Talk:M36 tank destroyer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Korea[edit]

Article currently states the M-36 proved itself able to knock out IS-2s in Korea. No IS-2s were encountered in Korea, although the Chinese had some. This seems to imply they we actually encountered in combat. DMorpheus 18:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Jackson" ?[edit]

Can anyone cite a primary source on this nickname? Was it ever an official US Army name? Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The US Army did not assign names to its vehicles until after the war. The name does not seem to appear on any official documentation although it is in keeping with the British naming convention of all US-designed lend-lease armoured vehicles in UK/Commonwealth service being named after American Civil War generals:

  • Light Tank M3/M5 - Stuart
  • Medium Tank M3 - Grant (with British designed turret)
  • Medium Tank M3 - Lee (with original US designed turret)
  • Medium Tank M4 - Sherman

Post war the US Army picked upm this convention and began naming its AFV and later IFVs after famous generals throughout its history:

  • M24 - Chaffee
  • M26/M46 - Pershing
  • M41 - Walker Bulldog (originally just Bulldog)
  • M47/M48/M60 - Patton
  • M551 - Sheridan
  • M1 - Abrams

and

  • M2/M3 - Bradley (M3 originally Devers)
  • M8 - Ridgeway (though this may be a company name as the M8/CCV-L was never accepted for service)

143.167.167.170 (talk) 12:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Andy Loates143.167.167.170 (talk) 12:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but those examples don't show any usage of "Jackson". DMorpheus (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have this theory. Maybe British names are used is because of the popular ww2 video game "company of heroes". "Company of Heroes" was made by a Canadian company. The Americans in the game use the British naming convention. well I'm not sure.

So, who wants to reopen an old debate? Found this while doing some research on another topic, and remembered seeing this little argument before. http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/185904-whats-in-a-name/ More specifically https://worldoftanks.com/dcont/fb/imagesforarticles/chieftains_hatch/names/nicknames5.jpg Seems to be pretty conclusive evidence for the General Jackson name to me, as well as certain other names that were generally thought to just be unofficial 68.37.235.26 (talk) 05:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the author of the above article who scanned the images from the Ordnance Branch records (And wrote the successor article), I am absolutely confident that "General Jackson" was the nickname which Ordnance assigned to the vehicle. That the document had force of order within Ordnance Branch, of course, does not necessarily follow that the rest of the Army felt the same way (Nomenclature was officially assigned by the Ordnance Committee, not just Ordnance Branch, though in practice the OC usually just stamped whatever OB said on the matter: Without an Ordnance Committee Minute number that I am aware of (Not saying it doesn't exist, but with some 14,000 minutes, it hasn't come up yet), "General Jackson" thus is not part of the name which remains solely "90mm Gun Motor Carriage M36", and the soldiers in the field probably couldn't care what nickname was assigned by Ordnance anyway) but it certainly does put the lie to the concept that it was a post-war retro-appellation. 50.168.119.15 (talk) 06:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't use an editors original research as a reference, nor primary sources in this way. (Hohum @) 18:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V#Sources (and some related pages) and trying to parse your statement in the context of this discussion.

