Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

M-26 Pershing & Panther Ausf A head to head

Discussion in 'Armor and Armored Fighting Vehicles' started by chromeboomerang, Mar 21, 2009.

  1. Miguel B.

    Miguel B. Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2008
    Messages:
    956
    Likes Received:
    67
    I'm seeing where his boomerang name comes from... He just keeps coming and coming. Look men, you've been shown sources and data not saying that the Pershing was better than the Panther (tough I think the severe unreliability of the Panther makes the Pershing a better tank) but refuting your claims that the Pershing is worse than the Panther. You've been given sources and sources and more sources and still you refuse to believe anything that goes aginst what your limited sources said.
    You even spoke badly of Hunnicutt which is (tank wise) rather silly. It's like saying Einstein or Maxwell or Broglie didn't know about Physics.
    Oh another fun fact for you regarding the Corean war: The Pershings had a 4X higher survival rate than the Shermans serving in that theater.

    Now, you're just ignoring everything thrown at you. It's irritating. You're not correct. It's not a matter of opinion it's a matter of fact.



    Cheers...
     
  2. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,238
    Location:
    Michigan
    Well either something is being taken out of context or the referance above is not trustworthy. Let's take the last statment first. Say the guner has his gun aimed at the top of a 2.5m target 1km away. If the same target is 2km away and the velocity of the round is 1km/sec then a round fired at the second target with no change in elevation stettings will result in a round impacting 12.5m below the bottom of the target.

    Furthermore if we look at
    http://gva.freeweb.hu/weapons/german_accuracy5.html
    it shows that assuming the aim point was correct at 1,000m 100% of the rounds could be expected to hit a 2x2.5 meter target. If we go out to 2km then this drops to 92%. Since the dispersion will be fairly linear we can back track this and say at 1km 92% could be expected to hit a target that is 1x1.5m that's considerably larger than a 12 inch circle even if we adjust for the yards vs meters. Further more if a 90mm gun can hit helmets reliably at over 500 yards then it's certainly capable of hitting said 1x1.25 m target consistently at 1km. The implication here is that the 90mm was as or more accurate than the Panther's gun.

    I also found this on Panther speeds:
    From:
    http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/tme30/ch7sec6sub4.html
     
  3. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    5,945
    Likes Received:
    763
    Location:
    Phoenix Arizona
    The Military / History Channel?!! You cite a TV show??!! [rolleyes] :D That is hilarious!
     
  4. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,238
    Location:
    Michigan
    Let's see you say this:
    But you have yet to refute this:
    #38 hit 3 times with one penetrationand that thorugh the MG port.
    #22 hit by HE
    #25 hit at 300 yard lower front hull.

    So we do have two Pershings knocked out by frontal hits but no Panther or Tiger is going to take a hit at 300 yards for a 90 and have a good chance of surving even a 76 would have a good chance of taking them out. And that's the only real hit on the frontal armor that penetrated.
    #38 did take a non penetrating hit on its frontal amor.

    Thus your statment is at this point questionable at best.
     
  5. chromeboomerang

    chromeboomerang New Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,045
    Likes Received:
    4
    Have no ideawhat your post menaing actually is Razin. Maneuverbility is important, as I mentioned, yet not the only relevant factor in measuring tank performance. The meaning should be clear. Again, I've no idea what you're trying to say.

    The top 10 lists are composed by experts Gardner. Sorry no dice there.

    Here is the Sherman quote I was looking for regarding gun sights. Last sentence very interesting.




    From "Panzers at War," comments of Tom Sator, an M4 Sherman tank crewman, 4th Armored Division:

    There was always a lot of talk about the effectiveness of the German tank guns against us. It is true that they had to stop to fire, but they started firing from 1,200 to 1,500 yards (1,096 to 1,371 meters). Their first shot was always a hit. We, on the other hand, had to get within 500 to 600 yards (457 to 548 meters) to be within effective firing distance, and even our best two shots before they could score.

    Our CO (commanding officer), Captain Jimmy Leach, sent a platoon sergeant down to my tank during one of the lulls between German artillery barrages, and he hollered up, 'Hey Sator, you speak German? 'Yeah, why?' I answered. 'The radio in that abandoned German tank (Pz.Kpfw. IV) back there is alive. Captain wants you to listen and see what they are talking about.' So I went with him. Sure enough, when we got there, you could hear the radio sqwaking. I climbed in and put the gunner's earphones on. It was difficult to hear, and because the guy was talking in a strange dialect, I could understand only a few words here and there. Then I saw the gun-sight and I figured I might as well look through it while I was there, and as soon as I did, almost immediately, the realization came to me why the German tank gunners were so accurate. 'Shit, I wanna go home' is the only thing that I could think of at the moment. Their sights were so far superior to ours that we didn't stand a chance."
     
