Best/Favourate Tank in the west

[Jackson]

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

 

[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.

 

[Soren]

Nope Jackson, its a M-36 Jackson, and nomatter how much you try you can't find evidence to the contrary - I guarantee it.

 

[Hunter368]

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.

 

[Jackson]

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

 

[Soren]

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"

 

[Jackson]

No ISBN page number huh?

 

[Soren]

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.

 

[Jackson]

APBC= Armor piercing ballistic cap (an A/T round)

ISBN Page numbers=APBC

Smoke grenades= ineffective at any range

 

[Soren]

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 ?

 

[Jackson]

I still wait your ISBN Page numbers..

 

[Soren]

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 !

 

[Jackson]

No ISBN Page number still --

ZZzzz....

 

[Soren]

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 ?

 

[Jackson]

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..

 

[Jackson]

I guess they are not as knowlegable as you..

I mean how stupid of them ///
>showing a vehicle with the inscription M36b1! painted on it..


You call them up and tell them to fix it OK!!


lol

 

[Jackson]

I wonder how they got that Wolverine to look like a Sherman?

photoshopping at their age..

MY MY -tsk


Those WWII vets, always with the funny stuff..

 

[Soren]

Thank you Jackson, again you proved that its a M-36 Jackson, you even made it clear in bold letters.

Now lets see you disprove your own theory about the 90mm M1A1 armed Jumbo as-well, then we're back at where we're supposed to be

 

[Jackson]

Fort Hood 60th Anniversary

 

[Jackson]

I don't think so..

burn all your books and take up a new hobby is my best advice to you..