This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
M36 tank destroyer article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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:
Post war the US Army picked upm this convention and began naming its AFV and later IFVs after famous generals throughout its history:
and
143.167.167.170 ( talk) 12:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Andy Loates 143.167.167.170 ( talk) 12:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
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.
Wikipedia doesn't use an editors original research as a reference, nor primary sources in this way. ( Hohum @) 18:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Page move in the next day unless a citation is given. Regards, DMorpheus ( talk) 17:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Move attempted; redirect page for "M36 Tank Destroyer" already exists. Administrator assistance requested 12/31/08. DMorpheus ( talk) 14:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 Jr Loates Jr ( talk) 11:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
How about saying something like:
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
Removing badly sourced, inaccurate information is being constructive. Replacing information based on an inappropriate primary source is not. Anmccaff ( talk)
References
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)
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)
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
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
M36 tank destroyer article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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:
Post war the US Army picked upm this convention and began naming its AFV and later IFVs after famous generals throughout its history:
and
143.167.167.170 ( talk) 12:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Andy Loates 143.167.167.170 ( talk) 12:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
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.
Wikipedia doesn't use an editors original research as a reference, nor primary sources in this way. ( Hohum @) 18:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Page move in the next day unless a citation is given. Regards, DMorpheus ( talk) 17:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Move attempted; redirect page for "M36 Tank Destroyer" already exists. Administrator assistance requested 12/31/08. DMorpheus ( talk) 14:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 Jr Loates Jr ( talk) 11:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
How about saying something like:
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
Removing badly sourced, inaccurate information is being constructive. Replacing information based on an inappropriate primary source is not. Anmccaff ( talk)
References
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)
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)
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
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)