1) I am not an editor. I have never edited a Wiki article in my life (occasionally making a comment on a talk page) and have not made any changes to the M36 article on this subject. The order was brought up by someone else who is (presumably) an editor and is sourcing someone else (who happens to be me). I simply expanded on his statement to make sure a further mistake is not made. 2) I am employed and paid as an historian: to conduct research, and to publish those findings in text and video. Since I make a living doing this, and have been doing this quite publicly for a couple of years now without controversy, I think the source that he linked to can be considered somewhat reputable. 3) Wikipedia's restriction on primary sources is not absolute. More specifically the pages state that "primary sources are appropriate in some cases" and "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." The document in the article is in plain English, and the nub of it cannot be reasonably misinterpreted. Further, it is not "likely to be challenged." The document is pretty clear. 4) The rules page requires a source "[m]ust be made available to the public." Even if you don't accept my article as a source for your editor for some reason, the original document certainly counts. Any person can go to the National Archives, an organization devoted to making things available to the public, request the appropriate box, and see the information for themselves. 5) A personal comment: I know Wikipedia's policy says: "Wikipedia does not try to impose "the truth" on its readers, and does not ask that they trust something just because they read it in Wikipedia" but it's not as if there's a big disclaimer on the front page saying "Warning, what you read in here may not be true". I happen to enjoy being able to educate people about the many misconceptions held in the field of armoured vehicles and I -do- care about the truth. The one time I take an active interest in fixing one of the errors I've found in Wikipedia on the subject, I am apparently told that going to the National Archives, scanning the document and publishing it for all to see, is insufficient evidence to warrant a change in the page were I to wish to click 'edit', which strikes me as utterly bizarre. At least this escapade is going to give me writing material! 6) The question still remains as to if anyone is going to click 'edit' and put up a line saying "M36 was given the nickname 'General Jackson' by Ordnance Branch."

I apologise if there is a formatting error in this edit. 2601:9:1300:14A:3C38:55B2:89D2:4710 (talk) 06:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR should not, IMO, be taken as license to ignore primary sources, especially when they "directly support" the material in the edit without any need for interpretation or synthesis (beyond a straightforward identification of the Civil War general). Unless the authenticity of the document is in question, I suggest User:Anmccaff either cease reverting or come up with an alternative verbiage he/she finds more acceptable. Laura Scudder | talk 22:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest this is -exactly- an example of why primary sources should be used with caution. It is a document completely stripped of context, with all -and I mean all- secondary evidence suggesting that it did not, in fact go forward at this time. Anmccaff (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this is of any interest, but in the official US Army journal Armor from 1973, Captain James Brown refers to it as the M36 Jackson (p23 or journal or 161 of pdf) http://www.benning.army.mil/library/content/Virtual/CavalryArmorJournal/1970s/1973Jul-Dec.pdf. Not proof of anything, but it does show that the name was being used by a member of the US Army writing for an official Army journal about tanks in the 70's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5680:380:FF93:E362:FDD0:2DE3 (talk) 07:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I finally found a contemporary field reference in the Archives. https://i.imgur.com/yBBflJG.jpg (Chieftain) 24.5.223.175 (talk) 18:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was support for move. I am moving to the supported disambiguator form of the name suggested, and will create a redirect at the original request. Because of the lateness in the discussion of "tank destroyer" verses "{tank destroyer)", this close should not be taken as a formal close between those two, but only as to a move from Jackson. The move will leave both names able to be moved over the other without administrator intervention if informal discussion yields a different result.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

Since no one can provide a citation for the name "Jackson" I propose moving the article to "M36 Tank Destroyer". Comments / thoughts anyone? Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been two weeks. Any comments on this proposed move? I will go ahead before the end of the year if there is no source or objection. regards, DMorpheus (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page move in the next day unless a citation is given. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move attempted; redirect page for "M36 Tank Destroyer" already exists. Administrator assistance requested 12/31/08. DMorpheus (talk) 14:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coming over from WP:RM, I did a quick search of Google Books to see what I could find. I got 11 hits for "M36 Jackson", and 292 hits for M36 tank destroyer -Jackson. On Google Scholar, I found 4 hits for the former, and 41 hits for the latter. It definitely seems that "Jackson" is not the preferred name for this vehicle. Parsecboy (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. Frankly even if "Jackson" had become a popular name sixty years later, it certainly was not used in the WW2 US Army as far as anyone has been able to cite. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 14:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the results were the opposite of what I found, WP:COMMONNAME would come into play. But the majority of books and scholarly journals do not use the name Jackson, so it's not an issue. I had started searching with the assumption that "Jackson" would be more prevalent, and was surprised to see that this was not the case. It certainly seems to me that there is no valid reason for keeping this article at the current name. Let me go pester one of the other admins who work at WP:RM; it'd be inappropriate for me to close it myself. Parsecboy (talk) 15:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One additional thing: it should probably be M36 tank destroyer, since "tank destroyer" is a common noun. Parsecboy (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK by me; I just thought article names were supposed to be all caps. By the way, this change has already been made to M10 Tank Destroyer, which, frankly, had *better* arguments against the move. DMorpheus (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could live with that, although I think it is a bit awkward. See M10 Tank Destroyer for example; we ought to be consistent. DMorpheus (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Though "tank destroyer" is a disambiguatory term, so should be in parentheses... 76.66.198.171 (talk) 09:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would not be opposed to that. Parsecboy (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Images with greyed out backgrounds[edit]