  6. chromeboomerang

    chromeboomerang New Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,045
    Likes Received:
    4
    Let's see you say this:

    Nope, Zaloga said, have to take it up with him.

    I'm seeing where his boomerang name comes from... He just keeps coming and coming. Look men, you've been shown sources and data not saying that the Pershing was better than the Panther (tough I think the severe unreliability of the Panther makes the Pershing a better tank) but refuting your claims that the Pershing is worse than the Panther. You've been given sources and sources and more sources and still you refuse to believe anything that goes aginst what your limited sources said.


    Nope, my sources are not limited, posted more than anyone else. You can disbelieve the USMC & US Army regarding Pershings unreliability, but academic it isn't. You seem new to the thread Miguel so I'll re-post these,



    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)






    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



    There you have it Miguel, Pershing not reliable. & the Army is lying LWD? on balistics? cute. Amazing the lengths some will go to to try & negate information they are uncomfortable with.
     
  7. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,238
    Location:
    Michigan
    However most of the stuff you have posted is one or more of the following:
    1) Irrelevant
    2) Anecdotal
    3) One sided
    4) Not useful for comparative purposes
    5) Personal opinion

    Take for instance the following:
    We don't know what German tanks he is talking about but in many cases the German tanks were already stoped and had a good idea what the ranges were to likely spots US tanks would appear. Saying thier first shot always hit is clearly an exageration. The latter part of the sentence is not coherent.
    Which given the fact that the Germans lost was clearly not correct.

    So this quote is at best marginally relevant (ie compares PzIV to M4), it is clearly anecdotal, one sided , and personal opinion. Further more it's from the same source that has already proved questionable.
     
  8. m kenny

    m kenny Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,645
    Likes Received:
    225
    There is no answer to a man with a book.

    Panzers at War - Google Book Search

    co-written by Michael Green's wife Gladys it is the unlimate reference book on every aspect of the Panther tank!
     
  9. m kenny

    m kenny Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,645
    Likes Received:
    225
  10. razin

    razin Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    675
    Likes Received:
    83
    You have made an accusation that I distorted, colored your previous post

    I have presented you with the evidence that I did no such thing- therefore if you will not explain your point please do not accuse me of this falsehood.

    As I said previously
    Are you going to argue the facts I've given you plenty to work on.

    ~Steve
     
  11. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,238
    Location:
    Michigan
    I should have thought about looking it up.
    Finally did so on Amazon. Fairly high ratings but then started reading reviews.
    First (of 2) five star ratings says:
    Doesn't sound like it's very technical does it? And looking a little deeper almost all his reviews are by books by the same author and all of those 4 or 5 stars.
    Then there's the 4 star review that says among other things
    Then another 4 star review says:
    Are we noticing a trend. The next one is a 5 star by someone who's only other reviews are Worth's two books. At least he has good taste there but I'm not sure how critical he is. Then a 3 star review by someone who's reviewed a bunch of books both novels and histories most about WWII and the worst rating he's given is ... 3 stars and that only once. And then another 4 star rating which states:
    he's got a mix of WWII mostly German books, along with some models, music, and miscellaneous books to his review credit.

    Looks like a source about on par with wiki to me. Or it would have until I did a little checking and calculations.
     
  12. razin

    razin Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    675
    Likes Received:
    83
    AS I said in my Post 139
    Your quote tends to re-enforce what I said in my post Tankers complain when the percive others have newer equipment.

    Regarding the accuracy of the 90mm M3, apart from the fact you have not produced anything to support your contention, in early quote you talked about Pershings hitting Coalscuttles at 2000m -I corrected it to the factual 625yd and a gun that can hit a helmet consitantly at 625yd could certainly put holes in a 12inch target at 1000m, alternatively how big do you think a tin hat is:rolleyes:?

    Further T.A. Gardner explained the difference between test mounts and guns on tanks.

    Your final quote is certainly unconcious candour oops I forgot I do ESL,

    Steve
     
  13. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    5,945
    Likes Received:
    763
    Location:
    Phoenix Arizona
    I have an MA in military history. That makes me an expert too. At least on paper. Just because you think they are experts doesn't make it true. As this and many other military history boards on the internet prove, these top 10 lists are not hard and fast fact. They are largely informed opinion. There are top 10 lists right here on this board for WW 2. There is alot of disagreement over them as well.
    The point is, ancedotal evidence is just that: Opinion.
     
