M-26 Pershing & Panther Ausf A head to head

D/P

 

Possible and confirmed. One frontaly penetrated Tiger and some of the Pershing crew pose with their trophy.
Elsdorf, Germany 1945.

 

Yes the turret hit is visible at the lower edge of the mantlet beneath the binocular sight. Another hit broke the right hand final drive, beneath the steps. The tall man in the helmet is Slim Price.

Note the final drive hit was from a HVAP T30E16. Th Hyper shells were not exclusive to T.Destroyer units, there was a priorty but Tank units received limited numbers of HVAP ammo, conversly the T.D. units had normal APC APCBC and explosive shells to use against appropriate targets.

 

Yes limited numbers, meaning 9 out of 10 times, no HVAP on hand.

Here you go LWD

This is from "Panzers at War," page 77:

"Accuracy testing at Aberdeen Proving Ground in 1946 showed that, at 1,000 yards (914 meters), the 75mm main gun on the Panther could put all of its shots within a 12-inch (30.5 centimeter) circle. Tests done the year before had demonstrated that the ammunition fired from the Panther had such a flat trajectory that the gunner did not even have to change elevation settings until he began to engage enemy targets at ranges greater than 2,000 yards (1,828 meters)."



No circles Triple, new data presented above. Turn circle 10 meter for Panther, 18.5 for Pershing. No contest. More hp, go up hills better.

As to only 3 Pershings lost, I'll take the tank expets word on it.. There was an encounter with a Sper Pershing & a Tiger

 

Yes limited numbers, meaning 9 out of 10 times, no HVAP on hand.

Here you go LWD

This is from "Panzers at War," page 77:

"Accuracy testing at Aberdeen Proving Ground in 1946 showed that, at 1,000 yards (914 meters), the 75mm main gun on the Panther could put all of its shots within a 12-inch (30.5 centimeter) circle. Tests done the year before had demonstrated that the ammunition fired from the Panther had such a flat trajectory that the gunner did not even have to change elevation settings until he began to engage enemy targets at ranges greater than 2,000 yards (1,828 meters)."



No circles Triple, new data presented above. Turn circle 10 meter for Panther, 18.5 for Pershing. No contest. More hp, go up hills better.

As to only 3 Pershings lost, I'll take the tank expets word on it.. There was an encounter with a Super Pershing & a Tiger

 

Here's what I ACTUALLY stated in post 82 Razin. Nice attempt at painting a recolored meaning regarding what was actually said, but no dice. I didn't state maneuverability isn't everything as you inferred.

Panther automotive design is not its sole measure of battle performance,(

 

The H.P. has to be transfered into motiive force, all things being equal more power would be transfered into greater speed or greater gradiant.

All is not equal I mentioned at the beginning of this thread the fact that the Pershing like the Sherman before it had a Live Track therefore the tractive effort is more efficient hence it does the same as the Panther for less effort.

~Steve

 

Don't you mean you will ignore anything that runs counter to your limited references?
The information on the Pershing casualties can be found on pages 9-32 of Hunnicutt's book 'A History Of The Medium Tank T20 Series'.
The 3 casualties were
'Fireball' number 38. Knocked out at Elsdorf by a Tiger on 25/2/45. Hit 3 times one of which penetrated through the co-ax MG port. Another bounced off the turret and a third hit the muzzle brake. The tank was repaired and was back in action by 7/3/45.
Number 22. Hit by 2 high explosive rounds 1/3/45. The crew were inspecting the damage caused by the first hit when the second struck, killing one man. The tank was repaired and returned to service.
Number 25. Hit by a Nashorn at 300 yds. penetrated through the lower hull front. All crew escaped unharmed. Tank written off as unrepairable.
I would be interested to know which 'tank expert' you think outranks Hunnicutt

I think you should re-check your source. It does not say it was a TII.
Cooper mentions a TII kill on page 226 of his book. However the details he furnishes make it clear he is in fact describing the Elsdorf action. This is where the Tiger I shown in my last post was knocked out. Another Tiger (the one that knocked out the Pershing 'Fireball') was lost at Elsdorf when it got hung up on some rubble. It was not a combat kill.






Cooper simply mixed up the detail.
The Hunnicutt book I mentioned earlier also has photos of 2 knocked out Pz IV's. One of them is mentioned by Copper. Together with the photos of 2 Tiger I's it pretty comprehensively refutes Coopers claim...........tank expert or no tank expert!

The only other claim for a TII kill comes from the book. 'Another River, Another Town' (John P. Irwin 2002) THere you can read (page 138) the authors claim to have knocked out a TII in Dessau. However the book is the subject of much dispute. Many ask why a rookie youngster was chosen as the gunner in such a specialised vehicle as the Super-Pershing.
That and the fact no Tiger II's appear to have served anywhere near Dessau................

 

No Kenny, again I've posted more source material than any on this thread. Maybe it's the overheating I keep reading about in the Pershing in addition to everything else already covered, ( crap transmission, suspension needing overhaul et al), that sways my view. I would venture the opposite of what you've posited here is true. The numerous Pershing worshippers have willfully chosen to ignore these technical bits & USMC's comments on it.