UGH! I'm seeing this more and more, and IMHO it's awful!! It totally detracts from the subject and looks highly artificial. Has there been any formal decision at a higher level in wikipedia to do this, or is this just a few people doing what they think looks nice or cool? I'd *really* like to see the existing two images replaced.

Generally it's someone coming by and modifying an existing image, but in this case the originals uploaded to commons already had their backgrounds greyed out. I don't want to disparage their contribution, but I find the greyed out backgrounds very unappealing. I'd rather see the backgrounds whited out entirely, but my first choice is to see the entire actual image as it was taken.

CraigWyllie (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you wholeheartedly, but, alas, it is three years since your comment above and yet the tacky images remain.172.191.152.230 (talk) 05:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The name Jackson"[edit]

To my knowlegde the name "Jackson" or "General Jackson" was never used by users of the M36. Certainly the name is in keeping with the British Ministry of Supply naming convention for military vehicles obtained under the Lend-Lease arrangements. This convention generated the name "Sherman", "Stuart", "Lee" and "Grant" for US-built tanks used by British and Commonwealth forces, but as mention in the discussion page for the M10, the US did not begin formally naming its military hardware until 1945 with the introduction of the M26 Pershing.

It is possible the name "Jackson" was reserved by the Ministry of Supply for the M36 had that type ever been obtained. In the end the M36 was never used by British or Commonwealth forces as the performance of its 90mm gun was inferior to that of the 17pdr gun mounted in the M10C (aka 'Achilles' or 'Wolverine'). As the M36 was essentially an up-gunned M10 its procurement for British and Commonwealth forces would have been a retrograde step in anti-tank performance.

Andy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.167.170 (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The name 'Jackson' was definitely applied to the M36 at some time as the Japanese model company Tamiya issued a 1:35 scale model of the vehicle back in the 1970s when I used to make models and that was in fact were I first heard of the name. As you surmise, I would guess that the name comes from the MoS and that the British didn't in fact use any for the reason you state.
BTW, the last US vehicle to carry a British-supplied name was the M24 Chaffee, IIRC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that "Jackson" may in fact have been a US-applied name rather than a British MoS one simply because the name doesn't fit in with the MoS naming convention, as it isn't a "tank" in British eyes, but a self propelled anti-tank gun. If it had been named by the British it would most likely have been allocated a name beginning with "A". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.224 (talk) 10:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removing reference to 'British' names[edit]

Can we PLEASE remove the section concerning the name 'Slugger' and 'Jackson' as names by which the British referred to the M36?

The british and Commonwealth never used the M36 so certainly would have no reason to give it a name. As I noted above 'Jackson' MAY have been the name the Ministry of Supply reserved for it were it ever obtained under the Lend-lease acts, but as this never happened the point is pretty moot. As form the name 'Slugger', the only factual evidence I have ever come across is of a photograph of a very rusty-looking M36 on display outside the Armor School at Fort Knox, with the sign 'M36' something, then underneath in quotes the name 'Slugger'. For all I know this was the individual crew-name for that particular M36, in which case calling the M36 the Slugger is akin to calling the M4 medium tank the 'Thunderbolt' simply because thats what Creighton Abrams called his own M4.

Lets be honest; if 'Slugger' is not an individual crew-name then it must have been invented by an over-excitable schoolboy!

