The pershing tank

[Tanker]

Is this the one you're thinking about? This is from Fine Scale Modeler, in their September 2010 issue:





Go here for more info.

No, there were several done when the M26 models hit the shelves a few years back. The model in question was done by an Australian. This is actually a nice model, but I generally don't use models to prove a point and the reason being is that the guy that did the model I question makes the comment in his bio page about it not mattering if it is correct or not because it is HIS interpretation of the piece. Several authors that model scale armor have said the same thing. So I try not to deal with those authors. :)

[Red6]

The US Army was known for modifying their equipment with salaved steel from other tanks they cut apart and mount to their own.

The Sherman and Pershing saw this extensively.

[Tanker]

The US began mass producing the Pershing by wars end albeit the actual designs and tests had been completed far earlier. Tank and Automotive Command insisted on more Shermans and the Pershing took a back seat. This tank only saw limited combat at wars end with about 310 being fielded in the Europen theater. A superb tank in the single minded sense that a layperson thinks of: tank on tank battle. The Pershing could hold his own with a Panther or Tiger and what he didn't have in armor, he made up for with better mobility, radio's, albeit primitive a stabilization system etc.

It isn't common knowledge that the Tiger wasn't all that common either. Two rare tanks rarely meet.

As to the Sherman. This tank won the ground war in the Western theater. No tank was more versitile, as mass produced (in all it's versions), and capable in the "infantry support role." The Sherman from day one was never intended as a heavy tank nor as a tank destroyer. he was a medium tank and doctrinally his purpose was to support infantry. The light tanks like the Chaffe did the recon, the tank destroyers did the tank on tank fight. Shermans were intended to support the infantry and as such they did exceptionally well.

Shermans were equipped with flails that pounded their way through the German mine fields in France (without issue), they carried rocket launchers, hedge row cutters, flame throwers and various other equipment. It was a "common chassis" that also was used for a howitzer, air defense, reconvery vehicle etc. Low fuel consumption (relatively), mechanically very reliable, dimentions that allowed many to be easily shipped via libery ships from the US to Europe, mass producable the Sherman was logistically and economically a very sound choice. They could float and had a low ground pressure making them very capable in terrain as witnessed in their use in Normandy (bad planning made that not work) and the Pacific. While not an imprssive main gun and armor when matched up against other tanks, the Sherman in reality was intended to be a sorts of Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) before such really officially existed. They were used to carry troops and even had carrying handels on them (although you're on the outside), they had a turret rear mounted 50cal (to be used predominetly by folks riding on the rear) and 2 x 30 cal machine guns (1 hull , 1 turret). The main gun was upgraded in the war so that the Sherman had at least a fighting chance against the Panzer, but it was really intended to shoot HE and incinderary shells. In fact, in the begining (early Africa) the Sherman carried no AP rounds and that's why they were completely ineffective against another heavily armored vehicle.

But always remember this- US troops when advancing on a MG position had something like a Sherman with a phone hanging from it's rear that they could use, while the Germans with their awesome Tigers and Panthers had their troops bleed out in places like Stalingrad, Cologone, Berlin...

Before someone else tells you, you need to go here http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/wab...thread-19.html and introduce yourself then fill out your profile info.

I don't know where to start...well, The Sherman was never meant to be an IFV of sorts or any other. Yes it was an infantry support tank. It replaced the M3 Lee which was an infantry support tank. Just like the M2 and M1 combat cars before it. The "handrails" so to speak were meant for gear to be hung from because their was no place in the tank for gear. The .50 cal mount on the back of the tank is most commonly misrepresented as such. That is the storage rack for the M2. There are 2 points on the turret top to mount the M2 and they were designed for the TC (Tank Commander) and the Loader to use to ward off pesky airplanes (I have talked to several tankers of the day who said they NEVER fired at aircraft).

When the Sherman went to Africa with the British units first they went with soft steel. They never assumed that the Germans had an armor piercing round (1) and that they were hardening armor on light and medium tanks (2). The Sherman when it went with US forces had a hardened steel hull and they did have an armor piercing round. The issue was it was uncapped and almost useless against the Panzer 3 and 4.

The Sherman does not float. It could SWIM if the barrier that was made for it was applied correctly. I think there are about 20 of them in the riptide along the Normandy Coast.

...and not all Shermans had a phone. In most cases the phone box doesn't appear until 1944 after Normandy. BUT, enterprising young officers who had access to extra phones would wire an old field phone to exterior and use it...if the tanks were assigned to them.

[Tanker]

The US Army was known for modifying their equipment with salaved steel from other tanks they cut apart and mount to their own.

The Sherman and Pershing saw this extensively.

