M-26 Pershing & Panther Ausf A head to head

If the Pershing shoots back with APCBC or HVAP

Don't forget, HVAP went to artillery.

So let's sum up. Pershing worse reliability, less accurate gun, slower, less maneuverable. Optics poorer. Even? not on a good day.

 

Oh & remeber Razin, the berating was started by others, Please get that straight. & as to dubious sources, that remains unproven, therefore just negative innuendo. I have provided more source material than any other poster. Please take note & save unneccesary remarks for elsewhere please & thankyou.

Even though its muzzle velocity was less than that of the German Mark V Panther or the German Mark VI King Tiger, it was still by far the best tank we had at the time.

http://www.geocities.com/jeffduquette/PattonM26.html

 

So what if Centurian had different gun at Viet Nam, Panzers had different guns DURING WW 2.

the M26 but was armed with the newer M3AI 90mm gun. Although acceptable for a late 1940s design, it had many deficiencies. Over 800 were produced by modification of the stock of M26 Pershings including a new engine and transmission, improved fire control and suspension systems.

M46 Patton






"Having already lost several of the new [Pershing] M26's [aka T26] to high-velocity German anti-tank guns, we knew that its armor was still inferior to that of the Mark VI Tiger."

Super Pershing vs. King Tiger - Dessau

Yah I know, Tiger not a Panther, but the gun comment is interesting.










Maneuverability? Many modeling sites mention the Army's dissatisfatcion with M-26's maneuverability, but not gonna post any of those.



Super Pershing vs. King Tiger - Dessau


Initially the tankers favored the M26 Pershing but later on in 1951 they favored the M4A3E8 Sherman (armed with HVAP) more than the M26 due to its reliability, ease of handling, and its maneuverability.

 

Here a USMC Korean war tanker talks the M-26 & it's transmission band issues..

the M-46A1 was the dominant Tank in Korea til the end of hostilities...it had a Continental engine backed up with 810 hp, a more modified suspension system for a smoother ride and a different transmission that had no transmission band problems, which was frequent to the M-26...that handicap could red/line a Pershing in nothing flat..

Tanks in World War 2 Forum • View topic - Tanks of the Korean War

 

That they were later classed as such doesn't mean that they were initially. The sources I mentioned tell you when they were reclassified.

Does it? I'd like to see some proof of that.

It's not been shown that it has worse relilability. Indeed there is some evidence that it has better reliability.
[/quote]

Perhaps but is there a practicle difference in accurac?

Weaker armor flank armor, not as good a HE round, poorer ergonomics, slower turret traverse...

Well maybe on a good day (for the Panther) if the Pershing was having a bad one.

Ignoring the weaknesses and assuming the strengths is an intellectually dishonest way to debate.

 

You have offered nothing to show the Pershing has worse reliability. The Panther obviously has alot of mechanical problems on an ongoing basis: Poor final drives, weak transmission, engine cooling problems and engine fires, low miles to failure tracks, suspension complexity adding to repair difficulties, among other things.
The Pershing has transmission problems.

Less accurate gun: You offer nothing concrete to show the US 90 is any less accurate than the German 75. I put up the probability of a hit from empherical testing by the MAN company of their Panther both under ideal conditions giving the gun's dispersion rate devoid of other influences and under firing range conditions.
I doubt the 90 is significantly different in accuracy.

Slower. Again relative. Yes, the Pershing is slower when you look at its maximum road speed. This is rarely used in service. How many times do you drive your car at maximum speed? Cross country there appears to be little if any difference in speed.

Maneuverability? Again you offer nothing to show that one is more maneuverable than the other. The Panther and M26 can both zero pivot. The M26 turn radius is infinitely variable while the Panther's varies by gear setting. Both have about equal trench and vertical step ability and both can climb a 60% grade.

Optics poorer? Again you offer nothing empherical to show this. Both have stadia reticule sighting systems. Both have roughly equal magnification and field of view. So, what hard evidence do you offer that the Panther is superior?

 

Some pics of German repair facilities with 2 types of mobile gantry, the tiger was even more maintenance than a Panther requiring the removal of the turret to replace the transmission, where as the Panthers could be removed as shown in my earlier post, but only after removal of much of the hull interior, seats controls etc- at least the turret did not have to be lifted.
View attachment 5754

View attachment 5755

View attachment 5756

This really only applies to the electric drive T26 [after the test in the winter of 1944 it was concluded that T26 (electric) was not suitable for further development].
The T26E3 (m26) having a three step torqmatic transmission and a minumum turning circle of 60feet.