Andy

Loates Jr (talk) 11:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Loates JrLoates Jr (talk) 11:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about saying something like:

The name 'Slugger', while never used in real life, recently gained popularity in the 2011 video game World of Tanks [1][2]. The erroneous usage of this name stems from a photograph of an M36 at the Armor School at Fort Knox, captioned "Slugger". (insert citation here)

It would be unwise to remove all references to Slugger because naturally there will be many users searching for the tank destroyer by the name Slugger (esp. after playing World of Tanks, or coming across sites that also erroneously call it the Slugger [[3]]), and it is best to mention it somewhere just to make sure that people find it. However, it is equally important to maintain factual accuracy by making sure to point out why calling it the Slugger is wrong and support it with evidence.

Purpy Pupple (talk) 07:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just removed "Jackson" mentions again. In Zaloga (2002-08-19), M10 and M36 Tank Destroyers 1942-53, ISBN 978-1841764696 page 2: "The M36 is sometimes referred to as the Jackson, but this appears to be an entirely specious, postwar invention." (Hohum @) 12:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TD comparsion table[edit]

I've noticed that in Russian Wiki there is a table that compares the M36 with its counterparts from other countries like JagdPanzer 4 and SU-100 but there is none here. Anyone cares to copy it? http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/M36_(САУ)#.D0.A1.D1.80.D0.B0.D0.B2.D0.BD.D0.B5.D0.BD.D0.B8.D0.B5_.D1.81_.D0.B0.D0.BD.D0.B0.D0.BB.D0.BE.D0.B3.D0.B0.D0.BC.D0.B8

Hull Mounted Machine gun[edit]

Added a picture of a Korean M36 with a modified hull with the machine gun port. No other info available on it, so I also left the citation needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.245.99 (talk) 12:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have put the link to the image via a template for clarity. (Hohum @) 16:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All TD's were simply called "TD"s?[edit]

The Zaloga reference above which mentions the "specious" post-war addition of the Jackson moniker to the M36 is plenty good enough for me, but I still feel somewhat incredulous that the 90mm and 76mm TDs were referred to by the same blanket term ("TD"). As everybody now knows, Lesley McNair's TD doctrine was garbage from the get-go and the 76mm gun was obsolete before it even hit the French shores, but the M36 at least reduced the failure level by 1/2 by adding a TD with a gun that could actually reliably kill the Panther or Tiger it was facing.

Was there no awareness of this fact among the grunts? One would think they'd be demanding more M36s and groaning with disgust when the Wolverines and Hellcats showed up. 98.26.195.58 (talk) 05:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To the basic GI or Tommy in WW2, a tank was a tank was a TD was a TD. If it had tracks and a turret it was 'a tank' (Tommy), 'armor' (Yank) or 'a hundred goddamned (Yank) / bloody great (Tommy) Tigers coming this way!. (Apparantly after Tunis every panzer spotted was a Tiger!). I doubt any US serviceman felt his equipment was deficient in anyway after Sicily, rather that the German stuff was just better. Reading between the lines an in hindsight many TD veterans say good things about their old mounts despite just about every historical first-hand account and after-action report finding them rather lacking in protection and firepower.~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loates Jr (talk • contribs) 15:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson[edit]

