British army materiel (and men?) shipped to the Pacific theatre in 1945?

I wouldn't have expected to find anything in the infantry-based AT companies. I guess that settles that

 

Temujin,

Are those Cdn T/Os available in the online LAC files at all? I did see some of the Canadian T/O drafts a while ago, in a failed search for copies of the US originals. LAC has the US ones, but on microform, and digitised at too small a scale to be readable.

The odd thing is the US Inf Divs were to be reorganized ahead of any invasion on the Redeployment T/Os, which strengthened the Inf Regts considerably. One change was the elimination of the towed 57-mm atk guns from both the Inf Bns and the Regtl Atk Coy. In the Bns the new 75-mm recoilless rifle was substituted, while the Atk Coy was to switch to nine tanks with 90-mm guns (the Howitzer Coy was also to switch to nine tanks, with 105-mm armament). The Canadian documents all look to be based on the February 1944 version of the US Inf Regt (incorporating changes), which was itself amended by some US Inf Divs in the Pacific theatre in terms of atk guns.

Gary

 

Sorry Gary, I normally quote my source.....but was so excited I actually found them I forgot. They are on the link below on Heritage Canadiana, Reel T-10592 from LAC of course.......it list ALL the T/O’s for the proposed Division, I’ll see if I can find the page again so you can find them quicker. There is also more information on Reel T-10593, but I found the T/O’s on the first reel

War diaries : T-10592 - Héritage

Start at Page 1133 and go on from there....there may be more in front of Page 1133, but I was concentrating on trying to find the Division A/T information

Documents state “ Based on US Table of Organization & Equipment No 7” and are date 1 Jun 1945......and also say “Cdn TO&E 7/ Interim”

I find it best to ZOOM IN to the page as large as it will go, then copy to your photo’s, and it will give you a very clear image of entire document (unless the microfilming was crappy before they were digitized, which happened a lot). I usually do all my research on a IPAD, so the photo’s I posted are using that, and quality is still very good IMHO

 

This from Osprey Battle Orders 24 - "US Army Infantry Divisions 1944/45" on the subject of changes to the shape of the US infantry division in June 1945 intended for the invasion of Japan.

Divisional strength - 15,838
Division military police to grow from platoon to company strength
Divisional signals company to grow by 30%
Divisional artillery to increase from 4 to 6 guns per howitzer battery but with same command and logistical structure = 50% increase in firepower.
Regimental cannon company 9*105mm gunned "tanks"
Regimental antitank company 9*90mm "tanks"
Anti tank mine platoon moved to Regimental HQ company
Regimental service company augmented to support the tanks
Regimental HQ company acquired a counter fire section to pinpoint trench mortars
Infantry battalion HQ gave up AT to the weapons companies
The AT platoons became gun platoons replacing the 57mm gun with 6*M20 75mm recoilless rifles (structured like the 60mm mortar section)
Rifle company weapons platoons more than doubled in size. Picked up an officer assistant platooon leader, a section of 3*M18 57mm recoilless rifles and an assault section with of 3*6 man squads with two bazookas each.

The recoilless rifles had less AT performance but performed well against Japanese bunkers on Okinawa. Given that bunker busting rather than tanks was the bigger task in the upcoming invasion of Japan this probably made sense.

The book uses the term "tank" to describe the 105mm & 90mm vehicles. Some of the US infantry divisions that had fought in the Philippines had previous equipment (M8 HMC in 2 light platoons and M7 in a heavy platoon retained from pre-1943 structure) replaced with 6*105mm M7 Priest HMC. In the longer run I wuld have expect to see these replaced with M4A3(105) Shermans if available (see below) or perhaps even the Pershing based M45 105mm tank but that only began production in June 1945. As for the 90mm "tanks" I'm struggling to see how there would have been enough M26 Pershings to go around by Operation Olympic but maybe by Coronet it would have resolved itself.

Changes were also afoot to the shape of the independent tank battalions expected to work with the infantry divisions. See here for the detail.
Chicago Boyz » Blog Archive » History Friday: Secrets of the Pacific Warfare Board — Pershing Tanks for Operation Olympic

 

Thanks very much Temujin, and well spotted!

Gary

PS, this is my transcription of the R type Inf Bn from June 1945

http://www.bayonetstrength.uk/USArmy/USInfBn/6. TO Inf Bn Jun1945.pdf

 

Thanks Gary for the information. I did have a cursory look thru of the War Diary information while I was searching for the T/O’s and it contain a lot of good information on how they set the 30,000 manpower limit on the Canadian Pacific Force, and the calculations on Casualties in the first 2 months of landing hence the 30,000 number. Of course their were a lot of “Corps Level” troops added to the Division to make it self sustaining.

AND, I was aware that Volunteer’s for the Pacific Force from the Europe based units were “encourage to volunteer” because they got FIRST transport home to Canada, 30 days leave, and a “new” Japanese Campaign “bonus” to their pay and paid at “American pay rates” (which I believe was higher than Canadian Pay at that time)....so they were able to raise almost the entire 30,000 without a problem....

I assume that “that” is why the Canadian T/O’s were marked “Interim” as they sorted out this HUGH challenge to convert 30,000 men to new equipment and tactics, admin procedures, supply chain etc.

Also, in the documents it mentioned that due to necessity to immediate need to train and transport to the Asian Theatre was happening so quickly, the Canadian units were told that they “probably” would be using the “training equipment” they were supplied by the American’s for the future operations.........so whatever the US supplied (possibly equipment from the re-organized American Divisions) is what the Canadian’s would have to “live with” in action

Thanks for sharing your information also.....nice to see the information all “cleaned up” and easy to read.

Cheers

 

Very interesting indeed, especially to me since I am working on British and CW use of non-standard weaponry. I see that the division WE calls for 90 .30 heavy MG and 121 .30 light MG. The heavy guns would have been the Browning M1917A1, but the WE does not say whether the light .30s were the M1919A4, the newer M1919A6, or a mixture of both. Does anything you have throw light on that?

 

In another document about wading, I came across the following mentioning shipping Sextons directly from Canada and some from Europe. I don't know how many regiments could be equipped with a supply of 224 Sextons (assuming appropriate numbers kept back as replacements)?

 

I had to add this comment to this thread. I was searching for other information (Americans in the RCAF/RAF) and spotted this article (WHICH WAS NEW TO ME......YOU LEARN SOMETHING NEW EVERY DAY)

Here’s is an article talking about RCAF Squadrons being moved to the Pacific