The US Army was against the mounting of anything other than what was issued on vehicles. Unit mechanics and ordinance men would cut plates for their crews and weld them on as needed. Cutting the front glacis off a Panther was rare but cutting a 2ft by 2ft plate out of it and welding it over an ammo bin on the outside or inside of a tank was common. As I stated above Patton was know for removing sandbags, cement, and steel plating from his Shermans. Also, the Super Pershing above was the only M26 to have extensive plating added to it in theatre.

[Red6]

"Before someone else tells you, you need to go here The new All-in-One Introduction thread and introduce yourself then fill out your profile info.

I don't know where to start...well, The Sherman was never meant to be an IFV of sorts or any other. Yes it was an infantry support tank. It replaced the M3 Lee which was an infantry support tank. Just like the M2 and M1 combat cars before it. The "handrails" so to speak were meant for gear to be hung from because their was no place in the tank for gear. The .50 cal mount on the back of the tank is most commonly misrepresented as such. That is the storage rack for the M2. There are 2 points on the turret top to mount the M2 and they were designed for the TC (Tank Commander) and the Loader to use to ward off pesky airplanes (I have talked to several tankers of the day who said they NEVER fired at aircraft).

When the Sherman went to Africa with the British units first they went with soft steel. They never assumed that the Germans had an armor piercing round (1) and that they were hardening armor on light and medium tanks (2). The Sherman when it went with US forces had a hardened steel hull and they did have an armor piercing round. The issue was it was uncapped and almost useless against the Panzer 3 and 4.

The Sherman does not float. It could SWIM if the barrier that was made for it was applied correctly. I think there are about 20 of them in the riptide along the Normandy Coast."

...and not all Shermans had a phone. In most cases the phone box doesn't appear until 1944 after Normandy. BUT, enterprising young officers who had access to extra phones would wire an old field phone to exterior and use it...if the tanks were assigned to them."

Unlike most the German tanks, the Sherman's were equipped with external phones on many of them, not all. Not all carried rocket launchers on the roof, not all carried flails, not all carried hedge row cutters, not all carried flame throwers, but MANY did. I'm not interested in debating based on semantics nor trying to impress you or boost your ego by debating how many angels can dance on the tip of a pin or what the difference in meaning is between floating or swimming. One of Pattons tanks (Fireball III, I think) stood in front of my company CP on Ray barracks in 2002 - 2005, and it too like many other Shermans had the rails to carry troops as well as a rear mount for a 50 cal. The fact that the Sherman sank off Normandy was a planning error, not because the tank couldn't float. They floated just fine until they ran out of fuel which happens when you don't take into account currents. However, they were also floated in the Pacific where their flame thrower had great success as well. No, not all carried a flame thrower, that's not my point- I'd imagine that would be your next argument to impress us all with your knowledge.

The US didn't hit the beaches of Normandy until 6 June 1944. Guess what, they also didn't have hedge row cutters mounted on them until then. The point is simple- Shermans (many of them had phones), the panzer not so much. The Sherman didn't pack any punch until he received the upgraded gun, the early 75mm (without muzzle brake) didn't have real AP which didn't come until summer 1944 as well. They didn't have the high velocity gun in the begining because they weren't intended to be used as tank destroyers by US doctrine, the British had different plans and they also set their tanks up differently (I don't know much about theirs- Firefly I think did pack punch earlier on), rather an infantry support vehicle for the US forces. However, war is chaos and you can't control things perfectly or fight it like in a textbook. So the inadequecy of the Sherman to fight tanks that were designed to fight other tanks was an issue that had to be dealt with by adding more armor and upraging the gun and ammo. However, that does not change the fact that the Sherman did exceptionally well in his intended role, supporting infantry because a 75mm HE round into a MG position, walking next to the tank which is taking small arms fire and covering your movement in a MOUT setting, etc helps a lot, especially when you have enough tanks and they are actually assigned to these units to do this.

If you have any issue with the fact that this tank supported infantry as his primary role, realize that all the way through Korea that was the case! Even light infantry divisions like 6th ID had Shermans assigned to them in that war. The real closest comparison to what the Germans had would be the "sturmgeschutz," ( Sturmgeschutz III/IV ) which by far fell short of the Sherman. These debates degenerate into arguments over who has more armor and a bigger gun- ignorant.

The Sherman debate is always a flawed argument. People take an infantry support vehicle and compare it to tanks designed to fight other tanks. What is true, is that the Germans had little that compared to the Sherman in capabilities to support their troops.

[zraver]

You can take issue with whatever you want Jason. Hunnicutt, Zaloga, Cooper, and few others all blame those men for the way the TANK war turned out. Patton was NOTORIOUS for making tankers remove the extra armor that Cooper and his team made attempts to procure and add to tanks.

