Vehicles currently in game that are not in the British tech tree.

[nathanclawfish 647]

Hi guys with the recent controversy regarding the game, i thought now would be a good time to mention the Tanks currently in game along with a few features that are missing from the british tech tree for some unspecified reason. To no ones surprise its quite a long list, that i hope to break down with small snippets of evidence to justify each ones addition to the game. Firstly i will cover the shermans and other export tanks, which saw extensive service in the british army during the second world war or were designed purely with the intents to be used for lend lease

 

To begin with i will cover the shermans, but only those extensivly used by the united kingdom, as a few strays used for testing are in my opinion not suitible for addition. The ones that qualify for this criteria are as follows:

 

Sherman I (M4 (75 mm)) - the definitive sherman, of the 6,748 manufactured 2,096 were sent to the United Kingdom through lend lease

 

Sherman III (M4A2 (75 mm)) - of the 7,499 manufactured  5,041 were sent to the united kingdom.

 

Sherman V (M4A4) - Sherman tank specifically designed for lend lease,  of the 7,499 manufactured 7,167 were sent to the United Kingdom, where they formed a back bone of tank divisions.

 

 Sherman IIA (M4A1 76): British had over 1,000 of these delivered.

 

Sherman I Hybrid (M4 Composite): I don't know numbers for this one, likely the numbers are included in the 2,000 odd Sherman I's the British received. This vehicle can be found in-game as an Italian premium.

 

- Sherman IC Hybrid: This is the 5.0 Firefly in the Italian tree, unique in the fact it has the M4 Composite hull. Is a British vehicle that's not present in the British tree and could be used to add the apds round to a british sherman firefly without having to change the br of the two already present in the tech tree.

 

After the shermans there is a wide range of other  american lend lease vehicles that could be implimented into the british tech tree without much hassle, they are as follows:

 

Locust I (M22)- began development in late 1941 in response to a request by the British military earlier in the year for an airmobile light tank which could be transported onto a battlefield by glider as a replacement for the Tetrach. An initial order of 500 was requested of which 260 were delivered. The British used the tank in combat, and also made additional modifications to the vehicles improving performance which included a Littlejohn adaptor at the end of the Barrel and 2in Smoke-Bomb launchers on the turret.

 

Stuart V (M3A3 ) - Designed specifically for export and lend lease, of the 3,427 produced Britian was the largest recipient (over 1200), followed by china(1000) and then france (226)

 

Stuart VI (M5a1 stuart) - of the 6,810 produced 1131 were sent to the united kingdom where they were used extensivly 

 

Chaffee I (M24) -  the only significant reciepient of the tank for lendlease, of an order of 860, around 400 were delivered, and it was used by recce units during the closing stages of the war in europe

 

Greyhound (M8) - British are the reason it is refered to as the grey hound, 496 provided through lend lease

 

 3inch Self-propelled Mount M10 MkI/MkII (M10) -  1,648 M10s were supplied by the United States to the British Army via the Lend-Lease program, of which 1,017 of the vehicles were up-gunned with the powerful 17-pounder (76.2mm) gun from May 1944 to April 1945.

 

 

M3 GMC:  over 150 were supplied to the British and used in North Africa. 

 

 

-M3 Lee: intermixed with the grants supplied to the united kingdom.

 

Boarhound (t18e2) - In July 1941, the United States Army Ordnance Corps issued specifications for a heavy armored car (along with another specification for a medium armored car, which resulted in the T17 Deerhound and T17E1 Staghound) to be built for supply to the British. Around 30 manufactured, with atleast two being sent to britian before its poor IRL performance lead to the cancellation of the massive order that had been placed by the uk home office. According to some sources the manufacured units were deployed to north africa later in the war to serve as airfield defence. 

 

t14 heavy tank - Added for completions sake, but joint project between the United States and the United Kingdom with the goal being to produce a universal infantry tank. 2 manufactured, but going by the normal rule in game for joint projects it should be in both tech trees, so i am mentioning it for completions sake.