Military Review calls it the Jackson in 1980 (I'm actually awaiting a copy of this for an article on the Dover Devil, entirely coincidental). Armed Forces did the same in 1982. I doubt they picked this up from Tamiya :-) Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chamberlain & Ellis (1981 reprint of 1969 British and American Tanks of World War II) don't mention "Jackson" when writing about M36. They do mention 'Wolverine' under heading "GMC M10 Series", and Hellcat is given under M18. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In AFV Profile No. 20 (1972) Col. Robert J Icks uses Hellcat name, but not Jackson nor Wolverine in a comprehensive list of US self-propelled guns. However the list is quite terse, and it might be in one of the other profile publications. Though No. 29 "M4 Medium (Sherman)" is by Chamberlain & Ellis. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
e/c I rather like this old chestnut. It may be a good time to revisit this and get a definitive (although nothing is definitive around here ;)) discussion based on new info and new arguments, if any appear. As I said on my talk page to Maury, I'm not really fussed if we change consensus, but it has always bugged me. The above memo Subject:Nicknames for ordinance 24/11/44 is the closest we have to a contemporary source, although I am aware of Hohums' concerns regarding OR and primary source (mis?)useage. This appears to be a memo discussing nicknames for various hardware, basically stemming from nickname envy towards the USAAF from the ground branch. It mentions that Jackson should be used in any PR releases. It appears it was not, in any sources that we have been able to find. The earlier May memo is interesting because it has now accepted by men in the field asterisks next to the Priest, Long Tom and Bazooka only. This appears to be a recognition that user naming acceptance was regarded as important. It appears that it was not taken up by the T.D units fielding the M36. It appears that "Little David", "Calliope", and "General Pershing" gained troop acceptance by the war's end. My hunch is still that model manufacturer researchers (they researched vehicle history very thoroughly I believe) happened upon this memo, and introduced it. It must have been a quiet Friday in the office that November day in 1944 in Washington D.C. I am still seeing no compelling arguments to add Jackson as a widely accepted naming for the M36. Irondome (talk) 21:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think that is basically that then, right? We have a contemporary resource using the name Jackson, and the official Journal of the US Army using it 40 years later. Between those we have lots of mass market use, along with some that doesn't use it. I can see no reason that the article should not include a statement to this effect:

The Army began giving their vehicles and some other weapons nicknames during the late stages of WWII, and assigned the M36 the name "Jackson". However, this name does not seem to have seen any widespread use at the time. It only begins to appear in print thirty years later, and today it is almost universally mentioned.

If anyone can give a cogent reason not to include this, I'd love to hear it.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not seeing any evidence that it was widely accepted by it's users at the time. If you read the memo and the may one, you will notice a lot of half-arsed nicknames for other weapons and vehicles that were not subsequently used. I think the central point is widely accepted naming for the M36. In other words, did the crews call it Jackson? We still have not established that. The memos just appear to be suggestions. There is no evidence that these were official ordinance dept designations. Indeed they just appear to be trial balloons, some of which didnt fly. Not seeing it's use except in a couple of memos and on model kit boxes. Unsure about the U.S army article mention. It seems an aberration as it is my understanding that the U.S Army invariably used and uses official numbering and letter code designations instead of nicknames, especially in field and training manuals, M4, M16, M60, M47, M1AI, etc. I assume the US army journal is for civilian usage as well, which may explain it. I would be comfortable with the naming issue being dealt with in a short seperate section, but not in the lede. What do others think? Irondome (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have to deal with the name partly in the lede, if only to acknowledge the name 'Jackson' is sometimes used, and as M36 Jackson is a redirect to this article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unless we want to repeat this exercise every few weeks, we need something in the lede. People rarely go past the fold, IME. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Maury. I am certainly comfortable with the new addition to the lede. Simon. Irondome (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source does not support Stonewall, nor does it reliably support actual adoption of proposal.[edit]

First, and most obvious point: the reference says nothing about which Jackson was the namesake, and that may have been deliberate.

More importantly, it does not show that the proposal was actually adopted, only that documents had been made supporting it. Given that, if implemented this would have led to thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of examples, it's obvious that the proposal did not go forward. The cite isn't bad, but it's a primary document that flies in the face of -every- contemporaneous secondary one.

