M-26 Pershing & Panther Ausf A head to head

Triple all your really doing is the denigration game, attack a link, say US army personnel aren't reliable & such. How bout actually posting some data & links of your own for a change? Up to now I've done all the work for you. You'll have to start pulling your own load from this point forward.

 

So what is it that you are trying to prove? That the Panther is superior to a Pershing?

Lets see;
-Both are pretty unreliable, earlier Panthers more so,
-Both have good guns, Panther a bit more accurate destroying tanks as primary objective, Pershing has a bigger cannon more of an all-rounder,
-Panther has much weaker armor than Pershing, esp. side and rear,
-Pershing has faster turret, and gyros, Panther has slower turret, dependant on engine speed and no gyros.
- Panther "has" better gun sights, according to chromeboomerang.

And i would make the list longer, but i have to go to school, if anyone has something more to add, please do!

 

What can accounts of the performance of the 88 L/56 at 3,000 meter and tank versus tank engagement between Sherman 75 and Panzer IV be in this discussion instead of negligible?

More stuff we already know. German optics are crisper. Do you think glass resolution at 3,000 makes or breaks tank combat in Western Europe? Even in Cold War they didn't expect to fight like that.

I afraid the denigration isn't directed at the American soldiers in those examples you have furnished, chrome.

It is directed to the manifest incompetence in trying to prove the supposed inferiority of the Pershing tank to the Panther by comparing the Sherman 75 to the Panther.

OK, they shared the same engine.

 

Supplements:

Gun and optical performance at 3,000 meters barely matters with these tanks, as neither tanks' gun could begin to crack the enemy tank faceplate at 500 meters with regular armor piercing ammo. The Amis don't have many APCRs but the Germans had no tungsten supply at this point had stopped producing APCRs even earlier.

You wanna push the engagement envelope? Fine. But as both tanks are frontally invulnerable at 3,000m, flank shots matter. It's 45mm of side armor on the Panther versus 76mm on the Pershing. Jeez, which one would be more survivable?

As to cuppolas, yeah German cuppolas are nice and all, but doctrine says TC fight with open hatch as long as possible for a good reason. A buttoned up tank is in different degrees of blindness no matter what. Field of view for optics? Chrome is of course right about gunsite's field of view. Let us just say that the unitary telescope/periscope sight on American tank gunner's station is there for a good reason.

PS:
Actually, Gardner and Razin had already said those things about the superior field of view of American unitary gun sight on telescopic mode and better traverse on page 1-2. Any decisive tank battle of the west fought at 3km?

 

Lets take a look at this claim:

8.8 cm KwK 36 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
lists the muzzle velocity of this gun as 773 m/s. That means that neglecting velocity loss the round has traveled 1,546 m in 2 seconds and 2,319 m in 3 seconds. During those respective time we can apply the formula d=(1/2)a t*t to get the drop where a =10 m/s. For 2 sec's we get a drop of .5*10*4= 20m and for 3 seconds it's .5*10*3*3 = 45m
That doesn't look like flat to me.

 

Not really. The Centurian had much more growth potential and the US could more readily aford a new tank design.

No it was originally classified as a medium tank. It was reclassified as a heavy for mostly propaganda reasons and then was changed again after the war.

 

Actually, the M26 was considered an interm tank. The M 46 was the standard or production model post war. But, consider this: The hull and suspension of the M 26 was used in the same form all the way through to the M47. The major changes in the M 46 were a new engine (Continential AV 1790) and transmission (Allison CD 850). The M47 was simply a new turret on the same hull.
The M 47 has lasted in service right down to today. It is still in use by Spain, Iran and, Pakistan and like the Centurian upgraded with the NATO L7 105mm gun and new tracks and drive trains. The Italians only got rid of their over 800 in service in 1989.
Many M 47 were simply reworked M 46 with a new turret and other equipment bringing them up to the new standard. The last rework by Israel on theirs was the M 47RKM that brought the vehicle up to M 60A3 standards.

Of course, the Sherman is still in service in Chile among other places.....

 

Apart for a test vehicle M46E1 (reg 30163848) which was a M46 hull reworked to take the T42 turret, all M47 were new builds, the hull front of M47 differed by not having the ventilator casting between the hull crew positions, the turret ring of the M46 was 69inch against 73inches for the M47 making the hull roof different.

