M-26 Pershing's in the ETO

[Mike D]

FWIW I know the subject of the M-26 Pershing actually seeing combat before the end of the war has come up at least once, or twice here on the board. By pure chance I was skimming through a book I bought yesterday called Tiger's in Combat II and just happened upon the following on p. 87 showing what appear to be various daily log entries for a unit called the Schwere Panzerkompanie Hummel which took up station in and around Etzweiler and Elsdorfer Burge in W. Germany as of Feb. 16, 1945.

25.02.45 (Feb. 25, 1945)

1 TIGER I knocks out an M26 PERSHING in ELSDORF becomes bogged down in the debris of a house during the withdrawl and has to be left behind.

2 TIGER I's are knocked out near DORMAGEN by M24 CHAFFEE'S (4th Calvary Group).

It's not only interesting to note that an M26 saw action here, but also that 2 M24's did near the same area as well. I am not too sure when the M24 was supposedly introduced in the ETO but apparently both tanks were available in at least some form of limited quantities by the mid to late Feb. 1945 time frame.

Mike D

aka Mikester

A fools wisdom knows no bounds other than the infinite space between his ears.

[Fionn]

M24s killing a Tiger I ? HOW ????

I mean the Chaffee might have been a good light tank but it sure wasn't a Tiger-killer unless they simply scared the Tiger crew into running.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Mike D]

Fionn,

I had exactly the same question. The pics I've seen of the M24's in the past don't look like they had anything more than a 75mm gun (maybe 76?). They must have gotten real close, real lucky, or a rear shot or something. The book doesn't explain any of the details. The page I was referring to just looks like excerpts from some type of diary or combat log for the unit. There is a picture though, of the Tiger that got hung up in the rubble of the building that supposedly knocked out the M26. So I suppose that at least lends some degree of credance to the story about the M26.

Mike

[Guest KwazyDog]

It had a 75mm M6 gun, the same used in the Mitchell bombers. It had a concentric recoil system with apparently saved space in the turret.

Production started in March 44, and it entered the war late that year. It was a fairly fast little bugger (56 km/Hr), but had rather thin armour.

Read up on her about a month back, shes an interesting little vehcile I imagine she would have had to have gotten a rear or luckyish side shot to take out a tiger though.....

It was used a lot after the war. Going to be fun to see in Cm, its a nice looking little vehicle

[Mike D]

My guess from reading some of the other material about this unit is that the Tigers that got knocked out by the M24's were simply overwhelmed. I say this because as you read down the chronology of what happened to this unit (other similar chronologies in the book go much the same way BTW) it sounds like this unit was getting "bled white" towards the end of the war and that bit and pieces of it were deployed piecemiel here and there vs. being concentrated at any one point. In fact the post in this log from the previous day on p. 87 states that 2 Tiger I's from this unit took part in an engagement w/ Panzer Regiment 33 (9th panzer division) somewhere west of the Rhein and were then transported to the other bank after breaking down. So my guess is that there were probably only 2, maybe 3, Tiger's sent to Dormagen on the 25th w/ little/no other support as such support might very well have not existed. The American Armored Calvary unit (4th Cav Group) probably advanced en-masse w/ supporting infantry and simply outflanked the Tigers and then enveloped them until somebody could get off a good kill shot to knock them out from the rear. As Fionn has stated many a time, it became a war of MaterialSchact (spelling?) in the end that the Germans could never hope to win.

Mike D

aka Mikester

[Guest Big Time Software]

Without consulting any info, I am sure the Chaffee could get in a kill shot on the side or rear. The armor behind the roadwheels wasn't very thick IIRC. As you should well know Fionn, even the big German tanks are dead meat when they get hit just right

Funny enough, Charles and I were just discussing critical hits as I just lost a Jagdtiger in a test game Math supported the kill (there were 8 US tanks firing at it, so the odds weren't that horrible!). On the King Tiger, for example, there are two 8x12" weak spots on the turret FRONT where even a 57mm AT gun could penetrate. 8x12 is not such a small spot.

Steve

[Fionn]

The Chaffee had a 75mm L39 gun so it was a LITTLE better than a normal Sherman 75 (which usually sported a 75mm L/37.5 ).

Gee Kwazy. You seem really certain it'll look good in the game. Having looked at it in books I agree the model is interesting . I look forward to seeing it in actually.

Steve,

Those two 8 x 12 inch spots were the location where the gunner's sight penetrated the mantlet about half a metre to the left of the gun and the location where the co-axial MG fired out about a half a metre to the right of the main gun right?

If not, what where they then ? This is interesting to me.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Guest KwazyDog]

Hehehe, ummm, just got a feeling about that one, Fionn Im hoping it will anyways, hehe! It was actually quite a 'modern' looking vehicle for its day in my opinion. Im looking forward to seeing it in action.