Finally, we have the fact that the Germans had assigned the "Jackson" name to the Pershing, moreor less contemporaneously. Anmccaff (talk) 04:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I may make an observation, that was not the proposal. The proposal was "Black Jack", and is seen in a memorandum dated 02May1944. [1]The document cited, dated 24Nov44 is an order, issued by the appropriate authority with competence in the area (Ordnance were in charge of nomenclature). That the troops in the field didn't take to the name is irrelevant, they probably had more pressing concerns than nicknames for their vehicles. US Troops generally didn't call their tanks "Shermans" either, M4 and "Medium" being the default name, though there is little debate when it is used in the American context. Further, that the opposition mixed up enemy nomenclature is hardly proof positive: Initially the Soviets referred to Ferdinands as Panterras. That would not deny the assignment of "Panther" to the Pz V.64.201.252.170 (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just a question of "troops in the field," it's a question of "damn near everyone." No other official documents. No press releases, no newspaper articles, no memoirs, no after-action reports, no commercial use. Orders are written, signed, and quietly taken behind the barn and shot on a regular basis, and that obviously happened here.
I agree that enemy use prove little in itself, but it does suggest, at a level suitable for the talk page, a reason why there may be some confusion, and suggests avenues for further research. Anmccaff (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(PS: Any problems with my indenting your edit? If so, feel free to nuke it.) Anmccaff (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indent away. Now I see how it's done :) . Taken behind the barn or not, the name was assigned in an official order. This is an objective fact, not subject to subjective assessments such as "just how much traction it achieved." In any case, it would appear that it received 'enough' traction to survive, given that the name "Jackson" has long been associated with the vehicle, even if nobody could put their finger on why. Case in point, Harry Yeide's book "The Tank Killers," which is I would submit the definitive work on Tank Destroyers and cited multiple times on this page already, came out in 2004, long before the Ordnance Branch order was put online. He refers to the vehicle as "M36 Jackson", and he's usually quite finnicky about using period terminology (Who else uses "doughs" to refer to GI infantry?). Somehow the name got from "Ordnance Branch" to "Common 21st Century Knowledge", even if none of the press releases from 1944 have been located.2601:644:8601:3420:3CE2:9F9A:8CDE:71E4 (talk) 03:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, a side question: MVCC/MVPA? Your writing looks vaguely familiar from when I was researching one of the m151-derived "miniHMMV" designs.
I agree that the name came from somewhere, and the abortive adoption orders mentioned here is a part of that, and possibly a prominent one...but it looks like it never went anywhere. Press releases generate press, and there just does not seem to be any. That strongly implies this died off, and quickly. Anmccaff (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've always wanted to purchase an M151, does that count? Sadly, my finances and the fact that I live in an urban area with no parking denies my ability to purchase any ex-military vehicles. I have never done any work or research on the truck, either the original or a HMMWV variant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.201.252.170 (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK. Is the other IP up there also you?
Speaking of purchasin m151s, an unchopped one just jold in San Jose/Santa Clara/SomewhereNearThere on craiglist; fellow was asking 15k. Jayzus. Anmccaff (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Then let's be constructive and find a solution beyond the revert)[edit]

Removing badly sourced, inaccurate information is being constructive. Replacing information based on an inappropriate primary source is not. Anmccaff (talk)

