Author Topic: M26 Pershing  (Read 2074 times)

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16333
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: M26 Pershing
« Reply #30 on: March 27, 2009, 09:24:24 PM »
They had an 18yo as gunner for it?  Some luck for that kid..
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline GtoRA2

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8339
Re: M26 Pershing
« Reply #31 on: March 28, 2009, 12:53:55 AM »
They had an 18yo as gunner for it?  Some luck for that kid..

LOL yeah, I have his book. It doesn't really talk about the super Pershing much though, just what it was like to drive.
Its called another river, another town.

Death traps has more info on the Super Pershing.

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
Re: M26 Pershing
« Reply #32 on: March 28, 2009, 04:53:27 PM »
They had an 18yo as gunner for it?  Some luck for that kid..

Yeah, he got lucky when the King Tiger presented him with a belly shot.  It's unfortunate that a HE round was loaded when they first hit the King Tiger in the turret.  If an AP round was loaded that King Tiger would have been dead on the first shot.


ack-ack
"If Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38." - WW2 P-38 pilot
Elite Top Aces +1 Mexican Official Squadron Song

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16333
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: M26 Pershing
« Reply #33 on: March 28, 2009, 05:24:59 PM »
Yeah that's luck, but I mean being assigned to one of the very few SPs.
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline Cthulhu

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2463
Re: M26 Pershing
« Reply #34 on: March 29, 2009, 02:51:50 AM »
Also noticed where all 3 90mm shells hit the Panther. That was pretty cool, you could see the holes in the fire.
Yeah, always thought that part was cool.


Imagine the uproar if this Pershing version was asked for.

(Image removed from quote.)


ack-ack
Ack-Ack, is that kludgy-looking apparatus on top of the turret meant to help support the weight of the barrel and mantlet?
"Think of Tetris as a metaphor for life:  You spend all your time trying to find a place for your long thin piece, then when you finally do, everything you've built disappears"

Offline Treize69

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5597
      • http://grupul7vanatoare.homestead.com/Startpage.html
Re: M26 Pershing
« Reply #35 on: March 29, 2009, 07:26:25 AM »
Thats a pair of springs to support the longer barrel on the gun. I have a book somewhere in the Library here that describes them and the gun in detail, but I can't find it at the moment.
Treize (pronounced 'trays')- because 'Treisprezece' is too long and even harder to pronounce.

Moartea bolșevicilor.

Offline Captain Virgil Hilts

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6137
Re: M26 Pershing
« Reply #36 on: March 29, 2009, 12:39:21 PM »
I'm pretty sure I've read in several sources that Patton felt the M4 Sherman was an inferior tank, and he suggested several different replacements. I do not remember Patton ever pushing for the Sherman, at least not outside of pushing for more Shermans because there was practically nothing else to be had.
"I haven't seen Berlin yet, from the ground or the air, and I plan on doing both, BEFORE the war is over."

SaVaGe


Offline AWwrgwy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5478
Re: M26 Pershing
« Reply #37 on: March 29, 2009, 12:50:34 PM »
I'm pretty sure I've read in several sources that Patton felt the M4 Sherman was an inferior tank, and he suggested several different replacements. I do not remember Patton ever pushing for the Sherman, at least not outside of pushing for more Shermans because there was practically nothing else to be had.

This is my source:




No scanner ATM and the preceding page, which tells of a demonstration in England for the Brass in 1944 and more of Patton's objections to the M-26, is not part of the publisher's preview of the book on the net.



wrongway
« Last Edit: March 29, 2009, 12:53:21 PM by AWwrgwy »
71 (Eagle) Squadron
"THAT"S PAINT!!"

"If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through."
- General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay

Offline Yeager

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10169
Re: M26 Pershing
« Reply #38 on: March 29, 2009, 01:28:11 PM »
M26 is a gorgeous tank.  Right next to the T34 as most beautiful tank of the war. 

    I too would love to see it in the game, definitely as a perk ride though.  The story of the M26 is a fascinating one although I never knew Patton was against deploying it.  That shows a real lack of common sense and concern for his soldiers.  Patton was a schmuck....I am sure of it.  They did not start building the first 20 T26E3s until November of 1944 and even then the Army Ground Forces Board wanted to dick around with deploying the damned things.  Then the Battle of the Bulge happened and the American General Staff intervened in the disagreements about M26 configuration/battle testing and finally ordered immediate shipment of the 20 available T26E3s to Europe without further bureaucratic hassling.