I'll stick with tank expert Zaloga, Cooper & the USMC & US Army for now.




Cooper asserts, "It is doubtful that the M26 could have knocked them out had the Tigers been confronted with a frontal assault. Our M36 tank destroyers, with the same 90 mm gun, had difficulty penetrating the Mark V Panther's faceplate

."

M26 Pershing: Encyclopedia II - M26 Pershing - Combat history

 

Pershing had only 3 forward speeds, Panther had 7. Giving more control & dispersion of torque. & Bergepanthers were on hand to fix transmissions & other issues in the field.

We carried spare parts for the transmission wherever was free space".


Bergepanthers were provided with 40 metric tons winch (driven by the turret traverse system) in the lower superstructure and which with a pulley could double their capability (80 metric tons). A spade was added on the rear to block the berge when attempting to drag a vehicle and two square plates were added to the front to maintain a wooden beam when pushing disabled vehicles. In addition, 2-tons crane was added for performing interventions such replacing the engine or transmission.

Panther

 

More views from US Army cats. Note wide track comment...

My opinion on the sights, tracks, engine, gun, and maneuverability is that our sights could be improved a lot, and if that M26 has wide tracks and a more powerful engine it would give use speed and maneuverability and with our added firepower we would have some chance of living. As we go now every man has resigned himself to dying sooner or later because we don't have a chance against the German tanks.



My opinion of the 90-mm gun is that it is a good gun if it just had a little more muzzle velocity, it could knock out anything that the Germans have. I have never seen the M26 with the 90-mm gun on it, but if it is as good as the ones on the tank destroyer it is the answer to a tankman's prayer. Against the Mark V our tank destroyer with a 90-mm gun are pretty good but our guns just don't stand up to the Jerry guns.

Sgt Moore and Crew


88mm KwK 36 L/56 accuracy test and some ideas - Page 48 - Battlefront Forum

Although we haven't seen the M26 in action, we have seen the tank destroyer with the 90-mm gun, and also the Tiger and Tiger Royal. We are of the opinion that the Tiger and Tiger Royal's 88-mm gun are far superior to our tank destroyer with the 90-mm gun. Our reasons for this assertion are:

1. Far superior sights which permits hitting a target at a great range, that is, 3,000 yards, usually without bracketing.

Their engine has more horsepower and has a more quiet first gear, which permits 'creeping' up on us,



We further believe that the 75-mm gun of the Panther (Mark V) compares favorably with our 90-mm gun. It has as large or larger powder charge and better sights.


Sgt Zins and Cpl. Parr

 

Let's do.

According to Zaloga, only three Pershing tanks had ever been knocked out in combat during WWII. He wrote that in his book on the Pershing tank.


According to Zaloga, the Shermans only attained its popularity in Korea, after NK armor was wiped out--because the American tanks had reverted back to the infantry support role. He wrote this in his book on the Pershing tank.

According to Zaloga, the entire Panther line, from D to A to G, had inadequate automotive design. He wrote that in his book on the Sherman 76 and the Panther A/G in the Ardennes.

According to Zaloga, the Pershing tank had more combat power than the Sherman by 3.6 times--citing operational research by the US Army--and that the Pershing was virtually a qualitative equivalent to the Panther tank. His book on the Sherman 76 and the Panther A/G.

You didn't even bother to read your links before you cut-and-paste it here. Drivel is the only thing you have delivered thus far.

 

US Army views aren't drivel, sorry you're still entirely wrong with your unpolite incorrect assertions. You can position yourself against Cooper, US Army & USMC, but I hate to be the one to point out it is a weak position you take.

Here's the quote, it says "a number of". A bit vague.


The Pershing's armor was not sufficient to defeat the high velocity 75mm and 88mm guns of the Panthers and Tigers, and there were a number of Pershings that were hit in their FRONTAL armor and knocked out. This is why the Super-Pershing had the extra applique frontal armor added. The Pershing was NOT, emphasize, NOT superior to either the Panther or the Tiger, and in a head to head battle,






The Mark V and VI in my opinion have more maneuverability and certainly more flotation. I have seen in many cases where the Mark V and VI tanks could maneuver nicely over ground where the American M4 would bog down.



Lt William Larock

 

The Centurian had more than its share of problems too.
Automotively it had reliability problems. In Israeli service they replaced the engine with a Continential AVDS 1790 (same engine as the M48 and M60) and an Allison CD-850 series cross drive transmission. Range was pathetically bad on the earlier models (pre- Mk 7 1953) which carried only 550 liters of fuel for a 62 mile range. The Mk 7 increased the fuel stowage to 1036 liters roughly doubling the range and putting it in the same area as US tanks were managing at that time.
Turret traverse on the early and mid models (up through the Mk 8) was excessively slow at 26 seconds for 360 degrees due to the use of a small electric traverse motor. The use of a .50 cal ranging machine gun for ranging slowed the engagement rate and also limited the accurate firing range to about 2,000 meters.
The original versions up through the Mk 7 which got uparmored only had a actual frontal thickness of 100 mm making it only slightly better armored than a Panther. The Mk 7 increased the actual armor thickness to 152 mm (6") on the front. The Mk 8 saw another uparmoring in 1956.

