PDA

View Full Version : M26 Pershing Tank



George Eller
03-17-2006, 12:59 AM
-

M26 PERSHING TANK:


http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/9594/m26019nk.jpg
M26-01
-

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/252/m26022ll.jpg
M26-02
-

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/9841/m26033hr.jpg
M26-03
-

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/5444/m2603aspecs017ul.jpg
M26-03A-SPECS-01
From: "British and American Tanks of World War II", by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, Arco Publishing Company, 1975, (p 158 )
-

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/1152/m2603aspecs027ap.jpg
M26-03A-SPECS-02
From: "British and American Tanks of World War II", by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, Arco Publishing Company, 1975, (p 159)
-

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/8297/m2603aspecs038ek.jpg
M26-03A-SPECS-03
From: "British and American Tanks of World War II", by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, Arco Publishing Company, 1975, (p 160)
-

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/3727/m2603aspecs045ys.jpg
M26-03A-SPECS-04
From: "World War II Tanks", by George Forty, Osprey, 1995, (p 153)
-

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/4139/m2603aspecs05gunvsarmorspecs01.jpg
M26-03A-SPECS-05-gun-vs-armor
From "Tank Versus Tank", by Kenneth Macksey, Salem House, 1988, (p 147)

Notice in the Gun versus Armor comparison that the Pershing 90mm 53 caliber gun could defeat the Panther D armor out to 2000 meters, while the Panther D 75mm 70 caliber gun failed to penetrate the Pershing armor beyond 600 meters. The Pershing 90mm 53 caliber gun could defeat the Tiger II (King Tiger) armor out to 1300 meters, while the Tiger II (King Tiger) 88mm 71 caliber gun could penetrate the Pershing armor out to 1800 meters - a pretty close match, with the Pershing having the edge in mobility.
-

http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/2494/m2603ax9wv.jpg
M26-03-X
From: "German Tanks of World War II in Action", by George Forty, Blandford Press, 1988, (p 130)

-

SEE ALSO:

DUEL AT DESSAU
3AD's "Super Pershing" vs. Germany's "King Tiger"
WWII's two most powerful tanks meet in a historic encounter

http://www.3ad.com/history/news/super.pershing.1.htm
http://www.3ad.com/

Only three days before the 3rd Armored Division's final combat action of WWII, a Super Pershing of the 33rd Armored Regiment met and defeated the most powerful and most heavily armored German tank of the war - the legendary 77-ton King Tiger, also known as the Tiger II or Tiger Royal. It would be the first and only meeting between a King Tiger and the Super Pershing, a modified standard M26 Pershing weighing 53 tons - an almost "secret" tank that, to this day, remains largely an enigma to military historians... (story continues).

-

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/9341/m2603drawing11oc.jpg
M26-03-drawing-1
-

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/368/m2603drawing21wd.jpg
M26-03-drawing-2
From: "British and American Tanks of World War II", by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, Arco Publishing Company, 1975, (pp 214-215)
-

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/3726/m2603drawing32sh.jpg
M26-03-drawing-3
-

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/351/m2603drawing42ak.jpg
M26-03-drawing-4
-

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/5262/m2603drawing50dj.jpg
M26-03-drawing-5
-

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/7788/m26046zi.jpg
M26-04
-

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/6835/m26050ej.jpg
M26-05
-

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/3185/m26063ot.jpg
M26-06
-

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/6905/m26072gq.jpg
M26-07
From: "World War II Tanks", by George Forty, Osprey, 1995, (p 153)
-

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/1246/m26089zv.jpg
M26-08
-

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/5651/m26097fh.jpg
M26-09
From: "World War II Tanks", by George Forty, Osprey, 1995, (p 154)
-

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/2523/m26100os.jpg
M26-10
From: "The U.S. Army in World War II", by Mark R. Henry, Osprey, (p 118 )
-

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/6843/m26114od.jpg
M26-11
-

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/9004/m26126ru.jpg
M26-12
-

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/9190/m26133gg.jpg
M26-13
From: "World War II Tanks", by George Forty, Osprey, 1995, (p 153)
-

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/4889/m26144bn.jpg
M26-14
-

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/9607/m26151dg.jpg
M26-15
-

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/9871/m26168zw.jpg
M26-16
From: "World War II Tanks", by George Forty, Osprey, 1995, (p 155)
-

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/7052/m26176ab.jpg
M26-17
-

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/4300/m26183vq.jpg
M26-18
From: "World War II Tanks", by George Forty, Osprey, 1995, (p 155)
-

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/1343/m26195as.jpg
M26-19
-

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/2255/m26202vb.jpg
M26-20
-

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/192/m26219bo.jpg
M26-21
-

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/2729/m26226hk.jpg
M26-22
-

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/9664/m26238ry.jpg
M26-23
-

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/8808/m26246xh.jpg
M26-24

---

Earlier Prototypes:


http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/8485/t25specs014qr.jpg
T25-SPECS-01
From: "British and American Tanks of World War II", by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, Arco Publishing Company, 1975, (p 152)
1942-1943
-

http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/486/t25specs029pk.jpg
T25-SPECS-02
From: "British and American Tanks of World War II", by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, Arco Publishing Company, 1975, (p 153)
1942-1943
-

http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/9986/t26specs017dk.jpg
T25-SPECS-03
From: "British and American Tanks of World War II", by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, Arco Publishing Company, 1975, (p 154)
1944
-


Bigger Heavy Prototypes:


http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/3654/t32t29specs012gb.jpg
T32-T29-SPECS-01
T32: Longer 90mm gun, 200mm armour max.
T29: 105mm gun T5 High-velocity gun
-

http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/2949/t30t34specs010hw.jpg
T30-T34-SPECS-01
T30: 155mm gun
T34: 120mm gun
-

http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/3818/t28specs018jl.jpg
T28-SPECS-01
T28: 105mm T5E1 High-velocity gun, 300mm armour max.

-

Firefly
03-17-2006, 03:51 AM
Excellent post, thanks for all the information. Its a pity this tank couldnt have been in service before D-Day. I loved the 8 inch Howwitser version.

Nickdfresh
03-17-2006, 08:09 AM
I could cry! They're so beautiful! I wish I could drive one home despite the really lousy fuel economy...

I all seriousness, this is some good info that is hard to find on the net, especially the extensive development in the US of heavy tanks that would outclass most German and Soviet projects, but that were roundly rejected as too impractical, until the Germans were shooting the hell out of the 1942-vintage M4 Shermans...

Excellent tank if underpowered (which was the real hindrance to WWII US tank design, they seemed to have limited things to basically one engine, due to continuous and easy mass production).

It should be said that, like the Centurion, this tank soldiered on through most of the Cold War, and evolved into what became the M-60A3 and continues in development in Israel today. This is what I believe to be the ultimate testament to a weapons system...

The improved version was renamed the M-46, and given a bigger engine, in time for Korea...

Nickdfresh
03-17-2006, 08:13 AM
Excellent post, thanks for all the information. Its a pity this tank couldnt have been in service before D-Day. I loved the 8 inch Howwitser version.

It would have been nice for the US Army to have had this as the center piece of their tank corp, and surrounded them with Easy-8 Shermans the way the Germans used Panthers and a few Tigers surrounded by lessor armor like the Panzer MkIV and Jadpanzer... I wonder how much faster the War would have drawn to a close?

SS Tiger
03-17-2006, 09:59 AM
Extensive information! Great tank, that T95 looks a beast!

George Eller
03-17-2006, 12:02 PM
Hey Guys,

Firefly, Nick, SS Tiger, you are most welcome. It took me a few evenings of my spare time to compile the information - a combination from books that I have and the Internet.