 

 

South african vehicles:

 

Class 3 (P) - added to the german tree previously due to the german engineering firms assitance in manufacturing it locally It is currently the only south african vehicle not in the british tech tree, and should really have been added to the uk tree initially, as the south african tree dropped the patch immediatly following the event. They simply chose to add it to germany as it would make them more money due to germany being one of the big three.

 

 

Canadian vehicles:

 

Ram 2 - controversial when added to the US tech tree when the uk was gagging for premiums at the BR. Initially designed to bolster UK tank production during the early stages of the second world war, the vast majority of the tanks were aquired by the british home office by the end of the war either for training purposes, or to be modified into other classes of vehicle (kangarros, wasps and so forth). In addition to this the tank added to the us tech tree was never tested or used by them,

 

Leopard C2A1 MEXAS - Mentioned for completions sake, as Gaijin has consitantly added canadian tanks to the british tech tree in recent years with the intents of making it a common wealth tree, the addition of indian tanks this coming update further confirming this. They simply chose to add it to germany as it would make them more money, like the Class 3 (p). The argument that this is a chassis of german origin doesnt hold water though, as we literally got a m113 adats from canda a year or so ago, so it clearly carries over to modern vehicles.

 

 

Australian vehicles:

 

Tank, Combat, Full Tracked, 120-mm Gun M1A1, AIM - all other australian vehicles  are present in the uk tech tree, including planes, ships and tanks. again Gaijin being inconsistant with the addition of vehicles when its convenient, as the argument for this being added to the usa breaks the momment you see they are planning on adding a t-90 to the brit tree.

 

Missing features-

 

APDS for the sherman firefly- the italian one has apds the british doesnt for some reason

 

 

As an additional caveat, i might as well add the aircraft here as there are only two and i dont feel like that justifies a second post:

 

Meteor NF Mk.13 - The british suggestions section has been asking for a night fighter meteor for literal years, and then when israel got one, we were told we might get it. The british operated all 40 of the aircraft from their airfields in Malta, later selling them to several nations, israel being one of them (6 planes). this is no different than the F-84g, we should have gotten this plane by now.

 

Hunter F.58 - this can of worms has its own forum thread 

 

I belive that is everything, feel free to correct me if i have missed something, but what are your guys thoughts on the matter?

 

Edited June 17, 2023 by nathanclawfish
Added more vehicles due to Jarms suggestions

[Eretaloma 45]

+1

[AftiksPL 197]

1 hour ago, nathanclawfish said:

As an additional caveat, i might as well add the aircraft here as there are only two and i dont feel like that justifies a second post:

Idk if it count too, but there's a Washington B Mk I, or like muricans call it, B-29. I really don't think that British tree has something with similar performances to this beauty.

Edited May 24, 2023 by AftiksPL

[nathanclawfish 647]

9 minutes ago, AftiksPL said:

Idk if it count too, but there's a Washington B Mk I, or like muricans call it, B-29. I really don't think that British tree has something with similar performances to this beauty.

I am not sure about the washington, as we only got a small number of them and i didnt really want to touch on american aircraft, as going by lend lease we could have their entire tree from 2.3 to 6.0 more or less, so i fel they are better served as suggestions pending debate.

 

 

Edited May 24, 2023 by nathanclawfish

[TwitchyNGL 595]

Sherman IB strictly speaking isn't in game, it'd be nice to have though. In game is M4A3 105 which would be in British code, Sherman IVB, but that wasn't an actual type used afaik. 

[nathanclawfish 647]

2 hours ago, TwitchyNGL said:

Sherman IB strictly speaking isn't in game, it'd be nice to have though. In game is M4A3 105 which would be in British code, Sherman IVB, but that wasn't an actual type used afaik. 

my mistake, but its a easy enough thing to get modelled

[TPS Hydra@live 46]

On 24/05/2023 at 14:16, nathanclawfish said:

Hi guys with the recent controversy regarding the game, i thought now would be a good time to mention the Tanks currently in game along with a few features that are missing from the british tech tree for some unspecified reason. To no ones surprise its quite a long list, that i hope to break down with small snippets of evidence to justify each ones addition to the game. Firstly i will cover the shermans and other export tanks, which saw extensive service in the british army during the second world war or were designed purely with the intents to be used for lend lease

 

It's funny how War Thunder removed the T-90S because people thought a T-90 shouldn't be in the British tech tree yet we got a South African vehicle in Germany, a literal Hunter in Germany, a T-80U in Sweden and much more. It's obviously the double standards the community has which impacted the withdrawal of the T-90 and giving the community more say can be a double edge sword.