So, the Centurian went through many of the same problems that US postwar AFV went through. It certainly wasn't as if the Centurian simply went through its service life without any difficulties in design or operation by any means as you imply.

 

Centurian unsually shows up in Military channel/History channel top 10 lists, Pershing never does.

Miguel, as to your Panther burns comment, it was common to several well known tanks Sherman, & even the greatest of then all, ( in many people minds), the T-34. Here's a Russian view...



Dmitriy Fedorovich, the Sherman had a rubber-coated metal track. Some contemporary authors point to this as a deficiency, since in combat the rubber might be set on fire


For a long time after the war I sought an answer to one question. If a T-34 started burning, we tried to get as far away from it as possible, even though this was forbidden. The on-board ammunition exploded. For a brief period of time, perhaps six weeks, I fought on a T-34 around Smolensk. The commander of one of our companies was hit in his tank. The crew jumped out of the tank but were unable to run away from it because the Germans were pinning them down with machine gun fire. They lay there in the wheat field as the tank burned and blew up. By evening, when the battle had waned, we went to them. I found the company commander lying on the ground with a large piece of armor sticking out of his head. When a Sherman burned, the main gun ammunition did not explode. Why was this?

Allied Tank of World War II



Shermans also had a nasty tendency to catch fire and burn out completely when hit, which conditioned crews to abandon them at the first sign of trouble. The 743d Tank Battalion, for example, lost ninety-six medium tanks from 6 June 1944 to 8 May 1945, sixty-five of which burned.

Steel Victory by Harry Yeide - Hardcover - Random House - Read an Excerpt

 

66th AND 67th actualy(2nd AD). If you are going to mine other forums for quotes and data at least try and copy it correctly-oh and learn to use some form of mark to let us know when you are using cut and paste text.

I have seen nothing from you other than huge chunks lifted from the net and other forums. I've been around a bit myself and recognise the data your using. Maybe I posted it originaly?

You support the above with the following linked opinion:.

Overall, the Pershing was considered roughly equal in performance to the Panther. In the first engagement with the M26 by the 3rd Armored Division, Cooper writes that the M26 managed to catch two Tigers and one Mark IV tank by surprise from a flanking position. The M26 engaged the tanks from a range of about 1000 yards (1 km), and knocked them out. Cooper asserts, "It is doubtful that the M26 could have knocked them out had the Tigers been confronted with a frontal assault. Our M36 tank destroyers, with the same 90 mm gun, had difficulty penetrating the Mark V Panther's faceplate."
Now the above is a straight lift from Wiki,
M26 Pershing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This 'source' is widely used by you for most of your information yet you disregard the same article when it confirms the small number of T26E3's that were knocked out during WWII. Why is that?
Is it possible you could explain to me how the hits below (on the knocked out Tiger) are the result of fire from a 'flanking position'?



for completeness I also give you the 2 PzIV wrecks. Note that is 1 more than Cooper says were knocked out.

Obviously you did not read it properly. Pages 48-54 deals in detail with a German counter-attack launched on June 9th 1944. No less tha 7 Panthers were destroyed by a single Sherman Firefly.

More quotes from 'United States vs German Equipment'.
Please try and give the source for your copy and paste efforts

 

No, it's your drivel.

The Army's Operation Research suggest that the Pershing was 3.6 times more effective than the Sherman in tank combat. The M4 Sherman was only prefered in Korea after the T-34s had been destroyed.

Or are you referring to the opinions of the 2d AD which has not used any Pershing tank. How very interesting that the people you quote either 1. actually does not agree with you 2. are talking about different subjects 3. been debunked or 4. unattributed.

Cooper doesn't need my taking on. When did US Army & USMC said the Pershing was an inferior tank to the Panther?

Yes, three is a number. One by a hi-ex 150mm hit, one by 88 L/56 damage to the barrel. The one permanent loss was hit by 88 L/71 at point-blank range in Cologne. According to Zaloga andHunnicut.

Only true on mud over M4s without the duckbill extension or the later wide tracks. You still haven't confronted Razin's post's implications, I see.

 

Here's what I said

Your exact posts were

Now we have all the information before us what exactly is the diference?

What does automotive design do, it gives mobility or do you think it gives you something else, please explain in plain english as obviously I have spent my time speaking it as a second language.

It is significant that you failed to engage on matters of fact.

~Steve

 

Re your post # 152, Steve Zaloga is also of the view that Russian tanks such as IS2 were also the measure of the Panther, he once questioned as to why was he so interested in Russian tanks as opposed to German tanks-he replied because they won, a rather simplistic,off the cuff remark but not lacking interlectual rigor.

~Steve

 

Do you mean you discount Hunnicutt? This really neads to be clarified

~Steve