Firefly:

Excellent post, thanks for all the information. Its a pity this tank couldnt have been in service before D-Day. I loved the 8 inch Howwitser version

If the Armored Force Board had not delayed development in September 1943, perhaps it would have been available in some numbers for the Normandy Invasion. I would like to have seen it take part in Operation Cobra or at the very latest the December 1944 Ardennes Offensive.

Nickdfresh:

I could cry! They're so beautiful! I wish I could drive one home despite the really lousy fuel economy...

I all seriousness, this is some good info that is hard to find on the net, especially the extensive development in the US of heavy tanks that would outclass most German and Soviet projects, but that were roundly rejected as too impractical, until the Germans were shooting the hell out of the 1942-vintage M4 Shermans...

Excellent tank if underpowered (which was the real hindrance to WWII US tank design, they seemed to have limited things to basically one engine, due to continuous and easy mass production).

It should be said that, like the Centurion, this tank soldiered on through most of the Cold War, and evolved into what became the M-60A3 and continues in development in Israel today. This is what I believe to be the ultimate testament to a weapons system...

The improved version was renamed the M-46, and given a bigger engine, in time for Korea...

It would have been nice for the US Army to have had this as the center piece of their tank corp, and surrounded them with Easy-8 Shermans the way the Germans used Panthers and a few Tigers surrounded by lessor armor like the Panzer MkIV and Jadpanzer... I wonder how much faster the War would have drawn to a close?

She is a beauty. You can definitely see a resemblance to many post-war tank designs. Of course especially to the M46, M47, M48 and M60 designs.

The Centurion is my second favorite tank to come out of WWII. As you say, both the Centurion and M48/60 tank designs continue to be upgraded even into the present day by the Israelis. An interesting variation of the Centurion is the heavy armoured personnel carrier version developed by the Israelis for their combat engineers.

Pershing / Sherman and lighter AFV's land version of a naval task force (battleships and cruisers surrounded by destroyer pickets, etc.) - that would make for an interesting meeting engagement with their German counterparts. I also included a drawing with the Pershing and Sherman together for comparison.

SS Tiger:

Extensive information! Great tank, that T95 looks a beast!

Thanks, it's my pleasure. Yes, I guess the T95 is an example of how things can get out of hand. I have even seen it in the PC game "Battlefield 1942" expansion "Secret Weapons."

I am glad to share information like this to so many people on the Internet.

Enjoy. :D

-

CrossBones
03-19-2006, 09:57 AM
Great info, GeorgeEller ....thanks!! :)

George Eller
03-19-2006, 03:20 PM
-
You're welcome CrossBones :D

I like that P-47 Thunderbolt in your signature. It's my favorite fighter of WWII.

-

CrossBones
03-19-2006, 04:26 PM
-

I like that P-47 Thunderbolt in your signature. It's my favorite fighter of WWII.

-


Awesome!!! It`s my favorite too...... :D

Look this:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v370/epfernandes/10_plate.jpg

This is a brazilian colors of P47 in WW2......

George Eller
03-19-2006, 06:17 PM
-

I like that P-47 Thunderbolt in your signature. It's my favorite fighter of WWII.

-


Awesome!!! It`s my favorite too...... :D

Look this:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v370/epfernandes/10_plate.jpg

This is a brazilian colors of P47 in WW2......

Very cool :D

They look like they were all flown by aces. I count 7, 9 and 10 kills on the three planes. The top two must have been as they appeared late in the war with the aluminum finish.

Wartime operators were Brazil, Free French, Mexico, RAF, Soviet Union, USAAF. After the war P-47's were also operated by the air forces of Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Dominica, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Honduras, Iran, Italy, Mexico, Nationalist China, Peru, Turkey and Yugoslavia.

-

Nickdfresh
09-27-2006, 08:00 PM
Bump!

Digger
09-28-2006, 02:03 AM
Thankyou George for your time and effort on the excellent info you've shared.
The T-28 was the beastie i was thinking of. It really looked the part if not a bit impractical. Still, it was probably a bit more realistic than a Maus!

Regards to all,
Digger.

George Eller
10-13-2006, 10:17 PM
Thankyou George for your time and effort on the excellent info you've shared.
The T-28 was the beastie i was thinking of. It really looked the part if not a bit impractical. Still, it was probably a bit more realistic than a Maus!

Regards to all,
Digger.

-

Greetings Digger,

You're welcome and thanks for the compliment. Here are some more pics of the T-28.

T-28-01
http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/9756/t2801ju5.jpg
http://battletanks.com/articles.htm

T-28-02
http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/5635/t2802by4.jpg
http://www.ioh.pl/bron_pancerna/index.php?s=art&art=14

T-28-03
http://img290.imageshack.us/img290/2003/t2803oe0.jpg
http://www.ioh.pl/bron_pancerna/index.php?s=art&art=14

T-28-04
http://img290.imageshack.us/img290/1874/t2804xj2.jpg
http://www.ioh.pl/bron_pancerna/index.php?s=art&art=14

-

George Eller
10-14-2006, 01:23 PM
-

More pics of the T-28.

T-28-05
http://img290.imageshack.us/img290/7225/t2805dq2.jpg
http://www.ioh.pl/bron_pancerna/index.php?s=art&art=14

T-28-06
http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/8291/t2806bm9.jpg
http://www.ioh.pl/bron_pancerna/index.php?s=art&art=14

T-28-07
http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/8884/t2807ms5.jpg
http://www.ioh.pl/bron_pancerna/index.php?s=art&art=14

T-28-08
http://img290.imageshack.us/img290/2038/t2808br3.jpg
http://www.ioh.pl/bron_pancerna/index.php?s=art&art=14

-

George Eller
10-15-2006, 12:31 PM
-

A few more pics of the T-28.

T-28-09
http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/3928/t2809hc0.jpg
http://www.ioh.pl/bron_pancerna/index.php?s=art&art=14

T-28-10
http://img290.imageshack.us/img290/4639/t2810pd7.jpg
http://www.ioh.pl/bron_pancerna/index.php?s=art&art=14

T-28-11
http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/74/t2811df6.jpg
http://www.ioh.pl/bron_pancerna/index.php?s=art&art=14

T-28-12
http://img290.imageshack.us/img290/9249/t2812tj2.jpg
http://www.ioh.pl/bron_pancerna/index.php?s=art&art=14

-

Cancelled Heavy Tank PAGE
T-28
http://www.strange-mecha.com/vehicle/track/t28.jpg
http://www.strange-mecha.com/vehicle/track/c-ht.htm

-

Panzerknacker
10-15-2006, 01:28 PM
Quiet a big machine, in here I found another america Heavy..

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/heavytanks/usht-T1E1.jpg



http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/heavytanks/usht-T1E2-a.jpg


The T1 Project

In 1940, the War Department decided that a heavy tank was again needed for the United States and thus began the T1 Project. The blueprint called for a heavy tank with no less than four turrets in a true land battleship design. Two of them would have carried a 75mm gun a third with a 37mm, a fourth with a 20mm and this does not include multiple machine guns! Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed and the tank looked much different by the time it was off the drawing boards.
The T1 was only an engineering exercise (thank goodness). Actually, the first tank to be produced in this series was the T1E2 (top row). Built at Baldwing Locomotive Works and ready September 1941, the tank was initially unarmed. The T1E1 is shown in the middle row. The T1E3 is the bottom. Due to changing requirements, the T1E4 was never actually built (except on paper). The T1E2 became the M6 (below) and the T1E3 became the M6A1

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/heavytanks/HeavyTanks.html

George Eller
10-15-2006, 02:30 PM
-

Thanks for the pics and the link Panzerknacker.

Noticed that the site has some more b/w pics of the T-28 as well.

Nice info.

-

Nickdfresh
10-16-2006, 08:09 PM
It's shocking as to how modern the T-28 looks. BTW, I was working at the engineer proving grounds at FT Belvoir where the Tank was found not so long ago...

