Best/Favourate Tank in the west

[lesofprimus]

Christian Ankerstjerne has never posted here as far as Im aware, and kenny just wanted to start trouble, and we dont tolerate that here so....

[Soren]

Oh Jackson you poor little think, did I hurt your feelings by not falling for your little scam, is that it ?

And here's the qoute you requested:
"90mm Gun, M1A1, AA
AP M77 will penetrate front glacis slope plate up to 600 yards, the gun mantlet up to 1,000 yards and the turret up to 1,500 yards"

And about the 90mm Howitzer, well it was actually a 105mm, my mistake thats what happens when you rely on memory, small details get screwed, but the difference between you and me Jackson is I happily admit it.

So onto the 90mm armed Jumbo, lets see you explain why you were so convinced it existed ? (Which it didn't btw )

[Jackson]

TOO FUNNY..

90mm Gun, M1A1, AA


Anti Aircraft


Please again, quote me where I said that AA gun was ever mounted on a Sherman chassis..

U.S. Test No.2

You are just too much FUN


I gather you never checked the link and read the information ..


http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ww2...st-708-20.html (Best/Favourate Tank in the west)

SPECIFICALLY

Originally Posted by Jackson

Pather tests

U.S. Test No.2

90mm Gun, M1A1, AA
AP M77 will penetrate front glacis slope plate up to 600 yards, the gun mantlet up to 1,000 yards and the turret up to 1,500 yards.

9) 105mm Howitzer, M4, mounted on Medium Tank, M4
HEAT M67 will penetrate front glacis slope plate and gun mantlet at 500 yards (see assumption made in paragraph 1c).

Here is a clue as to the differece- (SEE ABOVE)
>AA
>mounted on Medium Tank, M4



again, quote me saying that gun was ever mounted on a Sherman chassis and hull..

[Gnomey]

What? You pretty much just reinforced what Soren said (alongside a lot of BS)...

[MacArther]

Seriously dude, you just cited the source that Soren used, but instead of trying to disprove it or something, you cite the 105mm citation about the Sherman. I can tell you flat out, there was never a Sherman with a 90mm gun in WW2. After the war, the Isralis had some surplus ones that the Israelis modified to carry a larger gun and armor. These were NOT related to the Sherman Jumbo. Before you counter with your quip about the Jackson 36 carrying the 90mm and being based off of a Sherman hull, I would like to ask you this: Do the Priest's based off of the M3 medium tank hull go roaring into combat alongside their tank cousins, or are they of a different breed?

[Jackson]

Seriously dude, the Official US Army sanctioned "WWII Tank destroyers Association Inc" has photos of the (M4A3 hull and chassis based) M36B1 on their 'our vehicles' web page.

WWII Tank Destroyers


The following books reference them

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 (!).

This 654th Tank Destroyer web page also lists them

644TD-TD's WWII-2



Google Hunnicutt M36B1 187

hunnicutt M36B1 187 - Google Search


He states 187 in the ETO (widely quoted)

and finally here is a lengthy discussion at tank.net about the 90 mm on the M4A3 hull and chassis..

Thread Title: Death Traps

Tanknet > Shermans- death traps?

Death Traps The Survival of an American Armored Division in World War II, by Belton Y Cooper

Presidio Press, 1998. 384. Dimensions (in inches): 1.05 x 6.90 x 4.20 . $6.99. ISBN:0891418148.


None of these 'tank freaks' seem to be disputing their existence.


You folks take a few minutes to read this and get back to

Okay


The thing is in 6 pages of this TANKERS forum, nobody disputes their existence



Additionally, I would like to reference the United States Library of Congress..

Table of contents for American armored fighting vehicles


But you could be right, maybe..

But I doubt it..

[Jackson]

The Sherman registry


Sherman Register - US Army references

It was an overnight job to fit the 90 mm field modification kit on the M434..

