Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: kaos1 on March 28, 2005, 02:36:19 PM
-
I have had enough with German and Russian tanks, lets bring the M-26 Pershing into this game. Faster than the German tanks, with a gun that makes them dangerous to even a Tiger.
-
Pershing was only available in extremely limited quantities when the major battles where committed.
I say add the KV-1 and the T-34/85 or even the Sherman Firefly.
Or, you could make the damage models on the tanks a bit more unvehicle friendly.
-
In the Fall of 1944, production of the T26E3 had begun at the Fisher Tank Arsenal.
By January, 1945, forty of these tanks had been produced. Twenty went to Fort Knox for testing and the other twenty went to war in Belgium for "Trial by Fire".
General Bradley divided the twenty tanks equally between the 3d Armored Division and the 9th Armored Division.
-
I had the impression the M-36 was the USA's late-war monster tank
-
The M-36 Jackson, was a tank destroyer, not a full fledged battle tank. There were two distinct versions:
M-36B1 which was a M36 Turret mounted on an M10 Wolverine Tank Destroyer Chassis, and a:
M36B2 which had a M36 Turret mounted on an M4A3 chassis.
Outwardly they look almost identical in the hulls to the M10, but the turret is much larger and boasts a large overhang on the back which housed the gun's counterweight.
It's primary purpose was to take out Tiger's and Panther's in the ambush position.
-
Originally posted by gear
In the Fall of 1944, production of the T26E3 had begun at the Fisher Tank Arsenal.
By January, 1945, forty of these tanks had been produced. Twenty went to Fort Knox for testing and the other twenty went to war in Belgium for "Trial by Fire".
General Bradley divided the twenty tanks equally between the 3d Armored Division and the 9th Armored Division.
Yep, and the 3d took one of them and turned it into a "Super Pershing" by adding 4 inches of armour to the mantlet, which required huge counterweights be extended out along the sides of the tank to enable the gun to be elevated. It survived the war to be scrapped owing to the damage caused to the suspension and lower hull by the added weight of the uparmoured turret.
All told, the Pershing faired well, but not enough were available to affect a large outcome on the battle. Unfortunately, the M4 Sherman remained in production through early 44 at Patton's behest,
(he envisioned armour being fast and mobile which the Sherman excelled at and that armour's primary goal waas to smash through the front and wreak havoc in the rear. Unfortunately the German Tanks were strong enough with guns with enough range to effectively keep the sherman out afar and destroy them.)
when the Pershing was ready to be placed into mass production. Instead, the pershing was back shelved and the sherman was ept in production there by ensuring the deaths of thousands of Americans because the Sherman was just too weak compared to the Tiger and Panther.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
It's primary purpose was to take out Tiger's and Panther's in the ambush position.
"ambush position" sounds disturbingly like spawn camping :D
-
I say just because of the numbers produced the sherman should be next. The overwhelming numbers is what caused the sherman to be so significant.
Personally, I would love to see the M-18 hellcat (tank destroyer) instead. If you are going to add an american gv that can be destroyed with 1 shot, might as well add something that do some damage first, with enough speed to get in and out of a combat area quickly.
-
If they add it ,it would have to be perked alot higher than the tiger.
-
Can I crash this thread with my usual plea for a Sherman Firefly?? ... No, I guess not.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
The M-36 Jackson, was a tank destroyer, not a full fledged battle tank. There were two distinct versions:
M-36B1 which was a M36 Turret mounted on an M10 Wolverine Tank Destroyer Chassis, and a:
M36B2 which had a M36 Turret mounted on an M4A3 chassis.
Outwardly they look almost identical in the hulls to the M10, but the turret is much larger and boasts a large overhang on the back which housed the gun's counterweight.
It's primary purpose was to take out Tiger's and Panther's in the ambush position.
If we look at tank destroyers, I'd like to see the M18 Hellcat. This little monster was much feared by German tankers due to it remarkable speed (up to 65 mph on paved roads) and its 76mm gun shooting the very effective HVAP ammo. Indeed, the M18 maintained the best kill to loss ratio of all major armored types in US service during the war. Many experts consider it to be the best tank destroyer of the war, better than the Jagdpanther due to its better combination of firepower and extreme mobility.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Why not add it .
Remember how many osties where made.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Many experts consider it to be the best tank destroyer of the war, better than the Jagdpanther due to its better combination of firepower and extreme mobility.
Many experts also disagree and think the American tank destroyer doctrine was highly flawed :)
The Hellcat was pretty awesome though. Imagine what it was like in post-war Germany, driving at the speed limit of 35mph, and watching a bunch of GI's come flying by in a Hellcat doing 60. The suspension on it is the best part. It's supposed to be the sports car of armoured vehicles. The downside though, you pretty much have to put your barrel up against a Tiger or Panther to have any hope of hurting it.