Post war as the British had the Panther manufacturing plant in their military zone had a number of Panther and Jagdpanther built for tests. All built to final production standard.

One of the Jagdpathers was used at the MVEE (Military Vehicle Experimental Establishment) at Chertsey England as a range recovery tug, a very popular vehicle by all accounts, as the gun had not been fitted a sofa was fitted in the fighting compartment along with the mandatory British tea making equipment.

All went well until, when pulling a target on an incline the JP stalled, the driver fluffed the restart allowing fuel to flood through the carbs, resulting in a standard cooked maybach, the JP was left were it stood as a target of years until recovered as part of a restoration.

Steve

 

I doubt the 90 is significantly different in accuracy.

That's about as UN-technical as one could get. Show us a similiar test where the 90 mm could put all its shots in a 12 inch circle at 1000 yards, then you've got something. Til then, you're "you doubt it" gets no merit.

& yes I have shown you the Pershing was less mechanically reliable from the USMC comments in the field, & all the numerous sites, technical comments you must have purposefully not read. Panther got suspension upgrades, Pershing got this only later.

Extra cooling fans were added to the engine as were improved bearings to help the chassis bear the tank's weight of nearly 50 tons.
HowStuffWorks "Panzerkampfwagen V Panther Modifications"











The series went from the 26 to 46 & 47, & then the 48. The 48 still resembled the 26, but was yet another technical not so great achievement.

M48 Patton. [6]

Nearly 12,000 M48s were built from 1952 to 1959. The early designs were powered by gasoline engines which gave the tank a short operating range and were prone to catching fire when hit. This version was considered unreliable but numerous examples saw combat use in various Arab-Israeli conflicts. They also were prone to fire when the turret was penetrated and the hydraulic lines ruptured spewing "cherry juice" (the nickname for the red colored hydraulic fluid) at high pressure into the crew compartment resulting in a fireball. The flashpoint was too low at less than 300 F, causing many burn injuries and deaths to crew members

Later M-48 A3's converted to diesel in 1964. Centurian had no such similiar track record.




Panther also had night vision equipment, yet another advantage over the Pershing. Here's another interesting view on Pershing/Super Pershing frontal armor.


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,

Amazon.com: Tommytank1@aol.com's review of Death Traps: The Survival of an American A...

 

Looks like the crossdrive transmission came later.

The M26 was indirectly the first in the line of the famous Patton tanks used by the US Army. The M46 Patton tank was in fact a rebuilt derivative of the M26 with a new engine (Ordnance-Continental AV-1790-3) and transmission (CD-850-2 Crossdrive).

M26 Pershing


M-47

Radius of turn was dependent on tank speed. The slower the speed, the sharper the turn. At a standstill, the vehicle could be made to pivot on the spot

The Patton Tank M47



& turning is not the only measure of maneuverability. Climbing hills, going over rocks etc all play into it. Panther has more power for hills. & this is why tanker preferred the Sherman over Pershing in Korea, could get to places easier.



& the quote above regarding Pershing vs Panther or Tiger is from Steven Zaloga.

read "Armored Thunderbolt" by Steven Zaloga, which gives the most balanced, well documented, and accurate history of the M4 Sherman's role in the European theater in WWII. Zaloga, who is a professional tank historian with countless books about tanks and tank warfare

Amazon.com: Tommytank1@aol.com's review of Death Traps: The Survival of an American A...

 

If these figures are anywhere near accurate, you're "you doubt it" technical thesis is sent off as they say. As anasides, the comments of US army personnel, ( Consensus of ALL personnel of 66th Armored regiment), have been previously supplied to you in this thread. Is it wishful thinking, or just your usual bias against German engineering that prevents you from accepting this data?

