Great video - thanks.

@ Dakota: Good call... you can tell by the larger, longer gun and the different shape of the turret, which help distinguish it from an M-10. Excellent video - thanks.

@@GeorgiaBoy1961 Also the triangular shaped rear turret bustle is a dead give away.

The M36 is an awesome, kick a$$ WW2 tank destroyer. Until the late M26 Pershing heavy tank introduction, the M36 was the only AFV that could take in the latest heavy German armor. I shy away from calling it the Jackson. It seems this was a post-war nickname. Also in 2021 honoring Confederate generals in no longer acceptable.

@@jeffreyyoung7824 - Not sure I follow you, Jeffrey.... are you referring to the shape of the M-10 or the M-36? The M-10 series were afflicted with counter-balance issues early in their development. It was discovered that the M-10's turret did not always revolve reliably upon command, especially upon slopes and uneven terrain. The problem was localized in part to improper turret weight distribution. Because of the dire need for the tank destroyers in TD units, rather than an immediate redesign, a series of "duck-bill" shaped counter-weights were retrofitted to remedy the problem of too much weight forward. These retrofit kits could also be installed in the field, by mechanics and other armor-support personnel. Steve Zaloga discusses these in his Osprey Military book on the M-10 TD. The M-36 Jackson, which came along later in the war, had a turret basket "bustle" which acted as a counterweight to the long and heavy 90mm gun, and also provided storage for an additional 10-11 rounds of ammunition, as well as providing a surface upon which a pedestal-mounted MG could sit.

Not an M10. It's a M36 GMC Jackson. Same hull/chassis, different turret and gun.

I just finished reading The Tank Killers All about Tank Destroyers in WW2. It would reference your dad.

@@ghostmost2614 Thanks very much. I'll check it out for sure!

Thanks for the info. Raises an interesting question. What is the greater risk..the enemy seeing you coming or hearing you coming? Depends on the time of day or night I suppose is one factor.

@@vitis65 I would say both. Best not to be seen, but like they say, you never see the one that gets you.

M36 had the GAA engine, which was water cooled but of course all water cooled engines are ultimately air cooled by air pushed thru the radiator. That's what was exiting out of the back of the M36.

Hope he made it out ok and lived a long and happy life afterwards.

@@vitis65 unlike most of the worthless bags of meat in the world he did very well after the war. even helped kids and did work developing the CAP program

*Stuart*

Many were used by the U.S. just not common in the ETO.

55 mph top speed, too. Fastest tank of the war. Doesn't sound too fast, but in a time when most tanks were all done at 25-35 mph, it was literally a "rocket ship"....and the long barreled 76mm high powered gun gave it an extremely hard punch.

@@DeanMk1 55mph is literally a faster top speed than most mbts currently in service.

M18 hellcat isn't a tank. Its a tank destroyer !

Apparently the army preferred the m10 over the m18.

@@josephhardwicke6344 well look at the weight difference 😂 the abrams is capable of 60+ but it’s governed

Very interesting! Thanks for your info, I will favorite your comment so others can see 👍🏼

They just were the engine's that were around. Later versions of the Sherman use different engines.

Thank you so much for the info!

@@DakotaWoodHD Also, Jackson was not an official name for the M36 until post war.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mbSpiNudlbO8h4U.html

Yep it’s a turbo diesel for sure

@@ben-jam-in6941 The irony is that it produced the least smoke.

Robert Dawson very cool! Thanks for sharing!

Hybrid .... same 90mm gun in both vehicles. Different results... The M36 TD was in combat by Oct of 1944. In time for the Battle of the Bulge. The M36 was a reliable vehicle. Over 1,400 were available before Germany surrendered. The M26 Pershing first combat was 25 February. The M26 had a serious propensity to breakdowns. Broken down Tanks don’t contribute to combat. When the M36 was send to Korea it broke down so often it was quickly replaced by the reliable M4E8 Sherman.

that's too german of you

But Hellcat was far deadlier. And, if war lasted longer, super hellcat was prepared (but war ended and never saw the light of the day. Upgrades were 90mm turret, shooting stabilizer so it can shoot while driving, and new Ford motor that was supposed to replace Continental. More horsepower would give him speed of 60 mph). Hellcat was master of shoot and run, had torsion suspension with superior manouverability over any of those there, and speed of 55 mph. He also always used armor piercing rounds which made him extreme deadly up to 2.5km, which was for those times, amazing numbers.

My thoughts exactly. I also noticed that the tracks on the M18 looked aftermarket. Except for the track tension, they looked really good.

The _M5's_ always had the twinbank v-8's.

@@peterson7082 True, but the humped rear hull of the M3 was never changed when no longer required for the V-8s.

You are correct. I wanted to post this, but I figured someone else would realize that too. Good eye, bro!

Haha thanks for the clarification!

No it isn't muppet

Well, still the same hull so.. :)

Devil's Island, yea it is a M36. here you go do some homework. www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/US/M36_Jackson.php

They run these vehicles often at their facility. Facebook.com/ww2armor

Yeah i never knew ww2 tank tracks were that saggy, especially that sherman.

The M18 with the droopy track is currently getting new shoes.

Yea, that was my first thought...one hard turn and they'd shed a track.

They'd rather throw a track, rather than snap one, is my guess.

The 76mm. was the same as on the 76mm. armed _M4's._

The Chieftain has a very detailed explanation on this in one of his videos.

M36

The tank destroyer shown is an M36 "Jackson" which was basically an up-gunned M10 with a larger turret to accommodate a long-barreled 90mm gun.

No sir

Rino Ceronte That is the way tank destroys we’re intended to be used.

The theory was that tank destroyers were supposed to see the enemy first. They were light and quick on the draw. It worked, most of the time.

Dont do it comrade!

Why? You operated Panzerkampfwagen IV ausf H?

@JohnTuttle - please educate yourself as you are repeating myths. The M4 was not a death trap. Its crews had a higher survival rate than Panther and Tiger crews. American armor rarely encountered Tigers. The Tiger was likely to break down or run our of gas anyway. Again educate yourself.

@@donb1183 lol you're an idiot. M4 no armor and pea shooting gun. Panther/Tiger with legendary 88mm. Yes, crew mortality is high, when you are outnumbered 20:1...that doesn't make the M4 a good tank. Just mass produced.

The Sherman's weren't intended to go face-to-face with those tanks, anyways. They got delegates to infantry-tanks unless a situation necessitated anti-armor. The US had much better guns than the 75mm for anti-armor purposes.

@@johntuttle9544 batle of arracourt sherman tank KO a lot of panthers...

Because the Sherman could be, and was produced, shipped, and distrubuted in large numbers, it was the better tank. A hundred Shermans on the battlefield are way better than zero Tigers. Brits/US could field 5,000 Shermans, from Denmark to the Mediterranean. Against 500 Tigers and Panthers. Shermans could literally drive around them by tens of miles away. As German lost experienced tank crews, and experienced mechanics, Tigers/Panthers potential abilities were less and less able to be used, or even show up on the battlefield. A Sherman were able to do 4,000 combat road miles. Fire 4,000 rounds. Tigers were lucky to live 1/10th the miles or rounds. Shermans provided infantry support 1,000 times more than Tigers. Allied infantry had way better chance with plentiful Shermans.