M26 Pershing Tank

[Panzerknacker]

Quiet a big machine, in here I found another america Heavy..

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/U...eavyTanks.html

[George Eller]

-

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]

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]

And what about this...the T-29 or "super Pershing"

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]

Originally Posted by Panzerknacker

And what about this...the T-29 or "super Pershing"

-

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.



T32-T29-SPECS-01
T32: Longer 90mm gun, 200mm armour max.
T29: 105mm gun T5 High-velocity gun

-

[Panzerknacker]

Sorry I overlook that.

[George Eller]

Originally Posted by Panzerknacker

Sorry I overlook that.

-

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]

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

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

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...round/m103.htm

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

[George Eller]

-

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/M1...eal_thing.html

-

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


http://www.patton-mania.com/M_103/M1...ng/103a1_1.jpg


http://www.patton-mania.com/M_103/M1...ng/103a1_2.jpg


-

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


http://www.patton-mania.com/M_103/M1...ng/103a2_1.jpg


http://www.patton-mania.com/M_103/M1...ng/103a2_2.jpg


-

[George Eller]

-

More line drawings of US heavies:

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

-
M-6 (4-view drawing)

http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/Modern/Heavy/M6.gif

-
T-28 (4-view drawing)

http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/Modern/Heavy/T28_1.gif

-
T-29 (4-view drawing)

http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/Modern/Heavy/T29.gif

-
M-103A2 (4-view drawing)

http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/Modern/Heavy/M103A2.gif

-

[Panzerknacker]

Very good info...a question, What was the maximum armor thickness in the M103?

[Nickdfresh]

I thought I saw 4.5 inches in front, but this could be wrong...

[Panzerknacker]

If is that figure is only half inch (12,7mm) more than M-26...

[George Eller]

-

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]

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...