tanks/vehicles Japanese M36B2

[CroSSingLake 37]

Due to the outbreak of Korea War, the GHQ ordered Japan to re-militarize and also the US provided plenty of M4A3E8 Sherman and M24 Chaffee tanks to help Japan form their armed police force. However, those tanks didn't fit the Japanese Soldiers owing to their smaller physique. In order to replace the obsolete Sherman and Chaffee tanks, Japan imported 1 M36B2 to help developing the new made-in-Japan tanks.

 

Today, I gonna show you some photos of this M36B2 which is now in Japan.

 

 

There are 2 differences between this Japanese M36B2 and the M36 which is currently in the US TD line.

 

-1. This cannon should be the M3A1 cannon due to the following photos.

 

 

the muzzle brake is the same with the M3A1 cannon equipped on the M46 Patton tanks.

There is a picture of M46 tank .

 

 

Those 2 pictures tell us the M36B2 in japan is equipped with the M3A1 cannon.

 

-2. There is a additional ball-mounted machine gun on the co-driver side.

 

 

Now, we have an article to seek the M36B1 and M36B2 variants in the Further discussion, so you can find the specification in this topic.

Hope we can get the M36B2 for both Japan and America.

 

----------------------------------------reference---------------------------------------------

http://www.geocities.jp/aobamil/shasin/M36B2/M36B2.html (photo borrow from here)

 

Edited March 10, 2018 by CroSSingLake
grammar wrong

[leroyonly 4,310]

Open for discussion. 

[Van_Darkholme69 500]

Japan does need more tanks, and while I would much prefer domestic TD's like the Ho-Ri 1 and Ho-Ru, I'm not at all against this idea. +1

[Nell_Lucifer 927]

I think there was a japanese M36 with a ST-A turret

[Admiral_Aruon 2,264]

i'm all for it. japanese tanks have crap for armor anyways, the variety is lacking, and at 6.0 or 6.3 it'll be able to handle uptiers well since it has effectively the same gun as the M46/M47/ST-As/Type 61 with its HEAT-FS.

[Lineins 220]

need it！！！
There is only Tiger 1 in BR 5.7 of the current Japanese tree, it is very difficult to organize with BR 5.7.
Tiger 1 (5.7) + M4 (5.3) + Chi-Ri (5.0) or Ho-Ro
The difficulty of organization is very high compared to other countries.
If M36 can join here, it will be a big power boost for the Japanese tree.
This is absolutely necessary.

 

However, in my memory I feel that M36 obtained by JSDF was M36B1 ,not B2 ...

There was such a description in the special issue of Type 61 of Panzer magazine released by Argonaut Corporation.

It is speculated that the remodeling, in which a machine gun was added to the car body replacing the original main gun with M3A1, was remodeled with Akabane depot.

Edited March 11, 2018 by Lineins

[Milocat 4,854]

Definitely.  +1. 

 

Japan already has the M24, M42, and Easy 8, so I don't see the harm in adding this too.

[CroSSingLake 37]

1 hour ago, Lineins said:

However, in my memory I feel that M36 obtained by JSDF was M36B1 ,not B2 ...

There was such a description in the special issue of Type 61 of Panzer magazine released by Argonaut Corporation.

It is speculated that the remodeling, in which a machine gun was added to the car body replacing the original main gun with M3A1, was remodeled with Akabane depot.

 

Hi, you can see the reference page, the title is M36B2 but the comment beside the 1st photo says that is a M36B1.

I was really confusing. However, the M36B1 is using the M4A3 chassis while the M36B2 is using the M10 chassis.

This image shows us the difference between M36.

So, I think I am right because the picture I posted really doesn't look like a Sherman chassis.

----------------------

image from the link: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/360737-m36b2-jackson-m3a1-modernized-tank-hunter-regular/

 

 

[Lineins 220]

19 minutes ago, CroSSingLake said:

 

Hi, you can see the reference page, the title is M36B2 but the comment beside the 1st photo says that is a M36B1.

I was really confusing. However, the M36B1 is using the M4A3 chassis while the M36B2 is using the M10 chassis.

This image shows us the difference between M36.

So, I think I am right because the picture I posted really doesn't look like a Sherman chassis.

----------------------

image from the link: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/360737-m36b2-jackson-m3a1-modernized-tank-hunter-regular/

 

 

Oh! That certainly even look like B2!

