M-26 Pershing & Panther Ausf A head to head

Not sure you have it right on Panther turret speed. & if Panther could hit at longer range, it could fire & hit 1st.

Panther I Ausf A

The turret also featured an improved traversing mechanism, which could operate at two different speeds.

Panzerkampfwagen V Panther Ausf A

 

Your comment on engine speed dictating turret speed would seem to be incorrect as well.



To quickly traverse onto a target, the Panther was outfitted with a hydraulic motor for the turret drive. In the Aust.D, the hydraulic drive traversed the turret at a maximum rate of 360 degrees in 60 seconds independent of the engine speed.

PANTHER



As to long ranges, From Dec 43 forwards, there was this improvement.



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.

 

Ok, here's a table. The Ausf did have the turret speed dictated by rpms. Now let's see a comparison from the Pershing.


The new variable-speed power traverse replaced the single speed system that had been used in the Ausf.D. The Boehringer-Sturm Type L4S hydraulic system for powered turett traverse was driven by a power take-off from the engine drive shaft. A high and low gear ratio were provided and selected by a lever on the left of the turett drive housing.

Power was transmitted through a hydraulic pump and hydraulic motor. Traverse was controlled by a foot pedal which regulated the output from the hydraulic pump. The pedals were located on the floor in front of the gunner´s position.

The speed that the turett traversed was gouverned by the motor speed, selection of high and low range, and degree that the footpedal was depressed. The time required to traverse 360° was:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine (rpm) Speed ratio Time in seconds
1000 high 46
2000 high 23
2500 high 18
3000 high 15
1000 low 93
2000 low 45

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Ok, here's a table. The Ausf A did have the turret speed dictated by rpms. Now let's see a comparison from the Pershing.


The new variable-speed power traverse replaced the single speed system that had been used in the Ausf.D. The Boehringer-Sturm Type L4S hydraulic system for powered turett traverse was driven by a power take-off from the engine drive shaft. A high and low gear ratio were provided and selected by a lever on the left of the turett drive housing.

Power was transmitted through a hydraulic pump and hydraulic motor. Traverse was controlled by a foot pedal which regulated the output from the hydraulic pump. The pedals were located on the floor in front of the gunner´s position.

The speed that the turett traversed was gouverned by the motor speed, selection of high and low range, and degree that the footpedal was depressed. The time required to traverse 360° was:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine (rpm) Speed ratio Time in seconds
1000 high 46
2000 high 23
2500 high 18
3000 high 15
1000 low 93
2000 low 45

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

15 seconds for Pershing. Same as Panther at high revs. So Rev up the motor & it's equal.

 

None of the Panther variants addressed the fundemental flaw of the final drive and the weakness of the suspension & transmission system which was overcomplex and overstressed due the designer's insistance on having the ability to pivot in place even though the weight of the chasis had increased substantially over the original concept. Those remained to be fragile systems to the end of the war.

This is reflected in Guderian's rather dim view of the Panther D/A series, which he judged to be "unbattleworthy". The G model was improved but than its reliability had never been better than adequate. The new machines manufactured from September to November had a 60-65% readiness rate, inspite of the abscense of offensive missions at this period.

As to stepping up on the engine revolutions... How much time will it take for the machine to catch up and the human operators to peformthe drill under combat conditions? This appears to me to be an extra layer of complexity in procedure that can slow down the pace of an engagement. The Panther tank also lacked a stabalized gun which seemed to have left an impression on the German panzer crews at Remagen.

 

Bit of an exaggeration The story is Slim Price an Ordnance expert seconded from APG picked off German helmets at 625yards.

The Pershing M71 telescope had a 5 x magification with a 13degree field, coupled with a M10 periscope sight with dual magification unity with 42.15 degree field and 6 x 11.3 degree field.

Steve

 

But I thought Panther's had a 75.

 

On the other hand even that implies that he would be able to hit tanks at 3,000 yards with out to much difficulty (if he could see them).

 

Slight problem there: You can't "rev up the motor" and have the tank in gear (ie moving) to do that. As with the Tiger II both the US and British found the turret traverse to be slow to very slow compared to their own vehicles in late war testing.

 

The gunner would have to see them as you say, Slim Price set up this gunnery school stunt to impress on his trainee 90mm gunners that with the 90mm it was possible with the first shot to hit a specific area of the enemy tank- not just aim up on a tank size target, at accepted battle ranges. At that time engagements of the distances quoted in this thread of 2000 to 3000 metres were to say the least rare.

I am trying to knock on the head the inaccurate quote from the Vanguard 88mm gun review which was posted.

Steve

 

If it has a clutch, one can rev it. Or one can stop if it doesn't have one. & it is not as simple as turning the turret, rangefinding also plays into it. German optics 2nd to none. As to rangefinding equipment, let's yank up some links.

I'll admit on paper the Pershing turret system looks to be the better one. But getting ON target is not just a "turn the turret" matter.

 

I'm sure the German crews were very good at it with practice it would not add time. The Panthers 75 was better than the 88.


A new longer and more powerful 76 mm gun that was being introduced was not much better. Neither gun was any comparison to the long 75 mm gun of the Panther, whose higher muzzle velocity gave it not only higher penetrating power, but also a flat trajectory and therefore excellent accuracy. Compounding these difficulties German sights had greater magnification and clearness, and the gunpowder used was lower in flash and smoke.