[Royal_Jellybags 2,653]

3 hours ago, TPS Hydra@live said:

 

It's funny how War Thunder removed the T-90S because people thought a T-90 shouldn't be in the British tech tree yet we got a South African vehicle in Germany, a literal Hunter in Germany, a T-80U in Sweden and much more. It's obviously the double standards the community has which impacted the withdrawal of the T-90 and giving the community more say can be a double edge sword.

 

I dont think there is a double standard, People also whinged about the Swedish licensed built leopard 2s were better than the 2a5/2a6 in the German tree, and then whinged again when the finish 2a6 and a t-80 was added for sweden. Or do you remember the whole bitchfest about the SK-105-A2 on where that was going that Gaijin had to add the JaPz.k A2 aswell just to keep everyone happy? The TorM1 for china? It0 90M for france? I'm sure there are others. Everyone has an opinion on these things lol.

[TPS Hydra@live 46]

8 hours ago, Royal_Jellybags said:

 

I dont think there is a double standard, People also whinged about the Swedish licensed built leopard 2s were better than the 2a5/2a6 in the German tree, and then whinged again when the finish 2a6 and a t-80 was added for sweden. Or do you remember the whole bitchfest about the SK-105-A2 on where that was going that Gaijin had to add the JaPz.k A2 aswell just to keep everyone happy? The TorM1 for china? It0 90M for france? I'm sure there are others. Everyone has an opinion on these things lol.

 

TorM1 wasn't a issue as China actually operated such equipment it was just questioned about why it wasn't in the USSR tech tree first (because they planned to add the Pantsir), the JaPz.k wasn't a issue as well as Germany actually operated such equipment, the T-80U for Sweden found little to no backlash, the SK-105 was a issue because how stupid it was not because of the tech tree it was in, Finland actually operates Leopard 2A6's. 

 

Gaijin added the Leopard 2AV for Germany even though it was a test vehicle for USA yet they make the excuse of adding the T-80U for Sweden, they just pick when to remove, add or switch the positioning of vehicles and when they listen and don't listen.

[Jεcka 4,618]

21 minutes ago, TPS Hydra@live said:

Gaijin added the Leopard 2AV for Germany even though it was a test vehicle for USA

Leopard 2AV was a dumbed down version of the one Germany was trialing at the time. It wasn't simply a "test vehicle for USA", it was a German vehicle brought to US to see how it compares to the American design and to standardise both machines on common modules, everything else was secondary or just an afterthought, and it was always going to serve with Germany because it was one the final prototypes of the Leopard 2. 

 

It makes all the sense to add it to Germany since they designed it, they modified it, they operated it, it had German serial numbers etc. So what you are saying is simply not true.

Edited May 28, 2023 by Holouu

[nathanclawfish 647]

 

14 hours ago, TPS Hydra@live said:

 

It's funny how War Thunder removed the T-90S because people thought a T-90 shouldn't be in the British tech tree yet we got a South African vehicle in Germany, a literal Hunter in Germany, a T-80U in Sweden and much more. It's obviously the double standards the community has which impacted the withdrawal of the T-90 and giving the community more say can be a double edge sword.

