M-26 Pershing & Panther Ausf A head to head

Triple C can be right all day about his SJ 2 argument. It's not an argument I made or took any issue with. He is wrong about later 44 era Ausf A's not being improved however.

 

Which has been delineated previously.



With the replacement gun sight Turrnzielfernrohr 12a, introduced during the production run of the Panther Ausf.A in late November/early December 1943, the gunner could select two magnifications, 2.5X and 5X. The lower magnification provided a wider field of view for target detection. The higher magnification assisted in precise aiming at long ranges. The adjustable range scales allowed the gunner to register the exact range to the target. The range scale was graduated at 100 meter intervals out to a range of 2000 meters for the PzGr.40/42, 3000 meters for the PzGr.39/42 and 4000 meters for the SprGr.42.


& M-26 wasn't really debugged til 49 when it became the M-46

The M-26 did not equal the Panther and Tiger, but it was the best US Army design of the war and it could have been produced earlier had the obvious need for them been acknowledged and acted upon.


M-26 Pershing

 

Which has been delineated previously. & the speedier turret was an nice upgrade.



With the replacement gun sight Turrnzielfernrohr 12a, introduced during the production run of the Panther Ausf.A in late November/early December 1943, the gunner could select two magnifications, 2.5X and 5X. The lower magnification provided a wider field of view for target detection. The higher magnification assisted in precise aiming at long ranges. The adjustable range scales allowed the gunner to register the exact range to the target. The range scale was graduated at 100 meter intervals out to a range of 2000 meters for the PzGr.40/42, 3000 meters for the PzGr.39/42 and 4000 meters for the SprGr.42.


& M-26 wasn't really debugged til 49 when it became the M-46

The M-26 did not equal the Panther and Tiger, but it was the best US Army design of the war and it could have been produced earlier had the obvious need for them been acknowledged and acted upon.


M-26 Pershing

 

& again, this quote, ( which I noticed you left out the 43 part of 2nd time you posted it), is not time relevant to the thread.


Zaloga's Panther v. T-34 that "no German unit with Panther Ausf D or A models were able to sustain an operation readiness above 35% for any sustained period in 1943."(33)

 

Those "improvements" were not "foundemental" because they consists of procedures such as putting more bolts into the boggie wheels. Service upgrate packs for what everyone but you understands to be a substandard and unsatisfactory system.

So that is the Jerusalem to your little crusade. Well, the Pershing will never be the Panther so it will never be the equal of the German machinez.

Nevermind those are weapon systems capable of killing each other in almost any field conditions.

What, exactly, is that supposed to mean, other than that you are bat blind?

The first sentence of the second post of mine, on which you are building some kind of insinuation that I do not under stand, reads:

Please o please learn how to count. I noticed that you have failed to count from one to three correctly, again.

What evidence have you provided to justify your pronouncement that the Model A's reliability woes had been rectified? The average readiness rate for Pz V for the entire year of 44 was 60-65%. As for your pathetic assertion that the 31% of deadlined Panther tanks had been worn out on an non-existant march, I can only remind you that those tanks were factory fresh machines manufactured between September and December, as the previous batch of Pather tanks had already been annhilated in Normandy or Lorraine.

So, on what evidence are you going to qualify this little pet project of yours, that the M-26 was no equal to the Panther? That a variable power 2.5/5x gunsight mated to an unstablized gun is somehow better to a 0/5.5 unitary gunsight mated to a stablized gun? That the 90 L/50 wasn't more than sufficent to knock out a Panther at the frontal arc in all combat ranges?

 

Another factor here may be that US tankers were used to making fairly long road marches in their tanks where Panthers were usually transported when they were required to move any large distance. So if the M-26 had for instance driven from the port to the front they would have accumulated considerable miles even before they saw combat.

 

Just noticed this.

Some consider some of the T series tanks between the M4 and the M26 to be superior to the M26. One whose designation I forget was judged to be too "advanced" and would have required addtitional maintenence personell and was rejected for that reason even though it was in many ways a superior design.

