 | 
03-08-2007, 09:16 PM
|
#301 | | Banned
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 180
Country:  | and you are wrong, but you may repeat anything you wish-as can I
The many published books, including Hunnicut seem to disagree with you however..
as can I
On page 42 of the Squadron book "US Tank Destroyers in Action," and on page 62 of the Concord book "US Tank Destroyers in Combat 1941-1945" is the same head-on photo of an M36B1 in what looks like a forward area. It is identified as being with the 654th TD Bn in support of the 35th Division, Ninth Army. Also noted are 4 victory markings (Nazi flags) on the mantlet representing 2 Pz IV and 2 Tiger tanks knocked out (!).
and this photo, the banner for a US WWII tank Destroyer Association homepage..is most telling..
I repeat their were HUNDREDS of 90mm Shermans..and this supported by every published book on the subject that I have seen | 
|  | |
03-08-2007, 09:21 PM
|
#302 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 366
Country:  | I have to say that the M4 was not the best Tank. Early in the war, it was ok but only for a short time before the Panther and the Tiger tanks wer unvailed.
I wish America would've been intellegent and continued work on the M26 Pershing. That thing was a beast.
The M4 was a favorite by many. Best...not so much.
__________________
Corporal: "Hmm. it's quiet. too quiet."
BANG!
Same Corporal: "Now it's suddenly too loud. I preferred it when it was quiet." | |
| | |
03-08-2007, 09:23 PM
|
#303 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,024
| Nope Jackson, its a M-36 Jackson, and nomatter how much you try you can't find evidence to the contrary - I guarantee it.
__________________  We have built a total of about 1250 of this aircraft (Me-262), but only fifty were allowed to be used as fighters - as interceptors. And out of this fifty, there were never more than 25 operational. So we had only a very, very few.
- Adolf Galland | |
| | |
03-08-2007, 09:24 PM
|
#304 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,205
Country:  | Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief  I have to say that the M4 was not the best Tank. Early in the war, it was ok but only for a short time before the Panther and the Tiger tanks wer unvailed.
I wish America would've been intellegent and continued work on the M26 Pershing. That thing was a beast.
The M4 was a favorite by many. Best...not so much. | It was what it was. Cheap, fast to make, easy to maintain, cookie cutter design, produced in the thousands. One on one it was ...crap. When it out number a Tiger 1 to 10 it was a good tank LOL. Numbers won out in tanks and in the air in WW2. Not saying there was not some damn good allied planes in WW2, but they also enjoyed numbers.
__________________ 
In the ocean of the military, reflective of all distinguished pilots, an honored Buddhist person. | |
| | |
03-08-2007, 09:48 PM
|
#305 | | Banned
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 180
Country: | Sure M36B1 Jackson...as in a (M4A3 Sherman 90mm) M36B1 site page numbers and publications..
Now could you site which publications that you really upon, page numbers etc.. The US library of Congress is about 15 minutes away and any book you quote can be in my hands -quickly..
Please, quote your sources, like I do..ISBN & Page number please
(page 42) Squadron book "US Tank Destroyers in Action" ISBN 0 – 89747 – 385 – X
(page 62) U.S.Tank Destroyers in Combat, 1941-1945 ISBN-13: 978-9623616096
ISBN & Page number please
Otherwise, you are only really blowing smoke grenades.  and repeating yourself is not exacatly "APBC or APCBC " heh | |
| | |
03-08-2007, 09:50 PM
|
#306 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,024
| Like I said its a M-36 Jackson, and every book about the tank says this - there's you source 
The M-36B1 is a M4A3 Sherman chassis with a tin-can turret and lower maneuverability than the much better std. M-36. And despite what you claim no Jumbo was ever fitted with the 90mm M1A1 gun during WW2.
And why you would choose the M-36B1 over the std. M-36 is beyond me as either one is dead meat if hit by a Panther or Tiger all the way out to 2,500m and in most cases beyond.
