M-26 Pershing & Panther Ausf A head to head

Lida Mayo, The Ordnance Department: On Beachhead and Battlefront (Center of Military History: Washington, 1968) 334-335

 

I missed this earlier.

Who said the army was lying? I'm saying either you or your source got something wrong. When a post contradicts basic physics It's pretty clear to me that it's wrong.

And no one has disputed that. At least for those particular guns and rounds. What is in dispute is whether or not that means the German gun is superior to the US gun.

Let's look at some data then. From:
German Guns 75mm and 76mm calibre (Tank & AT)
tables got butchered look at the source for easier to read versions
7,5cm Kw.K.40 L/43 and
7,5cm Stu.K.40 L/43 [3]75mm/L43
.................100..500..1km 1.5..2km
APCBCPzgr....99...91....81...72...63
APCRPzgr....126..108....87

and from

Tank Gun M3 [1]90mm/L52
Range in meters......457...914...1,371...1,828
APBCAP T33 Shot...119...117...114...109
APCBCAPC M82......120...112...104....96
APC M82(late).......129...122...114...106
APCRHVAP M304....221...199...176...156

Looks to me like the US gun has a substantial edge even thought the ranges are a bit shorter.

Hardly. You still haven't explained why your primary source seams to indicate that the Panther is imune to the basic laws of physics. The above results by the way are consistent with the 90mm gun haveing more KE than the 75. Furthermore if you plug in the velocity, area, and mass of the rounds into the equation a = F / m where F is described in Air Friction you will find that the 75mm gun looses velocity ~36% faster than the 90mm round which has an even more profound effect on its KE at range.

And that's not even getting into the performance of the guns vs other targets.

Especially since a good portion of your posts are white space and the sources you've provided are for the most part hardly quality material. Indeed it's not even clear in some cases if you are paraphrasing your sources, quoteing them, or ....

 

From LWD...

he's got a mix of WWII mostly German books

I've Yet to quote ANY German books. Typical of LWD's innacurate ramblings.

 

Looks like the 200 machines delivered after Febuary did not arrive in theater until the month of April during the big push. I suppose "a number" of them were lost in "ineffective action" and "unextensive combat" dueling Panthers in the depots.

lwd,

Interesting that the 90mm is clearly superior to the 75mm past 1,000 meters. Maybe it's saving up its energy to beat the 90 at the sprint to 3,000m?

 

Now it's becoming clearer, there are reading comprehension problems. I was clearly addressing the reviewer. (Are you that reviewer by the way? If not it is not at all relevant to you). Furthermore I was talking about the different books the reviewer had reviewed. If a reviewer has say written reviews of several dozen technical books on a subject then his review will tend to carry more weight. If most of what he is interested in appears to be modeling from other books reviewed then if modeling is the topic under discussion his review is very pertinant if however it is technical details then his review may be less so.

 

1st we get this from Gardner in post 13...

As an aside watch the disassembly of on on Tank Overhaul sometime.

Followed by this in post 163...

The Military / History Channel?!! You cite a TV show??!! [rolleyes] That is hilarious!





It's hilarious. Right out of the Moe, Larry & Curly school of double standard debate, ( perhaps he learned this in college).

 

Hardly. TV is very good at presenting video images (what a concept). Mr Gardner was referancing just such material in his post (ie primary source material). Your referance was to opinions presented on a TV show not even third hand source material.

Incidently one can use the codes at the top of the posting page to make it clear what is your material and what is a quote. Makes it easier to read and less subject to missunderstanding. Likewise the large white spaces do nothing postive for your posts.

 

A bit like those who claim 'several' T26 were knocked out. These people continue with the claim but refuse to provide a single scrap of evidence to tabulate such losses.
Rather the same as claiming a TII (actualy a TI) was hit in a flanking shot by a T26.
Conclusive proof has been posted showing both hits on the Tiger were delivered from the front.
Would it not be more productive to address these contradictions?

 

Do we? Are you now willing to concede that the Panther and Pershing had more or less equal mobility?

You lost me please explain the context and relevance to any of my posts..

Actually it does not say anything of the sort, there is no evidence in this quotation whether or not the gun was mounted on a test rig or a tank, however even if it was in a tank Ordnance tests are often done with the tank suspension chocked, the elevation and traverse controls locked, added to which the ammunition is selected, none of which happens during training or combat, however you have not addressed my statement,

"How big do you think the helmet is, it is a lot smaller than a 12inch circle"

While I tend to be circumspect with regard to book criticism if only because the author may not be a member or aware of this site and therefore is denied a chance to defend himself, but as you persist in using none accredited sources I’m going to say something to your sources

Panzer at War by Michael Greene. I have read Michael Greene’s books, his first version of Sherman at War was full of errors the current edition whilst better is still inaccurate. Panzer at War is for the most part a picture book, not that that is necessarily a bad thing, I expect tank enthusiasts to make there own minds up about tanks and not based on written opinions.

Peter Gudgin has written several books such as - 48th at War Firepower and Armor 2000 I would be surprised if anyone has bothered to quote from Firepower it has very little original source information and tends to re-hash preconceptions.

