuff there on improvised uparmored Shermans, but if you scroll down towards the bottom, there is a rather long posting about M4A3E2s. No mention of what happened to the few that stayed in the U.S.

I have to say that I was very surprised to discover (from your first post of this thread) that Jumbo #1 was used for 'target trials'. I would be most curious to discover exactly what was used to fire at this test vehicle, especially considering your description

[qoute]"This tank was used (and destroyed) for extensive impact tests."[/qoute]

What gun would the U.S. have had in September 1944 that would have "destroyed" an M4A3E2? The 90mm M3? I suppose . . . maybe the T15E1 90mm? Was the 105mm T5E1 available by that time?

Are there any extant photos of this test vehicle, during or after the test(s)?




Mark

- Buq-Buq

Don:

I have to say that I was very surprised to discover (from your first post of this thread) that Jumbo #1 was used for 'target trials'. I would be most curious to discover exactly what was used to fire at this test vehicle, especially considering your description

[qoute]"This tank was used (and destroyed) for extensive impact tests."[/qoute]

What gun would the U.S. have had in September 1944 that would have "destroyed" an M4A3E2? The 90mm M3? I suppose . . . maybe the T15E1 90mm? Was the 105mm T5E1 available by that time?



Mark

Might the gun(s) tested not have been one of those of the Allies? Conceivably, it might have been used to test captured weaponry.

Doug:

I suppose, in the best of all possible worlds, it would have been German ordnance that was used to fire up M4A3E2 #1. That was, after all, what they really needed to test. Did we conduct a lot of trials like that here in the U.S.? Were there examples of the appropriate types of weapons here in the U.S. at the time, with ammunition? Were there other such firing trials conducted, say, against the T25- and T26-series vehicles? . . . against the 'new' family of heavy tanks, like T28, T29, T30, T32 and T34?

I've never heard of them, but that certainly doesn't mean that they didn't happen. Heck, I didn't know that one of the 254 M4A3E2s was consumed in such a test until Don posted the above note!

What I was really hinting at in my post was that, if the U.S. had a gun that could shoot an M4A3E2 full of holes, they probably should have tried getting it into an AFV mount ASAP. In retrospect, though, it probably could have been done with the ordnance available in September 1944 . . . even something as pedestrian as the M3 90mm (if you will pardon the use of pedestrian to describe that gun at that point in time). If I recall correctly, the Camp Ripley M4A3E2 has several welded-up penetrations that were supposedly inflicted by M26, some time in the 1950s, so it certainly could be done.

Anyway . . . [/ramble]




Mark

An interesting related thread over at Tank-Net:

208.84.116.223/forums/...opic=28090

"Plate" isn't a Jumbo, but apparently live fire testing was performed, so one wonders....

First of all, when I say destroyed, it was rendered non-operational, mainly by the sheer number of rounds 'pumped' into it at every concievable angle. The results are a seriously 'pock marked' vehicle. Not to mention all the non-penetrating rounds that are protruding out of the front slope and gun mantle.

I believe that it was primarily shot up with various types US 90mm rounds.

Unfortunately I don't have the specific photos on hand, but on my next visit to the library, I will get the test information & photos.

Don

Hey Don,

To my uneducated eyes, that looks like a Jumbo hull too. Those differential/final drive housings look mighty thick and that suspension is compressed quite a bit.

- Joe_D

Hey Don,

To my uneducated eyes, that looks like a Jumbo hull too. Those differential/final drive housings look mighty thick and that suspension is compressed quite a bit.

Joe

My photo of the photo is deceptive. It is not a jumbo hull. Check the AFV register, it has a link to newer photos of the Carson vehicle. It also shows to be a 'normal' M4A3 hull.

Don