Both M46 and M47 were interim tanks, the planned medium tank was to be T42 which is like a M41 lght tank with a M47 turret.

The M47 is 1 of 2 U.S. Tanks that never had a prototype (the M46E1 was built as an test vehicle for APG after the design was standardised) the other was the M3.

however as you say they were great tanks.

Steve

 

No LWD it was classed heavy, then reclassed as medium. M-26 was not considered an interim tank. It was just so unrelliable it had to be rebuilt so much it was then reclassed as the M-46.

& Triple, if you really want to sell your idea that a 43 Panther that fought at Kursk was roughly the same qualitatively as a 44 vintage Panther that fought at Normandy, post some links & data to support that view. Back it up. Best of luck with it.

 

The Following are opinions resultant from Ikes inquiry (very abridged because of the size of this post) of members of the 66th and 67th Armored Regiments and 2nd Armored Division:

The consensus of opinion of all personnel in the 66th Armored Regiment is that the German tank and anti-tank weapons are far superior to the American in the following categories.

Superior Flotation.

Greater mobility. This is directly contrary to the popular opinion that the heavy tank is slow and cumbersome.

The German guns have a much higher muzzle velocity and no telltale flash. The resulting flat trajectory gives great penetration and is very accurate.
The 90-mm, although an improvement, is not as good as either the 75 or 88. If HVAP ammunition becomes available, it will improve the performance of both the 76-mm and 90-mm guns.

German tank sights are definitely superior to American sights. These, combined with the flat trajectory of the guns, give great accuracy.

-Brigadier General J. H. Collier, Commanding Combat Command "A"






the M26 was re-designated as a medium tank.
M26 Pershing Heavy Tank

 

Couple of relevant Panther photos
View attachment 5672

View attachment 5673

No it wasn’t. The Cross drive system which allowed a M46 Patton to pivot was never fitted to the Pershing, it had a controlled differential and the minimum turning circle was 60feet. The Panther is capable of a near pivot turn but it is not the true pivot ability of the wartime British tanks such as Churchill or the Post War U.S. Tanks from M46 onward.

In the conclusion Sherman by R P Hunnicutt the following quote is made

What does this mean? It is mobility that wins war. The accepted prerequisites of a tank are Mobility, Firepower and Armour with mobility always first you can have better armour or more powerful gun but without mobility it’s over. You have not shown any definitive evidence that the Pershing failed as part of its service.

However there are several over important factors that make a tank better than its opponents I have mentioned two at the end of mypost #68 these are ergonomics and ammunition stowage.

Ergonomically the Panther is a fairly tight fit for the turret crew, whereas there is quite a bit more room in the Pershing. In the hull it is more so the Panther having the transmission in the drivers compartment with all that means- probably quite nice in Russian winters but otherwise it gets uncomfortably warm.

The ammunition stowage on the Panther was almost an Achilles heal as it was in the first Shermans, ammunition was stowed in the panniers above the tracks protected by comparatively thin side armour. Looking at photos of destroyed Panthers often the same tell tail signs as seen in dead Sherman photos, -pannier floors blown out above the tracks. The Pershing ammunition stowage was well designed with only the ready rounds partly above the track line.

I read the article, the way this line is ripped out of context is totally disingenuous, By December 1951 the limited numbers of M26 in service in Korea had given good service and were in need of refurbishment/rebuild and were withdrawn for that reason. The M4A3 76 HVSS became the standard support tank at that time because of the nature of the terrain and lack of enemy armour. There was also a tendency for older equipment to be cycled through Korea, to get value for money from obsolescent material and to allow up to date equipment such as M47s to be deployed in Europe.

.

The Centurion used by the Australian Ist Armd. Rgt in Vietnam were Mk5/1 and had a completely different turret and gun system, if the type used in Vietnam had been a Mk1 with welded turret and 17pdr the argument might have some validity. One could say that in 1968 the CMF (Australian equivalent to the NG) were using Staghound armoured cars for that matter.