And what is the relevance of

KING TIGER VS T-29 US HEAVY TANK

As far as I am aware Robert A Slayton is a writer of social history books this Ranking The World’s Best Land Weapons……. Book is remarkable never in my wildest dreams would I though anyone would say the best SMG of WW2 is…. The Australian Owen SMG…. the mind boggles.

This is very offensive, I too went to college and it teaches students how to discern primary sources perhaps you should advise us of your educational attainments, are you intent on alienating members on this site? I think you should apologise, likewise I am still waiting for you to withdraw your remark that I coloured your statements.

~Steve

 

Unlike your generalized statement about shows on the top 10 tanks I was pointing out a specific and visual comparison made in reasonable detail on a particular show by a group of reasonably expert tank rebuilders showing in specific detail the differences in gears in a Panther tank's and a Sherman tank's final drives along with a brief discussion of that specific componet.
That was directly relevant to this discussion and would constitute a reasonable source. It was not the opinion of the rebuilders. It was visual, factual, evidence and presented that way. A "Top 10 Tanks" show is opinion, nothing more.

 

It might be a bit more instructive to look at the first 20 operational Panther tanks as these are closer to the situation the US was in with the M26 in 1945. After all, that is all they had operational.
In this case the first 22 went to Pz Abt 51. On Februray 21 1943 these were to take part... well 16 of the 22 as three were at Wa Pruf 6 for testing (21004, 21005, 211003) and three didn't arrive in time (210011, 211012, 211006) in a demonstration for Albert Speer at the Grafenwöhr tank range.
Pz Abt 51 spent over a week specially readying their Panthers for this demonstration. On the day of the demonstration 13 of the 16 were to take part. Three were deadlined (21002, 21003, and 21007) despite the best efforts of the maintenance crews. Of the other 13 the results during this special demonstration were:

21006 Broke down due to failure of the oil pump.
21010 Clutch disintegrated, tank immobilized
21012 Caught fire
21015 Fuel pump failed
211001 Final drive and brakes failed
213001 Left final drive failed

So, 6 out of 13.... roughly 50% of these supposedly operational Panthers after over a week of intense preparation suffered serious breakdowns during a short demonstration that did not particularly tax the vehicle's systems. If you count the three that couldn't be repaired in time then the failure rate approaches two thirds of the available vehicles. Three months later at Kursk where over 100 Panthers were operational almost 50% were lost due to mechanical failures.

The sames sort of horrifically terrible mechanical problems never plauged the M26. Had that vehicle suffered a fraction of that sort of mechanical problems on an ongoing basis the US Army would have rejected the design out of hand. Yet, somehow, the Wehrmacht found this astounding breakdown rate acceptable enough to put the Panther into operational service. Then, the Wehrmacht and MAN spent well over a year trying to eliminate the worst of these problems while the Panther was in service. Even then, many of these problems plauged the Panther right to the end of the war.

 

Ok and following T.A Gardners lead in Post#197 here are some factual maters for consideration.

Weapons control, In the Pershing the M71c telescope and M10c periscope dual sighting system vs the Panthers TZF12a
M71c
5x mag
field 13°

M10c
unity + 6x mag
42.15° Field 11.33°Field

TZF12a
2.5x mag + 5x mag
19° Field 15° Field


The Panther TZF12a has maginally bettter field width at 5x magnification than the U.S. M71c which confirms better optics. The Pershing has far better flexability the gunner being semi-automonomous of the commander in being able to observe and acquire targets using the unity periscope sight and depending on the distance use the magnified sight on either optics, this gave the Pershing effectively twice the ability to pick up targets. It is also significant that the later M76 telescopic sight (Sherman refit) had a reduced 3x magnification to improve the field of view to 21.5°.

Whereas the Panther gunner is purely a gunner he can only re-act to a target in the comparitively narrow field of view of the 2.5x optic at medium to long distance with or rely on the commander to direct him to targets. Further the PzGr40 round graticule is only available out to 2000m assuming any were available by 1944.

As to the cupolas, although both tanks had similar commanders cupolas, neither the U.S. or Germany had accepted the fact that cupolas were a liability, the U.S.A. holding onto them until the M60A3 M48A5 and M1 and Germany introducing the low profile hatch cupola in the Leopard 1 -which was very similar to that fitted to the Stug3 in 1943.

Post war use. Generally it is accepted that because of their defeat in 1945 it is unrealistic to compare the quantities of Panthers used Post War, however experience of Post War users is quite intersting and can be argued either way.

Only two countries had Panthers in regular service Bulgaria and France, Bulgaria's 14 or so tanks is really an unknown quantity, France on the other hand had two regiments the 530c RCC and the 6e Cuiraurs partly equiped with Panthers they survived for about a year when they were binned for lack of spares- despite the fact that France more than most other countries utilised captured German AFV components in development of AFVs Post War. The production ARL 44 and many of the AMX 40/50 prototypes used Maybach 230s as similarily the inter war FCM2 utilised WW1 Maybach motors. The French received M26 and in turn used M46 and M47 until the AMX30 replaced them.