Panzerknacker
10-17-2006, 07:25 PM
And what about this...the T-29 or "super Pershing"

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/heavytanks/usht-T29-a.jpg


In early 1945, the T29 Project was begun to counter the new heavier tanks being fielded in Europe by the Germans. The new Pershing tank, at 45 tons, was not quite "heavy" enough to counter the 70 ton German Tiger II. Not ready when the war ended, it did provide opportunities for testing of engineering concepts in artillery and automotive components. Shown above (from left to right) are the T29, T29E2, and the T29E3. The difference between the T29E1 and T29E2 was the E1 used an Allison 1710ci V12 and the E2 was a upgrade in turret and gun controls. The E3 model had further upgrades in armament and fire control. Most of the basics remained the same in all models. Driving was done by using a "joy stick" as on an airplane. The transmission was GM CD-850-1 which provided steering, braking, and variable power flow to each track. Foot pedals controlled the braking function, not the "joy stick"

George Eller
10-17-2006, 11:05 PM
And what about this...the T-29 or "super Pershing"

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/heavytanks/usht-T29-a.jpg

-

Yep, similar to my original post on previous page:

Although according to the information below, the T-29 had a combat weight of 138,000 pounds. This would give it the equivalent weight of 62.7 long tons (69 short tons) or 62.59 metric tons. This would put it closer in weight to the 70 ton Tiger II.


http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/3654/t32t29specs012gb.jpg
T32-T29-SPECS-01
T32: Longer 90mm gun, 200mm armour max.
T29: 105mm gun T5 High-velocity gun

-

Panzerknacker
10-18-2006, 07:46 PM
Sorry I overlook that. :neutral:

http://www.aviapress.com/magaz/bkl/bkl200305_2.jpg

George Eller
10-19-2006, 09:52 AM
Sorry I overlook that. :neutral:

http://www.aviapress.com/magaz/bkl/bkl200305_2.jpg
-

Not a problem Panzerknacker :)

The wording of the article was a little confusing. I think what it meant to say was that the original M-26 Pershing weighed 45 tons. It would have been more clear if the article had also mentioned that the weight of the T-29 was heavier at 62.5 tons.

BTW - Nice pics.

-

Nickdfresh
10-20-2006, 11:46 AM
I think it bears mentioning that the "heavies" like the T-29 actually did bear fruition. The M103 Heavy Tank served in the US Army and Marine Corp's motor pools into the 1970s, as a counter to the JSIII.

It wasn't very reliable though; due to it's size and techniucal problems only a few score actually saw deployment.

http://www.usmcvta.org/5thtanks/JES60a.jpg
http://www.battletanks.com/images/M103-3.jpg
http://www.battletanks.com/images/M103-2.jpg

http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m103heavy.html

http://www.patton-mania.com/M_103/m_103.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m103.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M103_heavy_tank

George Eller
10-21-2006, 10:33 AM
-

Thanks for the M103 pics and links Nick.
Very interesting.

Here are some nice line drawings of the M103A1 and M103A2 heavy tanks.

M103A1 (gasoline engine) and M103A2 (Diesel engine version of M103 series)
http://www.patton-mania.com/M_103/M103_the_real_thing/m103_the_real_thing.html

-

M103A1 (gasoline engine)
Continental AV-1790-5C; 12 cylinder, 4 cycle, 90° vee gasoline

http://img320.imageshack.us/img320/6377/103a11ta5.jpg
http://www.patton-mania.com/M_103/M103_the_real_thing/103a1_1.jpg

http://img47.imageshack.us/img47/4407/103a12me4.jpg
http://www.patton-mania.com/M_103/M103_the_real_thing/103a1_2.jpg


-

M103A2 (Diesel engine version of M103 series)
Continental AVDS-1790-2A; 12 cylinder, supercharged diesel

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/8061/103a21ym8.jpg
http://www.patton-mania.com/M_103/M103_the_real_thing/103a2_1.jpg

http://img320.imageshack.us/img320/9568/103a22ay5.jpg
http://www.patton-mania.com/M_103/M103_the_real_thing/103a2_2.jpg


-

George Eller
10-21-2006, 11:07 AM
-

More line drawings of US heavies:

Heavy Tanks (Russian Website)
http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/Modern/Heavy/

-
M-6 (4-view drawing)
http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/9964/m6drawingrm2.png
http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/Modern/Heavy/M6.gif

-
T-28 (4-view drawing)
http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/2699/t281drawingli2.png
http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/Modern/Heavy/T28_1.gif

-
T-29 (4-view drawing)
http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/2096/t29drawingjs9.png
http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/Modern/Heavy/T29.gif

-
M-103A2 (4-view drawing)
http://img320.imageshack.us/img320/2447/m103a2drawingld3.png
http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/Modern/Heavy/M103A2.gif

-

Panzerknacker
10-21-2006, 08:05 PM
Very good info...a question, What was the maximum armor thickness in the M103?

Nickdfresh
10-21-2006, 08:16 PM
I thought I saw 4.5 inches in front, but this could be wrong...

Panzerknacker
10-21-2006, 08:25 PM
If is that figure is only half inch (12,7mm) more than M-26...:neutral:

George Eller
10-21-2006, 10:07 PM
-

M103 (1957)
http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m103heavy.html

Combat Weight: 57 metric tons

M103: Armor
Hull Front: 10 to 13cm (4 to 5")
Hull Side: 7.6cm (3")
Hull Top: 2.5cm (1")

Turret Gun shield: 25cm (10")
Turret Front: 18cm (7")
Turret Side: 7.6cm (3")
Turret Top: 3.8cm (1.5")

Engine: Continental AV-1790-5C; 12 cylinder, 4 cycle, 90° vee gasoline
Horsepower: Gross: 810@2800rpm
Max level road speed: 40kph (25 mph)

-

M103A1 (1959)
http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m103heavy.html

Combat Weight: 57 metric tons

M103A1: Armor
Hull Front: 10 to 13cm (4 to 5")
Hull Side: 7.6cm (3")
Hull Top: 2.5cm (1")

Turret Gun shield: 25cm (10")
Turret Front: 18cm (7")
Turret Side: 7.6cm (3")
Turret Top: 3.8cm (1.5")

Engine: Continental AV-1790-5C; 12 cylinder, 4 cycle, 90° vee gasoline
Horsepower: Gross: 810@2800rpm
Max level road speed: 40kph (25 mph)

-

M103A2 (1964)
http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m103heavy.html

Combat Weight: 58.2 metric tons

M103A2: Armor
Hull Front: 10 to 13cm (4 to 5")
Hull Side: 7.6cm (3")
Hull Top: 2.5cm (1")

Turret Gun shield: 25cm (10")
Turret Front: 18cm (7")
Turret Side: 7.6cm (3")
Turret Top: 3.8cm (1.5")

Engine: Continental AVDS-1790-2A; 12 cylinder, supercharged diesel
Horsepower: Gross: 750@2800rpm
Max level road speed: 37kph (23 mph)

-

M26 Pershing (November 1944)
http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m26pershing.html

Combat weight: 41.8 metric tons

M26: Armor
Hull Front: 10cm (4")
Hull Side: 7.6cm (3")
Hull Top: 2.22cm (.875" or 7/8")

Turret Gun shield: 11cm (4.5")
Turret Front: 10cm (4")
Turret Side: 7.6cm (3")
Turret Top: 2.5cm (1")

Engine: Ford GAF; 8 cylinder, 4 cycle, 60º vee gasoline
Horsepower: Net: 450@2600rpm / Gross: 500@2600rpm
Max level road speed: 40kph sustained, 48kph dash (25mph sustained, 30mph dash)

-

Nickdfresh
10-22-2006, 10:55 AM
The British Army had a tank that was virtually identical to the M103, and suffered from virtually identical problems with automotive reliability, the name escapes me, but I can look it up. The fact seems to be that the "bang wasn't worth the buck" in 'heavy tanks' insofar that one could purchase several M48AX/M60AX or a Centurion tanks for the price of one of these babies; and as pointed out, the armor protection wasn't really all that superior to medium MBTs.