  14. chromeboomerang

    chromeboomerang New Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,045
    Likes Received:
    4
    I agree that History channel can often get things not exactly right, but these tank experts do come to a consensus often i. e. T-34, Merkava, & Panzer IV often appear on their respective lists. Pershing does not. With a degree, it is surprising your view-opinion is at odds with these experts. Armchair General also had a poll, again Pershing nowhere near the top, or Panther either for that matter.

    http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53804

    Coopers data on 90 mm is data that supports the contention.& I did supply other US Army testimony,( POST 151), so incorrect on my not supplying anything on that. I've no reason to believe these men in the field were liars. If you have evidence they were, please do share.

    Razin, I just re-read your mobility comment. great we agree on mobility. Was there anything else about you feel compelled to share about mobility?
     
  15. chromeboomerang

    chromeboomerang New Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,045
    Likes Received:
    4
    Further T.A. Gardner explained the difference between test mounts and guns on tanks.

    Yes & if you read again the text, the shells ARE fired from a Panther, not a test mount.


    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)." ...













    This below is really not worth commenting on. It's unsupportable fluff. US Army testimony, & tank experts like Zaloga & Robert Slayton et al send this irreverance off with no effort whatsoever.

    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,






    However most of the stuff you have posted is one or more of the following:
    1) Irrelevant
    2) Anecdotal
    3) One sided
    4) Not useful for comparative purposes
    5) Personal opinion


    & this sort of negative innuendo serves no academic or useful purpose. It's self demonstrated untruthfulness established the point.
     
  16. chromeboomerang

    chromeboomerang New Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,045
    Likes Received:
    4
    Excerpt from Zalogas book... I haven't got it to hand, ( looks like a good one to get though). Several were knocked out it says. Again, a tad vague. 110 sent to units before war ends.



    25 Febuary 1945. First combat, five T26 with TF Lovelady in the Roer River battle. In the following weeks of Feb-March all 20 T26 tanks were in combat. Several were knocked out with casualties & repaired.





    That totals 110 T26E3 & one T26E1 distributed to armored units before combat ended in May 1945.

    Zaloga states a total of 310 were sent to Europe with the balance not entering combat.



    Axis History Forum • View topic - M26 tanks in US Armoured divisions
     
  17. m kenny

    m kenny Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,645
    Likes Received:
    225
    So you make do with a posting from another forum that mentions it.................

    not quite as vague as your excerpt suggests. The following highlights is a bit you left out:

    25 Febuary 1945. First combat, five T26 with TF Lovelady in the Roer River battle. In the following weeks of Feb-March all 20 T26 tanks were in combat. Several were knocked out with casualties & repaired. Only one was permantley destroyed, when its ammunition burned. One knocked out a Tiger at a range of 900 meters and two MkIV tanks at 1200 meters in the same ten minutes.

    Obviously Zaloga is using Hunnicutt as his source-a lesson that you would do well to heed.

    I would also urge you to copy my example and highlight the quoted text. Your posts are extremely confusing-as well as wrong!
     
  18. chromeboomerang

    chromeboomerang New Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,045
    Likes Received:
    4
    Only 1 was destroyed in that combat specifically of the 1st 20. Does not cover other 110 delivered to units before war ended. Being confused is something I'm afraid only a specialist can help with. & as to being wrong, you're wrong.

    & yes I did state it was from another forum, no need to reiterated what I already clarified.





    & Razin, I also posted this on 90 mm topic.




    If these figures are anywhere near accurate, the German 75 L/70 has the better muzzle velocity than the 90 mm M3.
    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
     
  19. chromeboomerang

    chromeboomerang New Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,045
    Likes Received:
    4
    & for a final nail in the coffin regarding 90 mm vs German 75, there is this from British expert & author Peter Gudgin...

    the 90mm L/53 was good, but according to my book 'armoured firepower the devolpment of tank armament 1939-1945' by Peter Gudgin, still did not match the 75mm l/70 or the 88 on the flip side


    KING TIGER VS T-29 US HEAVY TANK


    About the Author
    When a young tank officer, Peter Gudgin's own Churchill tank was knocked out by a Tiger in North Africa in 1943. That Tiger was subsequently captured intact, and shipped to Britain for examination at the School of Tank Technology at Chertsey - where the author had subsequently been posted, and was part of the examining team. He was eventually to assume responsibility for writing the British War Office official history of German Second World War AFV development.

    Tiger Tanks: Amazon.co.uk: Peter Gudgin: Books


    LWD & Razins silly rant of there being lack of credible source material on my part is eternally cremated & sent off. Amusing especially when one considers they spend half or better of their posts making innuendo instead of providing quality source material. Its a laugh.
     
  20. m kenny

    m kenny Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,645
    Likes Received:
    225
    IT It covers ALL the tanks that entered service in WW2.
    Google a bit more and you might find something that confirms it.
     

Share This Page