 

its just because gaijin clearly has no idea what they are doing with the Brits and seem to go out of their way to misinterpret what the playerbase for them wants at every opertunity. The british community has been gagging for more light tanks and ifvs since the warrior was made obsolute by more modern stuff but instead of adding to that, they just keep giving up more and more challys. its made worse when say Italy gets the hitfist turreted ifv (With the dardo still being superior,so its irrelevant) and the brits dont, the same could be said for france now, who are getting an ifv this update, but its going to be a premium.  It just comes off as when they are adding a vehicle to the game, if they can avoid giving it to britian they will, normally for superficial reasons, see class 3 (p), ram 2, the night fighter meteor, and most recently the swiss hunter.  The indian vickers is just a repeat of this, as they awkwardly backpedel in an attempt to ammend for that t-90s which completely misread the room and give us an overpriced vickers 1 prototype, when if they were planning they would have added the 1b variant so it has a LRF, atleast making it worth dabbling it. Its like they thought, "well the t-90 and 80s are popular, i am sure the brits would like it," which is just flawed logic, as we already have a wall of MBT's, and as mentioned if they had been paying any attention to the forums would know what the brit ground community is after.  

Edited May 28, 2023 by nathanclawfish

[TwitchyNGL 595]

It's rather like being told don't worry you'll have Indians tanks soon, which for me means cool don't worry, you won't have anything to look forward to ground wise ever. 

[nathanclawfish 647]

2 hours ago, TwitchyNGL said:

It's rather like being told don't worry you'll have Indians tanks soon, which for me means cool don't worry, you won't have anything to look forward to ground wise ever. 

I can agree with that, and the sentiments are the same, what are we getting this patch. A horrificly bad armoured car, with no gun depression which is empirically one of the worst they could have added, and i dont see being played, and an overpriced vickers mk1 premium that again i dont see anyone actually buying if they can get the Khalid for the same price a rank higher so you can actually grind top tier with it.  I just fail to understand how they cant see the overwelming desire and nessessity for the british light tanks/ armoured cars line or IFV's both of which have been demanded for what..... atleast half a decade now  

 

There is also the fact we ended up getting the south africans lopped in, which have leached development time, and basically added nothing to the british tree that wasnt possible with our own and every time superiour indigenous designs, as can be seen from just a quick glance at the suggested light tank line for the brits. The only nation that seems to get this much mistreatment is the french XD 

Edited May 28, 2023 by nathanclawfish

[TwitchyNGL 595]

I no problem with the Sarc Mk IV, it's the only South African vehicle to see proper war time service in the British empire era, possibly even in British units. Dodgy prototypes like TTD and Concept 3 seem just crude and not relevent, Ratels are on the APC side of IFVs and end up at WW2 BRs to compensate and things like G6 are annoying specifically because it infers we're not going to get AS-90 or even SP70/M109 which are closer to British. I'm sure some of the TTD and Concept 3 figures are made up, MTTD is almost certainly missing blowout panels and it's reload speed is so obviously complete guesswork plus it has an early 80s round while being a mid 2000s AFV, ZA-35 is missing thermals and has weird tracking and search ranges, ZT3 the ATGM carrier is awful with it's sight limits limited by the almost non existant travers of the launcher bins and the missiles which are extremely modern are also extremely slow (for some reason they lost about half their velocity in that missile change).

 

Even the SA vehicles that aren't poorly implimented and are fun (like Eland) still imply we're not getting the dozens of British AFVs we could use. Which is dissapointing. 

 

To throw out a randome example there's a somewhat obscure Stormer variant made to be an IFV with a 25mm turret with a TOW launcher fitted to it. And I know we're so much more likely to get Random Indian or South African gear than this. 

[nathanclawfish 647]

4 minutes ago, TwitchyNGL said:

 

 

The issue with the Harrington is they are picking that over the other dozen 2 pounder armoured car options, which are all better in one way or the other, you just have to see the other brit daimler to know that much. You hint at my disdain for the SA with your post, as they are all inferior versions of native british designs we could have had, and their existance implies we are not going to get the actual british equivilents, eg the eland low key implying we wont get the scorpion, along with the fact we have a warrior and a spartan/stormer with a cockril gun on it that could serve the exact same purpose. The issue is that they basically stapled a worse version of everything to the british tree, and then it throttles the existing designs. a good example of this is the skink, which has been forced to 5.0 br to basically justify the existance of the two horrible south african aa, that are both inferiour to the crusader AA with the 20mms. I cant tell you the last time i have seen a bosvark, and the last two times i have seen the other one its been rushing a cap at the start of the game.  

