JUMBO VOTE
 

Time for another unscientific poll brought to you by Desert Armor Korps. Disregarding all the controversy over rules and regulations, I was wondering what the general consensus might be regarding the setting of the Tamiya Battle System for an M4A3E2 Sherman "Jumbo". I am of the opinion that it could be set as a "Heavy" tank. I have seen a picture of a Jumbo that survived three head on 88mm shots only to be done in by a fourth that penetrated the gunners sight. There are more stories of vehicles that took almost a dozen 75mm hits and survived. I would weigh in that only a later model with the 76mm gun would qualify as a heavy in all practicality.

As a true Sherman-aholic I want to consider this issue before I begin a new project.

RE: JUMBO VOTE
 

Could you show the picture here on the forum and where you got the pictures and stories? I'd like to see the information before I vote. ;)

Thank you,
Pzjgr

RE: JUMBO VOTE
 

It was a heavy, 45 tons wasn't it? Just about as much as a Pershing.

All the E2s were built with the 75mm, they were considered to be point weapons against infantry and emplacements. About 1/2 were modfied in theater with 76mm guns to combat the heavy german armor.

In March and April '45 Patton's Shermans were being uparmored with knocked out tanks steel plate. Several tanks survived hits even when the welds burst and the plate was blown off. These were regular M4, M4A1s and M4A3s. Might have been some M4 Composites too.

RE: JUMBO VOTE
 

Nearly 42 tons, M4A3E2 Jumbo had thicker frontal armor than Tiger...

RE: JUMBO VOTE
 

The Picture of the destroyed Jumbo is in Steve Zaloga's 'US ARMORED FUNNIES' and is widely available. Stories originate from books like 'Hell on wheels, the story of the 2nd armored Division' and 'Caen, Anvil of Victory'

As per the up-armored Shermans, I am intimately aware.....

http://web.mac.com/ethandunsford/DAK...2976_HVSS.html

RE: JUMBO VOTE
 

Thanks for the information. I found where you can download 'The Sherman at War' if anyone is interested:
http://www.myallbooks.com/index.php?...ticle&sid=1784

I'd say yes then, it should be classified as heavy......if people at our battles don't think a +40 ton Sherman Jumbo isn't consider it a heavy does that mean I can set the armor value of my Panther to medium??? :D

Pzjgr

RE: JUMBO VOTE
 

After watching "Tanks" on History...I would say Medium

RE: JUMBO VOTE
 

I edited the book title above...

There was a discussion about the Panther being Medium before. Panthers were vulnerable from the side and rear and were often killed by 75mm Shermans from every angle but the front. The JUMBO was also mostly thick up front but had advantages like power operated turrets, spare parts, and overwhelming Allied airpower.

RE: JUMBO VOTE
 

HEAT, ACE and MACV all run the M4A3E2 Jumbo as a heavy classification. The Panther was called a medium by the Germans but actually it was heavier than all of the mediums that the Allies had.

HTH

RE: JUMBO VOTE
 

Classified as a Medium tank.

http://www.toadmanstankpictures.com/m4a3e2_13.jpg

I think the tag says it all...

RE: JUMBO VOTE
 

Medium because it was based on the Sherman tank. In TBU terms if the the front can take a bashing like a Tiger, weighs a great deal more than a "regular" medium Sherman, then perhaps heavy is the more accurate designation. If only it could keep its speed :)

Whats a near-disabled Sherman like (speed-wise) in comparison to a near-disabled Tiger ?

RE: JUMBO VOTE
 

The tag does say medium, BUT it was an uparmored vehicle, meaning it originally was a medium, rebuilt to be a heavier armored tank.

We are talking about IR battling. Even the later uparmored M4A3E8 Thunderbolt was considered a heavy tank.

If you have participated in Tamiya IR battles and understand the rule classification/consideration that would explain it all. If not ... :D

RE: JUMBO VOTE
 

Assault tank Medium..

RE: JUMBO VOTE
 

Here you go:

http://www.bayareatankers.org/Intell...atified03_.htm

Just for those having a hard time understanding IR battle classifications and have never done so.

RE: JUMBO VOTE
 

Panther is also a "medium tank", but its heaps heavier (and armored) than a Sherman... you can't go by original designations, I mean it's not all black and white -- theres plenty of grey

RE: JUMBO VOTE
 

One method of determining class is by weight or average armor thickness regardless of chassis.

We typically classify Jumbo as a heavy like Danville event do.

The Panther would vary (under the weight/armor method) of classification whereby the 'A' would be medium and the other variants heavy.

RE: JUMBO VOTE
 

Here's the official Military designation. TM-9-2800 Military Vehicles dtd October 1947, ie; latest printed designation. :D

RE: JUMBO VOTE
 

Nice PC, .6 mpg ! Since the battles are for fun, if the majority in the club wanted it to be a heavy I would be ok with it.

RE: JUMBO VOTE
 

There are no jumbos currently among SCAT members, but I feel we would follow ACE, HEAT and MACV and classify the Jumbo as a heavy for our purposes.

RE: JUMBO VOTE
 

The USA only developed 3 tanks in the heavy classification. M-6 (T-1) which was never issued but underwent extensive testing in the early 1940s. Mounted a 75mm and coax 37mm and cal 50 MGs all around.

M-26 Pershing which entered combat in ETO in April 1945 still carrying the T-26E3 ID. The Pershing was reclassified to medium when the Army changed the classification system to center on the gun instead of weight. During WW II Pershings were heavies, to include the Super Pershing. In Korea, M-26, 26A1, 45 and 46's were mediums.

The T-43 developed into the 120mm gun Heavy Tank M-103, used by the 33d Tank Bn, 3d AD in Aschaffennburg, Germany. (This, in answer to the Russian JS-3 and later T-10). The Marines made extensive use of the M-103 with upgrades to the later (A3?) model at Danville.

The T-28/34 projects were only test programs and none were ever issued. One T-30 Heavy tank (one of 8 built) sits at Ft Jackson Museum. It's importance was that it tested the 810 HP Continental V-12 engine and CD-850 transmission for upgrading the Pershing to the M-46 Patton. The turret weighs as much as the M-26, mounted a 155mm gun (largest gun ever mounted in a US combat tank) and required 2 loaders.

No other tank served in the US Military with the heavy classification. What RC tank battle units do has no connection with real tanks and from what I understand, there is no IR device which shoots/hits harder than the other, so other critreria have to be designed to compensate for real tank armor and gun potential. .

RE: JUMBO VOTE
 

My Vote I tend to lean towards it being a heavy for IR battles! Where does it fall in the speed chart??

25ft record time divide by 272 = SMPH for 1/16th scale speed!

0-20 SMPH = Heavy

20-30 SMPH = Medium

30-40 SMPH = Light

> 40 SMPH = Super Light


Lets say it times in around 18; I would still be fine battling against it as a heavy, heck the way we set up the battle fields there is not a lot of room as it is, that kind of evens things out!

OH, and my Panther clocked in at 20 :D:D:D


The Blitz

RE: JUMBO VOTE
 

Bill, did you come to this conclusion from the many years you spent IR battling? :D If you have read the rules on weight/armor classification you would understand.

This question was more for those familiar and experienced with the Tamiya Battle System.

RE: JUMBO VOTE
 

I guess that means Abrams and Leos and light tanks?[X(]

RE: JUMBO VOTE
 

The voting is a bit murky here but so far it looks like 8-5 in favor. Polls are still open!

RE: JUMBO VOTE
 

I believe that the chart was designed for WWII tanks speeds, of course new designs are much faster![sm=shades_smile.gif]