As for the M26 being produced earlier if the need for a 90mm guned tank had been seen much earlier then a M4 with a new turret would almost assuredly have been the solution and the M-26 might never have seen service at least during WWII.

 

Agreed normally I would expect my "in theatre" reference to include such things, however you are right to point this out fully in this thread, thanks.

the T25E1 is possibly of what you are thinking, as at 35ton it was similar to the M4A3E8 76 weight and had a very good performance- it was the winner of the Churchville tank race. No doubt its cross country ability would have been further improved if the 19inch track were replaced with the 23inch track which would likely have happened to rationise track types.

The T25E1 was similar in concept to the T42 of 1949 a tank concept that was still being considered into the 1960s, effectively a T54 catorgry tank without all the ergonomic problems.

Certainly a possiblity but just like the T34 power train and suspension came to the end of its life and required a redesign (T44 and T54) by 1944 the Sherman was distictly old but certainly adaptable in the interim allowing more time to develop the T25E1, perhaps a turret based squarely on the M36 turret should have been a priority, but no doubt the problems with the AGF could have slowed that.

With regard to M26 in 1948 the M26 was Classified as Limited Standard, but served on in both U.S. Service in Korea and Europe being replaced by the M47 from 1952. Both M26 and M46 were distribed in MADP to a number of European nations including France who briefly was infatuated with Panthers.

A major advantage of the M26 series over the Panther was a better ammunition stowage and far superior ergonomics.

Steve

 

If I remember correctly in Hunnicutt's book on the Sherman there's actually a discussion of mounting the M-26 turret on the Sherman. I'll get my copy out and see But I'm thinking they did actually mount one on a Sherman for actual testing but not for sure.

edit...
Ok's it's described on paages 212-213 of Hunnicutt's book.

 

Uh, no Triple, the problems don't just go away. Have no idea what you're talking about with this Panther March comment. I certainly said no such thing. On hallucinagenics perhaps? I'll be polite & not mention what a dumb comment the "just go away" comment was, instead I'll do what I've already patiently previously done for you, i. e. highlite the FUNDAMENTAL engineering changes incorporated in the Panther circa 43, ( please do learn to count), that then appeared in the 44 circa Panther. I suppose you consider things like new gearboxes, cooling systems, engine governors, (that speed up turret speed), & upgrades in opical equipment, ( sighting the enemy! Important D'Ya think!?), as trivial meaningless sort of unimportant silly little things that bear no relevance to a vehicles reliability & performance. I can see why you're having such trouble with this subject.


Her we go, (Yet again). Do pay attn this time.

Problems were experienced with blown head gaskets. As advised by Dr Ferdinand Porsche, this was corrected by installing copper rings pressed into grooves to seal the heads of Maybach HL 230 P30 motors starting with serial number 8321466 in September 1943. Other modifications were introduced at the same time including improoved coolant circulation inside the motor and a reinforced membrane spring installed in the fuel pump.
In November 1943, starting with Maybach HL230 P30 motor number 8322575, the governor was already set at the factory for a maximum speed of 2500 rpm under full load and the motors were outfitted with a hand operated temperature control on the oil cooler.


Overheating was overcome by fitting a second cooling pump and modifying the cooling distribution. Later Panthers proved very much more reliable than the vehicles involved in the Kursk debacle.
PzKpfw V Panther

Also in November, an engine governor set at 2500rpm was installed. With the engine governor, turret traverse speed was limited to one revolution in 18 seconds. Later production

With the replacement gun sight Turrnzielfernrohr 12a, introduced during the production run of the Panther Ausf.A in late November/early December 1943, the gunner could select two magnifications, 2.5X and 5X. The lower magnification provided a wider field of view for target detection. The higher magnification assisted in precise aiming at long ranges. The adjustable range scales allowed the gunner to register the exact range to the target. The range scale was graduated at 100 meter intervals out to a range of 2000 meters for the PzGr.40/42, 3000 meters for the PzGr.39/42 and 4000 meters for the SprGr.42.

