US OOB 12 very minor comments

[Pibwl]

134 1&1/2 Ton Truck - if this is supposed to be AT/wheel infantry carrier, then I guess it's batter to change the photo to otherwise ubiquitous 1&1/2 Ton Dodge WC-62 (eg. 00405)

[Pibwl]

145, 153, 214 - 75mm Pack How - I believe, that icon 2111 is better - it had no shield, and relatively shorter barrel and longer tail (a drawing here http://www.ww2gyrene.org/weapons_pack_howitzer_75mm.htm ).

Until around 1940/41 they were used with wooden wheels - maybe it's worth to split unit 153 to two units, the earlier one with ready 8624 picture.
Unfortunately, publications don't tell when exactly M8 gunbed with rubber wheels was adopted - "large-scale manufacture of the M1A1 pack howitzer did not resume until September 1940", possibly on M8 gunbed (Osprey New Vanguard 131 - US Field Artillery of WWII)

As for unit 44 75mm Howitzer, it might be just pack howitzer (same comments as above) or very rare 75mm Field Howitzer manufactured for cavalry, with the same M1A1 gun, but twin-tail M3 series bed. However, "no significant production" took place until the war, and serial production started in 1/41, and only 349 were made, "nearly a third provided to China", as the cavalry lost interest in towed guns.

Same for USMC OOB: 30 75mm Howitzer, 123,124,125,145,146 - 75mm Pack Hwtzr.
Between 123 and 124, in 1938-41 there could be another unit added, with wooden wheels and weapon #33 M1A1. Unit 123 also should have weapon #33, not #150 M8.

BTW: I don't know why (newer) weapon 150 M8 FH in USMC OOB has lower range 164, than 33 M1A1 FH - both were in fact the same gun with M1A1 barrel and 45 deg elevation, and 8.9km range according to Osprey (178 of weapon 33 is correct)... in fact M1A1 could be used for all.
Similar situation is with US OOB - weapon 150 is M1, with shorter range. Differences between M1 and M1A1 guns were rather minor - unfortunately, there is no info, when the model was changed (before the war).

[Pibwl]

11, 314 M4 3-4-3 Flame - for most of its service it was known as M4 E4-5 Flame - only from 4/45 a derivate of an auxiliary flamethrower E4-5 was standardized as M3-4-4 (Zaloga: "..many unit records refer to the various types of auxiliary flamethrowers under the generic E4-5 designation...")

Both units differ in number of FT shots 1 or 3, but this is hopelessly low, while USMC #205 M4 E4-5 Flame has 10 shots.
In fact it had 50 gallons and a burst time 50 sec (a comparison is here http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=50474 ). Early ones might have been an early variant with 25 gals and 40 sec.

A Crocodile (#315) had 400 gals and 80 sec.

Also, same machines as USMC OOB #100 M3A1 Flame, with improvised infantry flamethrowers, were used in action by the US Army on Pacific theatre from 1/44.

[Pibwl]

028 M8 Greyhound could never carry that much ammo (32 HE, 80 AP). According to Osprey NV 053 M8 Greyhound, a factory stowage was 80 rounds. In fact, cavalry cars had two radios in a hull, what caused a reduction of ammo to sole 16 rounds in a turret. Such cars were manufactured from 3/44 (or maybe even modified from 11/43, when two radios were authorized?). After applying different field modifications (eg. 16+36 rounds), a field modification with 79 rounds was accepted in July 44 (43+20+16). Cars from tank destroyer units had original 80 rounds.
BTW, the gun was M6.

[Pibwl]

Originally Posted by Pibwl

11, 314 M4 3-4-3 Flame - for most of its service it was known as M4 E4-5 Flame - only from 4/45 a derivate of an auxiliary flamethrower E4-5 was standardized as M3-4-4 (Zaloga: "..many unit records refer to the various types of auxiliary flamethrowers under the generic E4-5 designation...")

A better picture is 30243, since it was bow-mounted flamethrower, while current one shows a FT mounted in a turret (POA-CWS-H1)

M4 POA-CWS-H1 with turret-mounted FT could be also added to the Army (copied from USMC unit 203, with changed name to M4) - they were used by the Army on Pacific theatre (54 tanks available from 1/45, used from 4/45 on Okinawa).

#312 M42B3 - personally I couldn't find such designation... apparently it's M4 POA-CWS-H5 with HVSS suspension?

BTW: #720 LVT(A) 4 - maybe it's worth to replace picture 09386 with beautiful 2470, with prominent Army star (avoided by the Marines)

[MarkSheppard]

Originally Posted by Pibwl

#312 M42B3 - personally I couldn't find such designation... apparently it's M4 POA-CWS-H5 with HVSS suspension

I went through my files and found a document I photographed in US National Archives II in College Park, MD titled SPECIAL FULL TRACK ARMORED VEHICLES.

The M42 was an official designation used for standardized main armament flamethrower tanks; and there were two variants produced:

M42B1: Rebuilt tanks using M4A1 tanks as a basis.
M42B3: Rebuilt tanks using M4A3 tanks as a basis.

Both variants used the M5-4 / (E12-7R1) flamethrower with 315 gallons of fuel; replacing the main armament.

Several HUNDRED of these were remanufacturered by August 1945; with HUNDREDS more cancelled by the end of WW2 in August 1945.

[MarkSheppard]

Photographs of interest. It doesn't say which version is shown; but true Sherman aficionados can figure out which is which by looking at the hull.

[MarkSheppard]

Originally Posted by Pibwl

Also, same machines as USMC OOB #100 M3A1 Flame, with improvised infantry flamethrowers, were used in action by the US Army on Pacific theatre from 1/44.

I think this is what you are talking about. These are from NARA II and the dates on the back of the cards were mid-1943.

[Pibwl]

Nice photo of M3. Tested in October 1943, first saw combat in 1/44 with the Army (Bougainville) and 2/44 by the Marines (New Britain)

I've found an info on M42 in photo's caption of Zaloga's book only:

"The only main armament mechanized flamethrower to reach series production in 1945 was the M5-4, with 151 completed. None reached combat, but they remained in service through the early 1950s (...) The flamethrower tank was designated as M42B1 when based on the M4A1, and M42B3 when based on the M4A3".

(a bit of explanation: POA-CWS H1 main armament flamethrowers were not produced in series, but were apparently treated as an authorized field modification).