 

[Jarms 1,558]

12 hours ago, Lineins said:

There is only Tiger 1 in BR 5.7 of the current Japanese tree, it is very difficult to organize with BR 5.7.
Tiger 1 (5.7) + M4 (5.3) + Chi-Ri (5.0) or Ho-Ro
The difficulty of organization is very high compared to other countries.
If M36 can join here, it will be a big power boost for the Japanese tree.
This is absolutely necessary.

 

However, in my memory I feel that M36 obtained by JSDF was M36B1 ,not B2 ...

There was such a description in the special issue of Type 61 of Panzer magazine released by Argonaut Corporation.

It is speculated that the remodeling, in which a machine gun was added to the car body replacing the original main gun with M3A1, was remodeled with Akabane depot.

 

The standard M36 is 5.7, so unless you drop the standard M36 to 5.3, the M36B2 would have to go to at least 6.0. The M36B2 clearly has a better 90mm gun.

Edited March 12, 2018 by Jarms

[Lineins 220]

8 hours ago, Jarms said:

 

The standard M36 is 5.7, so unless you drop the standard M36 to 5.3, the M36B2 would have to go to at least 6.0. The M36B2 clearly has a better 90mm gun.

What is the difference between 90mm M3 and M3A1?
In the data in Japan it is only written that it added a Bore evacuator and  muzzle brake to the main gun.
How much does performance improve?

It is not written that the penetration performance has improved with the books I have ...

Edited March 12, 2018 by Lineins

[MiseryIndex556@psn 13,154]

11 hours ago, Lineins said:

What is the difference between 90mm M3 and M3A1?
In the data in Japan it is only written that it added a Bore evacuator and  muzzle brake to the main gun.
How much does performance improve?

It is not written that the penetration performance has improved with the books I have ...

 

The M3A1 doesn’t have any extra performance compared to the M3. It was just put on tanks that also had HEATFS. 

[KapitanRedDead 462]

This is extremely interesting to look over and considering how the Japanese tree is currently I would fully say that this is a great idea. 

 

We would now just need to find information lol. 

[Deathbringer007 118]

Sure why not?

[Jarms 1,558]

On ‎13‎/‎03‎/‎2018 at 6:55 AM, *MiseryIndex556 said:

The M3A1 doesn’t have any extra performance compared to the M3. It was just put on tanks that also had HEATFS. 

 

Perhaps I worded it wrong, I meant the extra performance would come from said HEAT shell. Which warrants a higher BR rating than the regular M36.

[WayOfTheWolk 1,573]

+1

You have my greatest support for a great suggestion. The M36 Jackson is always a good tank to have in your tech tree and the B2 version certainly improves upon that by bringing the best of the tank to the battlefield. Given the Japanese historically operated it why not.

[WindowsXPisBest@psn 1,595]

So they went from M10 Wolverine Chasis to Sherman Chasis to back to Wolverine Chasis?

[Admiral_Aruon 2,264]

On 19/08/2018 at 13:39, *cartman400 said:

So they went from M10 Wolverine Chasis to Sherman Chasis to back to Wolverine Chasis?

 

well the M10 chassis is basically a cut down M4A2 sherman chassis.

[Wiggly_Armed_Man 2,383]

Are we sure that the Japanese used this and it isn't just a donated museum piece? I can't find any record of them actually using an M36 or an M36B2 aside from this PDF saying the additional ball-gun mount on the hull was a post-war modification.

[Tasty95215 2,099]

4 hours ago, Wiggly_Armed_Man said:

Are we sure that the Japanese used this and it isn't just a donated museum piece? I can't find any record of them actually using an M36 or an M36B2 aside from this PDF saying the additional ball-gun mount on the hull was a post-war modification.

 

From what I can tell, it was mostly just used to help develop the Type 61. So better than a museum piece, but it still never actually saw service with the JGSDF.

[Wiggly_Armed_Man 2,383]

36 minutes ago, Tasty95215 said:

 

From what I can tell, it was mostly just used to help develop the Type 61. So better than a museum piece, but it still never actually saw service with the JGSDF.

If that's the case then I would rather not want it in the game for the same reason as the M47: it'll open up the possibility for vehicles only used for testing or evaluation to be added in which could make it plausible for the United States to receive mass amounts of German vehicles. Also, at least in my opinion, Japan isn't in the dire need of a tank destroyer to fill up some massive gap.

