Jump to content

M-26 Pershing..Super Pershing ??


Recommended Posts

On ‎2‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 6:37 PM, MikeyD said:

Steve was about to put uparmored Shermans into the CMFB basegame but I located hard data on the conversion program. It not only detailed how and how many, but also WHEN. So we were obliged to wait until the timeline got expanded to war's end. They were portioned out as substitute Jumbos in platoons. So roughly one per platoon.

So we will be seeing these. Nice.

On ‎2‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 12:19 PM, markus544 said:

Sandbags were a big help as well.. I guess back then it made you feel better if you were a driver or asst driver.

Making you feel better was about all they did. The armor value was basically nil.
If your frontal steel plate armor isn't going to stop the AP shot, adding a sandbag to it won't do anything either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve also has no respect for sandbag armor or add-on track links, says they did no good. But I have a recollection of a German test that showed spare track links offered a degree of protection when struck above a certain angle. They were no help when hit straight-on but made a difference at 45(?) degree angle... or something like that. That reference is lost in the past somewhere.

Sandbags were probably more concerned with hollow charge weapons. Here's a photo of a thoroughly angry general Patton walking away from a heavily sandbagged 'Easy Eight'.

M4A1 76 late added armor 1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the RHA figures for both sandbags and concrete are available.....I'll see if I can find them.

Coincidentally I found this among the posts in the Sherman GB, thought it might be of interest here:

M4_Sherman_Tank_with_Concrete_Armor.jpg

PS - @MikeyD  Is it my imagination or is that an M4A1E8 underneath all the sandbags?  They were kinda rare!

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I believe the RHA figures for both sandbags and concrete are available.....I'll see if I can find them.

Coincidentally I found this among the posts in the Sherman GB, thought it might be of interest here:

M4_Sherman_Tank_with_Concrete_Armor.jpg

PS - @MikeyD  Is it my imagination or is that an M4A1E8 underneath all the sandbags?  They were kinda rare!

So that's where the term "Cowboy builders" comes from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎2‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 1:09 PM, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I believe the RHA figures for both sandbags and concrete are available.....I'll see if I can find them.

I don't think they report fractions of an inch. ;)

On ‎2‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 1:09 PM, Sgt.Squarehead said:

PS - @MikeyD  Is it my imagination or is that an M4A1E8 underneath all the sandbags?  They were kinda rare!

Maybe. The front slope looks about right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎15‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 6:26 PM, SLIM said:

I don't think they report fractions of an inch. ;)

The numbers for concrete, sand & rubble were surprisingly good IIRC ('good' is a relative term here), much of the slat armour we've seen is apparently useless, or at least not terribly efficient.

On ‎15‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 6:26 PM, SLIM said:

Maybe. The front slope looks about right.

The slope of the sides too. 

What do you think to this one? 

25510352348_cd87c44078_b.jpg

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I was a Belgian Catholic priest I'd be just a tad annoyed if the crew left the engine running during Mass. Of course, as a Puritan cavalry officer and general, I think, "Oh gosh. I could have done with the few of those, Rupert's boys would have found our God's wrath over whelming and the war would have been over in a flash". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
On 2018-02-15 at 1:26 PM, SLIM said:

I don't think they report fractions of an inch. ;)

The numbers for concrete, sand & rubble were surprisingly good IIRC ('good' is a relative term here), much of the slat armour we've seen is apparently useless, or at least not terribly efficient.

LOL I keep hearing that sand bags really worked and sand bags didn't do much. Slat armour really worked and slat armour didn't do much.

I say, time to put up or ... show some credible numbers. :D

Anyone, anyone, Bueller, Bueller?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I of course will NEVER find my references, but I recall debating the existence of M4A1E8 with Steve while putting together the CMFB title (years ago). The conclusion (based on now-missing documentation) was the M4A1E8 never made it into the theater before war's end. An M4A1E8 model was even built and made it into an early Alpha but it got pulled. You see them plainly enough in Korea, in Israel, in post-war France, in post-war Italy. They're hard to miss. Also standard suspension could be unbolted and replaced with E8 suspension, M4A1 (76) could have gone through a refurbish program. But not during the war.

What's MORE intriguing is AMERICAN Sherman Fireflies sitting in depot in Europe! Hybrid Chassis with fender extensions, which either means E8 suspension or double duck-bill track and suspension units spaced out from the hull. They were delivered to Europe but never saw any fighting.

 

24c3d9293ff82def64aa80c4184f899d.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

What do you think to this one? 

