Can anyone give me a quick description on the basic differences between these vehicles? All I know is that they are both open-turreted, panzer-hunting, lighter tanks using Sherman components. Not sure on much more beyond that, besides some good-looking Academy and AFV clubs kits I am eyeing up.
The M-10 carries a converted 3 inch (76.2mm) anti-aircraft gun while the M-36 carries 90mm gun. The M-10 was based on a converetd M4 chassis. When the US needed a more effective tank destroyer to take care of Panthers and Tigers, they upgraded the M-10 with the 90mm gun on a new turret thus giving birth to the M-36. However, some M-36 (M36B2) were based on unconverted M4A3 chassis.
The aren’t considered “light tanks” in official US designation. As Dwight correctly pointed out, the M10 came first and the M36 came later (based on the M10A1 hull – AFV Club’s kit made the horrendous error of using the wrong engine deck – inexcusable!) The M36 (and M10A1) used the Ford GAA engine (same as the M4A3) whereas the M10 used the GM Diesel 6046 engine.
A great book to get is Squadron’s “US Tank Destroyers Walk Around” by Mesko.
By the way, US equipment didn’t use hyphens. It should be M10 and M36 but not M-10 or M-36: FYI
Thanks for the quick education guys – that’s why I posted – I’m here to learn.
Given the similarities between the vehicles, I’ll look at building only one for the forseeable future, and will go with the 90mm M36. With the error that T26E4 pointed out above in AFV Club’s Jackson, I presume Academy’s M36 is the preferred kit? Comments welcome.
Ditto to what T25E4 said.
Oh well, it’s a minor mistake. he’s one of them guys who build them things with wings. F-14A n the rest of those use hyphens. =P
Both M36 kits have their share of problems. You can check out a quick kit review at perthmilitary.com. Generally for less money the Academy kit includes a pretty well detailed interior so it’s slightly a better bargain with the rest of your money going into scratch building for the corrections. I just don’t know what the heck was academy thinking when they put those tracks without the chevrons in the M10 kit though.
The tracks included in Academy’s kit are accurate for the M-10’s, excuse me… M10’s used by the free French forces. Judging by the cover art, that is the Academy’s perfered version. That type of track (T49) was most common on exported Sherman type vehicles. The tracks were known to be much louder than the rubber chevron (T48) or rubber block (T51) tracks, but their construction saved valuable rubber. I’m working on that kit right now, and I’m having a blast with it (the Eduard photo etch helps). The tracks are getting replaced with a nice indy link set from AFV for the T48 variant.
The M36 pics I have show vehicles with T49, T51 (which could be worn down T49’s), and T54 (steel chevron) tracks. However, most of the pics show M36’s with T54 tracks (steel chevron).
One Tank Destroyer or Sherman “Walk Around” book won’t make you an expert, but you’ll feel like you stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Chris
I have done both the M10 Duckbill and the M36. Their both good. The M36, unfortunately, uses the M10 interior and according the the Squadron Walk-around book has incorrect ammo rack lay-out in the turret bustle. As with the track selection, the ammo rack is a relatively easy fix. I also had to modify the turret interior (floor and frame lowered about 3/8") to seat everything properly. Enjoy.