7.5 cm L/70
Muzzle velocity: 925 m/s
7.5 cm KwK 42 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

90 mm M3
Muzzle velocity: 823 m/s
90 mm gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




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"







Even though its muzzle velocity was less than that of the German Mark V Panther or the German Mark VI King Tiger, it was still by far the best tank we had at the time.

http://www.geocities.com/jeffduquette/PattonM26.html

 

M26 Pershing

Turning Radius (m) 18.3
Horsepower (max.) 500hp
Ground Clearance (m) 0.44




PzKpfw V Ausf. G, Panther

Turning Radius (m) 10.0
Horsepower (max.) 700hp
Ground Clearance (m) 0.56






M26 Pershing
PzKpfw V Ausf. G, Panther

 

Well, you say you showed that the Pershing was less reliable mechanically, well I can show you that the Panther was worse. The first two Panthers lost were due to fires in the engine compartment before combat started. This problem was not solved even in the G model. The introduction of fire extinguishers in the engine compartment and the advise given to the crews not to climb steps over 30º are a major no no. That says a lot. The drive train even in the G version had a life expectancy of 150Km. You may say that "oh the Germans didn't have the rare materials to build better ones because IF they had..." well, they didn't and the Panther reliability suffered accordingly. Plus, the Pershing was easier to produce than the Panther and
If one was disabled, it was easier to repair. That's a thumbs up in my book. Regarding the gun, the Pershing gun had slightly less penetration power than the 75mm. However, the Anti infantry power it gained was more than enough for me to choose this gun. It was less complex and lasted longer which are also great advantages
in the logistics department. Anyway, the panther was a great tank when it worked and I think the outcome of a one-on-one with a Pershing depended more on the
skill of the crew than the tank itself. However, the Pershing extra armour could prove decisive. Oh and the Panther side armour was a major weakness.




Cheers...

 

Right now you are running in circles and cycling through the same old claims that you have made--criticisms of Pershing tank and descriptions of the Panther, both of which in isolation to the other.

Brigadier General Collier led CCA, 2d Armored Division. The Pershing tank was only allocated to two armored divisions in the US Army during WWII, the 3d AD and the 9th AD. Any commander or tanker in the 2d AD could not have been asked to compare the Pershing to the Panther, as they were not given any. The only AFV they could have possibly been talking about was the Sherman 75/76 and M-36. All of which were inferior in either firepower or protection to the Pershing.

Good luck with trying to vindicate yourself with a misquoted Belton Cooper. His (very misguided) opinion is that had the Pershing tank been mass produced instead of the Sherman, the US Army would have steamrolled through the bocage, the Siegfried, the Ardennes and all--presumably over all the Panther A/G tanks defending those places as well. A reasonable assumption, yes?

He and his boys up-armored the Super Pershing to defeat the Tiger B tank which is a completely different beast from the Panther.

Funny that you are quoting Zaloga. That wouldn't be the man who characterized the dependability of the entire Panther series from A to G as inadequate and vastly inferior to American vehicles, would it? I own his book on the Pershing tank, by the way, so are you going to enlighten me as to on which page did he express his expert opinion that the Pershing was inferior to the Panther tank?

We are all waiting for you.

 

The IR set up was not considered good enough for combat. It was specificaly forbiden to use IR sights on the Western Front because the Allies had IR detectors ready and waiting for just such an event. The IR Panthers, if they had managed to get them working properly (they never did) would have been quickly detected and eliminated. The best description I have heard of this combination is that it would be like sniping at night but using a torch to find your target!

There were only 3 Pershings knocked out in WW2. Not suprising because of the small number that actualy saw combat. Only one of the three was written off.

 

Show me a site where anyone claims they can put all shots at that range inside a 12 inch circle and I'll show you a site that's stretching the truth. I can readily believe that the Panther could put most of it's shots inside such a circle at a range. But if you look a the post earlier in this thread

it certainly implies that the 90mm gun was capable of similar accuracy.
[qutoe]
& yes I have shown you the Pershing was less mechanically reliable from the USMC comments in the field, & all the numerous sites, technical comments you must have purposefully not read. Panther got suspension upgrades, Pershing got this only later.
[/quote]
No you have not shown that. Lacking a metric that allows comparisons you have mearly demostrated the possibility. Indeed since greater reliability was experianced by US tankers with previous models you could expect them to be significantly more critical of similar reliability than the Germans. As has also been mentioned the US had different usage patterns for one thing they transported their vehicles less and drove them a lot more. You have not only failed to account for this you've failed to even acknowledge it.