[Jackson]

This was an attempt to install the 90mm gun in a M10. The initial test was a failure in that the gun made the vehicle unstable and the weight made for a poor ride. A large hollow bustle was designed for placement at the rear of the turret to act as counter weight to compensate for the gun. The counter weight made the vehicle a success at this point and was thus named the T71 (when based on the M10A1 chassis powered by Ford it was called a T71, it was the T71E1 when powered by GM). Vehicles returned to the factories and those already in production were upgraded to the T71 standard. In July 1944, the vehicle was standardized as the M36. In the Fall of 1944, GM began producing a variation of the M36 using the M4A3 chassis. This became known as the M36B1. The 90mm main gun could penetrate 6" of armor at 1000 yards, and with 2 rounds, penetrate 5' of concrete.

The M36 became very popular because of it's firepower and protection. This popularity resulted in it being often used in the role of a combat tank rather than just as a tank killer. The drawback was the open top. In the Spring of 1945, this was corrected and an add-on shield was issued.

Production quanities are as follows:
M36 - 1413
M36B1 - 187
M36B2 - 724


United States Self Propelled Guns

[Jackson]

>there was never a Sherman with a 90mm gun in WW2



M36B1 – wieża M36 na czołgu M4A4 Sherman, używana w czasie "Bitwy o wybrzuszenie" w Ardenach. Oficjalnie pojazdy te nie wzięły udziału w tej kampanii, ale istnieje wiele zdjęć pokazujących M36B1 z tego okresu czasu.


Niemiecka Ofensywa w Ardenach, znana także jako bitwa o wybrzuszenie (ang. Battle of the Bulge), rozpoczęła się w grudniu 1944 r. i była ostatnią dużą operacją ofensywną wojsk niemieckich na zachodnim froncie w czasie II wojny światowej.


M36B1
M4A3 Sherman-Panzer mit dem Turm des M36. Eingesetzt bei der Ardennenoffensive im Winter 1944-45. Offiziell nahmen diese nicht daran teil, aber es gibt sowohl Fotos als auch Berichte von Augenzeugen aus erster Hand die zweifelsfrei bestätigen daß sie an den Kämpfen beteiligt waren.


M36B1: Mezzo dotato di torretta del Jackson montata però su uno scafo standard del carro medio M4 Sherman.Verso la fine del 1944 venne realizzato in circa 300 esemplari come soluzione di emergenza.


M36B1, M36:n torni M4A3 Shermanin rungolle

These vehicles, designated M36B1, were rushed to Europe and used in combat alongside standard M36s.


M36B1 Jackson
Bij de M36B1 Jackson was de geschutskoepel van de M36 op een onveranderde romp van de M4A3 Sherman middelzware gevechtstank geplaatst. Ze werden gebouwd in een oplage van 187 stuks vanaf oktober 1944 bij Fisher Tank Arsenal, maar ze kwamen nooit in actie aan het front. Ze werden alleen gebruikt voor trainingsdoeleinden.


M36B1: una versione ad hoc per venire incontro alla crescente richiesta di cacciacarri armati con il 90 mm. Utilizzava lo scafo dello M4A3 e la torretta aperta dell’ M36. 187 veicoli prodotti tra lì ottobre ed il dicembre del 1944 presso il Grand Blanc Arsenal


M36B1 Jackson
Bij de M36B1 Jackson was de geschutskoepel van de M36 op een onveranderde romp van de M4A3 Sherman middelzware gevechtstank geplaatst. Ze werden gebouwd in een oplage van 187 stuks vanaf oktober 1944 bij Fisher Tank Arsenal, maar ze kwamen nooit in actie aan het front. Ze werden alleen gebruikt voor trainingsdoeleinden.



M36 Jackson - Vikipedi

M36 Jackson - Wikipedia

M36 Jackson - Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia

M36 Jackson - Wikipedia

M36 Jackson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

M36 Jackson

M36 Jackson Scala 1


The rest of the world disagees

[Gnomey]

Just because it is built off the M4A1 chassis doesn't make it an M4A1...