Still cool to have had these monsters...

Panzerknacker
10-22-2006, 12:17 PM
M103A2 (1964)
http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m103heavy.html (http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m103heavy.html)

Combat Weight: 58.2 metric tons

M103A2: Armor
Hull Front: 10 to 13cm (4 to 5")
Hull Side: 7.6cm (3")
Hull Top: 2.5cm (1")




Thanks for the info George, It wanst that much after all, similar to a JS-2.

George Eller
10-22-2006, 11:42 PM
Thanks for the info George, It wanst that much after all, similar to a JS-2.
-

Yes, there was not much difference in the hull front armor.

The big difference was in the gun shield and turret front armor.

M103A2 (1964)
http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m103heavy.html

Combat Weight: 58.2 metric tons

M103A2: Armor
Hull Front: 10 to 13cm (4 to 5")

Turret Gun shield: 25cm (10")
Turret Front: 18cm (7")

-

M26 Pershing (November 1944)
http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m26pershing.html

Combat weight: 41.8 metric tons

M26: Armor
Hull Front: 10cm (4")

Turret Gun shield: 11cm (4.5")
Turret Front: 10cm (4")

-

George Eller
10-23-2006, 12:24 AM
-

M26 Pershing versus Pzkw V Panther - WWII video footage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqH_WEqNK5Y

Pershing tank M26 noise Ford GAA V8 engine - video footage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9C8TkU4Urs

-

Nickdfresh
10-23-2006, 01:07 AM
George, you are the man!! I've been looking for that combat sequence, called "High-noon in Cologne"... Thanks!! From one of the best History Channel programs I've ever seen, "Suicide Missions: The Sherman Tank."

George Eller
10-23-2006, 01:23 AM
George, you are the man!! I've been looking for that combat sequence, called "High-noon in Cologne"... Thanks!! From one of the best History Channel programs I've ever seen, "Suicide Missions: The Sherman Tank."
-

Well, I must confess that I found it from Panzerknacker's link to an Argentina WWII forum under that M3 Lee/Grant cartoon that he posted on the M4 Sherman thread. He He :)

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=89463&postcount=79

http://mundosgm.com/smf/index.php?topic=712.0

http://mundosgm.com/smf/index.php?topic=712.15

Panther Versus Pershing
http://mundosgm.com/smf/index.php?topic=1332.msg35811#msg35811

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3400216787641857936&q=pershing+panther

-

Nickdfresh
10-23-2006, 01:26 AM
You know, I've checked YouTube at least twice for the vid. I wish people were a bit more precise with their titles of such historical matter.

But anyways, I haven't seen it in a while, but the program is excellent and I've checked about downloading it, I may have to cave and pay $24 for a one-hour DVD.

Ha! I just checked torrentspy, and they have almost every "Dangerous Missions" video except for that one.

Panzerknacker
10-24-2006, 07:11 PM
Well, I must confess that I found it from Panzerknacker's link to an Argentina WWII forum under that M3 Lee/Grant cartoon that he posted on the M4 Sherman thread. He He


He,he, and dont forget to admire that selection of screenshots wich demonstrate the Panthers end. nice work there.

George Eller
10-24-2006, 10:35 PM
He,he, and dont forget to admire that selection of screenshots wich demonstrate the Panthers end. nice work there.
-

Indeed, it was very nice work. Excellent posts by Bruno.

http://mundosgm.com/smf/index.php?topic=1332.msg35811#msg35811

-

RifleMan20
04-29-2007, 01:45 PM
I was playing COH today and one of the units was a m26 pershing tank can someone tell me about this

oops sry i should be more careful o and if george eller look at this sry

Nickdfresh
04-29-2007, 01:58 PM
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3398

Try a search, first...

Nickdfresh
05-13-2007, 10:07 AM
Bump!

George did some fine work in this thread. And it seems a lot of recent questions about US heavy tanks will be answered by reading through it...

Nickdfresh
05-13-2007, 10:27 AM
I suppose we can cover one more US tank prototype that George provided a drawing of:

The M-6
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Heavy-tank-OWI-4.jpg
http://adamicz.theprodigy.cz/TECHNIKA/Pozemni/m6_profile.jpg

The tank was very nearly produced in small numbers, but rejected in favor of the M-4. Nevertheless, it still proved a valuable platform for testing.

http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/pics/heavytankm6.jpg

http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/heavytankm6.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M6_Heavy_Tank

In Czech: http://www.militarysource.wz.cz/m6.html

http://www.clubi.ie/exalted/images/Tanks/M6.JPG

Panzerknacker
08-18-2007, 12:22 AM
Loading the ammo in a M26, note the large volume of the 90mm "tiger killer" complete round.

http://i12.tinypic.com/4p4hso8.jpg

George Eller
09-26-2007, 11:26 AM
-

U.S. 3rd Armored Division in Cologne, World War II
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oDnst7fAEU
The 3rd Armored Division History Website (www.3AD.com) presents a brief glimpse of action by the Spearhead Division during the capture of Cologne in March, 1945, the first major German city (4th largest) to fall to Allied troops. Includes scenes of the fiery destruction of a German Mark V Panther tank by a 3rd Armored 90mm Pershing tank in which gunner Clarence Smoyer of Pennsylvania scored three hits in rapid sucession. (Army Signal Corps film research by Dan Fong, with editing and film restoration [where possible] by Vic Damon, both of 3AD.com web staff.)

-

WW2 Combat Footage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqH_WEqNK5Y
Cologne in March, 1945 - Pershing vs Panther

-

Pershing tank M 26 moved out of the garage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4inUtKYhk1o
Pershing M 26 "From Hell" of the Royal Army Museum of Brussels is going out of the garage. Pershing M26 "From Hell" du Musée Royal de l'Armée de Bruxelles sort du garage.

-

Pershing tank M26 sound of the Ford GAA V8 engine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9C8TkU4Urs
The wonderfull sound of the Ford V8 GAA engine of the Pershing M 26 "From Hell" of the Royal Army Museum of Brussels. Le son merveilleux du moteur Ford GAA V8 du Pershing M 26 "From Hell" du Musée Royal de l'Armée de Bruxelles.

-

Nickdfresh
11-11-2007, 04:51 PM
Mod note: I merged the two M-26 Pershing threads...

Panther F
11-17-2007, 02:09 PM
I didn't know much about the Pershing until I built this in 1/16th scale:

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a213/PantherF59/HPIM1860.jpg

After doing all the research on it I kinda like the M26A1 version the best. :)


Jeff

George Eller
11-17-2007, 02:55 PM
I didn't know much about the Pershing until I built this in 1/16th scale:

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a213/PantherF59/HPIM1860.jpg

After doing all the research on it I kinda like the M26A1 version the best. :)


Jeff
-

My compliments to you Jeff - it's beautiful :)

-

Eoin666
04-06-2008, 11:03 AM
The 90mm did become the main US tank gun once the idiocy of perpetuating the "tank destroyer" doctrine as it was erroneously conceived was finally realized. This is due largely to the efforts of the Ordinance Dept. --the US Army branch that kept making some very good weapons designs only to be continually overruled by Army Ground Forces Command-- despite much confusion, intercedent conflict, and factionalism in the US planning of AFV production. But yes, the weapons were not as mobile in their towed configuration as the 88mm was, but the rare "Super-Pershing's" modified 90mm gun exceeded any tank weapon on the battlefield by 1945. And US tank destroyers were essentially being used as mobile anti-tank guns by the end of the War despite the inexplicable decision to try to use more towed guns (and yes, a 90mm prototype was produced)..