Quotes that the 88 could hit at 3000 are commonplace.


Even the very heavy Soviet Stalin tank could be penetrated at 1,500 meters, and most Allied tanks could be knocked out at 3000 meters.

The Best Army Tanks of World War II

 

In this thread it is mentioned the Germans had a better procedure for getting the 1st shot which was then copied & appeared in US manuals after the war.

The Germans figured out how to do away with range estimation against fully exposed vehicles and take advantage of trajectory shape.

If a target is at 1000m and the 88L56 is set for 1000m. the maximum trajectory height is 2,3m so some shots would clear the top of a 2m high target, but would still hit a Sherman or T34/85.

If a Tiger I uses normal, boring, paint-by-the-numbers range estimation with 25% average error against a target at 700m,
60% first shot hits against a 2m high target.
Set the gun for 900m and hit it almost every time! Which would you use.

The above method is clearly pointed out in several German tank gunnery publications. The Fibels may also go into it. German first shot accuracy climbs pretty fast if CM goes to this for der panzers.

Here is some more data from the German tank gunnery statistics:

50L60 APC and 75L48 APCBC:
aim at bottom of target with gun set at 900m and hit everything from 0m to 900m that is below 2.0m in height.

88L71 APCBC:
aim at bottom of target with gun set at 1200m and hit everything from 0m to 1200m below 2.0m in height. 100% first shot accuracy out to 1200m!!!!!!!!!!!!!



TANK GUN ACCURACY AT SHORT/MED RANGE [Archive] - Battlefront Forum

With this method Tiger crews don't have to be as well versed in range estimation procedures. The fact that German gunnery may have declined at end of war indicates that crews may have forgotten what they learned under the stress of combat, or they didn't catch the importance of the method in the first place.

U.S. tank manuals after WW II include the above procedure, and it works really well with 90mm HVAP due to high speed and reasonably small dispersion.

 

What's this info's relvance to this discussion (Panther A v. M-26), besides being technically inaccurate?

Tiger I could kill at IS-2 M43 at just 1,200 meters. An IS-2 M44 however was practically immune to Tiger I's gun at the frontal arc. The Soviet 122 on the other hand would crack a Tiger I dead at 1,400 meters.

US 90 was a slightly more powerful weapon than the L/56 88.

If the gunner's scope on T-26 is anything like the Sherman, a unitary telescope and periscope unit, target acquistion would have been phenomenal combined with good traverse and gyros. Gun control should be quite smooth as well.

Late war German tank crews had atrocious training. They did not have the rounds to practice basic gunnery skills.

In reality, firefights exceeding 1,000 meters should be incredibly rare in any case.

Basically we are looking at tanks with slight differeces in armor, mobility and gunpower. But only one of those tanks had a substantial edge in gun controls and reliability.

While I'd argue a Panther G is a very good match for the Pershing, the Panther A was not. It did not have adequate dependibility, and we are not even talking about the big shot trap under the mantlet.

 

With both weak transmission & motor, the Pershing does not seem the equal mechanically of the Panther. The Panther had the time to at least partially address its shortcomings, the Pershing did not. Both had good guns, Panther faster. Weak side armor it's main weakness.



The tank had good mobility in soft ground, but it had one major flaw: the powerpack. First it was underpowered. The Ford GAF V-8 was reliable but produced no more power than the GAA and the M26 weighed 10 tons more than the M4A3. The transmission was not reliable. It made the tank easier to drive when it worked, but it broke regularly, and proved a maintenance nightmare. In 1948 a new powerpack was designed. Both engine and transmission were replaced and upgraded models were redesignated the M46 Patton.

M26 Pershing@Everything2.com

 

The Panther A was judged unbattleworthy. I have not heard similiar comments about the M-26. It was no Sherman, but accusing at tank of having inferior dependability to Panther A would be a serious charge.

Gun control superiority and thicker armor remained Pershing's advantages.

 

Not judged unbattleworthy as it participated in major battles successfully.

What's this info's relvance to this discussion (Panther A v. M-26), besides being technically inaccurate?

Besides being technically correct, it is of interest when one considers the 75 mm was even better.

 

Loads of A's at Normandy. & Pershing was adjudged less battleworthy than Panther due manily to technical unreliability.


Panther Ausf A was the most numerous variant during the Normandy campaign,


In general, from August 1943 to May 1944, some 2,200 were produced by MAN, Daimler-Benz, Demag and Henschel.



Panzerkampfwagen V Panther Sd. Kfz. 171

 

Not to belabor the point, but even in 51, ( 6 years later), the Pershing was still a mechanical mess.


Here's a British view on a captured Panther.

The 75mm tank guns and 6-pounders were more accurate, but too light to do real impressive damage to the thick walls of the castle.
The Panther tank on the other hand did an outstanding job: “ The 95mms were a great success, but “Cuckoo”, [………], did best of all, hurling its shells through selected windows with unfailing precision.”

Cuckoo preformed very well again, it’s mobility was especially noticeable.

The historian wrote; “The road conditions were abominable all day, but whereas the Churchill’s and the Crocodiles, with no ice bars, slid into ditches at every possible opportunity, “Cuckoo” the Panther, eight tons heavier, trundled merrily along with no difficulty at all.”

Cuckoo