[nathanclawfish 647]

Two examples of better harringtons that could have been added

 

1. Captured Italian 20mm Breda 65 AT/AA Gun

 

2. Captured German 37mm Pak 36 

 

 

 

 

Source: https://www.o5m6.de/western/ArmCars.php

 

[lxtav@psn 3]

On 24/05/2023 at 14:16, nathanclawfish said:

 

As an additional caveat, i might as well add the aircraft here as there are only two and i dont feel like that justifies a second post:

 

There's also a massive score of british naval aircraft missing from the game that we should have gotten back when the tree first dropped;

 

Fairey albacore - naval torpedo bomber

Blackburn skua - naval fighter/ dive bomber 

Fairey barracuda - naval dive/ torpedo bomber

Brewster buffalo - lend lease F2A buffalo 

Fairey fulmar - naval fighter, predecessor to the firefly we already have in game so arguably the easiest to implement

Fiarey gannet - naval sub hunter, suggested to developers in February to be implemented for germany but not UK for some reason?

 

PLUS there are countless variants of already implemented aircraft that had naval counterparts;

 

sea mosquito - navalised mosquito, apparently could hold 2 500lbs + either another 2 500lbs or 4 rp3s on the wings

Sea hornet -navalised hornet

As well as a distinct lack of a regular sea venom without radar and the fact that the sea harrier FRS.1 should be in the tech tree rather than a squadron vehicle.

 

Quite a long list but I think if we push for it we might get these all in game with enough support.

 

Edited June 4, 2023 by lxtav@psn

[nathanclawfish 647]

10 hours ago, lxtav@psn said:

There's also a massive score of british naval aircraft missing from the game that we should have gotten back when the tree first dropped;

 

Fairey albacore - naval torpedo bomber

Blackburn skua - naval fighter/ dive bomber 

Fairey barracuda - naval dive/ torpedo bomber

Brewster buffalo - lend lease F2A buffalo 

Fairey fulmar - naval fighter, predecessor to the firefly we already have in game so arguably the easiest to implement

Fiarey gannet - naval sub hunter, suggested to developers in February to be implemented for germany but not UK for some reason?

 

PLUS there are countless variants of already implemented aircraft that had naval counterparts;

 

sea mosquito - navalised mosquito, apparently could hold 2 500lbs + either another 2 500lbs or 4 rp3s on the wings

Sea hornet -navalised hornet

As well as a distinct lack of a regular sea venom without radar and the fact that the sea harrier FRS.1 should be in the tech tree rather than a squadron vehicle.

 

Quite a long list but I think if we push for it we might get these all in game with enough support.

 

 

Aye i am fully aware of the missing naval line, i was even the one to suggest the Buffalo over in the suggestion section.  For this topic though i wanted to focus on the ground forces, as these models actually already exist in game, so implimentation would be as simple as ctr + C

[lxtav@psn 3]

11 hours ago, nathanclawfish said:

 

Aye i am fully aware of the missing naval line, i was even the one to suggest the Buffalo over in the suggestion section.  For this topic though i wanted to focus on the ground forces, as these models actually already exist in game, so implimentation would be as simple as ctr + C

Fair, I just wanted to point out that there are scores of vehicles missing, it's kinda unfair that other nations are getting more british vehicles than britian next update aswell lol.

 

Plus we should really get more ground vehicles around 6.3 because you can't make a decent linup anywhere between 4.7 and 7.3 of same br vehicles in ground

Edited June 5, 2023 by lxtav@psn

[Muzlie 86]

100% Gaijin needs to look at vehicles sitting in other trees, they set precedents when they remove other nations vehicles such as the STRV 81 with the SS11s. moved to Sweden when they came in, rightfully so, likewise with the Israeli tanks in the US tree. I think things like the Mexas and Class 3 are a lost cause but the Ram & the Boarhound should be moved.