 

ickysdad
thanks mate, I already felt my posts were becoming an advert for Hunnicutts excellent books. The test model shown to General Holly at Detroit Arsenal was a T26 turret fitted to a standard M4 (16inch track) which would be distinctly over heavy, a lighter turret such as the T25 turret or one as I suggested based on the M36 (which as far as I am aware was not proposed) may well have been a good idea.

The 90mm Gun Tank M4A3 HVSS was planned as a form of "Jumbo tank" the lead tank in a column. Perhaps some joined up thinking on various projects was needed, plans were under way to update the the M4A3E2 perhaps Fisher and Chrysler should have co-operated closer, a E2 with HVSS and a 90mm in the original E2 cast turret might have been a good way of getting a 90mm tank to service by December 1944. A photo of a M4A3E2 HVSS hull is shown on page 415 on the T33 Flame thrower tank.

As you can tell I really like M4s.

Steve

 

That may be it. There was something about a very advanced transmission from what I recall.

 

Lwd
the advanced transmission you are thinking of was probably electric transmission in T23 T25 and T26 none of these reach service but the 250 T23 were used in training to some extent and were offered for service.

Electrical transmission is very advanced because it is direct drive. The T23 had a remote (umbilical) driving control unit which could be used from the turret by the commander or even standing on or by the side of the tank. The down side of electric drive in the 1940s was the weight and expense of the components. contary to popular texts the skills required by mechanics to maintan these vehicles were not a problem as Tramways and rail locomotives had used similar electrical drives since the end of the 19th century.

The other T20 series used standard mechanical systems the T20 T20E3 T25E1 T26E1 T26E2 T26E3 used Torqmatic system and T22 and T22E1 used synchromesh transmission(like a Sherman) all with Controlled differential steering.

The thing that made the T25E1 the ideal tank was an almost perfect ballance of Armour, Gun power and Motor power.

Steve

 

Let me refresh your memory.

So from the very beginning you have cited the supposed superiority of the Panther A in dependability over the M26 tank. Then there is a protracted argument over, from where I am seeing it, how exactly was the Panther A "fixed" of the foundemental flaws of its mechanics.

The fundamental weakness was the over-complex transmission and weak final drive. Let us examine your litany of improvements.

Those won't be the cure for the spontaneous combustion of Model D's, would they? Kudos to the German engineers--I still am not seeing anything indicating improved final drive or transmission.
Now, let's see the rest of the improvements.

Jeez, that wouldn't be the hydraulic traverse that you thought to be independent of engine power that's being slowed down, is it? I faintly recall that the Pershing's traverse was 15 seconds maximum.

And this is new to American tanks how?

I now ask you to back up your strong statement: M26 was not an equal to the Panther A.

The Panther had a over-strained lousy engine on a basically bad final drive. The Pershing tank had a over-strained but proven engine and a proven final drive. The relative performance of the Panther's engine does not need to be reiterated again, as you have already at length confirmed the mechanical plagues that had to be continuously modified throughout Pz V's service history, to reach basic, minimal standards of functionality.

The Panther was designed to be able to pivot in place, but the transmission allowing it the ability to do so was engineered when the Panther was still a 30 tonner. In consequence it was too fragile for serious driving. This I understands to be a feature that no one wanted for quite some time after the war ended. I expect nothing short of a complete overhaul to make the Panther work, at the scale of the HVSS upgrade to the Sherman tank. The rest is just lipstick on a pig.

You have commented that the Panther "had the time to at least partially address its shortcomings". Yet, the Germans started their improvements on a design that was glaringly bad. The short service life of the entire system, the overheating, the fuel leaking, the catching on fires without being hit, the self stripping gear box were not problems that the Pershing tank had to deal with in the first place. The Germans had much lower expectations for dependability than the Americans yet they did not stop messing around the design until Model G; and with that final incarnation of the Panther tank, serviceability continued to be poor; a point that you are still evading.

