M-26 Pershing & Panther Ausf A head to head

I will stick to nuts and bolts for the moment
The Panther and the Pershing had the same ground pressure + or - 0.1lb per sqin

They both had the same gradient.

The Panther could wade deeper than a Pershing assuming they unshipped its bow gun and some idiot got out and put the rubber plug in the ball mount.

The Pershing had a better vertical step than the Panther.

The Panther was marginally faster on roads and could carry more fuel (the U.S. had more fuel available).

10metres is not a pivot turn for a 6.9m long tank with a track on ground length of 3.9m and centres of 2.7m that's why I called it a near pivot turn unlike post war US vehicles and the wartime British tanks such as Churchill and Comet- it rather like your 12inch accuracy stuff -I'm sure there is remedial math on line which might benefit you after doing the english course so we can understand you.

So there is no substantive difference in mobility I also offered to upload the full text of Hunnicutt Pershing, Panther, Tiger 1 comparison- perhaps you fear incontrovertible evidence?

You have failed to respond to my points about:- ergonomics, weapons control, poor ammunition stowage, to mention just a few.

As to a claim that a Panther has a armour equivalence of 185mm of frontal armour the glacis of the Panther is 80mm thick at 35° that is equivelent to 140mm at 90° The Ausf A turret front was 110mm at 79° = 113mm at 90°. The mantlet is 100m half round there is no point in correcting for shape as this was a weakness in both tanks as a glancing blow below the mean will put the round into the turret ring or roof of the tank hull. Final ausf Gs had a flat front on the lower part of the manlet at 120mm at 90°. How do I know this I did the Math QED.

In Post #127 all members using this thread were asked by the moderator to behave, I endevour to obey the rules outlined by the moderators, I know I have offended members on two occasions for which I apologised, I have asked you on several occasions to check your behavour. Further you have accused me of "coloring your statements for my own advantage" I have asked you to explain this- you failed to do so. You demeaned another member by calling into question the quality of his educational attainment, for which I suggested you apologise, you haven't. Your thread perhaps should be called "I like Panthers, Panthers should replace the M1A1, I don't want to hear your opinon just agree with me."

We should all self police our posts, the moderators have a right to enjoy the forum as much if not more so than anyone else without having to resort to policing actions - especially as the posts are so difficult. After Post #127 I decided to look at the public profiles as I was worried I was trying to debate with a 13 year old, that would have been a simpler explaination and regarding your final remarks if I did get personal you would loose and I would be facing a DD.

Steve (Razin)

 

Here's a nice little gem I stumbled across. Wish I had something to add other than there are good nuts and some juice. Read it all but #202 had a bit that made me laugh. " I like Panthers, Panthers should replace the M1A1, I don't want to hear your opinion just agree with me." lol

 

Another goodie in this thread... one guy: " I just bought his book on armor ". Other guy: " glad to hear your library has doubled". SNAP! Hahaha.

 

When it comes to the Panther's gun, its quite safe to say it was overrated. This is coming from me, who you guys insist is a Panzer queen.
you have to remember that penetration was tested in different ways, while there were post war tests which showed the guns compared to one another. The kwk42 had roughly the same performance as the 17 pounder when it came to velocity, yet the 17 pounder had a far heavier shell. Post war tests indicate the 17 pounder was a substantially better weapon, and the 90mm was the equal to the 17 pounder. We can safely assume the 90mm was superior.

When it comes to armor, the Pershing was absolutely superior. The quality of the armor was about 15-30% better than the Panther, even a correctly produced Panther, and so it was a solid tank. The US was the only country which fielded large numbers of tanks with the best armor, which was in the area of 240bhn. Even the so called "poor" early sherman tanks were of equal quality to the best German tanks, with about 270 bhn armor.

When it comes to mobility, it could very well be as mobile as the Panther. It seems quite well matched, and it had the same efficient controlled differential steering, while having a superior suspension to the Sherman. The KT itself was as good as the Sherman if not better in many ways, its totally possible for the Pershing to really blow away the Sherman, and possibly the Panther.

 

Wow. What a battle...The other Kursk....Don't remember, still shell shocked...Were Panthers produced using slave labour?...Is it possible some Panthers were sabotaged during manufacture (transmission- someone could easily throw a rock in there at the assembly plant)- thereby reducing its effectiveness/performance reviews?...Too bad chrome had to go..he made some interesting points.

 

Panther-Pershings have been compared enough, I guess, but I am curious about the Pershing. Given it's length gestation , I should say on and off, it appears to have come out with a
well conceived chassis and hull. The silhouette is relatively low, the front glassis is well sloped , tracts wide. I have to assume the turret was basically the one left from trying to up gun the Sherman. That or "Mr Potato Head" was involved. I understand it's height, fighting room, but obviously slab sided, as if the lessons of sloped armor had not been applied. The side turret to hull connection is pretty good, no big traps. It shares a mantle characteristic with the Panther, the lower half curving back to the hull turret connection so it seems both would deflect a projectile into the hull. As it is not uncommon I surmise it is to allow increase vertical movement of the main gun. A plus in the Sherman.Perhaps a good trade off. It does appear given the time elapsed that a stronger drive train could have been developed if started earlier. I guess the rush to get it into combat dictated the drive train which performed well in the Sherman. I read somewhere that the Sherman was favored over the Pershing in Korea.

I rather like the Pershing, with the Sherman more that adequately performing it appears the Pershing could have been a superb tank rather than one which would eventually evolve in the M 48-60. It also appears the hand of the Ordnance Bureau was involved. That turret just looks awkward to me. This is all conjecture on my part, I expect the armor guys here will have keener observations. Most interesting today is that vertical armor is often seen, composites are a new game. As are IEDs.


Gaines

 

I would guess the shape of the Pershing turret was dictated by the size of the turret ring, which was the same size as the ring on the sherman (which was actually slightly larger than the turret ring on a Panther.) Interestingly, turret ring size has only changed a couple times, I believe they enlarged the ring slightly on the M-47, and then again on the M-48, and has not changed since. The M1 Abrams has the same size ring as a 60 year old M-48. As to the Sherman being preferred in Korea, I believe this happened after the North Korean T-34/85 threat was gone and the Sherman was preferred for it's better mobility. Once the M-46 came into service, the Sherman lost this advantage over it's heavier counterparts.

 

Yes.
Modern restorers of Panthers have found cigarette butts jammed down brake lines, alien nuts & bolts in gearboxes, washers made from cardboard, bolts in inaccessible places that were obviously never tightened, etc. etc.

If you pay slave wages...

~A

 

The Panthers gun wasn't overated, it was a hard hitter. And the 17 pounder didn't have a far heavier shell, it weighed 17 pounds and the Panther shell 16. It had a more powerful propellant charge than the Panther. The US 90 didn't equal the 17 pounder in AP with normal shot, but it was superior in HE. The US compared both guns when they were considering using the 17 pounder and reported the 90 was superior. They didn't specify how. Any tests with normal AP shot showed the 17 pounder was more powerful, maybe the US Army just didn't want to use a British gun on their tanks. But as the 90 had good AP performance and excellent HE it wasn't a problem to go with it anyway.