Jackson M36 vs. M10 Tank Destroyer

[Col Deadmarsh]

I've been waiting for someone to mention the Jackson in my Underrated/Overrated thread but it hasn't happened yet. I've never seen any of my opponents take one of these so I've been wondering if they are a rip off at the CM store. When I looked at the numbers though, I found that it wouldn't be a bad idea to have one of these on your side.

Let's compare the Jackson to the M10 which everyone always takes as their tank destroyer because it's 20 points cheaper than the cheapest Jackson.

The advantages: The Jackson is slightly faster, has a much faster turret, a bigger blast area, and better armor penetration.

The penetration numbers for the M10 at a 500m range are: 0 degrees: 112mm, 30 degrees: 89mm, & 60 degrees: 51mm.

For the Jackson: 0 degrees: 139mm, 30 degrees: 107mm, & 60 degrees: 61mm

The problem with the Jackson is, it doesn't have Tungsten while the M10 does. So after September, the M10 might be a better buy. But before the Allies have the use of Tungsten, a Jackson might be a good purchase if you have to go up against a Hetzer or other German equivalent. That 90mm gun could save your life one day.

In addition to the better armor penetration, those HE shells will do a much better job at wiping out the enemy than the M10's. The blast rating for the Jackson is 56 while the M10 is only 33. Each tank gets approximentely the same amount of HE.

Lastly, the Jackson has a much, much faster turrett. If you plan to move your tank around and especially if you want to flank your opponent, you want a Jackson because of it's fast turret. The very slow turret on the M10 will not provide you with the speed you need to strike first.

Curiously, the B1 version of the Jackson offers a bow mg with slightly better armor than its predecessor. This upgrade will cost you an additional 22 clams.

I'm interested in knowing if anyone has had good success with these tanks and in what roles. Also, do you purchase the standard M36 or the M36B1 with the better armor and additional bow mg?

[Michael Emrys]

One other possible consideration, though I don't have the numbers, I would expect the M10 to carry more ammo than an M36. No problem if you have a lot of Shermans around to do the infantry support job, but you might want to think about it if your budget only allows you to purchase one or two vehicles.

Michael

[JasonC]

Oh, I certainly prefer the Jackson to the M-10. The serious trade off is Hellcat speed and tungsten vs. the 90mm and somewhat better armor of the Jackson, better able to handle light AA/AT. I'll take both at different times, and enjoy trying to get either to work. Since I tend to be a fairly conservative armor player (hunting from out of LOS, generally staying "back" rather than rushing flanks, etc), the Jackson tends to do better for me.

[Redwolf]

I had good success with Jacksons in ladder play.

You are usually up against Panzer IV/70, Jagdpanther (if only AFV of opponent) or Hetzer (if he knows you will be American). In all these cases, the 90mm is preferrable to the few tungsten rounds of the M10. The speed is essential as well, since it will allow you to move several TDs into LOS at once after you identified a target.

As you say, they are more useful against Infantry as well than the M10, although MGs are not up to MBT standards. And you cannot prevent it from wasting its MG ammo against distant infantry when you would prefer it to safe it for ambushes.

Another major drawback is that they are vulnerable to quite small guns.

But if you plan to win your points by striking against enemy armour, either for the vehicle kill points or by stripping his infantry of its support, they are one of the better choices.

[Cybeq]

I must be missing somthing. Are we talking about M36 Jackson Vs. M10 Wolverine? Or do some people think the M10 is the Hellcat? Just to clarify: M18 Hellcat, M10 Wolverine, M36 Jackson. Now that we have that cleared up I think the choice between M10 and M36 is not even a contest. M36 wins every time. It's when considering the M18 Vs. the M36 that the player is presented with a true quandry. The M18 is absolutely the fastest thing on treads in CMBO. Fast turret and tungsten to boot. I don't even consider M10 Wolverines in PBEM. To me the choice comes down to M36 or M18.

[MikeyD]

I've had some maddening moments with the M36. Sometimes the darned gunner can't hit the broad side of a barn! I could take out that Panther with one shot at 900m, except the AI refuses to give me a good shot. 3-4 shots as the Panther turret slowly turns my way then BOOM! Got me with one shot! Don't sound historically accurate.

