Silencer Posted January 19, 2000 Share Posted January 19, 2000 Does someone have any specs of that super pershing. what type of gun had it? armour protection? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dano6 Posted January 19, 2000 Share Posted January 19, 2000 The M26 "Super Pershing" was a field modified M26 pershing built to engage the King Tiger at long ranges. Only two of these tanks were built and are described in great detail in Belton Y. Copper's "Death Traps". The main armament for the Super Pershing was a long-barreled 90mm gun. It was designed to use an elongated case on the normal(late) M82 APC projectile. The muzzle velocity for this gun was 3850 ft./sec(1173 m/s) with a 24 lbs. projectile. I do not have any penetration figures for this gun but I would take a guess that it would penetrate over 300mm at 30 degrees at 500m. I do know that a round penetrated a Stug III at 1000m and went completely through the whole tank and burried itself ten feet into the earth behind the tank on a test firing. I am sure Charles has calculated the penetration for this gun. The armor for the super pershing was a combination of normal M26 armor with added armor welded over it. The front glacias for the M26 was 4 inches thich at an angle of 45 degrees. The "Super Pershing" received another 100mm of panther armor welded to the front plate from a panther. The armor was welded at an angle of 55 degrees and braced to withstand many hits. This would give the "Super Pershing" about 8 inches of front hull armor. Its effective armor would be around 316mm or 12.44 inches calculated a 0 degrees incoming projectile. Of course this is an approximation. The front gun mantle also received extra armor. 100mm from a panther was also welded over the gun mantle with holes drilled for the MG and sight. This gave 8 inches of armor at the gun mantle. The pershing turret presented very little of the turret armor when facing target, and the M26 original armor at the mantle was sloped giving a little higher effective armor than 203mm. From these specs, you can see that the "Super Pershing" presented a real threat to any German tank. The main drawbacks to the "Super Pershing" were mobility and gun balance. The "Super Pershing" engine was the same as the stock engine but it had to move many extra tons due to the extra armor. This would cause the engine to overheat and or breakdown on long moves. The long barreled gun was also out of balance in its mount with the extra mantle armor. Odd looking spring assists were added to the front of the turret to aleviate this problem. If these were hit by an incoming round the gun would become too hard to elevate and make it impossible to fire. As far as I know, the "Super Pershing" only engaged a German armored vehicle once, destroying it with its first shot at 1300m. The vehicle remains unidentified to this day. All I know is, if I was a German tank commander and I saw this beast waiting for me, I would turn tail and run. *****Disclaimer***** all of the above is from memory. dano6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark IV Posted January 19, 2000 Share Posted January 19, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The initial attack would have gone in against emplaced Kompanies which would all have been pinpointed over the years <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> One of our standing jokes at the time. Our division Forward TOC was usually on one of 3 hills near Gelnhausen, central Hesse, one in particular. The German kids would be there first, waiting for us to arrive. Think those hills were pre-registered in Russki plans? The SMLMs (Soviet Military Liaision Mission) would follow us out in Mercedes, or sometimes just meet us there. Another piece of Soviet "doctrine" we were handed as gospel, which I've always wondered about, was that their 3-tank platoon always targeted a single enemy tank as a unit. In other words, their platoon commander picked the target and all 3 tanks engaged it at once. If this was true it may reflect an awareness of their inferiority in fire control. It doesn't sound very workable in combat. Driving the M-60 series was a piece of cake and a real pleasure (except buttoned). The automatic transmission and T-handle power steering were simple and effective. You could show an idiot how to drive it, for street purposes anyway, in 3 minutes. This may explain its popularity with USMC... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted January 19, 2000 Share Posted January 19, 2000 Mk IV, HAHAHA very funny. Me laugh, scratch knuckles on ground...pick nose, poke eye. FYI, Marine tankers not only go through our 14 week boot camp, which is legendary, but then go do the entire Army tank training program at Ft. Knox as well. Maybe you should ask some of those Army instructors there who the better tankers are... My old company, "B" Co., 4th Tank Battalion, 4MarDiv, did quite nicely in the gulf, destroying 119 Iraq vehicles, 59 of which were tanks, and captured 474 prisoners. I believe this was all in one engagement, without any losses. Look it up...Me go eat rock now...Zamo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted January 19, 2000 Share Posted January 19, 2000 It may also explain the "World's Greatest Chases" show which had the film footage of the goofball who somehow swiped an M60 off a Nat'l Guard depot and cruised around a small town smashihg the **** out of anything in his path. DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark IV Posted January 19, 2000 Share Posted January 19, 2000 Zamo: Good comeback. The Army instructors at Ft. Knox DID make us watch when the Marines marched, in hopes we would learn something. Never developed the taste for rocks, though.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Zeares Posted January 20, 2000 Share Posted January 20, 2000 Now that we're back on my favorite subject (M60's), thought I'd delurk. As far as I know, those Marine tankers in the gulf were using A1's, not A3's. No thermal shroud on the gun tubes as I recall, but I'd have to see a picture and look for the A3's crosswind sensor to be absolutely sure. They kicked ass and took names, though, that's for dang sure! We had A3's in my Guard unit. That LRF was a piece of crap, and failed often. Once on the gun range we got down to 4 operational tanks *for the battalion*. The others had a variety of problems, but most of them were down with LRF failures. Many of our older tankers spoke fondly of the A1's coincidence rf. I've heard that the Marine tankers claimed to be able to outshoot the Army's M1 tankers, but you know how they exaggerate. The M60 was fun to drive, and was very reliable, even with what passed for NG maintenance (infrequent and sometimes indifferent). The A3 had a superior thermal sight (the M1 tankers from 2AD who evaluated us on the range were blown away by its clarity). Some of us in my unit who were history buffs liked to fantasize about taking our company of A3's back in time to see just how much damage we could do in a WWII tank battle. M60A3 vs King Tiger. At night. -- Mike Zeares Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted January 20, 2000 Share Posted January 20, 2000 Mike, I've always wanted to play a good simulation with a platoon of modern pigs, be they M60's or M1's, against numerically superior WWII forces. Of course, then you start thinking about going back and refighting Little Big Horn and then it's back to the Battle of Hastings and pretty soon, your M60 is fighting a T-Rex...Now that would be fun...even without any ammo... Zamo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts