Talk:M36 tank destroyer

message: 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)
thread_title: Korea

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Jackson" ? 

message: :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)
thread_title: Requested Move

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Images with greyed out backgrounds 

message: 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)
replies: text: The name 'Slugger', while never used in real life, recently gained popularity in the 2011 video game World of Tanks . 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 []), 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)
thread_title:  Removing reference to 'British' names 

message: 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)
replies: text: I have put the link to the image via a template for clarity. (Hohum @) 16:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hull Mounted Machine gun 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  All TD's were simply called "TD"s? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: @Maury. I am certainly comfortable with the new addition to the lede. Simon. Irondome (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jackson 

message: 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)
replies: text: Why not? And it says they called it "TD", not "tank destroyer" - BilCat (talk) 00:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Combat use  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mentioning "Jackson"