Chromeboomerang
The citation references you have made on this thread are in some cases dubious to say the least. With regard to the Pershing and Patton you have avoided using standard reference Hunnicutt and have little input by citing anything by Jentz or Doyle with regard to the Panther.

Finally as to the matters of argument in this Thread, it is your thread that gives you certain entitlements with regard to the thread, for example drifting off topic , however there is little point asking for opinions of your colleagues if you are intent on berating respondents.

Steve

 

Interesting that all you found to comment on whas this

In regards to that if you look at:
Tanks: An Illustrated History of ... - Google Book Search
page 122 it says:

So yes the Pershing started out as a Medium.
Heavy Tank M26 Pershing - World Defence Industry Files
makes a similar point but says the T-26 medium resulted in the T26E3 Heavy.

 

Applying a little basic physics as before lets take a close look at the following

Now we're going to assume no drop in velocity over range so the actual drop will be a bit more than result shown. Again using the basic physics equation of d= .5*a*t*t where a = 10 m/sec/sec and t = v/1828 and v = 936 m/sec (from panther (mammal) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia)

we get d = ~19 m so as long as the enemy target was over 19m high the above is correct.

To get an idea of the effect of velocity loss in the shell the US naval AA gun with a somewhat slower round has lost over half its velocity at 3000m ie 823 m/s down to 375 m/s. http://www.afrikakorps.org/sdkfzweapons.htm gives the weight of the German shell as 6.8 kg where the US round weighs in at 5.9 kg so velocity loss should be relatively similar with the effects of weight and velocity more or less canceling out. Doing a linear interperlation which should result in a somewhat higher value the US shell should be doing ~648 m/s at 1,828 meters. Thus the average velocity should be around 735 m/s for the 76mm shell which translates to an average speed for the German shell of around 836 m/s which results in a drop of almost 24 m. That's some tank we have for a target. It would make the Maus look small.

 

Keegan has described the American way of war as "laconic" (World War 2, by john Keegan), in this case i think the American way of doing this was allowed by our different approach to the war....The USA came to war over two years after everybody else had started. Territory captured by American troops in WW2, by and large stayed captured and usually there were little or no changes in the lines (there are a few exceptions such as Battle of the bulge).

By contrast, on the Russian front not only was the front line over a thousand miles long north to south, but the lines see-sawed back and forth several times (the industrial city of Kharkov was taken and retaken by the germans and the russians twice each during the war.). Also when the Germans attacked the Russians (and later in the war vice versa) the situation often resulted in a rout and disastrous retreat for the losing side. Thus i suspect that in many situations (such as the Kursk battle) the Germans simply had no opportunity to recover damaged tanks as the ground on which they stood was now in enemy hands.

Adding to this the German army was not really mechanized. They had plenty of tanks but relatively few trucks, I think German resources were so limited they had to choose more tanks or more trucks, you can guess what Hitler chose. How many trucks could you build in trade for one tank, at least 3 or 4 i am guessing!

They used alot of inferior trucks from occupied and allied countries (czech and french trucks). These trucks were a logistics maintenance and repair nightmare because there were several different types and most were simply abandoned when they broke down. Like you say they simply had too few trucks big enough to haul out a tank and no real system set up to repair them close to the front. What the Germans really needed was one or two kinds of standardized trucks and plenty of them, which they never had even in the beginning. The result was the panzers raced ahead while most of the infantry still walked behind as in 1918. This lack of trucking did much to hasten their defeat and probably cost them the war on the eastern front.

 

Thomas Jentz in Panther Tank The Quest for Combat Supremacy gives the following data from factory testing of the 75L70 gun using the PzGr 39/42 APCBC round:

..........Testing...Practice

500m 100 100
1000m 100 97
1500m 100 72
2000m 92 49
2500m 73 29
3000m 55 18

The "Testing" column is the accuracy with rounds fired in a controlled fashion to minimize other factors allowing the manufacturer to determine the dispersion of the gun itself at various ranges.
The "Practice" column is firing done on in standard training / operational conditions.
The target in both cases was 2 meters x 2.5 meters in size.
Given other factors and actual combat condtions one could reasonably expect the actual combat accuracy to be somewhat less than the "Practice" results.