I was interested in that info about the King Tiger too. I wasnt aware about that. 8x12 is a rather big spot, especially if your inside the thing

[This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 09-13-99).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Fionn, yup! They were just to the side of the mantlet. Hit that sucker just right and bye-bye turret crew. I've never seen or heard of this happening, but I have seen neat holes punched through the side of the turret. Also one in the front, UPPER, glacis plate (the guess was an JS-2 or SU-122)

Steve

[Guest KwazyDog]

Damn, that must have been a solid hit to get through that!

Steve, those graph thingies showing chances of killing, etc, are they going to be included on the CD? I understand they take ages to calculate, but I think I recall you saying that you were going to include the main ones ?

[Guest Big Time Software]

Yes, many will be included on the CD. Each one doesn't take very much time to generate, but we have to do HUNDREDS, if not thousands. That will take some time Charles is planning on setting up a script and letting it chug away all night long!

Steve

[Ben Galanti]

Hrm... I was under the impression that the user could create those on the fly during the game... Was I wrong about that? If that's not the case, will there be an app so that we can create them to our hearts content?

[Lee]

Hehe, I was going to suggest that very thing, Steve.

Just make some sort of automated script and fire

it up every night before bed time and just let

it crunch numbers all night. If Charles does

that every night for weeks on end, he should be

able to have every conceivable gun/armor matchup

in CM pre-calculated and available on the CD with

no problem.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Ben you are correct about how you can access them, but they all have to be pre-generated. This means you can compare x to y in a little app, but the data isn't actually being crunched right then and there. I don't think you would want to wait for the reports to generate. This way they popup right away.

Steve

[Herr Oberst]

BTS, I would volunteer some processor time to gen those graphics if it would help.

Right now, the dual Celeron 366's are working on SETI@home, crunching radio telescope data for Cal Berkley.

I'd easily throw them overboard for CM. The aliens can wait.

[This message has been edited by Herr Oberst (edited 09-14-99).]

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Fionn, yup! They were just to the side of the mantlet. Hit that sucker just right and bye-bye turret crew. I've never seen or heard of this happening, but I have seen neat holes punched through the side of the turret. Also one in the front, UPPER, glacis plate (the guess was an JS-2 or SU-122)

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you provide the refrence's with the photo's of the glacis penetration of the Tiger II.

The D25T 122mm BR-471B AP-T round would have been very hard pressed to defeat the glacis even at PB range. The US 90mm in Live fire tests failed vs the glacis & mantlet with APCBC & APCR-T at 300 - 500yrds, and both rounds had better penetration performance then the BR-471B.

*Jentz also states:

"The authors have been unable to find any photographs or other proof of the frontal armor of Tiger IIs being penetrated during combat".

So this is an important find.

*See: Jentz Tom, Doyle Hillary, Sarson Peter: "KingTiger Heavy Tank 1942 - 1945" p. 36

Regards, John Waters

[Guest machineman]

That would seem to make the Tiger II unbelievably vulnerable from the front. Quote from Michael Green's 'Tiger Tanks' p87: "A Tiger tank...spotted by...mediums (one 75mm and one 76mm). They opened fire at approx 1000 yards....one hit that stood out was a direct hit by AP to the upper left of the sight opening in the gun shield. [i'm assuming that is one of the spots you mean] The shell had penetrated about 5 inches straight into the steel and dropped out, doing no damage to the Tiger".

BTW, the Tiger was killed when it turned around to retreat and got one in the engine. (Dooh!)

Those seem like awfully big soft spots, being as the blunt front of that turrent isn't that particularly big. I've also heard that no allied rounds are recorded to ever have penetrated the Tiger II's frontal armour. That same style of narrow fronted turrent was thought so highly of it was going on the Panther II as well, wasn't it?

[Paul Lakowski]

Take a deep breath....

In theory the 122mm APC shot should be able to penetrate the Tiger -2 glacis at very short range with a lucky shot.The reason this MAY be possible is three fold.

Firstly; the Front armor of the Tiger-2 was only 220BHN ..not much better than mild steel [ 180 bhn]. Now with modern long rod penetration tests going from a 270 to 220 BHN would result in 50 x 0.00156 or 8% lower resistance.But actual resistance may be lower.

The angle is 50° but the effective armor is 1.45[RL data] x 1.56 [50°]= 2.24 x 150mm RHA = 337mm effective armor x 92% = 310mm .

Robert reported the glacis plate was 'flawed' and according to David honner thats 95% resistance reducing the armor to 294mm .

Second; the free edge effect in and around the main gun embrassure and MG ports in the turret and glacis. In long rod penetration studies this should generate roughly 0.7 @ 2 projectile diameter. Which means around the MG port it offers 0.7 x 294mm= 206mm resistance[ 5inch radius around MG port] . If we assume the M-G ports are as thick as the glacis , then hits on the MG port would be 336mm x 0.6 or 202mm.

Third; the penetration of the 122mm APC @ 300m range is ....161mm @ 0°, but this is a russian test so its the 'certified penetration' which is 80% penetration.

