M-26 Pershing

[SmokinLoon]

bah... the Pershing would be no better than the Panther. It was NOT a wonder tank. It brought the US up to par, barely, with what the Germans and Soviets were doing.

I'm confident HTC will IGNORE the wish and bring in the numerous other tanks that saw lots of action that are obviously missing from the roster.   

[Chalenge]

I'm not a Pershing expert by any means, but I do know that the reality of the Panther is not what the modern fan boys pretend it was. I also know that in AH one of the best tanks is the T-34/85, at least among those players that are really good with tanks. It is not without problems, obviously. With that in mind when you read about the kill ratios of Pershing tanks in Korea versus the T-34/85 (albeit against crews that were not as well trained), the Pershing most certainly looks better than your comments imply.

The Panther sucked in WWII. It had great armor, a proven gun, but it could not operate for more than 150 miles without destroying itself. Even the M4 could manage ten times that, and I see no reason to think the Pershing breakdown rate was any worse than the M4.

The real reason to add the M-26 is for the "Super" version of the tank. That tank could penetrate Panther armor at 2600 yds. Of course, it would be a perk whiners nightmare.

[ONTOS]

The Corsair f4u-4 did see action until Feb. '45, the La-7 ,very few ( around 300 I think)were made and saw action late and we have them. At the Battle of Kursk, the Panther was a miserable failure. What other tanks need to be obviously added before the Pershing  Mr. Smokinloon ?

[Ack-Ack]

The Corsair f4u-4 did see action until Feb. '45, the La-7 ,very few ( around 300 I think)were made and saw action late and we have them. At the Battle of Kursk, the Panther was a miserable failure. What other tanks need to be obviously added before the Pershing  Mr. Smokinloon ?

Hopefully in the upcoming update we'll finally see the regular Pershing tank, just not the Super Pershing since only 2 of those were field tested in the ETO and had extensive field modifications to the armor.  I'd like to see the Soviet super heavy tanks as well some day.

[Chalenge]

You know, for all the talk about numbers you really need to do a little research. For instance, there were many, many times when the Allied units (particularly Americans) would encounter an armor unit and the cry would go up "Tiger!" How many times did Americans actually encounter Tiger tanks?

There would ne absolutely nothing wrong with adding the Pershing. It suffers the same weakness of every other tank. One bomb and it's goodbye!

[guncrasher]

You know, for all the talk about numbers you really need to do a little research. For instance, there were many, many times when the Allied units (particularly Americans) would encounter an armor unit and the cry would go up "Tiger!" How many times did Americans actually encounter Tiger tanks?

There would ne absolutely nothing wrong with adding the Pershing. It suffers the same weakness of every other tank. One bomb and it's goodbye!

in saving pvt ryan there were 2.  in band of brothers there was 1 that I can recall.


semp

[Chalenge]

That already exceeds the actual number of incidents with Tigers.

[bangsbox]

The Panther sucked in WWII. It had great armor, a proven gun, but it could not operate for more than 150 miles without destroying itself. Even the M4 could manage ten times that, and I see no reason to think the Pershing breakdown rate was any worse than the M4.

The real reason to add the M-26 is for the "Super" version of the tank. That tank could penetrate Panther armor at 2600 yds. Of course, it would be a perk whiners nightmare.

So youre really saying is that the panther is amazing in game .  we do not have crappy steels or mechanical defects modeled as you know.

[Chalenge]

What I am saying is that the Panther in AH has all of the advantages of the real tank, but lacks several of its pitfalls.

"Amazing" is something I reserve for things a little more miraculous than a video game.

[Ack-Ack]

How many times did Americans actually encounter Tiger tanks?

I don't think there is an exact number you can find but to try and claim like your insinuating that the US forces rarely, if at all, encountered any kind of Tiger tank (whether it be a Tiger I or Tiger II), is wrong.

You should read the book on the 601st Tank Destroyer Battalion (American Knights), units of that battalion ran into the Tiger a few times in Italy, France and Germany.  US forces during the Battle of the Bulge also ran into the Tiger I and Tiger II tanks (A Time For Trumpets - The Untold Story Of The Battle Of The Bulge by Charles MacDonald).

[WWhiskey]

You know, for all the talk about numbers you really need to do a little research. For instance, there were many, many times when the Allied units (particularly Americans) would encounter an armor unit and the cry would go up "Tiger!" How many times did Americans actually encounter Tiger tanks?

No ME-163s ever went up against B-29s during the war, I've no knowledge of any 262 encounters with M-18s,( yet I've fought both sides of that battle in game)
 no zekes ever fought 109s either, and T-34s never fought M-4s during the war. Many encounters that happen in the game never happened in real life,but that doesn't mean those vehicles or planes shouldn't be here!

[Chalenge]

The people reading the books written by our returning troops were innocent of war and accepted what they read. Who could dispute it? More recently, though, the actions have been examined and aligned with the records of opposing forces and that reveals a different image of the engagements. We now know that there were precisely two, and only two incidents in which Tigers engaged American armor. Two.

The British on the other hand . . . well, the desire to even the score with Wittman had the code breakers sifting through piles of communiques looking for "007," which stuck with Ian Fleming for some time to come.

[bangsbox]

No ME-163s ever went up against B-29s during the war, I've no knowledge of any 262 encounters with M-18s,( yet I've fought both sides of that battle in game)
 no zekes ever fought 109s either, and T-34s never fought M-4s during the war. Many encounters that happen in the game never happened in real life,but that doesn't mean those vehicles or planes shouldn't be here!

t-34 had a very good chances of fighting M4... Germans captured and used both on eastern front.

[save]

You are wrong again about the Panther sucking, you are stuck with the Kursk failure of the first Panthers in action, crawling through meter deep mud.

We have been through this topic in another thread.

Later versions of the Panther had many problems ironed out, however Panthers did require more maintenance than the M4 (most tank designs did require more).

Im only aware of one single super Pershing that did shoot in anger in ww2.

The Panther sucked in WWII. It had great armor, a proven gun, but it could not operate for more than 150 miles without destroying itself.
The real reason to add the M-26 is for the "Super" version of the tank. That tank could penetrate Panther armor at 2600 yds. Of course, it would be a perk whiners nightmare.

[Chalenge]

Your sad devotion to this ancient myth is noted. If I am wrong then it is because I have been led to that conclusion by reading dozens of books about the tanks in service, a comparison of the M4 and Panther (specifically) by Zaloga, and been to museums in America and across Europe where I have spoken with the men that maintain these tanks today.

Several of those sources stated just what I have word-for-word, which is why I repeated those same statements here.