As for the British 94mm, I suppose they felt that the 17pdr was good enough and probably cheaper than developing and mounting a version of the 3.7" gun for tanks, and they were having problems just making enough of those to go around. But I believe the main problem of the British Army using the 3.7 AA in a ground role was as organizational as it was equipment. They simply had a much stricter division between air defense artillery troops and direct infantry support artillery than did the Wehrmacht...

Very interesting, I thought the super-Pershing was just a concept vehicle never realised it saw actual combat, until I did a quick search and found the following.

DUEL AT DESSAU
on April 21, 1945

Only three days before the 3rd Armored Division's final combat action of WWII, a Super Pershing of the 33rd Armored Regiment met and defeated the most powerful and most heavily armored German tank of the war - the legendary 77-ton King Tiger, also known as the Tiger II or Tiger Royal. It would be the first and only meeting between a King Tiger and the Super Pershing, a modified standard M26 Pershing weighing 7 tons heavier at 53 tons - an almost "secret" tank that, to this day, remains largely an enigma to military historians.

Only two Super Pershings were ever built, and the 3AD had the only one in the European Theater - an experimental version with its remarkably long barrel. Arriving very late in the war (March, 1945), it was field tested and modified inside Germany and subsequently saw about ten days of actual combat action, beginning several days after the Battle of Paderborn and ending with the Battle of Dessau near the Elbe River.

The Super Pershing (aka T26E4-1) was equipped with a new long-barreled T15E1 90mm gun (70 calibers) that was designed to out-perform the German high-velocity 88mm on the King Tiger. In testing, this new U.S. gun had successfully penetrated 8.5 inches of armor at 1,000 yards at 30 degrees. Even more remarkable, it had penetrated 13 inches of armor at 100 yards. The special 90mm ammunition had produced a muzzle velocity of 3,850 feet per second, or some 600 feet per second faster than the 88mm of the King Tiger. The new 90mm round also proved to have superior range and accuracy over the previous version.

Army ordnance technicians (in the U.S. and Europe) had been anxious about getting the new tank into combat, hoping to match it against a King Tiger. But by April, 1945, German armor west of Berlin had dramatically thinned out, not to mention an extreme shortage of fuel, and the odds of spotting the monster German tank were slim. But in Dessau on April 21, "luck" would befall the Super Pershing crew commanded by SSgt Joe Maduri, a veteran 3AD tanker in his tenth straight month of combat.

The 3AD had begun a four-pronged attack on the city, which was heavily defended. Division armor were finally able to enter the city slowly after numerous concrete tank barriers were destroyed. With 3AD tanks fanning out, and 36th Infantry riflemen following, the Super Pershing reached an intersection and began to round a corner to its right. Unknown to its crew, a King Tiger had apparently been waiting in ambush at a distance of two blocks or roughly 600 yards away, and in the same direction that the Americans were turning into.

At this distance, easily within its capability, the Tiger fired at the Super Pershing. But its infamous high-velocity 88mm shell, of the type that had destroyed so many American tanks and vehicles during the war, went high and was not even close. Gunner Cpl John "Jack" Irwin, only 18 years old, responded almost instantly with a round that struck the Tiger's huge angled glasis, or front plate. But the shot, a non-armor-piercing high explosive (HE) shell, had no effect. Ricocheting off the armor, it shot skyward and exploded harmlessly. The Super Pershing had been loaded with an HE only because Irwin had been expecting urban targets, such as buildings, personnel, and light anti-tank guns. "AP!", he shouted to his loader "Pete," which meant an armor-piercing shell would be next.

Maduri and crew then felt a concussion or thud on the turret. It was never known if this shot came from the Tiger, or from some other anti-tank weapon. In any case, no serious damage was done - probably a lucky glancing impact. In the next instant, Irwin aimed and fired a second time, just as the royal monster was moving forward and raising up over a pile of rubble. The 90mm AP round penetrated the Tiger's underbelly, apparently striking the ammo well and resulting in a tremendous explosion that blew its turret loose. With near certainty, the entire crew was killed.

But there was no time to examine their "trophy." A battle was raging, and the Super Pershing continued down the street, passing the lifeless and burning King Tiger. Tough fighting still lay ahead, as German bazooka, Panzerfaust, and machine-gun fire came from windows and doorways.

The encounter with the King Tiger had been "short and sweet," lasting less than twenty seconds. It may not have been the titanic "slug fest" that could have occurred on an open field, but it was an overwhelming victory for the quick-reacting Super Pershing crew. The battle for Dessau would end completely on the following day, but not without the Super Pershing destroying another German heavy tank (believed to be a 50-ton Panther Mark V) with two shots. The first disabling its drive sprocket, and the second round completely penetrating the tank's side armor. That apparently set off an internal blast, again probably from stored ammo. And, still in Dessau, that was followed by Maduri and crew forcing the commander of a German medium tank to surrender without firing a shot. For the German crew, out of ammo for their main gun, the intimidating "look" of that long-barrel 90mm gun that must have destroyed any remaining will to fight or flee.

[Note: Sources include the book Spearhead in the West (1946 edition); the book Death Traps by Belton Cooper; and the book Another River, Another Town and personal writings by John P. Irwin.]

Nickdfresh
04-06-2008, 01:11 PM
A rare "Super Pershing" tank with the long(er) barrel 90mm gun:

HAWKEYE
05-05-2008, 09:10 AM
Thought you might like seeing these photos I found today..

http://36thair3ad.homestead.com/files/PershingTigerFightElsdorf.jpg

Churchill
05-05-2008, 03:18 PM
Nice... That lucky shot was really, really lucky. The gunner in the Tiger must have been elated.

snebold
05-07-2008, 05:53 AM
The name of the "British M103" was Conqueror, it also had an 120mm gun. A tank destroyer with 183mm gun was projected, but not produced. The Conqueror was phased out as soon as the Chieftain (also 120mm) was on the horizon. This example has been used for target practice.
I saw one at a museum in England, it´s 4m wide and left a greater visual impression the the Jagdtiger.

The Soviets were also ready to "go one bigger" if the need arose, contemplating more powerful 122mm and naval 130mm weapons for their ISU´s in a tank hunting role.

George Eller
05-07-2008, 04:09 PM
Thought you might like seeing these photos I found today..

http://36thair3ad.homestead.com/files/PershingTigerFightElsdorf.jpg


-

M-26 tank losses in World War II - three total - two were knocked out (one by a Tiger tank and one by artillery fire), but they were subsequently repaired and returned to service. A third tank was knocked out by a Nashorn tank destroyer and caught fire, but the whole crew was able to bail out before the fire set off the ammo stowed under the turret. It suffered a completely burned out turret as a result and it was determined that it would take too long to repair. So the tank was cannibalized for parts and became the only total Pershing loss in WWII of the original shipment of 20 tanks.


M26 Pershing - Combat history
http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/M26_Pershing_-_Combat_history/id/5264237
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M26_Pershing#World_War_II


The first Pershing loss was on the 28th February to a Tiger but it was recovered and put back into operation...

...In the first engagement with the M26 by the 3rd Armored Division, Cooper writes that the M26 managed to catch two Tigers and one Mark IV tank by surprise from a flanking position. The M26 engaged the tanks from a range of about 1000 yards (1 km), and knocked them out...

...Two M26A1E2 tanks were built during the Second World War. One of these made it to the ETO, assigned to the 3rd Armored Division. This experimental version of the Pershing, sometimes referred to as "Super Pershing" (as are other upgunned Pershing variants), had the 90 mm/70 caliber T15E1 high-velocity gun that threw a projectile at 3,850 ft/s (1,173 m/s). On April 4, 1945 near Dessau, the "Super Pershing" destroyed one King Tiger by striking its underbelly and knocked out another tank, probably a Panther, with a shot to its flank [2]. However, that was its only known combat engagement. Thus, the full capabilities of the T15E1 90 mm main gun were never demonstrated.