[Kingfish]

Here is a quote from Von Lucke in the 'overrated / underrated' thread:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Underrated: The Wolverine. (Qualifier: This applies to the first few game months only). In case you haven't noticed, American TD's don't get tungsten rounds until August (Sept?), the British version of the M10 however comes well equiped with "t" rounds from the beginning. This can be a nasty suprise to any Panther or Tiger wielding chappy in June - July.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know, we are comparing American TDs. Still, the combo of Fireflies and 'T' equipped Wolverines do give the Brits a mean one-two punch, don't you think?

[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: Kingfish ]

[Enoch]

I could be completely wrong but aren't M36's not available until November/December? Now after Jackson's become available I'd definately take them over a M10.

[Wolfe]

The M36 is first available in Oct44. M36B1 (extra MG, more armor) is avail in Dec44. One serious drawback to the Jackson is its slower ROF than the 76 (~5 shells/minute compared to ~7 for 76 (regular units)). And just because it can sometimes penetrate the PzIV/70's upper hull doesn't mean it always will. I've seen rounds bounce at a bit over 700m. Particularly before Feb45 (before the Allies' guns get slightly better penetration). Why this is, I don't know (change in ammo manufacture?). BTS has, AFAIK, never explained why this changes.

- Chris

[Redwolf]

The M10 *can* still be a better choice, simply when it is sufficient. As much as you should not take a Jagdpanther when you know that the Pz IV/70 gun is sufficient, you will surely find ways to spend the extra points in the M10/M36 choice. Especially if you are doing a 1000 points defense or similar critically underpointed stuff.

[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Username]

By the end of the war the M36 was the TD of choice. It outnumbered M10 and M18 battalions.

[PVLLVS MAXIMVS]

Im currently playing a 5000 point PBEM armor probe as the attacker, and I took nothing but M-10s, because they were cheap and I didnt know any better... and I gotta say, they have worked out pretty well in this game. I think mostly due to the fact that in such an expensive game I could afford a zillion of the little buggers. I sent the trudging all over the map in pairs, and have managed to get a side / rear shot on every AFV Ive knocked out but one so far.

But now that I know what Im doing a bit better, in a small game, or on a small map, Id really prefer the 90mm of the M36. Its not THAT much more expensive, and if you're only going to get a couple of AFV's, I'd think the 40 or so points to make them M36s rather and M10's would be worth it.

[Specterx]

Personally, given a choice between the M10 and the M36, I'd take the third option and go with the Firefly .

If being gamey like that isnt an option, then I'd have to say I prefer the M36. The turret is faster (important for getting those flank shots on heavies) and it has better anti-personnel capability, enabling it to deal with light guns or infantry as well as tanks.

If you're using the Panthers vs 76 rule then the Hellcat is undoubtedly the best choice (for american forces.. still like the Firely/Challenger). It's blazingly fast (55mph?) and has such a fast turret that it can simply run right past Axis heavies and blast them from the side/rear.

[Redwolf]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Specterx:

If you're using the Panthers vs 76 rule then the Hellcat is undoubtedly the best choice (for american forces.. still like the Firely/Challenger). It's blazingly fast (55mph?) and has such a fast turret that it can simply run right past Axis heavies and blast them from the side/rear.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Except that the backyard of the Axis player will be full of 20mm guns if you try that often

[Col Deadmarsh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cybeq:

I must be missing somthing. Are we talking about M36 Jackson Vs. M10 Wolverine? Or do some people think the M10 is the Hellcat? Just to clarify: M18 Hellcat, M10 Wolverine, M36 Jackson.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't know the M10 was called the Wolverine until I saw it in the British section. I'm assuming this is the same tank as the M10 in the American section and BTS was just too lazy to label it properly...

[tecumseh]

I will agree with Deadmarsh, i think in game terms the Jackson is second choice to the M-10 (staying back) and the Hellcat (rushing foward). The slope on the M10s armour is good enough to let you use hetzer tactics - using two at once on a backward incline to increase armour slope - while the benefit of the hellcat's speed is obvious. IMHO the jackson is an akward compromise.

the jackson cannot carry infantry either.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC:

Oh, I certainly prefer the Jackson to the M-10. ...Since I tend to be a fairly conservative armor player (hunting from out of LOS, generally staying "back" rather than rushing flanks, etc), the Jackson tends to do better for me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would seem to me that M10s are perfect for your style of play.