I'm sorry, what's inappropriate about the primary source other than the sheer fact that it's a primary source? Laura Scudder | talk 20:44, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because the primary source is being interpreted. A memorandum of a proposal might not mean it was actually adopted. We need a reliable secondary source to make that interpretation for it to be on wikipedia. (Hohum @) 23:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. To use an analogy, by this same method we could prove the Dewey Presidency. Anmccaff (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Chieftain here, the finder of the documents in question in the Archives. The document linked in this section ( http://worldoftanks.com/dcont/fb/imagesforarticles/chieftains_hatch/names/nicknames1.jpg ) is not the document in question. That was, indeed, the proposal memorandum of May 1944 seeking suggestions. The actual document is http://worldoftanks.com/dcont/fb/imagesforarticles/chieftains_hatch/names/nicknames5.jpg , which is an order dated November 1944, not a memorandum. The order states "The following list of names has been adopted". There are plenty of books associating the Jackson name with M36, three have been cited above on this page (Military Review, Armed Forces, The Tank Killers). It may not have been 'commonly' adopted, but it was officially adopted, and adopted with at least sufficient levels of traction for it to be commonly associated with the vehicle up until this day.86.42.132.221 (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://worldoftanks.com/dcont/fb/imagesforarticles/chieftains_hatch/names/nicknames1.jpg
Chieftain is apparently going to have a book out these year that will mention the nickname issue. I would argue that will give us something solid to cite.©Geni (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it is simply what is contained here, then it still isn't worth citing. There isn't much doubt this is the origin of the later nickname, but I'd say that there is even less doubt that that it was never actually promulgated. Anmccaff (talk) 07:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The document specifically states that the name "has been adopted and will be used". The use of the name appears to be a forgone conclusion. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...and yet, somehow, it wasn't. No secondary cites. No primary outside of this one. Zip. Zilch. As I said above, this is like the Dewey presidency, and a case in point why primary sources can be dangerous. Anmccaff (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, but I'll re-post this line: "There are plenty of books associating the Jackson name with M36, three have been cited above on this page (Military Review, Armed Forces, The Tank Killers)." Does this not meet your secondary requirement? (And why does this requirement even exist? By definition, there must be a first 'secondary' citation) . Edit: why not simply state that "The official name of 'General Jackson' did not find widespread use at the time"? Chieftain64.201.252.170 (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First, no one is disputing that there are a good many secondary cites from 25 years later, but there is next to nothing contemporaneously. Aside from the ones you dug up, there don't seem to be any other military primary cites, and only a tiny sprinkling of GM press releases.
Why is it important to find contemporaneous cites? Because if this order was actually promulgated, there should be tons of them. Why aren't there? Finding references to Shermans, Garands, Long Toms, Bouncing Bettys, Jeeps, and Peeps is simple and straightforward, no? Anmccaff (talk) 07:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you have not actually put any effort into trying to find period references to nicknames for the M36, as if you expect them to come to you. I work in the U.S. national archives and alongside many other researchers from around the world. Both General Jackson and Slugger are quite common names applied to the M36. I have at least half a dozen instances that I can think of off the top of my head of a primary source stating official nicknames for the M36, but I know that there's no point in trying to post them since wikipedia values tertiary and secondary sources far above primary sources. The funny thing about that is even more secondary sources corroborate the nicknames, on top of the primary sources. This is just another example of a person so convinced that they are right that they claim ownership of a wiki page and will not allow it to be changed no matter the sources; this is why wikipedia can never be fixed. Hunter12396 (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No one is disputing that certain “Official Nicknames” were mooted for several pieces of equipment. The point is that some of ‘em stuck, and some of ‘em didn’t. I can find about two worthwhile contemporaneous sources for “Slugger” or “Blackjack” for the M36; how many would I find for “Sherman” or “Garand”? Qwirkle (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How is that relevant? The majority of sources that mention the Sherman just call it "M4" or "a medium", so "not as many as you'd think" is the answer. You're comparing an extremely common vehicle that was used in many different services with a relatively rare vehicle that was only used by the Tank Destroyer Branch, a branch that hardly ever used nicknames and called all of their vehicles by their designations, or just "TDs". Its almost painfully hypocritical how you can say you can find "about two worthwhile contemporaneous sources" and yet in the same breath deny the very thing those sources support- and why? Because "they weren't used enough"? Please point me toward the objective source on "how much something needed to be used before it can be said it was used at all", because that's not only an opinion, but an oxymoron. Hunter12396 (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It’s relevant in that there was real contemporaneous use “Sherman” in the US. It showed up in reportage of British battles, in reportage of Lend-Lease production, and it had to be known to communicate with British Army units; and it made its back from these to be a commonplace fairly rapidly. This isn’t an obscure piece of trivia like “Jackson” or “Slugger” is, and when all is said and done, researching the ins-and outs of those two names will remove the modifier “obscure”, but it’ll still be trivia.

