Holy Roller track type

[Jack Geratic]

Hello Ed, thank you for posting that great photo, but I don't think either of these vehicles is showing the rubber chevron track (T48). China Clipper looks to have some curve to their shape, so likely the T54E2 'cuff design'. It is a bit tricky because the image is of moving tracks, and the resulting motion blur makes the tread pattern appear much thicker than actual. The Priest appears to have T54E1 track, a type seen often in the early NWE campaign.

t48[1].jpg t54e2[1].jpg t54e1[1].jpg

Terry, you make an interesting point about the early style VVSS, and thanks for pointing this out. I was quite surprised to see this on a Sherman just prior to D-Day. Although Bomb and Holy Roller are separated by 1 digit on their census numbers, they are a lot further apart looking at their American built serial number, 8007 and 7606 for HR - of course I've no idea what this means in the grand scheme of things.


regards,
Jack

[Colin Alford]

Jack,

Given the reported month of May ‘44 for the image, the state of the vehicle (water proofed and prepared for wading), and the chalked LCT number (1107/LCT4) displayed on the hull, I think it is probably a safe bet that this image shows Holy Roller sporting the same tracks that it would have had for landing in Normandy.

I have not seen any Loading Tables for any of the preparatory landing exercises to know if the craft serial numbers were re-used, but 1107/LCT4 is absolutely correct for Overlord (see attached).

Given the apparent state of preparation of this vehicle, I think it is unlikely that the track would have been subsequently changed (although it is possible).

The attached two images are from the 3 Cdn Inf Div War Diary and show two of the pages which detail the loading plan for serial 1107/ LCT IV.

These links will get you into the appropriate portion of the war diary to view the 3CID orders for Overlord. There is potentially info on when the unit/craft serials were allowed to be chalked on the vehicles, but I have not noticed that detail if it exists.


https://heritage.canadiana.ca/view/o...620/29?r=1&s=4
https://heritage.canadiana.ca/view/o...20/204?r=1&s=4

[Colin Alford]

Jack,

Here’s some more info:

According to the 6CAR War Diary: https://heritage.canadiana.ca/view/o...57/117?r=1&s=3

The regiment moved from Lee-on-Solent to Fort Monckton on 19 May. If this image was taken at Lee-on-Solent then it should pre-date 19 May.

The diary also mentions that the loads were marshalled on 2 June.

Much of late-May was spent waterproofing and modifying vehicles, so it certainly is possible that the tracks were changed after this image was reportedly taken.

To me it seems odd that the landing craft serial would be chalked on the vehicle possibly 2 weeks prior to marshalling for the load, but I have not attempted to research this type of question before.

[Michael R.]

Originally Posted by Jack Geratic

Hello Ed, . . . thank you for posting that great photo, but I don't think either of these vehicles is showing the rubber chevron track (T48).

The Priest appears to have T54E1 track, a type seen often in the early NWE campaign.

regards,
Jack

this may help your 105mm SP Priest (M7) track identification.


.
6C6FF7EA-CE9B-48BD-B1D9-7303D1684413.jpeg

[Jack Geratic]

Hello Michael, thanks for the closeup of Carrie, it confirms what I had posted.

Colin, that is perfect timing with the war diary links, so thank you kindly for those. I will check further on these for any more clues later today.

In the meantime, have looked at my copy of the The Gallant Hussars by Michael R. McNorgan. The first three months of 1944 saw continued training on Valentines. The mention of Shermans is a mid April announcement that the unit would be re-equipped with the Sherman DD. The Vc Firefly is also introduced at this time. Only exercises that is eluded to is range work? New tanks had to be 'run in' for 100 miles, water proofed, followed by placement into storage at Fort Gomer.

On the 25th of April, they were inspected by the King. Only on the 26th were officers briefed on the invasion plans. Would it be correct to assume this is when load tables are revealed (and numbers), so that puts into question the Holy Roller photo time stamp?

regards,
Jack

[Colin Alford]

Jack,

Late last night I started into the 2 Cdn Armd Bde War Diary. It provides copies of some of the orders issued to 6 CAR during May which are not included in the 6 CAR War Diary. The briefing schedule for Overlord is included.

The HQ 2CAB diary for the period 20 Apr - 31 May was written as a narrative because “no daily records were made”. On approx 15 May, HQ 2 Cdn Armd Bde replaced all rubber track on Shermans and replaced them with steel track! This was done during their period of waterproofing and modifying their AFVs. https://heritage.canadiana.ca/view/o...51/937?r=1&s=4

While I haven’t noticed a written order to subordinate units to change all track to steel, 6 CAR was engaged with waterproofing and modifying their tanks the week after their higher headquarters. This modifying might have included changing any rubber track to steel.

[maple_leaf_eh]

Originally Posted by Michael R.

this may help your 105mm SP Priest (M7) track identification.

Look at the shape of the chevron cleat and notice a small tab maybe 2" long in the gap between the track pads. That is a characteristic identification element of the T54E1.

[maple_leaf_eh]

Originally Posted by Jack Geratic

....

Terry, you make an interesting point about the early style VVSS, and thanks for pointing this out. I was quite surprised to see this on a Sherman just prior to D-Day. Although Bomb and Holy Roller are separated by 1 digit on their census numbers, they are a lot further apart looking at their American built serial number, 8007 and 7606 for HR - of course I've no idea what this means in the grand scheme of things.
...

The build numbers are actually quite close together. Fisher Tank Division was making 400 to 500 tanks a month on that one contract for 2000 M4s, and 4600 in just over 2 years on five contracts, out of a US total of 49,000-plus produced. When they got rolling, the daily through-put was staggering! Other more well read historians than me, come back to the high standardization of parts and components as central to US wartime production. If a shipment didn't meet inspection standards, it would be refused. If the supplier kept shipping bad parts, they'd lose their contracts. It wasn't just tanks but rifle parts to airplane parts.