-

Pershing vs. Tiger?
http://www.ww2f.com/151499-post6.html

The first loss came on 25 February to 3rd Armored when the Pershing assigned to F Company 33rd Armd. Reg. was knocked out by a Tiger from about 100 yards. The first hit penetrated the turret through the coax MG port and killed both the gunner and loader. The second hit shot off the muzzle brake setting of the 90mm round in the gun and destroying the tube. The third hit glanced off the right side of the turret and knocked off the cuploa hatch which was open. The surviving crew backed away, getting the tank stuck in a pile of building debris, abandoning the tank.

This tank was nicknamed Fireball . This tank was repaired, the 90mm being replaced from one on an M 36 returning to service on 4 March 45.

One tank of the 14th Armored Battalion A Company lost one Pershing when it was struck by heavy artillery fire on 1 March 45. This tank was subsequently repaired and returned to service on 7 March.

Those are the only two losses, well sort of anyway, of Pershings in the ETO. So, one did get knocked out by a Tiger (which was subsequently destroyed in the action by other tanks present) and one by artillery fire.

See United States Tanks in World War II, George Forty and Pershing, a History of the Medium Tank T20 Series, Richard P. Hunnicutt

-

Pershing vs. Tiger?
http://www.ww2f.com/151500-post7.html

Hmmmm... now this is slightly confusing. The 3ad little website I found clearly states that one of the Pershings WAS knocked out by a Nashorn.
http://3ad.com/history/wwll/article....hing.ko.2a.htm
Has a couple photos of the ko'ed tank, and-

Quote:
3rd Armored T-26E3 Pershing, serial number 25, registration number 30119835, was assigned to Company H, 3rd Battalion, 33rd Armored Regiment, Taskforce Lovelady, Combat Command B.

Pershing number 25 was knocked out on 6 Mar 45 from the range of 300 yards by a self-propelled German Nashorn tank destroyer during the fighting in the town of Niehl, Germany north of Cologne. The Nashorn hit Pershing number 25 with its 88mm gun on the lower left front. The armor-piercing round penetrated the armor and took a path between the driver's legs and under the turret where it started a fire. The whole crew was able to bail out before the fire set off the ammo stowed under the turret.

Pershing number 25 suffered a completely burned out turret as a result and it was determined that it would take too long to repair. So the tank was cannibalized for parts and became the only total Pershing loss in WWII of the original shipment of 20 tanks.

Sources listed-
Research Sources:
After The Battle magazine, issue #104
Pershing: A History Of The Medium Tank T-20 Series by Hunnicut.
Spearhead In The West published by the 3rd Armored Division, 1945
M-26/M-46 Pershing Tank 1943-1953 by Zaloga

This info is from the "official" website of the Third Armored Division...

-

http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/2494/m2603ax9wv.jpg
M26-03-X
From: "German Tanks of World War II in Action", by George Forty, Blandford Press, 1988, (p 130)

-

Churchill
05-08-2008, 03:18 PM
Wow, imagine one of those coming down the path shooting at you... But how thick is the armour on one of those?

George Eller
05-11-2008, 11:16 PM
George

Thank you for the Pershing info :cool:

-

You're most welcome General Zod :)

-

Nickdfresh
05-12-2008, 02:36 PM
The name of the "British M103" was Conqueror, it also had an 120mm gun. A tank destroyer with 183mm gun was projected, but not produced. The Conqueror was phased out as soon as the Chieftain (also 120mm) was on the horizon. This example has been used for target practice.
I saw one at a museum in England, it´s 4m wide and left a greater visual impression the the Jagdtiger.

The Soviets were also ready to "go one bigger" if the need arose, contemplating more powerful 122mm and naval 130mm weapons for their ISU´s in a tank hunting role.


Seems like a common theme to both the M-103 and FV214 Conqueror tank was a big problem with reliability and the fact that both tanks, like the German King Tiger, were slow and cumbersome and could be outflanked or even enveloped if the Allies were pushed back quickly...

Nickdfresh
05-12-2008, 02:38 PM
Now I´ll bother you with even more non M26 stuff.

Next in the line from the IS-3...

LOL :D Enough! We have a thread for this. Continue the conversation here please:

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4395

All related posts moved to the above thread in the Soviet forum, respectively...

Eoin666
05-17-2008, 08:41 PM
while browsing the Accurate Armour website came across this little beaut'

http://www.accurate-armour.com/gallery1.cfm?id=85&navlevel=2

General Zod
05-17-2008, 08:44 PM
while browsing the Accurate Armour website came across this little beaut'

http://www.accurate-armour.com/gallery1.cfm?id=85&navlevel=2

Thanks for the link I thought the M26 with the 105mm howitzer was the M45,not M46

Ashes
05-18-2008, 01:14 AM
Talking about heavy weights, I was wondering what would be the most heavily armoured fighting vehicle built?
In the book''Encyclopedia of tanks and armoured fighting vehicles'' it seems to be the T-28 ''tank''[which was really a heavily armoured tank destroyer in the line of the Jagdpanther] would probably be the most heavily armored American vehicle, would it be overall champ?

Max Armour 300mm. weight 95 tons.

http://johnsmilitaryhistory.com/armort28.html

snebold
05-18-2008, 05:18 AM
Yes, except perhaps turret front armour on modern tanks. Think the the T-72B is stated to have 460mm fx. The newest western tanks have the equivalent of 1000mm rolled homogenous armour in the turret front, but then it consists of different materials, it´s probably calculated to the vertical, and overall material thickness isn´t 1m.

Nickdfresh
05-18-2008, 06:36 AM
Talking about heavy weights, I was wondering what would be the most heavily armoured fighting vehicle built?
In the book''Encyclopedia of tanks and armoured fighting vehicles'' it seems to be the T-28 ''tank''[which was really a heavily armoured tank destroyer in the line of the Jagdpanther] would probably be the most heavily armored American vehicle, would it be overall champ?

Max Armour 300mm. weight 95 tons.

http://johnsmilitaryhistory.com/armort28.html

The T-28 was more of a single use assault gun to be used specifically against the Siegfried Line, and possibly against Japanese fortifications had Operation Downfall gone forward. The line was overrun faster than most predicted and work on the vehicle was abandoned as Sherman tanks did just fine against pillboxes and bunkers, and flamethrowers were probably more effective than giant, slow moving artillery magnets..

The model your looking at was found at an abandoned proving ground (Engineer Proving Grounds, or EPG) at a site I worked at last summer and coincidentally was stationed in the Army...

Apparently, it was left in the middle of the very thick wooded areas intact and was found by engineers or surveyors in 1974, where it was parked probably in the late 1940s. I think two were made..

Eoin666
05-19-2008, 02:24 AM
Talking about heavy weights, I was wondering what would be the most heavily armoured fighting vehicle built?
In the book''Encyclopedia of tanks and armoured fighting vehicles'' it seems to be the T-28 ''tank''[which was really a heavily armoured tank destroyer in the line of the Jagdpanther] would probably be the most heavily armored American vehicle, would it be overall champ?