25510352348_cd87c44078_b.jpg

Under all those sandbags, I simply cannot tell. If the angle of the slats on the back of the tank conforms to the hull shape, then it is a welded hull tank, but it could have the cast front and welded rear. I just can't tell with all that trash all over it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

I of course will NEVER find my references, but I recall debating the existence of M4A1E8 with Steve while putting together the CMFB title (years ago). The conclusion (based on now-missing documentation) was the M4A1E8 never made it into the theater before war's end.

The only reference to the M4A1E8 in Hunnicutt's 'Sherman' is a single reference on the page (243) talking about the adoption of the HVSS.
There are no other mentions of it. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MikeyD said:

What's MORE intriguing is AMERICAN Sherman Fireflies sitting in depot in Europe! Hybrid Chassis with fender extensions, which either means E8 suspension or double duck-bill track and suspension units spaced out from the hull. They were delivered to Europe but never saw any fighting.

Have to say I've never seen the like of those before, where did you find the picture? 

Nothing about the track that I can see suggests HVSS, which suggests we are looking at some kind of peculiar variant (M4E9 Hybrid?) even before they stuck a Firefly turret on it, or stuck a 17pdr in the existing turret.....Is it my imagination or does one of them have an all-round-vision cupola?  That's not something I recall seeing on Fireflies.

AFAIK the Hybrid hull was only used for M4s, not M4A2s or M4A3s, which is partly why I think the image I posted above may be a M4A1E8.  The glacis looks like it's cast but sadly the sides are obscured, however I'm not aware of either any M4A3 Hybrids or M4(76)s.....QED it must be a M4A1 under the improvised armour.

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, IanL said:

LOL I keep hearing that sand bags really worked and sand bags didn't do much. Slat armour really worked and slat armour didn't do much.

I say, time to put up or ... show some credible numbers. :D

Anyone, anyone, Bueller, Bueller?

The durability of concrete and cement varies wildly depending on how it's made, and what you've mixed into it. I don't think field expedient cement was formulated with stopping armor piercing cannon rounds in mind. Sandbags are not a reliable source of protection either, and I don't think anyone bothered to conduct ballistic tests of the "armor protection afforded by a few sandbags instead of an extra inch of steel".

Sandbags were applied by some crews as protection against shaped-charge warheads, but that certainly didn't help this guy:

eiyjL6s.jpg\

If you're waiting for actual numbers though, you're in for a very long wait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SLIM said:

Sandbags are not a reliable source of protection either, and I don't think anyone bothered to conduct ballistic tests of the "armor protection afforded by a few sandbags instead of an extra inch of steel".

Somebody really did.....Seriously!  :o

I wish I could remember where I saw them (I've checked the usual suspects).....It's doing my head in now!  :wacko:

5 minutes ago, SLIM said:

Sandbags were applied by some crews as protection against shaped-charge warheads, but that certainly didn't help this guy

Nail on the head.....But I suspect that round actually impacted below the sandbags.  ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Have to say I've never seen the like of those before, where did you find the picture? 

Originally I saw that photo in the hobby historical journal 'AFV News' Vol 24, No.1 1989. It was first printed in a 1970 article about the M22 Locust (foreground), then someone spotted the weird Shermans in the background.

According to the brief article, Eisenhower asked Montgomery for 17 pounders during Normandy but Britain needed all they had so none were procured before 1945 (supposedly 160 guns). The Shermans in the photo have US '30 series' war dept numbers, .50 cal stowage brackets at the rear, and late US commanders cupolas. The article says they're remanufactured M4s. They may be VVSS suspension with grousers added. Hard to tell. I saw another article on them noting where the picture was taken but that reference in long gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tank Encyclopedia has a useful discussion on the developmnet and history of the Super Pershing. It reinforces a faint memory, too, regarding Belton Copper's involvement with this one off tank. His personal account of that is, I believe, in Death Traps, one of my quantum state books. 

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/us/t26e4-super-pershing

Far better, though, lies in the primary account of John P. Irwin, the young tank gunner whose book is Another River, Another Town. He wound up being the gunner on a tank he unambiguously calls a Super Pershing on page 83, decribing it as having a longer gun than a Pershing and two cylinders on top of the turret. He also says the tank had been in one action before he got it. On page 104, he specifically describes the tank to a marveling officer as being "...a custom job. Lots more armor and a longer cannon." Was absolutely gobsmacked when I realized not only that I was reading about the rarest Army tank in the ETO but of its use in battle. 

Regards,

John Kettler

 

Edited by John Kettler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...