Jack Trap Posted June 28, 2001 Share Posted June 28, 2001 So I was scanning through the topic, "How do you as the Americans," and noticed little mention of the Jackson anti-tank tank. If you start with the basic understanding that as Allied, one should generally avoid tank shoot-outs with the Germans, then the Jackson with a larger gun, decent front arour and 2/3's cost of a sherman makes it a good deal. Is there something here I'm missing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch Posted June 28, 2001 Share Posted June 28, 2001 [ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: Enoch ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellros Posted June 28, 2001 Share Posted June 28, 2001 The Jackson is a nice tank destroyer, but it has paper-thin armor compared to most other tanks. Its 90mm gun can take out just about every German tank there is, but it Cannot go toe-to-toe with a German AFV. Use hit and run tactics with it. Use cover and speed to avoid return fire, or it will die quick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babra Posted June 28, 2001 Share Posted June 28, 2001 The Sherman has a faster turret. The Sherman has more high explosive. The Sherman is fully enclosed. I don't know which has the higher ground pressure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcm1947 Posted June 28, 2001 Share Posted June 28, 2001 As you know since I mention it all the time I play nothing but the American's and have found that while the Jackson does have a powerful gun and can knock out about anything the German's have it lacks in one area above all. That is the open turret. That with the fact that it is paper thin makes it an easy kill for everything, tanks, infantry, mortars, Arty and any kid with a rock. So I avoid them. At first I used them a lot thinking due to the price and power this would be a good buy. After many, many Jackson's later I don't buy them if I can help it. Also, as Babra pointed out a slow turret compared to the Sherman. I am also learning and this may just be the way I play, that turret speed makes all the difference in the world in this game. You can have a Jackson waiting, pointing in the right direction and be all set when a German tank comes along and the Jackson will shoot second. And second doesn't count when it's made of paper. So in my humble opinion they suck - pretty much. The only American tank worth a darn is the Jumbo. Now that's the tank to have. One last point - it's no fun if you have to always hide. Hell, I want to kill some tanks once in a while head to head. Bastards!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Trap Posted June 28, 2001 Author Share Posted June 28, 2001 Yeah, it's not a TANK, perhaps more like tank-lite. Anyway, if the goal is to seek and destroy German armor and you had to use American armor, then perhaps 6 Jacksons as opposed to 4 Shermans may be a interesting choice. I am going no further this hypothetical situation, its just for consideration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted June 28, 2001 Share Posted June 28, 2001 You are not missing anything, the Jackson is a fine tank destroyer. The thing the 76mm versions have going for them is tungsten ammo - the Jackson doesn't have any. Often it doesn't need it with the added punch of the 90mm gun, but a 76 T round can be more useful against a King Tiger or Jadgtiger than a 90mm standard AP round. The Hellcat also has much higher speed and a faster turret, but thinner armor vunerable to even cheap light cannons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted June 28, 2001 Share Posted June 28, 2001 The M36 Jackson has the same gun as the Pershing. This gun is very useful if you're looking to hole a Panther from the front at ranges beyond 600m. As to its thin armor, I don't see much of a difference getting your Jackson knocked out from 1200m and getting your Sherman knocked out at 1200m. The one deficit the TDs have over the tanks is the limited mgs (just roof-mounted .50 cals?) so they can't just be substitutes for tanks. Then again tanks don't make very good substitute TDs either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stacheldraht Posted June 28, 2001 Share Posted June 28, 2001 Fwiw, the Germans had more than their share of Jackson-like open-topped TD's, some of which are represented in the game (Marder II, Nashorn). Often it's easier to think of this type of vehicle as an AT gun that happens to be self-propelled and can fend off small arms fire. With that mindset, they'll generally be of more use. If you're going to use them, ambush when you're distracting the target vehicle with a fast light tank or armored car, perhaps. Then relocate under cover of terrain or smoke. Shoot and scoot, as they say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted June 29, 2001 Share Posted June 29, 2001 A lot of the German SP AT don't even have MGs. If they get away from support, they are toast. The Jackson is OK. The Hellcat and the E8 are your best general tanks, with the M24 properly used being hell on treads. You just cannot slug it out with the Germans and win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmaker Posted June 29, 2001 Share Posted June 29, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: A lot of the German SP AT don't even have MGs. If they get away from support, they are toast. The Jackson is OK. The Hellcat and the E8 are your best general tanks, with the M24 properly used being hell on treads. You just cannot slug it out with the Germans and win.