Cooper has been widely and effectively rebutted.

Cooper stated in his book and to an oral history board at the D-Day Museum that of all the units in the European Theatre the armor units were the only units where tanks were running third generation crews by wars end. had the Pershing been shipped earlier it MAY have helped while up gunned Shermans with the T99 turret could have helped as well.

This is one reason cooper is widely discredited, the 3rd Armored division part of first army holds the distinction of the most tanks lost and most men killed of all US armored divisions.

1AD- in Italy
2AD- 1160 dead, 7348 total 238 days of combat
3AD- (1st Army)2540 dead, 9871 total
4AD- 1366 dead, 6212 total
5AD- (9th Army) 570 dead, 2442 total.
6AD- 1272 dead, 4502 total
7AD (1,3,9 Armies) 5799 total
8AD (9, 15 Armies) 469 dead, 2011 wounded.
9AD (1,9,12 Armies) 728 dead, 3845 total
10 AD (7 army) 784 dead, 4697 total

[Tanker]

Unlike most the German tanks, the Sherman's were equipped with external phones on many of them, not all. Not all carried rocket launchers on the roof, not all carried flails, not all carried hedge row cutters, not all carried flame throwers, but MANY did. I'm not interested in debating based on semantics nor trying to impress you or boost your ego by debating how many angels can dance on the tip of a pin or what the difference in meaning is between floating or swimming.

First, the if you are going to post what you did then you need to know that there will be people who will inject their knowledge. The phone was a late war addition. The M24 was the first tank to have a phone added to it in production. Shermans got the phone late in the war and were added in production to the M4A3-105s. I don't debate semantics...I debate. Angels and pins have nothing to do with this conversation. The Sherman cannot float. it needed the swim barrier to project surface tension and the tracks or DD pushed it through the water causing it to swim and like the Bradley if it stopped in the water for to long it would sink like they did at Normandy. The Bradley uses the same technology to get it from one place to another on the water.

One of Pattons tanks (Fireball III, I think) stood in front of my company CP on Ray barracks in 2002 - 2005, and it too like many other Shermans had the rails to carry troops as well as a rear mount for a 50 cal. The fact that the Sherman sank off Normandy was a planning error, not because the tank couldn't float. They floated just fine until they ran out of fuel which happens when you don't take into account currents. However, they were also floated in the Pacific where their flame thrower had great success as well. No, not all carried a flame thrower, that's not my point- I'd imagine that would be your next argument to impress us all with your knowledge.

Not a big fan of Wiki but this should help...

DD tank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look, I stated earlier in this conversation that NOT ALL had what is claimed and that is a fact. You stated and I quote:

But always remember this- US troops when advancing on a MG position had something like a Sherman with a phone hanging from it's rear

In most cases the RTO was in direct contact with the tanks. Later tanks like the M48 and the M60 removed the phone and replaced it with spring points to connect a T1 to the tank which my unit (M1A1) always did in training and other wise.

As for Marine M4A3R3 they came ashore on LSTs or with deep fording gear.

To support this image: Osprey Publishing US World War II Amphibious Tactics, PP25
M4 Sherman...tanks were provided with dual fording stacks...These allowed them to wade through almost turret deep water...as long as the surf was light.

The US didn't hit the beaches of Normandy until 6 June 1944.

Didn't know that...

Guess what, they also didn't have hedge row cutters mounted on them until then.

You are correct and NOT every Sherman packed one.

The point is simple- Shermans (many of them had phones), the panzer not so much. The Sherman didn't pack any punch until he received the upgraded gun, the early 75mm (without muzzle brake) didn't have real AP which didn't come until summer 1944 as well.

Actually I recommend looking up M61 HE-APC-T.

They didn't have the high velocity gun in the begining because they weren't intended to be used as tank destroyers by US doctrine, the British had different plans and they also set their tanks up differently (I don't know much about theirs- Firefly I think did pack punch earlier on), rather an infantry support vehicle for the US forces.

Preaching to the Choir...if you go back you will see where I address the issue. I clearly state the Sherman was designed as an infantry SUPPORT tank.

However, war is chaos and you can't control things perfectly or fight it like in a textbook. So the inadequecy of the Sherman to fight tanks that were designed to fight other tanks was an issue that had to be dealt with by adding more armor and upraging the gun and ammo.

M4A3 (75mm Wet) was the first armor upgrade. 2.5 of frontal armor as opposed to 2.0 of frontal armor.

However, that does not change the fact that the Sherman did exceptionally well in his intended role, supporting infantry because a 75mm HE round into a MG position, walking next to the tank which is taking small arms fire and covering your movement in a MOUT setting, etc helps a lot, especially when you have enough tanks and they are actually assigned to these units to do this.