Now you are no longer claiming the Pershin was inferior just not superior. Further more you have limited it to head on head battles vs the Tiger and Panther. Panthers were also knocked out by frontal hits from Pershings were they not? I think Tigers may have been as well but am not sure. Certainly it was a possibility.

 

Note this review contains a number of factual errors and suppostions that probably are traceable back to the book reviewed. In any case the review of a book is hardly a source of hard facts.

 

Let's see plugging those numbers in along with the projectile weights listed gives the German gun a muzzle energy of ~3,000,000 kg*m*m/s*s and the US gun has ~3,600,000 kg*m*m/s*s. This means the US gun has greater effect and for similar penetraters greater penetration. Furthermore the US projectile should maintain it's velocity and energy better over range than the German gun.

I suppose you can document this? I seriously doubt it by the way.

So a panther is better in this regard than a M-10?

There are similar quotes where the Germans mention US tanks haveing better mobility.

Now you are comparing it not just to a Tiger but a King Tiger. Muzzle velocity by the way is not the be all and end all to a tanks performance.

 

Ok in your post #82 you say that mobility isn’t everything then in post #130 you state that the Panther was much more mobile citing that the Pershing was replaced in Korea with the more agile M4A3 76 HVSS you further went on to quote figures without comment in post # 132

It would better if you published a full table of the salient points. This is from the comparative data in Hunnicutt with an addition from J.Walter Spielberger where he gave a more favourable figure. (J. Walter Spielberger served in Wehrmacht technical services during WW2. (I have not published the whole comparative data as I Think we have already done the armour however if members wish I will endeavour to fit it into a useable format).

M26 Pershing

Turning Radius (m) 18.3m
Horsepower Gross 500hp
Power to weight ratio 10.8hp/ton
Gradient 60%
Step 1.77m
Ground Clearance (m) 0.44m
Ground pressure (floatation) 12.5psi zero penetration
Fording depth 1.22m
Speed 25mph
Range 100miles
ammunition 70rds + 5000rds .30cal +550 .50cal
Elevation +20° to -10°


PzKpfw V Ausf. G, Panther

Turning Radius 10.m
Horsepower Gross 700hp
Power to weight ratio 13.8hp/ton
Gradient 60%
Step 0.9m
Ground Clearance 0.56m
Ground pressure (floatation) 12.4psi zero penetration (Spielberger)
Fording depth 1.9m
Speed 28.4mph
Range 124miles
Ammunition 79rds (A) 81 (G) + 4200rds 7.92
Elevation +20° to -4°

The above tables show that there is little to support that there was any major differences between the two tanks in contention, both have the same gradient and ground pressure-floatation.
Panther marginally better performance, better wading, ground clearance, larger number of main armament rounds.
Pershing better step, more secondary armament rounds, better elevation/ depression.

There is no justification of better performance claim. I added the gun elevation range to the table as they are critical parameters in tank design –the ability to depress the main armament in attack- to hit close range targets and deploy co-axial MG against infantry and very importantly in defensive positions for main armament fire control, very important in Korea were positional warfare became the norm.

Unless you are quoting a properly researched user survey, there is little point in saying the U.S. Tankers in Korea were dissatisfied with Pershings, it would be necessary to take into account the fact that in 1948 the Pershing was classified as Limited Standard. Soldiers tend to be disgruntled if they perceive that their mates in other theatres are using more up to date equipment, especially if they are not engaged in action.

Further I really don’t see were you are going with the M48 in Post #129 . If you are inferring that the Pershings hydraulic traverse was a liability then I would not disagree, hydraulic fluid in any tank can have very serious consequences for the crew, however a burst line rarely ignites (although it can in theory ignite at as low as 40° c because of the pressure factor), the main danger is a “cold burn” injury as the fluid especially under pressure will go straight through a crewman’s exposed skin causing dermal necrosis, however it did become a worry for U.S. Crews in Vietnam and in Israel. It has to be remembered that the Panther had a huge quantity of a similar hydraulic fluid in the transmission and its oil cooler within the crew compartment.

FYI while its not part of the thread but Centurion received a Diesel in Israeli service.

~Steve

 

I think the Panther set up and the Sdkfz251 Eagle Owl was used successfully against Russian M4A2 Shermans during Operation Bagration in Byelorussia Summer 1944 and again during the fighting in Hungary in 1945.
~Steve