The burden of prove is on you. You have made an unambiguous statement: that in your opinion, the capabilities of the Panther A so exceeded the Pershing that the latter could not match up the Panther A at all. So far, on the firepower and protection front, it has already been proven that they were equals. So now, your claim hinges solely on the superiority of Panther A's dependability. Not parity, not equality, but superiority.

I am still waiting.

 

Just comparing transmissions for a moment:

The Panther uses a geared dual drive epicyclic system derived from earlier German geared steering systems that were a derivative of this original design patented by Major W. G. Winston in March 1917.
The innovation of the MAN system used on the Panther was to introduce two drive shafts. The main shaft drove both tracks through the transmission directly. Each track had epicyclic gearin that was the final drive to each track. Outboard of these gears was a clutch for each track.
A secondary drive from the transmission was installed that directly drove either one or both tracks to steer the tank. This worked independently of the main drive by the driver disengaging the clutch on one or both tracks to turn the tank using the steering (secondary) drive.
In this way the Panther had a varying turn radius depending on what gear it was in. It could also be made to pivot in place by clutching the inside track on the turn while using the outside track steering drive to turn the vehicle giving it a zero turn radius.

The M 26 on the other hand uses one of the first hydro-kinetic torque converter transmissions in an AFV. This system originally started development in 1943 at the GM Transmission Products Study Group by GM engineers O. K. Kelly and G. Hause. This is much more sophisticated transmission. In the M 26 it was dubbed the Cross-Drive Transmission. Post war it was developed into the Allison CD 850 series and remained in basic form the standard transmission of US tanks through the M 60 series. Variants were used in most other US AFV post war as well.
The Cross-Drive transmission combines the gear box with the final drive into one unit. The engine output is directed to a torque converter that delivers equal power to both tracks. A PTO internally drives the steering clutches and steering output at the tracks. This system allows the tank not only to pivot in place but to literally spin in place driving tracks in opposite directions. The turn radius is essentially infinite.

See: Design and Development of Fighting Vehicles R M Ogorkiewicz

On gunnery: One thing the Panther definitely cannot match the M 26 in is being used as indirect fire artillery. The M 26 is equipped with a M1 Gunner's Quadrant, M20 Azimuth Indicator, M1 aiming post with M14 aiming light, and an M9 elevation quadrant. These along with the M22 fuze setter allow the M 26 to fire just like any indirect fire artillery piece would. The fuze setter allows for using time delay HE rounds for air bursts as would be found in other conventional artillery.

US Military Vehicles World War II Edward Hoffschmitt, William Tantum ed.

 

M-26 was later upgraded oddly enough to pivot like the Panther.

(how exactly was the Panther A "fixed" of the foundemental flaws of its mechanics.)

This question Triple is answered in post 70. Add to that the suspension fixes done after Kursk.



It was at Targul Frumos that I first met the Stalin tanks. It was a shock to find that, although my Tigers began to hit them at a range of 3,000 metres, our shells bounced off, and did not penetrate them until we had closed to half that distance.

Panther Tank

 

"a design that was glaringly bad."

Interesting that all tank experts on every tank show on the Military Channel & History channel one could not find even one expert that would concur with this unenlightened view. You're welcome to it, but you'll be very alone in it.



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)."

 

I still am not seeing anything indicating improved final drive or transmission.
Now,

Ausf A
the introduction of a stronger running gear and drive train and better cooling for the engine exhausts. The number of bolts holding the wheels together was also increased

Panzerkampfwagen V Panther Ausf A

Ther ya go.

 

Pz.Kpfw.Panther

"Ther ya go."

So the Final drive was (Im not 100% confident with the source.) improved, but not enough.

 

Yep, but moreso than the M-26.


Ranking the World's Best Land Weapons of World War II," by Robert A. Slayton

on a one-on-one basis, with a single, perfectly running Panther against a T-34/85 in the same condition, the Panther was the best tank of the war,


& yes the T-34/85 could be mass produced & all that. We know.