Home Page World War II Armed Forces — Orders of Battle and Organizations Last Updated 31.03.2014
United States Army
Tank Strengths, ETO, June – August 1944
 
Armored Divisions
     2nd Armored Division
     3rd Armored Division
     4th Armored Division
     5th Armored Division
     6th Armored Division
     7th Armored Division
     2e Division Blindée (Free French Army)

SOURCE for ETO Tank Strengths:
NARA RG492: Records of the ETOUSA (SHAEF) Armored Fighting Vehicle and Weapons Section (AFV&W Section), Decimal Files, Boxes 112.
Kindly provided by Richard C. Anderson, Jr.. Any errors of transcription are my own.
Comments
Regarding the sources used for these tanks strengths, Richard Anderson informs me that:

The pro forma reports used by 12th Army Group were laid down in NEPTUNE Administrative Orders and were periodically repeated in various subordinate unit Admin Orders … and were frequently abused.

In theory, the first column reported on hand operational and operational in less than 6 hours.
The second column reported on hand and operational with repairs requiring less than 24 hours (but more than 6 hours of repairs).
The third column reported lost and damaged requiring repairs greater than 24 hours. The key is that according to the rules any vehicle entered into the last column should only have been reported once and then dropped from the unit on hand, because in theory it was either a potential write off or was to be evacuated to an army Ordnance Heavy Maintenance Company (Tank) or a base depot (when established) for further report. The problem is this rule was very obviously violated all the time as units reported the exact same figures in the column over and over again.

It would be an error to think that the third column in Allied tank reports are analogous to the German 'long term repair'. They are similar, but reflect a different philosophy. In theory, for the Germans so long as the vehicle was held in long term repair it was charged to the unit and would not be issued to other units, whereas the Allied system theoretically discharged the vehicle from unit inventory when it left the unit. Mind you, all of this is theory.

As regards the reporting, it is critical to remember that two different things were reported. For example, from the units to the First Army Armor Section and then to the Army G-3 is a different reporting path and criteria than from the army Heavy Maintenance Company (Tank) to Armor Section. The first reports 'losses' to the unit, i.e. all those reported in column three of the reports, which were evacuated to 4th echelon maintenance. It included both vehicles that were 'write offs' as well as those that were eventually repaired and reissued. The later report is only for write offs, although it has some interesting corrections later — I recall one notation in February for three tanks reported as write offs because they were damaged, bogged, and irrecoverable … but a few days later they managed to recover them and judged them all repairable.
 
Previous Page