Thread: The pershing tank

Originally Posted by Cowman88

The M26 filled a different role than the Sherman. The Sherman was an infantry support tank and the M26 was a heavy tank. Also the American concept on tank warfare at the time was tanks support infantry tank destroyers kill tanks tanks do not fight tanks. And the Sherman did just fine against panzer 3's and 4's it was the Tiger's and panther's that the could not kill.

No, the Sherman was an explotation tank. US doctrine called for a tank optimized to kill trucks, have good mobility, range and speed that was easy to produce enmasse. No other AFV has been produced in such numbers in such a short time.

Wis,

The M-36 had the 90mm but was otherwise a re-turreted M4. The M26 was an M4 on steroids as it used the same engine, transmission, turret ring etc... socould have put it in the feild with a minimium of muss and fuss. However this was a serious problem. The M26 came in at 13 tons heavier so the Sherman drive train was overstressed and tended to fail.

Stitch,

M26- better firepower, heavier armor
M4- faster, better mobility, better range, better reliability, lower cost to produce and keep in the feild.

If your tanking on lots of Mk V and VI Panzers I'd want the M26. If your a general facing a German army that is collapsing and the chance of breakthrough is high the Sherman seems to be the better choice.

Originally Posted by Clytisimo

Hmm... I see. Well, the problem was (Correct me if I am wrong) that the Panzer IV's and Panther tanks used sloped armor like the Russian T-34, correct? Which nullified the ability for the American 75mm in the M4 to be able to damage its frontal armor. (Note, I am asking this; I am not entirely sure if I am correct or not. )

No, the panther sloped its armor, the IV did not. However both used face hardening to boost protection levels. The problem for the Sherman was the M3 75mm gun a derivitive of the classic French model 97 75mm feild gun. It had a low muzzel velocity which limited AT performance after 1943. Had it been equiped with a HEAT warhead that could properly fuse when hitting sloped armor the performance would have been better. The US 2.36" Bazooka could penetrate 125mm of armor and the German 3.5" Panzershreck could punch 200mm

Given the fusing problems, the standard AT round for allied tanks was the Armor Piercing Ballistic Capped (APBC) developed by the British. The round used a cap of extra hard material to punch the face hardening which then let the rest of the round penetrate the normal steel armor. However APBC was is very short supply with production beign reserved for the M1A1 76mm, M7 3inch gun.

Originally Posted by zraver

No, the panther sloped its armor, the IV did not. However both used face hardening to boost protection levels. The problem for the Sherman was the M3 75mm gun a derivitive of the classic French model 97 75mm feild gun. It had a low muzzel velocity which limited AT performance after 1943. Had it been equiped with a HEAT warhead that could properly fuse when hitting sloped armor the performance would have been better. The US 2.36" Bazooka could penetrate 125mm of armor and the German 3.5" Panzershreck could punch 200mm

Given the fusing problems, the standard AT round for allied tanks was the Armor Piercing Ballistic Capped (APBC) developed by the British. The round used a cap of extra hard material to punch the face hardening which then let the rest of the round penetrate the normal steel armor. However APBC was is very short supply with production beign reserved for the M1A1 76mm, M7 3inch gun.

The late war Sherman 76mm was a big improvement over the 75mm/38 but the production ammo had problems with being too hard, the projectiles would frequently shatter. It was not corrected until the end of the war (the 76 was only fielded in 1944, so it served through the rest of WWII with the ammo issues). The British equipped a substantial number of Shermans with their 76mm gun, called the 17 Pdr (Sherman Firefly), it had no such trouble with ammo, and could penetrate a Panther or Tiger from the front - the Germans treated it as a priority target, - its armor was not upgraded, and it was very vulnerable to German gunfire.

aditional to your post stich........ excellent post by the way

German Panther tank vs M26 Pershing - The Battle of Köln

Originally Posted by Stitch

Back to the original question: which was the better tank? Probably the Pershing. Just how good it was can probably be gleaned from an incident that happened towards the end of the War in Cologne. A lone Panther was "guarding" the cathedral in Cologne against the Allies, and had success against a couple of M4's, until the Amies were able to get an M26 into position to knock out the lone Panther. The best website I've found describing this action is here.

Although the M26 had better armor than the Sherman- better ballistic sloping and slightly thicker. The panther's L70 gun could penetrate it at considerable range. The armor was also basically paper compared to the 88mm L/71. Even the 75mm L48 or US 76mm could penetrate it at close range. The Pershing (100mm) does not stack up well vs the Centurion (152mm), IS-2 (132mm) or Konigstiger (180mm). It only really compares to the Tiger I (110mm non-sloped) and Panther (120mm) tanks.

same goes for firepower (pen at 1000m/y)

75mm L48 100mm
75mm L/71 170mm
88mm L/56 138mm
88mm L/71 192mm
122mm D25T 200m
17 pounder 231mm
20 pounder 300mm
76mm L1A1 101m
90mm M3 120mm (255mm with HVAP)

The M26 wasn't a superior tank, but it did give the US the ability to fight on closer to equal terms.

Originally Posted by T_igger_cs_30

aditional to your post stich........ excellent post by the way

German Panther tank vs M26 Pershing - The Battle of Köln

The vid makes me wonder why we ever became Tankies

Originally Posted by tankie

The vid makes me wonder why we ever became Tankies

Yes; after watching that, it makes you wonder why anybody would voluntarilly get into a tank again.