Something that France did develop as a Panther legacy was the 75mm Canon SA Mle50 which was based on the Panther KwK 42 but underwent interesting development, the original Model 1949 AMX 13 show what seems to be a standard L70 cannon but by the time production started it had been reduced to a 62 calibre weapon firing a slightly lighter 4.4kg shell at 1000m/s which is a lower velocity, however the main point of interest is that rather than increase the KwK 42 to 100 calibre as German technicians considered, the French decided to go the opposite way which points towards a dispersion instability problem at long range with the 70calibre barrel.

~Steve

 

From Kenny..
A bit like those who claim 'several' T26 were knocked out.



Made no such "claim" rather just posted Zaloga's comment. Even went so far to say it was a bit vague. Nuther incorrect innuendo corrected. Is THAT clear enough Mod?



Just got his M-26 book. He mentions on page 35 the M-46 came with the improved M3A1 gun with a new bore evacuator to reduce fumes in the turret caused by firing the gun.








From Razin..

This is very offensive, I too went to college and it teaches students how to discern primary sources perhaps you should advise us of your educational attainments, are you intent on alienating members on this site? I think you should apologise, likewise I am still waiting for you to withdraw your remark that I coloured your statements.

This is silly considering the aggressor is crying victim. & interesting how you neglect to mention Gardner cast the 1st stone with his ridicule my mention of tank shows on the History channel. My advice to you is if you can't handle stones, don't throw em in the 1st place. You should apologize. You & your teamates, Gardner, Kenny, LWD, Triple & Miguel. 6 to 1 that is, & you have the gall to infer "I" am the instigator?! Unbelievable. Stick to nuts & bolts instead of personal stuff & you'll experience less return fire.





As to mobility, no. Panther could pivot steer, Zaloga again mentions this in his Panther vs Sherman book. Pershing could not. & Panther could turn in 10 meters, Pershing 18.5. No contest. Wider tacks to Panther also. Pershing DID have live tracks though, but less HP. Frontal armor equivalent to 185 mm Zaloga mentions for Panther.

 

Didn't I just DO that?

From Miguel...

The drive train even in the G version had a life expectancy of 150Km.



Zaloga corrects this in his book also. 1.500 km, somtimes reduced to 150 km.

 

Clear as mud. You used a quote of a quote from Zaloga. However you missed the bit where he said ONE (1) T26 was written off. In case you are confused I never suggested 'innunedo'. You deliberately distorted the source.

I am happy your library has doubled.

He mentions lots of other things on pages 1 to 48

You flatter yourself. Nothing you have claimed (or plagiarized) has shown me you know anything other than the most basic details of the combat record of the T26.
I gave you the details that refute the claimed TII v T26 actions and you failed to respond with anything resembling a cogent reply.
The easiest part is exposing the paucity of your knowledge as to the actual historical events. It's far more of a challenge deciphering your posts!

Fire away- you only have blanks.

 

Nope I caught the 1 was written off remark. This changes exactly what? More silly negative ventola to what purpose?? might I ask? No distortion whatsoever, just what he said. Your assertion is absolute nonsense. Again, I went so far as to say, a bit vague.


Guderian... In 1944, 5 March he reported that, "...with the exception of minor deficiencies, the Panther is at last front ripe"


German AFV's on the western front in 1944 were: Pz. IV=71%; Panther=65% and Tiger=65% (Jentz).


I.Abteilung/Panzer Regiment 1 reported "In its present form, the Panther is troop ripe. It is far superior to the T-34 tank. Almost all the bugs have been worked out. This Panzer has exceptional armament, armor, cross country travel ability and speed... Motor failures have decreased...The steering gear and transmission have proven to be acceptable." (Jentz).

 

Did you? Can you point out where?
Your original post 176:

The full unedited quote:
25 Febuary 1945. First combat, five T26 with TF Lovelady in the Roer River battle. In the following weeks of Feb-March all 20 T26 tanks were in combat. Several were knocked out with casualties & repaired. Only one was permantley destroyed, when its ammunition burned. One knocked out a Tiger at a range of 900 meters and two MkIV tanks at 1200 meters in the same ten minutes

It shows you are not above editing sources to make them appear to support your case.

 

The above is a typical example of selective quoting.
Here is the FULL TEXT. The bits you missed out highlighted in black

".The latest experience reports from the Panzer-Abteilung state that .with the exception of minor deficiencies, the Panther is at last front ripe. As an example on 22 Febuary 1944 Panzer Regiment 1 reported "In its present form, the Panther is troop ripe. It is far superior to the T-34 tank. Almost all the bugs have been worked out. This Panzer has exceptional armament, armor, cross country travel ability and speed. At this time the lifespan of the motor is 700 to 1000 kilometers. Motor failures have decreased. Final drive breakdowns no longer occur. The steering gear and transmission have proven to be acceptable."
However this report is misleading. It was applicable for winter conditions when the ground was frozen. In a report dated 22 April 1944 1 Abteilung/Panzer Regiment 2 reported mechanical problems caused by driving in the deep heavy mud encountered in the Spring.


Source: Page 139/140 'Panther Tank, The Quest For Combat Supremacy'. T.Jentz 1995