Max Armour 300mm. weight 95 tons.

http://johnsmilitaryhistory.com/armort28.html

I don't know whether you're specifically asking about US vehicles or more generally, but the Germans by the end of the war were considering enormous landship types of vehicle of upto 1500 tons, the 190 ton Maus reached prototype status along with the 140 ton E100.

http://strangevehicles.greyfalcon.us/PANZERKAMPFWAGEN%20VIII%20MAUS.htm

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/8749/maus6gn2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php%3Ft%3D3292%26page%3D11&h=320&w=434&sz=50&hl=en&start=7&um=1&tbnid=pVCR4wEgaK1cPM:&tbnh=93&tbnw=126&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgerman%2Btank%2Bprojects,%2Bmaus%26um %3D1%26hl%3Den%26newwindow%3D1%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3 DN

Ashes
05-19-2008, 11:52 PM
I don't know whether you're specifically asking about US vehicles or more generally, but the Germans by the end of the war were considering enormous landship types of vehicle of upto 1500 tons, the 190 ton Maus reached prototype status along with the 140 ton E100.

http://strangevehicles.greyfalcon.us/PANZERKAMPFWAGEN%20VIII%20MAUS.htm

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/8749/maus6gn2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php%3Ft%3D3292%26page%3D11&h=320&w=434&sz=50&hl=en&start=7&um=1&tbnid=pVCR4wEgaK1cPM:&tbnh=93&tbnw=126&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgerman%2Btank%2Bprojects,%2Bmaus%26um %3D1%26hl%3Den%26newwindow%3D1%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3 DN


Hi Eoin!
I was mainly thinking of armour thickness, not just total tonnage.
By all accounts the Maus max armour was the Gun Mantlet 250mm.
Don't think E types reached T-28's max armour of 300mm.
The T-28's turretless design saved a lot of weight, which allowed much heavier armor to be fitted.
Some of those German designs were over the top weren't they?

Guess when you have a man in charge who thinks bigger is better, you can end up with completely useless weapon systems.

Eoin666
05-20-2008, 11:08 AM
Hi Eoin!
I was mainly thinking of armour thickness, not just total tonnage.
By all accounts the Maus max armour was the Gun Mantlet 250mm.
Don't think E types reached T-28's max armour of 300mm.
The T-28's turretless design saved a lot of weight, which allowed much heavier armor to be fitted.
Some of those German designs were over the top weren't they?

Guess when you have a man in charge who thinks bigger is better, you can end up with completely useless weapon systems.

Hi Ashes
I feel for the mod's of this thread, it does have a trend of moving from the Pershing to other heavy weights in general :)....perhaps we should start a T28 and other super heavy tanks talk.

In terms of armour thickness the old T10 was over 250mm for the mantlet/turret front (50 tons), and the T62 was 240mm for the turret front but only 40 tons in weight, so relatively light elswhere. Then armour thickness can get complicated by the sloped angle of the armour, whether it's a composite, spaced or applique. So for instance armour has a rating of comparison with "rolled homogenous steel" a thickness of 300mm composite might have a RHS comparison of over 1000mm but can vary for whether its figure is against kinetic or chemical warheads....sorry if that was teaching you to suck eggs to coin a good old English proverb. The newly upgraded Challenger 2 carring Dorechester level 2 package on the turret, hull front, skirts and belly, has a RHS equivalent of something like 1700mm or more for the turret front, and a combat weight approaching 80 tons.

That 1500 ton land ship was designed to carry an 800mm main gun, 2 150mm defence guns, 2 submarine engines, yet considering the Gustav 800mm rail gun had a crew of 250, plus 2500 to lay the tracks, a General in command and took 3 weeks to set up for firing, perhaps we should be grateful (if that's the right word) that a meglomanic was in charge and not someone who really knew what they were doing (full scale production of panthers and Me262s in 1942!).

Ashes
05-20-2008, 10:11 PM
Hi Ashes
I feel for the mod's of this thread, it does have a trend of moving from the Pershing to other heavy weights in general :)....perhaps we should start a T28 and other super heavy tanks talk.

In terms of armour thickness the old T10 was over 250mm for the mantlet/turret front (50 tons), and the T62 was 240mm for the turret front but only 40 tons in weight, so relatively light elswhere. Then armour thickness can get complicated by the sloped angle of the armour, whether it's a composite, spaced or applique. So for instance armour has a rating of comparison with "rolled homogenous steel" a thickness of 300mm composite might have a RHS comparison of over 1000mm but can vary for whether its figure is against kinetic or chemical warheads....sorry if that was teaching you to suck eggs to coin a good old English proverb. The newly upgraded Challenger 2 carring Dorechester level 2 package on the turret, hull front, skirts and belly, has a RHS equivalent of something like 1700mm or more for the turret front, and a combat weight approaching 80 tons.

That 1500 ton land ship was designed to carry an 800mm main gun, 2 150mm defence guns, 2 submarine engines, yet considering the Gustav 800mm rail gun had a crew of 250, plus 2500 to lay the tracks, a General in command and took 3 weeks to set up for firing, perhaps we should be grateful (if that's the right word) that a meglomanic was in charge and not someone who really knew what they were doing (full scale production of panthers and Me262s in 1942!).


As you say, we are moving way off thread with the T-28 alone, without going on to modern ceramic armour capabilities.:o
Just that WW2 heavyweights were mentioned and I wondered what was the heaviest armoured vehicle built in WW2, although I probably threw you by not specifying WW2.

Think we should get back on thread.:mrgreen:

snebold
05-30-2008, 03:58 AM
Was the 90/70 gun used in the "Super Pershing" used in any other US AFV´s (this would include postwar (sorry about that :rolleyes:) ??

Carl Schwamberger
06-05-2008, 11:08 PM
Not that specific design. Other 90mm guns with increased power were installed on US tanks like the M46, M47, M48...

Nickdfresh
10-03-2008, 08:24 AM
Bump!

ww11freak34
10-06-2008, 08:13 PM
one of the best tanks during world war 2. it came in to late to do alot of impact

Django
10-30-2008, 07:02 PM
Great thread on a excellent Tank, thanks for posting this thread with all the interesting details!

George Eller
10-30-2008, 07:56 PM
Great thread on a excellent Tank, thanks for posting this thread with all the interesting details!
-

You're very welcome. I'm glad you like it - there have been a lot of contributors to this thread. :)

-

tankgeezer
11-02-2008, 08:24 PM
Hi Eoin!
I was mainly thinking of armour thickness, not just total tonnage.
By all accounts the Maus max armour was the Gun Mantlet 250mm.
Don't think E types reached T-28's max armour of 300mm.
The T-28's turretless design saved a lot of weight, which allowed much heavier armor to be fitted.
Some of those German designs were over the top weren't they?

Guess when you have a man in charge who thinks bigger is better, you can end up with completely useless weapon systems.
someone else may have posted this already but the T-28(T-95) is a gun, motor carriage, designed to be used to break the Sigfried line and allow the Allies an easier entry to Germany. Its neither a tank, nor tank destroyer, more of a mobile bunker. it could move about 8mph max. There are several threads, and lots of pics here, so search to find what you might need. I have been on the T-28, it is a huge machine, would have been something to see in action had it been used.

Churchill
11-02-2008, 09:30 PM
Maybe it'll happen when aliens invade and try to kill everyone. Every vehicle with and without a weapon will be requisitioned, and the T-28'll be the main bunker killer. I can only hope it doesn't happen too soon...

tankgeezer
11-03-2008, 06:53 PM
Maybe it'll happen when aliens invade and try to kill everyone. Every vehicle with and without a weapon will be requisitioned, and the T-28'll be the main bunker killer. I can only hope it doesn't happen too soon... Well, since the Aliens keep up with this site, they already know where you are,, so you'll be the first to know........I think Cartman from Southpark gave them your address..:mrgreen:

Churchill
11-03-2008, 07:40 PM
Aw... Nuts... Not him... He probably told them I was Jewish... <_<:mrgreen:

colonel hogan
01-26-2009, 07:45 PM
wow!!!! great post george!!!! thats alot of info on one vehicle.

RifleMan20
01-26-2009, 09:59 PM
George always seems to impress us, if he got the info, he'll post it no matter if it is 1 sentence or 1,000 sentences.

kirakun
02-06-2009, 08:42 AM
wow.. great info.. anyone have tamiya rc pershing or HL rc pershing? i own a tamiya pershing. Need to learn some tank model decoration for experts like u all, example of camo, detailing etc.. if got picture more best.. Thx. :mrgreen:

Nickdfresh
02-06-2009, 09:44 AM
I doubt they were much for paint scheme camouflage towards the end of WWII. Olive drab green would be the basic color. For details to kind of make it appear a bit more distinctive, you could add on small details by looking at pictures here and on Google of Pershings in actual combat.