A good way to roughly determine the "flat" firing range of a tank gun is to use the half-second flight time of the round fired at its average velocity over that distance. This gives about a 4 meter drop and could easily be compensated for by simply aiming a bit high at the target and allowing the round to drop into it. It really didn't matter if the round went in the turret or hull in most cases so long as a hit was obtained.
Beyond the half-second flight distance the gunner will have to compensate for range and actually elevate the gun more accurately to obtain a hit.

 

Chrome,

"your idea that a 43 Panther that fought at Kursk was roughly the same qualitatively as a 44 vintage Panther that fought at Normandy, post some links & data to support that view. Back it up. Best of luck with it. "

Best luck finding the post where I said that. I said the Panther's dependability remained poor and unlikely to be better than the Pershing. That is one cute strawman, though.

"The Following are opinions resultant from Ikes inquiry (very abridged because of the size of this post) of members of the 66th and 67th Armored Regiments and 2nd Armored Division..."

The 2d AD did not recieve any M26 tank during the war. The 90s he talked about are mounted on M36 TDs. I hope for your sanity's sake that you understands the implications of that.

LWD,

My own recall says that the developemental phase of the Pershing classified it as a medium; fielded in WWII as a heavy; sometime after reverted to medium. Nice physics work, by the way. Good to have someone who can do more math than counting one to three board

 

Let's see what we have accumulated so far.

The Panther has a slightly more powerful gun. When firing at the significantly better armored Pershing, lethality superiority falls off. If the Pershing shoots back with APCBC or HVAP, that killing power advantage totally evaporates as the 90 could break the turret and faceplate armor at 1,000 meters. To kill a Pershing, the Panther needs to obtain a turret hit as in '44 supply of APCR ammo for Germans was none-existent.

The Panther has a superior optic offering crisper resolution. It will have no advantage in target finding when conditions are appropriate for telescope work. SA goes to the American side. The Panther's turret traverse, no matter what it says on paper, had been found sluggish which ever model was fought by the Americans. With the Panther's cramped interior, rate of fire would be slow as well.

Looks like well matched tanks to me...

 

The T20 series were all medium until June 29th 1944 when the T26E1 and T26E2 were reclasified as Heavy tanks and this was attributed to morale reasons. (The T26E3 -the production Pershing was not in existance then) The situation continued until March 1945 when the T26E2 and T26E3 were Standardised M45 and M26. In March 1946 they were reclasified Medium tanks and on July 30th 1948 it was reclasified Limited Standard and finally declared obsolete in U.S. service on February 14th 1957. (OTCM 36468) the same day the Sherman was also declared obsolete.

 

Yep the 90's could have been on M 36's no need to be asshole-ish about, just make your post. Like many bikers bars say on the way in, leave your attitude at the door. Your reverse of position regarding battleworthiness/reliability of 43 vintage Panthers vs 44 is a cute turnaround, but a bit late at this stage. You've been arguing entirely AGAINST my argument that Normandy era Panthers were better machines, upgraded, & debugged as much as could be done. Remeber, all minutia you said?


As to optics, I did find this. Perhaps not the entire puzzle, but an interesting piece nonetheless.


3681.7 in reply to 3681.6

I did find this on their glass, something about Lanthanum.



The Germans recognizing the importance of lenses were world leaders in the research and development of lenses and discovered that 'Lanthanum' in the glass improved the clarity of the lens, suggesting there figures on loss would be below the 30% level

.Just before WW-II in the late 30s they discovered that if you are able to deposit a thin layer of Argon gas on the lens this reduces the distortion per lens to around 3-4% ....no one else in the world could do this until well after the war. What this meant was that German lenses used in WW-II could successfully use 4-6 element lenses to achieve greater magnification with out distortion and a much less overall loss of vision [15-22%] and thus much larger clearer lenses for the same magnification or much greater magnification for the same field of view.

 

So what if they were M 36's, Still 90 mm on a tank. Does not negate the guns hitting power or something.

Photographs, Prints, Images, Pictures and Photos for Sale - Rights-Managed Image Service - M36 Tank Destroyer with 2nd Armored Division - Photographs, Prints, Images, Pictures and Photos for Sale - Rights-Managed Image Service


Development of the T25 and T26 were heavy tanks.

United States' M26 Pershing - World War II Vehicles