And what does this mean ?: " and repeating yourself is not exacatly "APBC or APCBC " heh"
__________________ We have built a total of about 1250 of this aircraft (Me-262), but only fifty were allowed to be used as fighters - as interceptors. And out of this fifty, there were never more than 25 operational. So we had only a very, very few.
- Adolf Galland
Last edited by Soren : 03-08-2007 at 09:55 PM.
| |
| | |
03-08-2007, 09:54 PM
|
#307 | | Banned
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 180
Country: | No ISBN & page number huh? | |
| | |
03-08-2007, 09:57 PM
|
#308 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,024
| Read the books you supposedly have Jackson, they'll tell you the same, I've probably got them all as-well if you say they're from Hunnicut.
__________________ We have built a total of about 1250 of this aircraft (Me-262), but only fifty were allowed to be used as fighters - as interceptors. And out of this fifty, there were never more than 25 operational. So we had only a very, very few.
- Adolf Galland | |
| | |
03-08-2007, 09:57 PM
|
#309 | | Banned
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 180
Country: | APBC= Armor piercing ballistic cap (an A/T round)
ISBN & Page numbers=APBC
Smoke grenades= ineffective at any range  | |
| | |
03-08-2007, 09:59 PM
|
#310 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,024
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackson APBC= Armor piercing ballistic cap (an A/T round)
ISBN & Page numbers=APBC
Smoke grenades= ineffective at any range | Whats your point ?? Are you demonstrating your skills at abstract humor ?
__________________ We have built a total of about 1250 of this aircraft (Me-262), but only fifty were allowed to be used as fighters - as interceptors. And out of this fifty, there were never more than 25 operational. So we had only a very, very few.
- Adolf Galland | |
| | |
03-08-2007, 10:00 PM
|
#311 | | Banned
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 180
Country: | I still wait your ISBN & Page numbers.. | |
| | |
03-08-2007, 10:04 PM
|
#312 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,024
|
Again read your own books, for example your recent quote 
None say its a Sherman with a 90mm gun, no its a M-36 Jackson. And to repeat myself; No Jumbo was ever fitted with the 90mm M1A1 during WW2 !
__________________ We have built a total of about 1250 of this aircraft (Me-262), but only fifty were allowed to be used as fighters - as interceptors. And out of this fifty, there were never more than 25 operational. So we had only a very, very few.
- Adolf Galland | |
| | |
03-08-2007, 10:06 PM
|
#313 | | Banned
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 180
Country: | No ISBN & Page number still --
ZZzzz.... | |
| | |
03-08-2007, 10:08 PM
|
#314 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,024
| Tell you what, try to prove to me that its not a M-36 and that a Jumbo was ever fitted with the 90mm M1A1, then I'll gladly give you the ISBN nr. to some books you desperately need to read - deal ?
__________________ We have built a total of about 1250 of this aircraft (Me-262), but only fifty were allowed to be used as fighters - as interceptors. And out of this fifty, there were never more than 25 operational. So we had only a very, very few.
- Adolf Galland | |
| | |
03-08-2007, 10:27 PM
|
#315 | | Banned
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 180
Country: | Simple enough.. WWII Tank Destroyer Society
we call these people..
Organized at Ft Benning
I am in Washington, let me call the Pentagon's "Center for Military History"
Your choice..
again, look at their page http://www.tankdestroyersociety.com/images/M10_04.jpg
The officially sanctioned US Army WWII Tank Destroyer Society
Note painted on the side of the vehicle, on the officially santioned US Army WWII Tank Destroyers web page titled "our vehicles"
the inscription M36B1 http://www.tankdestroyersociety.com/images/M10_04.jpg
Deal?
YYou need to buy some glasses..
OFFICIAL US ARMY WWII TANK DESTROYERS SOCIETY WWII Tank Destroyers
"M36B1"
You cannot site anything- Sorry you are the weakest link contact them and tell them to change thier web page- lol
Or at least get them to cut out the words "M36B1", from the photographs of their equipment..
har har har WWII Tank Destroyers
Maybe they are wrong about thier history/ you know better probably ?
I guess they are condused...
right?
I mean really.. | |
| | | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:52 PM. | | |