This increases the Russian penetration values by 10% and apply ± 20% due to normal distribution , we get 1.1+ 0.2 x 161mm or 209mm maximum penetration @ 300m range . Put more clearly the penetration should be 177mm ± 32mm @ 300 meters range.

So the 122mm should have a marginal capablity against the Tiger-2 glacis from straight on at short range.

Alright flame on boys

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by machineman:

That would seem to make the Tiger II unbelievably vulnerable from the front. Quote from Michael Green's 'Tiger Tanks' p87: "A Tiger tank...spotted by...mediums (one 75mm and one 76mm). They opened fire at approx 1000 yards....one hit that stood out was a direct hit by AP to the upper left of the sight opening in the gun shield. [i'm assuming that is one of the spots you mean]

The shell had penetrated about 5 inches straight into the steel and dropped out, doing no damage to the Tiger".

BTW, the Tiger was killed when it turned around to retreat and got one in the engine. (Dooh!)

Those seem like awfully big soft spots, being as the blunt front of that turrent isn't that particularly big. I've also heard that no allied rounds are recorded to ever have penetrated the Tiger II's frontal armour. That same style of narrow fronted turrent was thought so highly of it was going on the Panther II as well, wasn't it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats my problem to as the Tiger II turret front armor was 180mm @ 10^.

The only gun in the Allied inventory that could theoreticly defeat the Tiger II front turret armor was the 17pdr useing APDS.

This arangement gave the Tiger II increased protection on the turret front w/o increasing weight.

So any photo's of a Tiger II penetrated frontaly (unless the penetration occured after the war)are very important.

Yes the Panther F turret was the new schmalturm, the Panther II also would have used the schmalturm. The schmalturm gave better all round protection then the Ausf G turret, especialy on the turret Front where the F had 120mm @ 20^ compared to the G's 100mm @ 12^.

Regards, John Waters

------------------

People who can smile when things go wrong

have found someone else to blame.

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Paul Lakowski:

Take a deep breath....

Firstly; the Front armor of the Tiger-2 was only 220BHN ..not much better than mild steel [ 180 bhn].

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Paul you sure the glacis was 220BHN? I have seen it listed as both 265BHN & 285BHN. why would we flame ?.

I said the BR-471 round would be very hard pressed to defeat the glacis much less the mantlet, Ie, no IS-2 TC was gonna bet his vodka stash on a sure penetration frontaly at any range .

Regards, John Waters

[jdl]

In the Squadron book' M-24 In Action it does say that the Tiger kills were rear shots, after the Chafees got in behind.

[Paul Lakowski]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

Paul you sure the glacis was 220BHN? I have seen it listed as both 265BHN & 285BHN. why would we flame ?.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No it was a bit of a joke I made the same point on another board and was almost excommunicated for violating the 'sacred Tiger 2 tank'

Here's Clause Bonnesen great site with alot of Roberts data and research work, check the Tiger-2 entry.

http://www.mobilixnet.dk/~mob75281/ga/apen/bhn/bhn.htm

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Paul Lakowski:

No it was a bit of a joke I made the same point on another board and was almost excommunicated for violating the 'sacred Tiger 2 tank'

Here's Clause Bonnesen great site with alot of Roberts data and research work, check the Tiger-2 entry.

.

Ah Claus, theirs another old face I haven't seen here.

Regards, John Waters

------------------

People who can smile when things go wrong

have found someone else to blame.

[Marty]

Mike D said...

----------------------------------------------------

It's not only interesting to note that an M26 saw action here, but also that 2 M24's did near the same area as well. I am not too sure when the M24 was supposedly introduced in the ETO but apparently both tanks were available in at least some form of limited quantities by the mid to late Feb. 1945 time frame.

----------------------------------------------------

Conveniently enough, on the back page of the September issue of Fine Scale Modeler there is a photograph of a column of T26E's in road march. The following is from the caption:

...the Pershing, which stemmed from a wartime program (the T20 series) to develop a new medium tank. Despite bureaucratic delays (for example, the Army Ground Board saw no need for 90mm gun tanks), pre-production models began arriving in Europe in February 1945. The "Zebra Mission" - an initial shipment of 20 T26E3 models - was evenly split between the 2nd and 3rd Armored Divisions.

With the same M3 90mm gun as the M36 tank destroyer, the Pershing's punch was perhaps a bit inferior to the 75mm and 88mm guns used by the Germans in the Panther and Tiger II, but it was a great improvement over the gun used in the Sherman. So was the armor - T26E3 (later standardized as M26) crews were able to hold their own agains the best tanks the Germans could field. From February 1945 through the end of the war, the new tank proved itself capable, if slightly underpowered.

This photo shows a group of new T26E's heading down a dirt road near Wesel, Germany on 30 March 1945. Note that the turrets are turned to the rear for travel, and that the closest tank has a cover over its muzzle brake.

While the Pershing may not have materially affected the course of the war, its testing there proved invaluable, as its now proven design became a starting point for succeeding American tanks...