M-26 Pershing & Panther Ausf A head to head

I know that already. Actually, I told you that three posts ago.

I said: "Those 'improvements' were not 'foundemental' because they consists of procedures such as putting more bolts into the boggie wheels. "

I hope I didn't need to highlight that in bold, but it looks like your eyes are suffering from something quite vicious.

Brandishing gun accuracy and penetration figures again?

Why are you even trying to pretend that I am talking about anything other than the glaring badness of the Panther's automotive design? You really think that's fooling anybody?

I really, really want to see where did you find your cohorts of tank experts praising the Panther's outstanding mechanical function and dependability. I doubt that will be on the History/Military Channel though, they are not *that* bad.

 

Panther automotive design is not its sole measure of battle performance,( or any other tank's for that matter), hence gun performance posts etc. While I fail to genuinely understand the emotional outbreak this has caused you, my sincere apologies nonetheless. Out of curiosity, why do you EXCLUSIVELY dwell on Panther reliability issues, yet gloss past, ignore & pay no heed to the Pershings similiar shortcomings??? Perhaps a question that doesn't really need to be asked then is it.

& no, the earlier site post was not my sole criteria, ( which you should know as I mentioned other comparitive paramenters page 1.) To sum up, turret speeds are bout the same. Panther faster, more maneuverable, more accurate gun. As mentioned previously, Panther had time to work on technical issues, Pershing did not. Pershing lower sillouette & thicker side armor the scant advantages one could find for it. Shells heavier, slower loading.

Gardner mentioned an auto loader for the M-26...



An auto-loading mechanism was designed and tested, but it proved to be unreliable and was dropped.

HowStuffWorks "M-26 General Pershing Heavy Tank"

 

Finally, out of wind?

Using how stuff works as a source is utterly laughable! Maybe the writers there join the history channel experts after work for a beer?

It has already been shown conclusively that the gun power, fire controls, and armor of the two tanks are on par or nearly equal. You have shown that the Panther A were given some little gadgets that the Americans already have in their older tanks. Page after page, and you have shown... what's the word? Drivel.

I don't have to prove another damned thing because I am not the bumpking making extraordinary statements and then going about reciting things that everyone already knows. I am not the person who, failing to come up with either facts or even insults, has to collect the words and arguments others had heaped on him and recycle them one post after.

Sorry dude. You came here to pick a fight and that's what you got.

 

I never mentioned an auto loader. I did state the M 26 had a fuze setter for firing time delayed HE rounds. This is not an auto loader.

 

your post seems to have got lost in what could be described as "a severe case of over bombing".

If a tank is being utilized as a glorified Tank Destroyer as in the case of the Panther to some extent this was also the case with conversions such as the Sherman Vc Firefly then the smaller calibre works. Other examples of this are the use of 57mm guns in the British Churchill tanks -which have really good A/T performance but rubbish HE anti infantry-exploitantion performance. The Russian also had a shortlived T34/57 T/D which again was great for A/T work but no use in the normal tank role.

However tanks are not just TDs they must be able to carry out the full explotation -offensive mission as well as defensive T.D. missions. The U.S. Ordnance had the sense to move to the 90mm gun for this reason, as T.A. Gardner has posted in #75 the 90mm gun cannot be matched by a High velocity 75mm gun, the capacity of the shell is important and in 1944 the new proximity fuses dictated the calibre of the gun.

Comparing the 75mm KwK 42 (and the British 17pdr) to the 90mm M3 as an HE firing weapon either as a indirect fire supplementing artillery or as a explotation weapon, the higher expenditure of HE shells (even allowing for lower propelling charge) will wear out an excessively long barrel, reducing its value as a "long rifle" in A/T mode.

The M3 90mm L/53 was about the ideal length, the British were developing a 3.7inch around their heavy A/A in what looks very like a 17pdr tank mount when the War ended. Imeditally Post War the U.S. Ordnance trialed a 3inch L70 gun (based on the U.S. Navy, Royal Navy and RCN joint A/A gun programme weapon) which was a bit more powerful than a KwK42. The ordnance came to the conclusion a lower stressed weapon was better. The British abandoned the 3.7in gun and designed a slightly smaller weapon the 82.4mm 20pdr gun.

hope this is of some use

Steve

 

You picked the fight Triple, you lost it too, but let's be clear & honest about it, you picked it. You claim fire controls equal, Uh, then where is the evidence for this? Some sort of comparison table we can see perhaps. Spouting opinions is not the stuff of argumentation victory. I've dropped more links than you 8 to 1. So yer blast at one link is laughable.