Is the Priest an M3 - no. Is the the M36 an M4 - no.

Simple logic really. Same chassis and a different turret with a different role = a different tank!!!! Something you seem unable to grasp despite everyone proving you wrong (including yourself). Perhaps you should quit digging that hole before you burn yourself in the centre of the earth...

[Jackson]

Like I could really care..

Here is the "tankers forum", nobody seems to disagree with comments such as: "nothing but a Sherman with a differnt turret"

Tanknet > Shermans- death traps?


So what exactly is your point?

I can think of about 5-6 different turrets off hand.


Dig?


I did not know the M7 had a turret?

BTW it was an M4A3. not an M4A1


So.. do you have anything new to tell Jackson about the the Jackson?

[Jackson]

for instance, nobody seemed to challenge these comments

"The M36B1 TD was nothing but a standard M4A3 fitted with a 90mm turret from M36."

"It still seems unlikely that 90mm Shermans would have been in the hands of the troops before the end of 1944."


"Why? The M36 TD is a Sherman-derived hull with a 90mm turret on it, and they were in the ETO at least by August."

"In his book Sherman, R.P. Hunnicutt states that the main reason the 90mm Sherman was not rushed into production in the late summer of 1944 was the promise that the M26 would be available in quantity before the 90mm Sherman would be available."

"He also mentions a 6 month lead time in getting the 90mm Sherman into quantity production. "


The role of this vehicle included breaking up reinforced bunkers and as divisional artillery. In comparisons to the Firefly, they talk of its superior abilities in other roles than as a TD.

It seems that many others like Jackson, who are familiar with the 'Jackson' think and speak in similar terms..

Tanknet > AFV Forum


Maybe you should go over there an straighten them all out. Somehow I doubt that you will have much success however. But hey this is an aircraft forum, so I don't expect anyone here is as familiar enough with the subject to really carry any weight.

While some here seem to even dispute its existence or talk of 90 mm Howitzers.

But nobody even bothers to dispute their comments.


So... again, ask me if really feel any "worries".

[Gnomey]

I'm don't see the point in arguing any more. Your head is so far up your arse about this it isn't even worth discussing any more. You are not going to change your mind in anyway so there is no point in trying to convince you that you are wrong.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I will repeat again. A M36 is not a M4 even if it was built on the chassis of a M4.

The original Land Rover was built on the chassis of a Jeep. Does that make the original Land Rover a Jeep? No ofcourse not it was a Land Rover. Same for the M36.

[Jackson]

Showing results 1 to 3 of 3
Search took 0.07 seconds. Search: Key Word(s): M36B1
Thread / Thread Starter Last Post Replies Views Forum
Sticky: Poll: Best/Favourate Tank in the west ( 1 2 3 ... Last Page)
Yeomanz Today 09:55 AM
by DerAdlerIstGelandet 358 6,769 WW2 General
17 ponder vs US 90 mm
Jackson 03-08-2007 11:49 PM
by Soren 3 47 WW2 General
best allied tank? ( 1 2 3 ... Last Page)
The Nerd 11-07-2005 11:10 PM
by schwarzpanzer 72 2,306 WW2 General




Nobody had ever even mentioned this subject here before I posted about it..

and somehow I think if my opening post on this thread had been "M36B1" the response would have been: "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.."

as "90 mm Sherman" is a common reference to this vehicle, much like the common WWII soldier referred to it as such from what I gathered


I notice none of you 'fly boys' are going over the the tankers forum to straighten them out. Because that is how it is discussed on a variety of "Tank" forums.

Would you rename a B-26 with the 75 mm mounted in the nose? Is it deffernt than the quad 20

or is it a B-26/75 mm

Well..

The Landrover with a jeep chassis was a prototype, pre production model and it did not have the Jeep body (hull)


Would I call a Land Rover body and chassis a "Jeep" because it had a jeep luggage rack? that would be a better comparison (not quite but almost) ..