Georgie Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 Was the Jackson tank destroyer used in the Italian fighting? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 Well I could be a smart a$$ and say there's no such thing , but I won't and say only since the M-36 was not available in CMAK, I suspect it was never used in Italy. Even in Northwest Europe I don't think it was available for Combat before the Battle of the Bulge. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 I hear the name 'Jackson' and shake my fists in the general direction of Tamiya modeling HQ. This also reminds me of Sherman Jumbo. The more we dug into its actual date of introduction the further back it got pushed til it exited the CMBN title entirely. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 ooo ... ooo ... what about the M113 GAVIN *wibble* *evil grin* 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 There were M18s in Italy (as well as scads of M10s of course), but not M36s, those all went to NW Europe... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 Even in Northwest Europe I don't think it was available for Combat before the Battle of the Bulge. It arrived in France the first week of September and saw first combat in October. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgie Posted March 2, 2013 Author Share Posted March 2, 2013 It arrived in France the first week of September and saw first combat in October. The answer to the Panther?!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 and saw first combat in October. That was the last puzzle piece I couldn't locate. Just like Jumbo then. On the bright side, that's certainly going to make the Bulge title a very different game! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 ooo ... ooo ... what about the M113 GAVIN *wibble* *evil grin* This should be a bannable offense. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 The answer to the Panther?!! Similar to the 17 pdr on the Firefly in that it depends on what ammunition is used. 90mm HVAP and special heat-treated T33 could penetrate the Panther glacis, but they were only issued in very limited numbers. The most common ammunition -- M77 and M82 -- could not, but would penetrate the turret and lower hull better than US 76mm. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Vanir - M36s on Elsenborn ridge routinely holed Panthers crawling up to them. Sure turret penetrations can account for some of that, but slope effect might have also been involved, as well as late war German armor quality issues. The high protection of the Panther glacis depends on its steep angle - any downward shot, or the target itself on a downward slope reducing the vertical angle - can reduce that protection significantly. So, the statement that the Panther glacis is "proof" against US 90mm with AP needs some qualification... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Also Panther manufacture was getting increasingly shoddy over time. Late war armor was brittle. If you didn't get internal spalling (think a steel tea plate with rasor edges bouncing around) the hull was liable to crack open at the weld seams. M36 90mm was roughly equivalent to 88 Tiger I gun. Sure, you might not get a clean penetration but you'd rattle the crew's tooth fillings loose. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Vanir - M36s on Elsenborn ridge routinely holed Panthers crawling up to them. Sure turret penetrations can account for some of that, but slope effect might have also been involved, as well as late war German armor quality issues. The high protection of the Panther glacis depends on its steep angle - any downward shot, or the target itself on a downward slope reducing the vertical angle - can reduce that protection significantly. So, the statement that the Panther glacis is "proof" against US 90mm with AP needs some qualification... Unless otherwise specified when I say something can or cannot penetrate something else I'm assuming equal altitude and head-on facing. But it's not a bad idea to point out that significant elevation differences can have a major impact on armor resistance since it changes the angle of impact. So can differences in facing along the horizontal axis. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nidan1 Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 It also saw a lot of action in the Huertgen Forest, and then on into Austria and Czechoslovakia. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 It also saw a lot of action in the Huertgen Forest, and then on into Austria and Czechoslovakia. It would clarify matters a great deal if you would quote the post you are replying to. Not that what you have to add is of any interest anyway... Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nidan1 Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 It would clarify matters a great deal if you would quote the post you are replying to. Not that what you have to add is of any interest anyway... Michael Oh, I understand now.....bugger off! Does that clarify matters? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 I have heard it said that the British defended the slab nature of the tank armour on the bais that in combat it would rarely be perpendicular to an enemy gun. Literally true but one feels it may be a post-event rationalisation. The Valentine did actually have curved armour. I do have an English tank commanders memoir where he retreats from the enemy firing over the back deck. As he put it it had more slope than the front and he liked the idea of having armour and the engine between him and the enemy. The difference in speeds between a Valentinne in reverse and full speed across country probably being reasonable it does make some sense. Now whether someone took this view for the Archer design .... : ) I kid. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Now whether someone took this view for the Archer design .... : ) I kid. I'm not sure that the Archer layout was such a bad idea for shoot 'n' scoot from ambush. It's just that it would be limited to doing just that. Not so good for an offensive weapon. The Brits should have had it a couple of years earlier. It would have been a great advance over the portee in the desert. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 The poor Archer drive had to literally exit the vehicle during combat for the gun to fire. Othewise the ejected shell would've hit him in the back of the head. There's also one annoying problem with front-engined firing platforms. Heat waves rippling off your engine deck tends distort what's being seen through the optics. Front engine tank design is one of those "We thought it was a good idea at the time" kind'a things. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 The poor Archer drive had to literally exit the vehicle during combat for the gun to fire. Othewise the ejected shell would've hit him in the back of the head. He didn't have a hatch he could close? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noob Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 Was the Jackson tank destroyer used in the Italian fighting? Don't you mean Jackson "the" tank destroyer, the only vehicle that served in WW2 with a human personality, pre dating Herbie by over 20 years. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgie Posted March 15, 2013 Author Share Posted March 15, 2013 LOL, no I meant the "Jackson tank" destroyer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 Don't you mean Jackson "the" tank destroyer, the only vehicle that served in WW2 with a human personality, pre dating Herbie by over 20 years. True, but only if you don't count the Stuart tank haunted by its namesake general. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noob Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 True, but only if you don't count the Stuart tank haunted by its namesake general. OMG !!!, i forgot about Stuart the tank, Jackson's kid brother. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 OMG !!!, i forgot about Stuart the tank, Jackson's kid brother. And Thomas the Tank Engine. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.