Fire extinguishers would be activated in the engine compartment if temperature rose above 120° C.

the commander's cupola was 10.25" high with 6 slots around it which provided very good visibility. It was later replaced in the Ausf A(2) model with armored periscopes

Germany's Panzerkampfwagen V, Panther, SdKfz 171 - World War II Vehicles




The weakest parts in the tank were, throughout its career, the final drive units. The main reason was that the units could not be manufactured using hollow spur gears, due to the shortage of suitable gear-cutting machinery in Germany during the war.

Panther tank: Facts, Discussion Forum, and Encyclopedia Article


Chapter 5 and page 52 of Georges Bernage’ Book ‘The Panzers and the Battle of Normandy’ are full of descriptions of tank fires and of the Fuel cell vapor problems in particular, along with most books dealing with tank combat. Although incoming tank round hits was most likely the #1 cause for fire or explosion. Prior to Fighting Vehicles with effective flash fire control and better ventilation systems I would say that about all ‘Tanks’ of any nationality suffered from this vulnerability, exampled by the sometimes tremendous explosions which occurred by direct hit penetrations which threw whole turrets hundreds of feet in the air and blew the whole machine to total smithereens.

 

6 years after the war was over, it was "still" considered on a par with a Gremlin or a Vega in the Tank world.


the 70th, was composed of the M-26 Pershing, a latecomer to World War II and holder of a dubious reputation as to its reliability and effectiveness. Colonel Rodgers, commander of the 70th, jokingly told how his outfit was thrown together in five days,

By the end of 1951, all Pershing tanks had been purged from the inventory.

Tanks and Tankers in Korea, 1950 - 51 » Armchair General (2)

 

On gunsights:

There is literally nothing to choose between these on WW 2 tanks. All of the ones employed used a statia reticle sight. Magnification was typically x5 to x7 with a lower x2 to x3 setting for target aquisition.
The sights all worked the same way. The gunner would line up the target on a baseline and the gunner would then resolve the focal length until the top of the target lined up with a height gauge on the sight. In a typical cross hairs type sight the bottom of the tank would be set on the horizontal line. The top would then be measured against a series of vertical tic marks or one calibrated for a particular height.
When focused properly the gunner could then read the range off a scale calibrated against the focal length. This gave the approximate range (usually +/- say 100 to 200 meters) to the target. If the target was moving the gunner estimated the speed and offset the cross hairs left or right against a horizontal speed scale.
How quickly and accurately a gunner could do this was largely dependent on training and experiance. These counted far more than the accuracy of the sight. So, whatever the miniscule differences between these on various tanks of the period might be it really doesn't matter. It is the quality of the gunner far more than the gunsight in obtaining fast and early hits.

 

Funny I once read a Sherman tanker jumped into a panzer & peeked through the optics, he was amazed by it's superiority. He had wondered why they usually hit them 1st, now he had the answer. Will try & dig it up.

The Centurian was still in use in 68 in Viet Nam, if the Pershing was as good as Gardner would have us believe, it would have had simliar long legs.

As to the Panther trans, again, lack of high grade steel & machine tools,( if this below is correct), would seem the culprit. The US by contrast did not suffer this same disadvantage. Endless supply of high grade steel & a much larger industrial base. Yet they still did not match the Germans in tank design.



The weakest parts in the tank were, throughout its career, the final drive units. The main reason was that the units could not be manufactured using hollow spur gears, due to the shortage of suitable gear-cutting machinery in Germany during the war.

Panther tank: Facts, Discussion Forum, and Encyclopedia Article

 

The problem with the Panther's transmission and final drive was the Germans used straight cut and hobbed gears. These took only a minimum of machining skill and time to produce. But, they were much weaker and under considerably more stress than the herringbone involute gears the US used in their tanks. But, these required a far higher degree of machining skill and alot more time and tooling to produce.

The British also flew the Gloster Meteor (NF 14 model) in operational service until August 1961 when the last squadron, 60, gave theirs up for the obsolesent Gloster Javelin. Would the longevity of the Meteor in service likewise make it a superior aircraft on the basis of longevity?

 

Skill of the crew aside, we have this...

Tiger
"Up to 2000m the 88 shoots flat. Only from 3000m is one shot in 3 a miss. ( 75 was even better than 88).


US
"To Obtain 50-50 Probability Of Hit On Standing Tank At 1500 Meters:
World War II Medium Tank - Had to fire 13 Rounds.

Korean War Medium Tank - Had to fire 3 rounds"

88mm KwK 36 L/56 accuracy test and some ideas - Page 39 - Battlefront Forum


But then the Pershing was originally classed a heavy tank. This sounds more like a Sherman vs Tiger/Panther. Question is, did the Pershing & Late model Shermans have the same optics?

 

You are quoting some unknown person on another message board who doesn't even post any references for their statement?!!! Right.

 

Nope, data is from manuals, Right!