 

Lets not also forget that the General Grant is a premium in the US tree for a paltry 1000ge but if Brits want it is on the market place for around $50...

 

Personally I think the SA additions were great, they were a fresh wave of interesting vehicles, I don't think they are worse versions of British Tanks at all, the SARCS are fantastic, the Rooikats are also really good.

In terms of India, they should have brought the Arjun in instead, would be unique and less of an outrage than a t90, but that would have required modelling a new vehicle...

 

[lxtav@psn 3]

I do worry though that with the introduced SA line and new commonwealth vehicles we may never get the light tanks we deserve, or any of the new helis we so desperately need

[nathanclawfish 647]

12 hours ago, Muzlie said:

100% Gaijin needs to look at vehicles sitting in other trees, they set precedents when they remove other nations vehicles such as the STRV 81 with the SS11s. moved to Sweden when they came in, rightfully so, likewise with the Israeli tanks in the US tree. I think things like the Mexas and Class 3 are a lost cause but the Ram & the Boarhound should be moved.

 

Lets not also forget that the General Grant is a premium in the US tree for a paltry 1000ge but if Brits want it is on the market place for around $50...

 

Personally I think the SA additions were great, they were a fresh wave of interesting vehicles, I don't think they are worse versions of British Tanks at all, the SARCS are fantastic, the Rooikats are also really good.

In terms of India, they should have brought the Arjun in instead, would be unique and less of an outrage than a t90, but that would have required modelling a new vehicle...

 

 

The sarcs are literally worse versions of british armoured cars, the new one they are adding this update is easily the worst offender. in turn the only good roikat is the prem one, and even then there are british equivilents to it that we could have gotten instead.

[nathanclawfish 647]

I am debating if its worth doing one of these for aircraft, as i look at lend lease and its a can of worms, seeing as its basically the entire us tech tree below 6.0 XD

[Jarms 1,558]

If we're just doing a list of vehicles in-game the British used: 

 

- M2A4: Can't remember the exact amount, definitely under 100, but the British did receive them. 

- M3 GMC: From memory over 150 were supplied to the British and used in North Africa. 

- M3 Lee: Something like 2,000 Grants and Lee's were sent to the British & Commonwealth Forces. 

- Sherman IIA (M4A1 76): British had over 1,000 of these delivered.

- Sherman IIIA (M4A2 76): Really more of an honourable mention, received less than 10 from memory. 

- Sherman I Hybrid (M4 Composite): I don't know numbers for this one, likely the numbers are included in the 2,000 odd Sherman I's the British received. This vehicle can be found in-game as an Italian premium.

- Sherman IC Hybrid: This is the 5.0 Firefly in the Italian tree, unique in the fact it has the M4 Composite hull. Is a British vehicle that's not present in the British tree.

 

From memory the British & Commonwealth forces used LVT's but I couldn't tell you if they're any of the variants that exist in-game. 

[TwitchyNGL 595]

 

2 hours ago, Jarms said:

M2A4: Can't remember the exact amount, definitely under 100, but the British did receive them. 

Says on the lend lease sheets, British Empire received: 36. 

 

2 hours ago, Jarms said:

M3 GMC: From memory over 150 were supplied to the British and used in North Africa. 

Italy too, it's on M3 GMC Wikipedia article even!

 

Two British M3 GMCs used for indirect fire in Italy, 18 February 1945.

Spoiler

 

2 hours ago, Jarms said:

- Sherman IIA (M4A1 76): British had over 1,000 of these delivered.

- Sherman IIIA (M4A2 76): Really more of an honourable mention, received less than 10 from memory. 

From what I've got jotted down, 1330 of Sherman IIA  and either 5 or 7 of Sherman IIIA.

As for IIA, definitely used by Poles and 7th Armoured Brigade C Squadron 2nd Royal Tank Regiment in Italy and Austria.

Sherman Tank Website says, 1330 Sherman IIAs and 5 (just 5) IIIAs.