[WayOfTheWolk 1,573]

36 minutes ago, Wiggly_Armed_Man said:

If that's the case then I would rather not want it in the game for the same reason as the M47: it'll open up the possibility for vehicles only used for testing or evaluation to be added in which could make it plausible for the United States to receive mass amounts of German vehicles. Also, at least in my opinion, Japan isn't in the dire need of a tank destroyer to fill up some massive gap.

Give it the same status as a prototype, it was only used for testing and evaluation. I don't see you complaining about some of the more controversial suggestions like the Type 74 turret on the STT chassis or the Chi-Ha TG so why go after a conventional tank that was actually fully built and used even in a training role. Furthermore we know the Japanese attempted to put an order in for the M47 Patton only to be denied then after due to European orders under the Marshall Plan. 

[Wiggly_Armed_Man 2,383]

6 minutes ago, Private_Wolk said:

Give it the same status as a prototype, it was only used for testing and evaluation. I don't see you complaining about some of the more controversial suggestions like the Type 74 turret on the STT chassis or the Chi-Ha TG so why go after a conventional tank that was actually fully built and used even in a training role. Furthermore we know the Japanese attempted to put an order in for the M47 Patton only to be denied then after due to European orders under the Marshall Plan. 

I'm not complaining about them because I know they don't have a chance to be added; one is a test chassis and the other would be a RBT-5 without the fun.

 

They weren't denied an M47, they refused it themselves and only used a single M47 as an evaluation model for their ST series for the Type 61. The Marshall Plan also ended the same year the M47 was first introduced. Its successor, the Mutual Security Act, was similarly made irrelevant in 1953, and the United States Foreign Operations Administration in 1955 when the powers were split between the Department of State and Defense. It has no impact on the M47 being denied to the Japanese, as I said they themselves refused to use American tanks beyond the Shermans. 

 

The M36B2 wasn't used in service by them, it wasn't a prototype, and it wasn't ever intended to see any operational duties beyond being an evaluation model from what I have been told which makes it nonsensical to add along with there being no significant void that the M36B2 could fill at 5.7.

[armando30 493]

On 11/03/2018 at 14:33, CroSSingLake said:

 

Hi, you can see the reference page, the title is M36B2 but the comment beside the 1st photo says that is a M36B1.

I was really confusing. However, the M36B1 is using the M4A3 chassis while the M36B2 is using the M10 chassis.

This image shows us the difference between M36.

So, I think I am right because the picture I posted really doesn't look like a Sherman chassis.

 

I don't know why are you all so confused, all M36s and M10s were based on Shermans

the M36 was based on the M10A1, they produced 300 turretless M10A1s to mount the new turret with the 90mm gun, from then on they were produced directly as M36s

the M10A1 was based on the M4A3, internally it was the same but externally it was like the M10 we know

the M10 on the other hand had been based on the chassis of the M4A2

the M36B1 was simply the same turret of the M36 mounted on a M4A3, the same base model for the M10A1 and M36

the M36B2 were converted M10's with the M36 turret and gun, as mentioned before the base hull was the M4A2

 

additionally the "roof" found on the 3rd photo was a standardized modification and available to all M36 variants, there was also a different one for the M10 because its turret had a different shape

lastly the gun on the M36B2, several M36s were upgunned with the 90mm M3A1 cannon, that not only included he M36B2 but the B1 and standard M36 as well (that means all 3 variants have 2 subvariants, 90mm M3 or 90mm M3A1 cannon with different performance)

 

so yeah, all M36s should look like Shermans because they were made with Sherman hulls

Edited October 29, 2019 by armando30

[armando30 493]

On 12/03/2018 at 09:17, Lineins said:

What is the difference between 90mm M3 and M3A1?
In the data in Japan it is only written that it added a Bore evacuator and  muzzle brake to the main gun.
How much does performance improve?

It is not written that the penetration performance has improved with the books I have ...

 

you can find that on the wiki pages for the M26 (M3) and M46 (M3A1), the M3A1 had a higher muzzle velocity and that translates into an extra 5mm of penetration with the M82 round (+3mm pen with solid AP round, same pen for APCR) but the most obvious is the availability of more modern ammo which results in having more solutions