I think if you go back and read the entire section you will find that NO ONE challenged the Sherman's role. You will find, however, that some of us who know tanks (I have 6 Sherman books in front of me and had access to several actual vehicles) will always challenge the norm and the fact that the Sherman was utilized in it's greatest role way to late in the war.

If you have any issue with the fact that this tank supported infantry as his primary role, realize that all the way through Korea that was the case!

As a Tanker, Bradley Gunner, Infantryman I can openly attest that I was supported by tanks everywhere I went. Until of course they found tanks to kill and they left.

Even light infantry divisions like 6th ID had Shermans assigned to them in that war.

Well, considering that they are a light infantry division I would say that any tank supprot they got was from someone else. Their TO&E shows no tanks. During the Battle of Munoz, though, they did request armor and heavy artillery.

The real closest comparison to what the Germans had would be the "sturmgeschutz," ( Sturmgeschutz III/IV ) which by far fell short of the Sherman. These debates degenerate into arguments over who has more armor and a bigger gun- ignorant.

Uhm, I can find 2 tanks and an almost the Germans had that were of equal VALUE to the Sherman...

Panzer III - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Panzer IV - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Almost...
Panzer II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BTW, I really do not like wiki but I cannot post books you may not have so i did this for the ease...

The Sherman debate is always a flawed argument.

It is only flawed when you want ti one way like Patton did. Discussing the Sherman has lead me to buy every book I can find on it, talk to Sherman tankers, and climb in one myself to see what it was like (spent 8 hours sitting in a Sherman)

People take an infantry support vehicle and compare it to tanks designed to fight other tanks. What is true, is that the Germans had little that compared to the Sherman in capabilities to support their troops.

This couldn't be farther from the truth. The debate is not what it was designed to do but rather what it COULD do if it were unchained. The german Army had tons of vehicles dedicated to infantry support...ie; Pkz-I/II, the 38t Series, and a whole slew of 1/2 track mounted guns and artillery....

[Tanker]

Cooper has been widely and effectively rebutted.



This is one reason cooper is widely discredited, the 3rd Armored division part of first army holds the distinction of the most tanks lost and most men killed of all US armored divisions.

1AD- in Italy
2AD- 1160 dead, 7348 total 238 days of combat
3AD- (1st Army)2540 dead, 9871 total
4AD- 1366 dead, 6212 total
5AD- (9th Army) 570 dead, 2442 total.
6AD- 1272 dead, 4502 total
7AD (1,3,9 Armies) 5799 total
8AD (9, 15 Armies) 469 dead, 2011 wounded.
9AD (1,9,12 Armies) 728 dead, 3845 total
10 AD (7 army) 784 dead, 4697 total

And my comment about 3AD going into 3rd Generation crews is wrong how?

Cooper states that the 3AD at the end of the war was knee deep in dead tanks, and 3rd generation crews (that meaning that most of the tanks in 3AD were all new crews 3 times over.

There are however other things that he states that are in contention. It is one of the reasons why I stated above that his stories were unrealiable.

[zraver]

And my comment about 3AD going into 3rd Generation crews is wrong how?

Cooper states that the 3AD at the end of the war was knee deep in dead tanks, and 3rd generation crews (that meaning that most of the tanks in 3AD were all new crews 3 times over.

There are however other things that he states that are in contention. It is one of the reasons why I stated above that his stories were unrealiable.

3AD was not part of 3rd Army

[Tanker]

3AD was not part of 3rd Army

....and I said it was when? All I said was 3AD by wars end was in 3rd generation crews....if you go back to note 100 you will see that I said nothing about the 3rd Army. I was specifically speaking about the 3rd AD.

[zraver]

....and I said it was when? All I said was 3AD by wars end was in 3rd generation crews....if you go back to note 100 you will see that I said nothing about the 3rd Army. I was specifically speaking about the 3rd AD.

It should be noted that Patton, McNair, and several other generals were against the M26 from the start. Although Patton was a good general his goal was winning the war and making a name for himself not the protection of his men.

Since 3A saw the msot tank combat, but didn't take the most tank losses- how do you support that claim?

[Doktor]

How you win the war while not protecting your men?

[Tanker]

It should be noted that Patton, McNair, and several other generals were against the M26 from the start. Although Patton was a good general his goal was winning the war and making a name for himself not the protection of his men.

Since 3A saw the msot tank combat, but didn't take the most tank losses- how do you support that claim?

How do I support that claim? Easy, the next time you go into a firefight you are not authorized ballistic armor or a weapon. Have a nice day! Telling a crew to remove extra armor especially from a tank known to ignite the moment it is hit is not caring for your crew. That is my opinion and the opinion of a couple of authors. It is not a matter of losses, its a matter of caring for your men.