Jump to content

Late M10 and Late M36 - armored hoods?


Recommended Posts

I heard somewhere that both the late M10s and M36s productions had an armor top to cover the turret, is this true and if so why is it not in the game? I have not had time to check the makers of both tanks to see if they were released. If you say that it was a field modification, well so was the culin cutter and that's in the game.

ebcf18ba34e4388994e40d9bcb8d746e.jpg

m36-modified-jackson-tank-destroyer-of-e

Edited by user1000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, user1000 said:

I have not had time to check the makers of both tanks to see if they were released.

Start there.

 

7 hours ago, user1000 said:

If you say that it was a field modification, well so was the culin cutter and that's in the game.

So, the cutter was tactically useful on a significant scale: therefore included. A roof on a tank destroyer that, don't for get, was used for anti tank work not infantry support is not significant on the same scale at all: therefore effort better spent on something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you'd need first some real info on how often any of this was done for BF to consider.  There is also still a module for CMFB to be done to bring it to end of war.

Other than a model what type of documentation is there on frequency?  The culin cutter had a profound and documented impact on the fighting in the hedgerows.  I can't say I have ever even seen an actual pic like what is modelled above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recall Steve planned for a lot of uparmored vehicles in the title then he hit on hard introduction date numbers (some VERY good data on uparmored Sherman production). Suddenly it was like oh damn, gonna  have to wait for the module to introduce them. They are coming (well, they're planned) but only after the title gets pushed up to VE day in a module. The 76mm Jumbo did make it into the game but its kind'a iffy whether that really showed up before February-March.  Whenever you see M36s with the production roof top they're usually very late Diesel engined M36B2s which never made it into Europe. But a lot showed up in foreign armies after the war, then into museums and collectors hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's what Hunnicutt has to say on the subject (in this instance the M36):

Quote

In August, the Army Ground Forces directed the production of an overhead cover kit to provide protection for the turret crew.  These covers were folding armor tops designed to protect against small arms fire and shell fragments without completely sacrificing the all round vision of the open topped turret.

Here's a thread from Missing Lynx discussing the subject (It has WIP photos of what may well be the model in the image posted by OP): 

http://www.network54.com/Forum/47208/thread/1422454707/M36+Jackson+Roof+Armor

The second image from OP shows a post-war factory-built armoured top, commonly seen on the M36B2:

F745-F4-M36-GMC-left-rear.png

http://www.theshermantank.com/the-sherman-tank-variant-page-pages-for-each-type-of-sherman-tank/the-m36-90mm-gmc-a-very-good-td/

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

user1000,

Though I don't have it, Zaloga's M10 and M36 Tank Destroyers 1942-53 (New Vanguard) talks about overhead cover for these AFVs, of which I recall two main types: 1. field expedients, what the crew could scratch together and 2. field mods done by higher using engineer units to produce the roof armor kits. There may've been actual production roofs, but I don't recall that being the case. You may also wish to ping our own Harry Yeide, who probably covered this in his The Tank Killers. Don't have this book, either, so can't say what's in it, whereas I have read the passages in the Zaloga book and seen the pics on the TD roof armor business. Strongly suspect the model depicts one of those engineer-produced roof kits. For sure, it's not field expedient.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 6/6/2017 at 11:46 AM, IanL said:

Start there.

 

So, the cutter was tactically useful on a significant scale: therefore included. A roof on a tank destroyer that, don't for get, was used for anti tank work not infantry support is not significant on the same scale at all: therefore effort better spent on something else.

 

Army TD battalions got used in the infantry support role fairly commonly. In these cases, it was also not uncommon to see the crew mount extra machine guns on the turret, I can't find it right now but there is a pretty famous photo of an M10 with 2 extra,m1919s mounted on the forward part of the turret and there may have been an extra .50. I'm going to have to dig the photo up now, I don't think I have it on my site... 

The M10 got used on the Pacific of all places!  In the infantry support role as it's primary job. 

 

M10s on Leyte

M10_Wolverine_77th_Infantry_Division_Ley

M10s somewhere in New Guinea. 

M10_Wolverine_32nd_Infantry_Division_Tan

 

Here's one in the ETO supporting the doughs

M10_773rd_Tank_B_90th_Div_Mainz_Germany_1945.jpg

 

Edited by JeepsGunsTanks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎6‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 1:26 PM, John Kettler said:

You may also wish to ping our own Harry Yeide, who probably covered this in his The Tank Killers. Don't have this book, either, so can't say what's in it, whereas I have read the passages in the Zaloga book and seen the pics on the TD roof armor business. Strongly suspect the model depicts one of those engineer-produced roof kits. For sure, it's not field expedient.

Having just recently finished "The Tank Killers" myself, Mr. Yeide mentions the field expedient of welding steel plates as overhead cover as a late-war modification for urban environments, and protection from artillery fragments. The overhead cover then became a standard fixture at some point in the future (mid - '45), but given the Tank Destroyer branch was disbanded after World War Two, it never came to fruition.
It seems different units adopted different modifications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

user1000,

Forgot to mention the Zaloga book also has several photos of both field expedient and Engineer built (not OEM) versions operating in the field. One I saw was unbelievably crude and of dubious protective properties, being made of mild steel.  Looked like something an incompetent kid in Welding class threw together.

Andy,

Please provide a link so we may all enjoy its wonders.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No point.....It's wonders have all been vandalised by Photobucket, the comments survive but without the pictures it's utterly meaningless.  Steve Zaloga's a regular contributor at Missing Lynx, he helped me out with some info for a platoon of M-24 Chaffee Tanks, based on his model in the diorama 'Bounce the Rhine':

rhinedio_szaloga1.jpg

http://missing-lynx.com/gallery/dio/rhinedio_szaloga.html

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andy,

Yet another fine effort by a man so accomplished in three military related fields (defense analysis, military history and technology articles and books, military modeling) I oscillate between wanting to hate him and eyeing my (nonexistent) tanto while contemplating seppuku! The man's a terror. If that landing craft is an "M" boat, then it's from "Patton's Navy" Boat Two, a special Navy detachment my Uncle George served in from D+1 to VE Day (and maybe beyond, given all the demobilization delays. Boat Two was instrumental in Patton's famous/notorious "rock soup" advances when he wasn't supposed to be advancing. 

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Erwin,

If you look at his other dioramas and models at MissingLynx, you'll see he does a lot of work using calendar photos and such as backgrounds. Believe he's got an article there showing the process, in fact. Also, he has a distinctive painting and weathering style. this is quite apparent when you look at a whole bunch of his models, regardless of nationality or period. For me, at least, it's "Oh, that's a Steve Zaloga model!" reaction. Would love to see the above diorama from many more angles, not least because the way the scene is shot makes the presumptive LCM look akin to one of those 2D boat cutouts used during plays long ago. In a sense, the way the scene is composed pretty much removes the boat, leaving it as more a stick figure than a substantial landing craft which could carry a Sherman.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...