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just a correction: the only 2 types of German SP AT units that lack a MG are the Marder II/III and Nashorns. Hetzers, Jagdpanzer IV/70, Panzer IV(not the PzKpfw) all have MGs, some of which have remote flexible MGs that can be fired buttoned up. Quite nice for dealing with brave infantry assaults to spray MG42 fire on them. I'll concede the power of the Jackson/Pershing's 90mm gun, but having such a powerful gun on a cheap & fragile tank is a waste on a Jackson. The M10's are the ones I tend to worry about of all the Allied TDs since there are more and can play with "t" rounds. The blast of the 90mm is quite good though. My opinion? If you really want a 90mm gun, get the AA gun or the Pershing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PondScum Posted June 29, 2001 Share Posted June 29, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Warmaker: Quite nice for dealing with brave infantry assaults to spray MG42 fire on them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The TacAI only seems to use the remote flexible MGs at ranges of 100m or so (presumably to reflect their inherent inaccuracy), which means that they're pretty useless for offensive use - if your remote MG is firing, you're in zook range Not as good as a regular MG, which can make life unpleasant for infantry out to 500m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmaker Posted June 29, 2001 Share Posted June 29, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PondScum: The TacAI only seems to use the remote flexible MGs at ranges of 100m or so (presumably to reflect their inherent inaccuracy), which means that they're pretty useless for offensive use - if your remote MG is firing, you're in zook range Not as good as a regular MG, which can make life unpleasant for infantry out to 500m.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I wasn't referring to the use of the remote flexible MGs for long range MG engagements typical of HMG42 teams. I was referring to a close range defense of the panzer itself. After all, bazookas aren't everywhere you know and AT PSchreck/Piat/Bazooka teams can run out of ammo rather quickly especially with inexperienced teams. Sooner or later, you're going to run into a desperate situation where your opponent, whether AI or human, will close assault your tank. This is where your remote flex.MGs come into play. Stick your TC out to quickly engage them with his flexible MG? More than likely result in your TCs death due to the infantry's close prosimity. With the remote flex.MG, you can stay buttoned and the MG will rip away at those close ranges you mentioned of 100m or so. That's where the usefulness of it lies. Add in the close defense mortar found on some panzers, and you've got some nifty deterrence. As for the Jagdpanzers/Panzer IV/late StuG & StuH, these all have side skirts which are quite effective in dealing with hollow-charge rounds. I'm not saying the flanks are immune to "c" rounds, rather their survivability has gone up quite alot. Many a times the side skirts have saved my skin. Granted, such situations are what you want to avoid with your armor, it's just that some German AFVs are better equipped to survive these bad situations that sometimes happens. Also, I couldn't stop rolling when I saw my Tiger I's defense mortar go off and explode above a nearby U.S. HT knocking it out... great laughs, saved 1 HE round, though I lost the game since I couldn't concentrate afterwards... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted June 29, 2001 Share Posted June 29, 2001 I like the Jackson. It is a good anti-tank vehicle and late in the game it is good against infantry since it has a high-blast gun in a comparibly fast turret. When playing Axis, I always have trouble approaching vehicles with Schrecks when a Jackson does overwatch. Because of its comapribly fast turret, it can be nearer to the enemy forces while covering the same angle. [ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted June 29, 2001 Share Posted June 29, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PondScum: The TacAI only seems to use the remote flexible MGs at ranges of 100m or so (presumably to reflect their inherent inaccuracy), which means that they're pretty useless for offensive use - if your remote MG is firing, you're in zook range Not as good as a regular MG, which can make life unpleasant for infantry out to 500m.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Two points: If the flexible MG's don't fire beyond 100 meters why do the Allied tanks regularly engage (and take out) targets with their flexible 50cals well beyond that range ? Is the flexible vehicle mount really inherently unstable ? [ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: tero ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PondScum Posted June 29, 2001 Share Posted June 29, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: If the flexible MG's don't fire beyond 100 meters why do the Allied tanks regularly engage (and take out) targets with their flexible 50cals well beyond that range ? Is the flexible vehicle mount really inherently unstable ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Because the flexible .50cal is being aimed by someone able to sit (stand?) behind it, maneuver it with their hands, and correct its aim via simple LOS - the closed loop of hand/eye coordination is a wonderful thing. The remote flexible MGs on German TDs are aimed and fired by a devilish system of telescopes and pushrods and pulleys - there was a photo referred to here a while back that showed the guts of such a system on a Hetzer, and it must have been a total nightmare to use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted June 29, 2001 Share Posted June 29, 2001 >Because the flexible .50cal is being aimed >by someone able to sit (stand?) behind it, >maneuver it with their hands, and correct >its aim via simple LOS - the closed loop of >hand/eye coordination is a wonderful thing. I think that in some models of Sherman the 50cal was between the TC's and the loaders hatches so they would have had to climb out to fire aimed fire directly in front of the tank. Quite risky in a combat zone for a crew member to start hopping out to aim the MG. How is that modelled now ? >The remote flexible MGs on German TDs are >aimed and fired by a devilish system of >telescopes and pushrods and pulleys - there >was a photo referred to here a while back >that showed the guts of such a system on a >Hetzer, and it must have been a total >nightmare to use. The remote control MG mount was not installed to all TD's. Quite a number of the Stug's for example still used the shield/gun arrangement where the loader fired the gun manually. I agree the remotely controlled arrangement must have been a "spray and pray" arrangement but I would hesitate to call the platform unstable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts