On the M36B1 tank destroyer did they have dry or wet ammo stowage? The reason I ask is because they were built on the late M4A3 hull and they generally used the wet stowage ammo on those I've never seen any interior pics of an M36 or M36B1
Chad

Wow! I shall say dry stowage. Big guess. I could not find any reference that clearly noted the ammo stowage. I can see Rob and Gunnie diving through their libraries as I write...
DJ

Zod

Just read in the Hunnicutt book that new racks were released for production in '45 to store the bare rounds. This was a result of problems with storage of the rounds in the water proof containers used to replace the fiberboard ones.

Steve--I guess we can reasonably conclude that dry stowage was in vogue for the M36B1. I could not find a darn thing on it.
DJ

DJ - I did rut around in the books last night, and couldn't find anything to indicated it wasn't dry-stowage either...

Gunnie

Zod--as Gunnie stated--info is lacking to pursue your question. Once again the educated guess is based on the use of the hull. They wanted to get the hard hitting 90mm gun of the M-36 into action and used the available M-4 hulls to do it. I am intrigued because they used the M-4 hulls. Was there something wrong with the original hull for the M-36? I would have thought that Ford/GM type Sherman engines were the common engine for armored vehicles. Could have been a suspension problem. Or, they might have had more turrets than chassis available. Interesting.
DJ

At the time they were short of TD hulls and were in the process of rebuilding M10 hulls to to M36 standards. The need for the 90mm gun was so great that they decided to use M4 hulls to get the harder hitting gun to the troops. You have to remember that ammo storage for the 90mm round would follow the type of storage for the M-36 and not the M4 (90mm vs whatever). I'd guess they would have use modified racks for the M36 to store the 90mm rounds in the M4 hull. Check the time period the M36B was produced and compare it to the type of racks in the M36 and you'll probably be close. I'll do a little more looking tonight.

Thanks for the info fellas When Academy comes out with their M36,I may have to see if I can mate a Tamiya or Italeri upper A3 hull so I can model an M36B1
Bad thing about driving an 18 wheeler is I don't have a whole lot of room for reference material and models,clothes and my other stuff I wish I would have bought the Hunnicut sherman book now
Chad

They used the M4A3 chassis because they were more readily available than the M10 chassis as there was a critical need for the 90mm gun.

Yes DJ, they had more turrrets than chassis. When they ran out of the M10A1 chassis they used the diesel M10s which became the M36B2.

Yes, they used "dry" storage. The wet boxes were not of the required size and time did not allow a remake. Remember these were rushed into service. The only true text I found was in Steven Zaloga's book "U.S. Tank Destroyers in Combat 1941 - 1945, which just states that the ammuntion storage had to be rearranged.

Here's a good site which should answer all remaining questions on the M36 and it's variants:

http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/90mmgmcm36.html

Another wonderful little find is the CD from Enygma Graphics. Loaded with photos of the U.S. TDs of WWII.

http://www.enygmag.com/military/tank%20destroyers/tankdestroyers2.htm

19K--very nice websites. Another blinding flash of the obvious for me. They would have to modify the stowage racks from 75/76mm to accomodate the 90 mm ammunition. Double "Duh." I bet that was no small task, the difference is significant both in terms of length and width of the round.
DJ