Lend Lease documents suggest of all Sherman 76mm types 1335 went to "British Empire".
Shaddock has a section on British field used Sherman IIAs here (exert of their M4A1 large hatch page):

They also say elsewhere just 5 Sherman IIIAs were sent to Britain after VE day, probably all of the HVSS type (so IIIAY). I'm assuming they were on route to Russia and stopped for VE day, it says the British didn't want the type. Apparently "Fury" was an M4A2 76mm from Canadian stocks, one supplied in 1946. 

Spoiler

The Ford V8 engine was considered superior to the Continental Radial of the M4/M4A1 series, and it was the policy of the US Army to attempt to equip its fighting forces with as many M4A3s as possible. Consequently, the US did not employ large numbers of M4A1(76)s. Indeed, we can find no evidence that the US received any additional units in 1944, and no evidence of combat use outside of the European Theater. The British did not "require" any 76mm Shermans, as they considered the HE round to be inferior to the 75mm's. However, they agreed to accept 1330 M4A1(76)s in 1944, since there weren't enough 75mm Shermans available to meet their Lend Lease requirements for the year. This was almost the entire production of M4A1(76)s up to October 1944. Those allocated to the Mediterranean Theater of Operations were used by British and South African armored units. In the European Theater, the Polish 1st Armoured Division appears to have been the only unit to have utilized the "Sherman Mk IIA" (British nomenclature for M4A1(76)VVSS ). Tank Situation Reports state that they had 51 units at the end of December 1944. By the end of the War in Europe, the Poles are listed as having 181 M4A1/76s along with 40 “17 pdr” (Firefly Shermans). An additional 97 M4A1/76s are reported in 21st Army Group Depots in June 1945. Above shows a Sherman IIA of the Polish 10th Armoured Cavalry Brigade, KO'd in the Netherlands in late 1944.
 

On December 26, 1944, the US 12th Army Group sent an urgent communication to the British 21st Army Group “requesting immediate release of 500 tanks” to provide replacements for losses suffered during the Battle of the Bulge. Commonwealth Vehicle Parks were scoured, and in the end, maintenance teams prepared and shipped 351 Shermans by the first week of January 1945. The most modern model included in this emergency transfer was the M4A1(76). As mentioned, the Brits did not really want these due to their lack of an acceptable HE round, but even so, only provided 87 such units, with the rest being older 75mm Shermans, including M4/M4A1s, M4A2s and M4A4s. The M4A1(76)s were doled out to the various Armored Divisions and Tank Battalions of the First US Army. The 743rd Tank Battalion was allocated 5, and it is thought that the unit shown above was one of them. A number of these transfers have been noted to have inappropriate 6 digit “Registration Numbers,” some with “X” prefixes such as “X 309084” seen here. We believe that these were British War Department Numbers specifically assigned to the Shermans transferred. At present, we have recorded about 20 such numbers ranging from 309012 through 309237. This Signal Corps photo is dated 6 January 1945, in Ster, Belgium and identifies the unit as Company C, 743rd Tank Battalion. Part of the caption reads, “Tank crewmen knock off connectors on tank track prior to putting on new duck bills that will enable vehicle to travel over muddy ground.” Note the welded spoke with "small holes" road wheels (1) introduced in production at PSC in the Fall of 1944. We would guess that this unit was never issued to a Commonwealth unit before the transfer and was one of the 150 M4A1(76)s allocated as Lend Lease to the UK in September 1944.

Much greater use of the Sherman IIA was made by the 15th Army Group in Italy than by the 21st Army Group in Northwest Europe. The first issues appear to have occurred in September, 1944 when the British 1st Armoured Division was reported with 28 units, and the British 6AD with 2. The 1st AD was broken up a month later, due to an inability to replace casualties; however, its 2nd Armoured Brigade survived as an independent entity. At the end of 1944, the 2nd AB was reported with 116 Sherman IIAs on strength, while the 6th AD reported 42, the 7th Armoured Brigade reported 61, and the 6th South African AD reported 134. Thus, total unit holdings were 353 Sherman IIAs with an additional 65 in “Tank Replacement Group.” By the end of the War, total unit holdings had decreased to 329 units, while the “Tank Replacement Group” pool had more than doubled to 144 plus 11 in “Training.” The photo above is captioned “A Sherman tank of 2nd Armoured Brigade crossing the River Rabbi at San Martino, 9 November 1944.” The 2nd Armoured Brigade consisted of The Queen’s Bays, 9th Lancers and 10th Hussars, and this Sherman IIA has been identified as belonging to B Squadron, The Queen's Bays (aka 2nd Dragoon Guards). It features the revised loader's split hatch, introduced at PSC in March, 1944. Courtesy of Imperial War Museum, NA 20043.