I think there were some more intricate, distinctive camo schemes used during the Korean War...

Uyraell
02-06-2009, 04:53 PM
While passingly familiar with the Pershing M26, I do have a question regarding the M28/T95.
Is the story that it was discovered sitting under trees in the late 1960's a true one, or simply urban legend? And if true, does anyone have the full tale, from the time of the disposal order for the vehicle, to the time of it going on display?
Regards, Uyraell.

Nickdfresh
02-06-2009, 05:01 PM
While passingly familiar with the Pershing M26, I do have a question regarding the M28/T95.
Is the story that it was discovered sitting under trees in the late 1960's a true one, or simply urban legend? And if true, does anyone have the full tale, from the time of the disposal order for the vehicle, to the time of it going on display?
Regards, Uyraell.


The T-95 was discovered in a place I was both stationed, and later worked. It was found in a wooded area around the time they closed the FT Belvoir Engineer Proving Grounds in Northern Virgina (around 1974?) not far from Alexandria/Washington, DC.

The area, abandoned after a huge petrol spill, consisted of a large circular concrete pad for a race-track like testing of different sorts of engineer combat vehicles, numerous abandoned explosives ranges, and a plantation of (mostly) evergreens adjacent to the rest of the post which has remained continuously active. The wooded area is now being cleared for construction for a new intell/satcom facility...

Uyraell
02-06-2009, 05:43 PM
The British Army had a tank that was virtually identical to the M103, and suffered from virtually identical problems with automotive reliability, the name escapes me, but I can look it up. The fact seems to be that the "bang wasn't worth the buck" in 'heavy tanks' insofar that one could purchase several M48AX/M60AX or a Centurion tanks for the price of one of these babies; and as pointed out, the armor protection wasn't really all that superior to medium MBTs.

Still cool to have had these monsters...

The Brit version was known as the Conqueror, FV200.
Armour was 7.12 inches/178mm maximum.
Combat weight, 145600lb/66044kg.
Main Armament, 120mm. Fired HESH, APDS
Engine, M120 No.2 Mk 1A (Modified Meteor/Merlin from what I can gather) 5 Forward, 2 Reverse gears. Fuel Injected, developing 810 HP.
Horstmann type suspension. 8 road wheels each side, Rear Sprockets, Front idlers.
Road speed, 21.3mph/34kmh, range unrefueled 95 miles/153km.
Crew 4.
Dimensions : Length o/all 38ft/11.58m, L-Hull 25ft 4in/7.721m
Width 13ft 1 in/ 3.987m
Height o/all 11ft/3.353m.
History : Entered service with Brit Army in 1956, withdrawn in 1966.
5 vehicles known to still exist, one in France, 4 in Britain.
I am uncertain if the above figure is in addition to, or includes the known surviving FV219 Armoured Recovery Vehicles , of which there appears to remain 2. These were based on the Conqueror chassis, and so I list them here.

Looking at the beast, it gives every impression of trying hard to be a Brit copy of a KingTiger, and of not-quite-succeeding. However, of note is that the KingTiger was tactically as disadvantaged, and despite an extremely reliable powertrain, not greatly more mobile, nor more agile.

Hope the info helps.
(Source : "Illustrated Directory of Tanks of the world, WW1 to present day." Salamander Books, publ 2000/2001. While the book contains some inaccuracies, it is in general sufficiently reliable.)
Regards, Uyraell.

Uyraell
02-06-2009, 05:49 PM
The T-95 was discovered in a place I was both stationed, and later worked. It was found in a wooded area around the time they closed the FT Belvoir Engineer Proving Grounds in Northern Virgina (around 1974?) not far from Alexandria/Washington, DC.

The area, abandoned after a huge petrol spill, consisted of a large circular concrete pad for a race-track like testing of different sorts of engineer combat vehicles, numerous abandoned explosives ranges, and a plantation of (mostly) evergreens adjacent to the rest of the post which has remained continuously active. The wooded area is now being cleared for construction for a new intell/satcom facility...
Many Thanks, Nickdfresh :)
I'd always wondered about the T95, since first hearing of it, curiously enough, around 1974/75.
Regards, Uyraell.

PanzerschreckLeopard
07-24-2009, 01:15 PM
Ah, my favourite American tank of all time!

Hey, I actually thought up a fictional version of the M26...let me get another drawing sometime.

benny
07-27-2009, 12:12 AM
all pictures can't be seen, what's the matter?

Carl Schwamberger
07-31-2009, 09:52 PM
.....There are several threads, and lots of pics here, so search to find what you might need. I have been on the T-28, it is a huge machine, would have been something to see in action had it been used.

It is certain movies were made of the vehical road tests. Perhaps those still exist somewhere? Search You Tube?

Nickdfresh
11-05-2009, 06:32 AM
One of two "Super Pershings" that fired a special long bore 90mm gun largely as a combat test bed. The project was abandoned after WWII for reasons that are still unclear...

http://orkunkaya.com/model/sp/sp1.jpg
From the proving grounds...

http://www.orkunkaya.com/model/sp/sp2.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_CbwnjooteyI/STLSuff8WCI/AAAAAAAAdOU/6PT8D_WoUoU/s400/58.jpg
In a postwar graveyard in Germany sometime around the summer of 1945 I believe...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_CbwnjooteyI/STLSfoqsCEI/AAAAAAAAdOM/lQG1MoiOxmE/s1600-h/53.jpg


Modified with applique armor from a knocked-out Panther tank on the front glacius and mantlet...
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_CbwnjooteyI/STLSfoqsCEI/AAAAAAAAdOM/lQG1MoiOxmE/s1600-h/53.jpg

PanzerschreckLeopard
11-05-2009, 07:59 PM
My original description of my drawing:

The most powerfull American tank of WWII was the T26 E1 "Super" Pershing, which was armed with a T15 E2 90mm L/70 gun, compared to the L/53 M3 gun on normal Pershings. Its main problem was that it used separatly loaded ammunition.

After the war, work shifted to the T54 gun. It had the same ballistics as the T15, but used single part ammunition, a concentric recoil mechinism to take less turret space, and had a bore evacuator. It was put into the M26 E1, as seen above.

Firing trials from February 1947 to January 1949 found it to be the best tank gun in service. However, due to an insifficient budget and lack of pressng requirement for the gun, it never made it into service.


http://fc07.deviantart.com/fs48/i/2009/224/e/4/M26_E1_Pershing_by_PanzerschreckLeopard.jpg

The Historian
11-23-2009, 04:52 PM
Korea didn't forestall development?

angform
08-13-2010, 12:50 PM
Excelent post.... Great info.....thanks

Nickdfresh
02-25-2012, 10:54 AM
My original description of my drawing:

The most powerfull American tank of WWII was the T26 E1 "Super" Pershing, which was armed with a T15 E2 90mm L/70 gun, compared to the L/53 M3 gun on normal Pershings. Its main problem was that it used separatly loaded ammunition.

After the war, work shifted to the T54 gun. It had the same ballistics as the T15, but used single part ammunition, a concentric recoil mechinism to take less turret space, and had a bore evacuator. It was put into the M26 E1, as seen above.

Firing trials from February 1947 to January 1949 found it to be the best tank gun in service. However, due to an insifficient budget and lack of pressng requirement for the gun, it never made it into service.


http://fc07.deviantart.com/fs48/i/2009/224/e/4/M26_E1_Pershing_by_PanzerschreckLeopard.jpg


Thank you for clearing that up!