Meteor was not in combat in Viet Nam, irrelevant argument.

 

Sgt. George A. Barden, (US Army), of the 2nd Armoured Division:

"I took from a German officer a pair of field glasses 10x50, the best glasses I've ever seen. On two occasions, I was able to pick up an antitank position and a mortar postion at a range of about one mile, when those same two targets could not be seen using a pair of G.I. glasses, 7x50."

 

Chrome, none of those technical minutiae which most of us know already spreading over God knows how many pages supported your claim whatsoever. Your claim says that A is better than B. Basic logic demands that one actually will need to investigate the qualities of both A & B; what have you been doing lately?

75 L/70 is an accurate and powerful gun: We got that already. In lieu of the Panther A's significantly inferior armor all around, it'd need it be. The Pershing had about 100mm of sloped armor on glacis plate and 114mm of mantlet. Panther A had 80mm of well sloped glacis plate, 100mm on the mantlet. Panther's glacis was 15 degrees better sloped. It's not going to make up for the one quarter inferiority of its base armor. And we still haven't talked about the A's shottrap, a weakness regularly exploited by allied tankers and TDs with 3in. or 76mm guns.

Pershing tank's thick sides isn't just a slight advantage, it is a major one. A tank's side armor should be capable of resisting the lowest caliber enemy infantry AT weapon at reasonable range. The Pershing's hull & turret sides and lower front hull armor stands a chance against German 50mm guns. The Panther's side armor is easily punched through by the 57mm/6 pdr. Lower front hull armor rarely gets hit, but having odd angles on an adversary is usually when you slaughter him.

German optics are crisp, we know that too. It still confers no advantage in magnification power or target acquisition as the specs are closely matched if not identical. Btw, by the same token of your comparison, maybe I should compare a Panzer IV ausf J a Pershing as a technological demonstration of why the Germans lost?

The fire extinguisher in the Panther A is indeed a smart device to have around, because as fire hazard the Panther was fully an equal to the early Sherman tank. Watch the Cologne film and check out where the Panther stored its ammunition.

 

As to your extensive training comment, notice last sentence, couple hours of instruction required.


From Michael Green's 'Tiger Tanks'

"Tiger tank commanders were provided with a small optical coincidence-type rangefinder to assist with the observation and ranging of targets.

Coincidence type rangefinders work very well under conditions of clear visibility or when used on sharply defined objects. It is also relatively easy to train competent operators. Only a couple of hours of instruction are usually required.

88mm KwK 36 L/56 accuracy test and some ideas - Page 43 - Battlefront Forum


There's loads of interesting quotes here. I'd suggest you join in here. Here's another,


Captain Charles L. Davis, relating an attack on German positions by units of the 1st AD:

"A look through the glasses showed at least one Mark VI firing at approximately 3000 yards....near miss immobilizing the vehicle...realizing the futility of using the 75mm gun to compete with high velocity weapons equipped with superior fire control elements in that situationthe Platoon Leader ordered the crew to abandon the tank."



One can see why the rush was on for the 90 mm, late model 17 pounder & sherman 75.

 

This whole thread is based on some computer game called "Combat Mission." I will leave to others to decide whether data based off of a video game is worthwhile or not.

 

LoL! More nameless experts. Assuming it is right, Pray tell:

1. Based on what evidence do you make your pronouncement that the 75mm L/70 is more accurate than the 88mm L/56 at 3,000 meters? Because if one weapon is more accurate at 1,000m, 1,500m and 2,000m it will be better at 3,000?

2. What are the conditions of the shooting? Say... is that a factory accuracy test? Or a shot made by some elite SS Panzer commander in one engagement?

3. You wouldn't have the primary source for the average number of rounds fired by German Panther crews expended in tank to tank combat and the Pershing's, would you?

 

Incorrect term Triple. Minutia by definition means A minor detail, often of negligible importance. Things like gearboxes, guns, drivetrains, fire suppression gear, rangefinding/optics equipment & all could not be by any stretch of the imagination be termed minutia in regards to a tank & it's performance. No serious Tank expert would concur with that view.


Last post on optics.


The last of these principal factors can add a huge advantage - one which the Germans historically possessed throughout most of the war. Their sights although having a magnification similar to those of the Allies 2.5x (exception Tiger I L, Panther A, G & Tiger II, all had dual power 2.5x & 5x), had almost double the field of view (25 degrees) & far better optical clarity.

 

This whole thread is based on some computer game called "Combat Mission." I will leave to others to decide whether data based off of a video game is worthwhile or not.


Actually no, it was about German vs allied tank guns, range et al. Sorry no di. Quotes from US army personnel do not fit that characterization. Nice attempt to supress info you are uncomfortable with, but at the end of the day,, that's all that is.