I suspect, by the way, that your mind-reading skills need a little touching up, unless you are using the generic “you” there. Qwirkle (talk) 09:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply to the comment underneath this one; Sherman appears in British documentation every time the tank is mentioned because that was its name *in British service*, in US service it was called M4, and Sherman was the nickname, which didn't need to be in battle reports and such. General Sherman was given to the vehicle by the US, it is only antiquated and poor sources that claim it was given by the British. I'd hardly say that General Jackson is "obscure" when every book and modern media reference to the M36 includes it. Again you are setting your opinion as law. Your opinion that the nickname of the vehicle counts as "trivia" is not in line with what wikipedia counts as trivia (Wikipedia:HTRIV). Trivia is information unrelated to the article's subject; I'd say that the very name of the subject is not unrelated information. Hunter12396 (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sherman wasn't a nickname - it was the official name for the M4 in British service. The British allocated such names (Stuart, Lee, Grant, Sherman, the Washington for the B-29) and avoided the M- system. For the Sherman, the name stuck into US service too, although how much in comparison to M4 is a matter of folklore by now. However the British didn't use the 90mm, or thus the M36, so didn't give it a name. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am well aware of the British convention of naming vehicles. You have fallen into the old myth of the British giving the M4 the name Sherman, while in reality it was the US that assigned it the name General Sherman first. The myth comes from the fact that of course the British called the vehicle "Sherman" while the US called it "M4" in paperwork, so to the unstudious observer it appears the British pioneered the name, when they did not. No one has made the claim, so far as I can see, that General Jackson was assigned to the M36 by the British, because like you said they didn't use it. The British did not come up with any of the other "General" names either (Stuart, Lee, Grant, Scott, Chaffee, Pershing, Patton, Sheridan, Abrams). Hunter12396 (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yet you seem strangely unable to source any of this. For a 'myth', the British naming of Sherman does at least have evidence to back it up. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hunnicut's Sherman (pg 122) is one source I can throw out there. I know I've seen the original documents on the subject but I can't find them at the moment (convenient, I know). The only evidence you'll have for the British naming the Sherman comes from Steven Zaloga's work for Osprey, and all the books based on those books. Zaloga is primarily responsible for perpetuating that myth. Hunter12396 (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lede[edit]

Why does the article (in the lede no less) explain that American soldiers called a tank destroyer "tank destroyer"? 91.10.51.246 (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? And it says they called it "TD", not "tank destroyer" - BilCat (talk) 00:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Combat use[edit]

There is a small mistake in the "Combat use" section: 

Corporal Anthony Pinto of the 1st Platoon, Company A, 814th Tank Destroyer Battalion knocked out a Panther at 4,200 yards.

should be 

Corporal Anthony Pinto of the 1st Platoon, Company A, 610th Tank Destroyer Battalion knocked out a Panther at 4,200 yards.

<ref>

Roy McGrann, The 610th Tank Destroyer Battalion, 1946. Chapter XVIII Reports on Company Action, Company A First Platoon by Sgt. Rudy Pohle: "The Platoon then supported the 87th Division outside of Gros Rederching where Tony Pinto did some excellent shooting in knocking out a tank at 4200 yards."

Harry Yeide, The Tank Killers, 2007. Page 174

<\ref>

Also, I remember Tony Pinto from 610th TD battalion reunions many years ago (the 610th was my dad's unit).

73.60.232.177 (talk) 04:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)Chip Stewart[reply]

Mentioning "Jackson"[edit]

From what I've seen in the previous talk page sections, there is enough evidence that the name Jackson was used for this vehicle. I haven't read everything properly, though, so I'm not going to say anything concrete. However, even if, let's say, there aren't reliable sources using the name – shouldn't there still be a mention of this name somewhere in the article? I mean, come on, it's surely better known as "Jackson" than "M36 GMC", even if Wikipedia's rules don't allow us to call the vehicle as such. I'd find it common sense to at least add a reference that the vehicle is also known under that name, if needed, with a "citation needed" mark. Lupishor (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:M36_tank_destroyer&oldid=1202408226"