http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/manufacturer/m4a1largehatches/psc_large33.jpg The 6th South African Armoured Division appears to have been the largest user of the Sherman IIA in the Mediterranean Theater. Its regiments began replacing some of their 75mm Shermans in November, 1944, and a 15th Army Group AFV Situation Report states that, “as at 30 December, 1944,” they had 134 M4A1(76)s. By the end of the War, this number had decreased by 6, due to losses and “wastage” during the final offensive. The photo above, dated April 20, 1945, shows elements of the Special Service Battalion of the 6th South African AD massing in preparation for the attack on Bologna, Italy. Despite the late date, all of the M4A1(76)s that can be seen have the earlier split loader's hatches. The tank in the center foreground even has a ventless turret. Note that the loader's hatches are open to the standard, 45 degree position. The commander's cupolas are not in the standard or "as built" configuration. It would appear that the unit reoriented the cupolas so that the hatches opened further to the rear. Some Firefly (17 pounder) Shermans can be seen on the far right. The Division was attached to the US 5th Army for the Spring 1945 Offensive, and according to their records, each of the 3 Squadrons of the SSB had 13 M4A1(76), 3 M4A4 based Fireflies and 3 M4(105)s.


The final M4A1(76) allocations to the British were for 150 units a month from August through October, 1944. We estimate that most of these would have been equipped with oval loader's hatches, and perhaps a few from the October production would have included muzzle brakes. However, we have not come across a "combat shot" of any of these in Commonwealth service. These tanks would have arrived in Europe in late 1944 / early 1945, at which point they could not be absorbed, and thus were no longer needed by the shrinking Commonwealth forces.  The above shows a nearly as built M4A1(76) with oval hatch on display at the School of Armour in Bloemfontein. On January 3, 1947 the South Africans obtained a “property consent to retransfer” from the US Lend Lease Administrator. As a consequence, it was agreed that, subject to availability, 67 Sherman M4A1(76)s, 15 M4(105)s, 15 M4 based Fireflies, and 1 M32B1 ARV would be transferred from British Military Holdings in Italy to the South African Forces. It is thought that all of these were shipped to South Africa within the year. At any rate, thirty-two M4A1(76)s are listed in an inventory of the 1st Special Service Battalion, Potchefstroom, S.A., March 31, 1948. Most likely, the South Africans would have chosen to purchase unused or low mileage tanks, and the example shown is reported as in running condition. This tank and the other surviving S.A. Shermans, could still have their original dataplates, so if any readers are in the position to examine any of them, we would greatly appreciate a report.

 

7th AB Sherman IIA:

Spoiler

 

Quote

From memory the British & Commonwealth forces used LVT's but I couldn't tell you if they're any of the variants that exist in-game. 

79th AD had a bunch. From photos I've never seem the ones in game (IE the tank turreted ones) in British hands, though I have seen the ones we definitely got (LVT-2 and LVT-4) modified for 20mm Oerlikon/Polstens (used in multiple battles including the Rhine crossing, Op Veritable and Scheldt) plus the Wasp Flame throwing Sea Serpent version. I've also seen unarmed ones in the Burma. 

British documents suggest all main types were evaluated including one with an m24 turret I've never heard of before but photos appear online. 

Spoiler

 

Oh yeah and don't miss Sherman IB (M4 105), besides the IIA this'd be the most common one missing I think, in the 600s. 

Edited June 13, 2023 by TwitchyNGL