-
After the planned M6 was dropped, the Americans remained without project for a heavy tanks until the Tigers and Panthers forced them to a rethink. A new project, using torsion bars and an anti-aircraft 9 cm gun resulted in the M-26.
Remarkably well-protected, well-armed, it could face any German counterpart. It arrived too late though. The first batch joined the frontline on January 1945 and less than 200 took part in the figthing in Europe. It opened the way for the post-war Patton lineage.
http://www.military.cz/panzer/index_en.htm (http://www.military.cz/panzer/index_en.htm)
http://users.swing.be/tanks.tanks/complet/542.html (http://users.swing.be/tanks.tanks/complet/542.html)
-
Gear,
The only reason the M-26 was employed in small numbers was because Patton fought so damn hard to keep the Sherman production up and the Pershing production down. His (Patton's) theory was that American armour should be fast and manueverable, and that tanks should not fight tanks, just exploit break throughs. It was this "doctrine" that held up the Pershing's production when it could have been available in large numbers to combat the far superior German tanks.
Some in the army felt that Patton should have been held accountable for the deaths of so many of his tankers owing to his flawed doctrine. His death at the end of the war stopped any further action against him, and a legend was allowed to form, while in reality, many who served under him hated him for the pompous, arrogant, egotistical arse he was.
-
M-26 was too heavy to cross pontoon bridges. Also it had a flaw with its fanbelt, this caused 7 tanks to be lost.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Gear,
The only reason the M-26 was employed in small numbers was because Patton fought so damn hard to keep the Sherman production up and the Pershing production down. His (Patton's) theory was that American armour should be fast and manueverable, and that tanks should not fight tanks, just exploit break throughs. It was this "doctrine" that held up the Pershing's production when it could have been available in large numbers to combat the far superior German tanks.
Some in the army felt that Patton should have been held accountable for the deaths of so many of his tankers owing to his flawed doctrine. His death at the end of the war stopped any further action against him, and a legend was allowed to form, while in reality, many who served under him hated him for the pompous, arrogant, egotistical arse he was.
Bodhi, how many Tigers and Panthers were in Italy and France? What about the much more numerous German AT guns and AT vehicles?
I think you forgot about the transportation and unloading dock facilities that the M-26 required.
On Patton, :aok
-
As for the numbers on heavy tanks and AT guns the Shermans faced, it would have been much wiser to have a heavy tank that could at the least take a shot and not pop!
As for loading facilities, that was discussed heavily and the counter was to unload them in England and bring them ashore on LCT's....
The book Death Traps by Belton Cooper gets into this in detail. He (Cooper) was also the one that uparmored that m26 they had, which was one of 3 in his unit.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Gear,
The only reason the M-26 was employed in small numbers was because Patton fought so damn hard to keep the Sherman production up and the Pershing production down. His (Patton's) theory was that American armour should be fast and manueverable, and that tanks should not fight tanks, just exploit break throughs. It was this "doctrine" that held up the Pershing's production when it could have been available in large numbers to combat the far superior German tanks.
Some in the army felt that Patton should have been held accountable for the deaths of so many of his tankers owing to his flawed doctrine. His death at the end of the war stopped any further action against him, and a legend was allowed to form, while in reality, many who served under him hated him for the pompous, arrogant, egotistical arse he was.
Somebody has been reading "Deathtraps" by Belton Cooper. The kindest thing that can be said about that is that it is full of crap. Patton, a field commander, had NO influence at all on tank development and deployment. And the doctrine wasn't his, it was McNair's baby if anyones.
The T20 series was in development from sometime in '43, and there is no way that the T25/26 could have been operational much sooner than it was. Besides, the US didn't get exposed to the Panther until 1q '44, and the Tiger was seen as a limited production, limited role heavy tanks, and rightly so.
Given the success of the M4 in N.Africa and Italy there wasn't any obvious need for a better protected tank prior to Normandy. Lack of better armament is less excusable, but the upcoming 76mm was felt to be adequate, unfortunately it wasn't. A 90mm armed M4 would have been ideal, it might have been possible to shoehorn the 90mm into the T23 developed turret, and an M4 with a T26 turret was considered. But a properly developed 90mm tank, the T25/26 would have been available just as soon, and M4/90mm would have interfered with their production.
If you want a more accurate history of the M26 development, find "Pershing" by Hunnicut. Cooper is an interesting read for the historical anecdotes. But when he starts up with his hearsay M26/Patton history it rapidly reaches the historical accuracy level of Huckleberry Finn.
Greg Shaw
-
read Patton's letters to the contrary.
Also look at excerpts from Ord Dept, and you will see that Hunnicut is not entirely accurate either. I have both books.
Patton did have influence a s a field commander, far more than you give credit for, and even more so did Ike, and Ike listened to Patton's rants more than I care to believe.