    They had the basic vehicle (T25 mounting the 90mm cannon) designed and ready to mass produce in April of 43.  I dont have any hard data here but it should be safe to that hundreds, if not thousands of M4 crewmen were killed and wounded who otherwise would have remained safe inside a M26 Pershing.  It was a tragic affair to have given priority to the M4 series over this weapon.

"If someone flips you the bird and you don't know it, does it still count?" - SLIMpkns

Offline GtoRA2

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8339
Re: M26 Pershing
« Reply #39 on: March 29, 2009, 03:23:46 PM »
This is my source:

(Image removed from quote.)
(Image removed from quote.)

No scanner ATM and the preceding page, which tells of a demonstration in England for the Brass in 1944 and more of Patton's objections to the M-26, is not part of the publisher's preview of the book on the net.



wrongway

I am pretty sure that gets debunked in several other books, but I can not remember what one. I will see if I can find it tonight and post back. No idea if my books are more right then death traps though.

Offline GtoRA2

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8339
Re: M26 Pershing
« Reply #40 on: March 29, 2009, 03:27:15 PM »


Ack-Ack, is that kludgy-looking apparatus on top of the turret meant to help support the weight of the barrel and mantlet?

Yeah, that M26 was a one of the original prototype M26 tanks they put the new gun in. The big springs were to counter balance the gun, but the production model would not have needed them. There are pics in a few books of a later test model still around at Knox or Aberdeen.

Offline GtoRA2

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8339
Re: M26 Pershing
« Reply #41 on: March 29, 2009, 03:40:47 PM »
M26 is a gorgeous tank.  Right next to the T34 as most beautiful tank of the war. 

    I too would love to see it in the game, definitely as a perk ride though.  The story of the M26 is a fascinating one although I never knew Patton was against deploying it.  That shows a real lack of common sense and concern for his soldiers.  Patton was a schmuck....I am sure of it.  They did not start building the first 20 T26E3s until November of 1944 and even then the Army Ground Forces Board wanted to dick around with deploying the damned things.  Then the Battle of the Bulge happened and the American General Staff intervened in the disagreements about M26 configuration/battle testing and finally ordered immediate shipment of the 20 available T26E3s to Europe without further bureaucratic hassling.

    They had the basic vehicle (T25 mounting the 90mm cannon) designed and ready to mass produce in April of 43.  I dont have any hard data here but it should be safe to that hundreds, if not thousands of M4 crewmen were killed and wounded who otherwise would have remained safe inside a M26 Pershing.  It was a tragic affair to have given priority to the M4 series over this weapon.



Yep, it was really a good design and shows how good the U.S. was at incorporating the lessons everyone learned in tank Design from all fighting. The basic design changed very little until the M47.

Power pack in the rear, so no drive shaft  running through the hull making the tank taller.
Well sloped cast armor so its well protected and easy to produce.
Good suspension.
Gun stabilizer
Good gun system
Decent power
Reliable

Had the war gone on with the Germans the Pershing and better crews would have much less trouble with German armor. Not to mention the later war M4s like the A1 and A3 were showing up with the HVSS suspension and decent 76MM gun that was enough to handle Panzer 4s with ease(T34 as well).   

We would have been able to handle the Russian armor fairly well, as Korea showed.  I think the Pershing would have handled the JS 2 fine... maybe not the 3 though, but the 3 wasn't that good of a tank. Had we needed to we would have had super Pershing in the fight that could handle anything with its gun.


Offline Cajunn

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 723
Re: M26 Pershing
« Reply #42 on: March 31, 2009, 01:41:01 AM »
I think that if it was used in War 2 it should be added, the fewer used the higher the perk!
“The important thing [in tactics] is to suppress the enemy's useful actions but allow his useless actions. However, doing this alone is defensive.”

Miyamoto Musashi (1584-1645)
Japanese Samurai & Philosopher

Offline BigPlay

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1044
Re: M26 Pershing
« Reply #43 on: March 31, 2009, 10:45:04 AM »
See Rule #4
« Last Edit: April 01, 2009, 03:47:26 PM by Skuzzy »

Offline GtoRA2

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8339
Re: M26 Pershing
« Reply #44 on: March 31, 2009, 04:51:06 PM »
See Rule #2
« Last Edit: April 01, 2009, 03:47:36 PM by Skuzzy »