I have an honest question: was the M26 Pershing ever used to it's full potential during and after WWII? It had a 90mm gun, much more powerful than the M4 Sherman's puny in comparison 75mm... I believe if we'd had more Pershings in WWII that those Panzer tanks wouldn't have been so dang hard to kill, probably. :)
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The pershing tank
Collapse
X
-
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.
-
Part of the problem was also logistics; the supply chain for the USAE was several thousand miles long (all the way from the US). The Pershing was a good tank, but it was also heavier & thirstier, and used completely different ammo than the M4 (which was already in Europe). We were dealing with a new weapons system with it's own supply chain, so it took a while for the M26 to have an impact. TBH, I don't think it was present in Europe in enough strength soon enough to really make a difference, the War had pretty much already been won with the M4 by then."There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge
Comment
-
Originally posted by Stitch View PostPart of the problem was also logistics; the supply chain for the USAE was several thousand miles long (all the way from the US). The Pershing was a good tank, but it was also heavier & thirstier, and used completely different ammo than the M4 (which was already in Europe). We were dealing with a new weapons system with it's own supply chain, so it took a while for the M26 to have an impact. TBH, I don't think it was present in Europe in enough strength soon enough to really make a difference, the War had pretty much already been won with the M4 by then.sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."
Comment
-
Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Postdidn't the M-26 use the same ammo as the M-36 Jackson?
Edit: A quick research indicates that you are correct; but how many M-36's were in service in 1945?"There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge
Comment
-
Originally posted by Stitch View PostYou may be right, I'm not knowledgable enough to answer that question.
Edit: A quick research indicates that you are correct; but how many M-36's were in service in 1945?
It was not until September 1944 that the vehicle first began to appear in the European Theater of Operations. About 1,400 M36s were produced during the war
Comment
-
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."There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge
Comment
-
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. )
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cowman88 View PostThe 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.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Clytisimo View PostHmm... 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View PostNo, 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.Last edited by USSWisconsin; 17 Mar 11,, 14:56.sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Stitch View PostBack 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.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by tankie View PostThe vid makes me wonder why we ever became Tankies ;)"There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge
Comment
Comment