M26 Pershing

[K_Tiger]

Rexford@

The HVAP is a problem for the "Heavy`s" but not so accurat on longer ranges..even like the tungsten rounds. Its another plus for the german tanks.

The allies used Ap round without an explosive filler..so must not everry penetration be a "sure" killer.

Another question...if a round with explosives did not pennetrate a tank...will it explode outside of it?? and damage anything?

All of this pen. tables r pot shoot`s..mean exactly from the front..Most of the tankers trying to avoid a frontal shootout...R this feature in the game...or coming in the next??

Who will also be on the wwIIol battlefield??

[rexford]

The 76mm HVAP round was the most accurate ammunition used during WW II, according to American and British gunners and analysis of the dispersion data. It combined a flat trajectory with little scatter about the flight path. I assume, but haven't seen any data, that 90mm HVAP would be similar in many respects.

M36B1 with 90mm gun had HVAP late 1944, sources suggest that Pershings had ALOT of HVAP rounds, especially since there were only a few around for experimental purposes and why not spend on them.

Several books state that M4A3E8 preferred in Korea due to ability of tank to move easily over terrain that would hinder Pershings. T34/85 good in Korea due to speed and nimble movement, IS-2m may have been in Korea but too big and slow, keeps bumping into things like KV-I (there are stories of KV-I tanks trying to cross bridges, but the tank kept driving into the sides until the tank broke a track).

With regard to combat speed, my favorite source for all things large and small, the Advanced Squad Leader rulebook, gives M4A3E8 and Panther a 25% faster base speed than Pershing. Pershing is fast? The world's greatest wargame rulebook also states why M4A3E8 was preferred in Korea over Pershing:"Easy Eight" is "lighter and more agile.......preferred in that rugged countryside".

Pershing gets the same base speed as Tiger E in Advanced Squad Leader, and Pershing is also slower than PzKpfw IVH. Advanced Squad Leader gives Pershing the standard breakdown chances, nothing unusual indicated.

Pershing is a relatively slow, heavily armored U.S. tank with a big gun (for U.S.) and ALOT of vulnerable armor areas on front.

When the Allies broke out in France, Cromwells worked well at getting places fast. But in the bocage, Cromwells were poor due to non-existent armor thickness.

Pershing would have been good in bocage, poor during break-out phase. Was good during final stages and face-to-face confrontations.

[ 05-08-2001: Message edited by: rexford ]

[rexford]

The world's best rulebook, Advanced Squad Leader, also points out that Pershing helped to win battle for Remagen Bridge, but never crossed the bridge cause they were too heavy given the damage to structure.

310 Pershings in Europe at war's end, according to ASL. How many King Tigers were built, 486? How many made it to front? 200?

The basic Advanced Squad Leader rulebook includes Russian and German vehicles, I purchased the vehicle and gun notes for British, Italians, Americans, etc. Has info on date of tank or gun introduction, unusual ammo introduction and relative availability, combat speed, crew survival, breakdown chances, relative turret speed, etc. Don't know if it is all available anymore for purchase.

Little notes section for each tank and gun, includes mortars and rockets and other things.

The Russian Battlefield has a very good article on captured King Tigers, the breakdown ridden drive to the testing grounds, and how the armor held up under attack by a variety of guns, including 88L71.

[K_Tiger]

Rexford@

my mistake...with the HVAP ammo...i was thinking, this is the same like HEAT..on the other hand...you have an accurate ammo..but without an equal gunsight?

JSII is big?? what i see on pictures (may in Kubinka) the JS is far smaller as a KTiger..looks like in the range of a Panther. Slow, sure...and the slow reloading gun made it not a good tankkiller. A Panther or a 17 Pounder would shoot it in peaces..after the JS trying to load the second round.. ).

Your statement about the impackt of the pershing to win at remagen...I think, every other tank hade do the same job..

No one needs to kompare Ktiger`s with pershings...if a smaller gun could deal with the Pershing...who needs such beast`s?? Insteed to build Übertanks, i prefer, let me say 1000 Jpanther...

how many made it to the front?? hmm.. may the most of it...but dont forget, the allies hade no problems with partisans nor with massbombing from railways and others..On the other hand, king tiger`s saw the front far more and longer (over a jear)...

IMO.. the ktiger wasnt really a bad choice to bild..from the taktical view...as a weapon for pick of targets at long ranges or attacking on a small area..supportet from smal tanks who made flanking manoevers.

If the allied hade it...the history would saw the ktiger a way better...if you advance, you did not need to destroy a tiger after a breakdown or immobilization.

I think..the big ones werent soo bad..the soldiers needed experiance at first...if you know what you can made or not with him...it would do the job you want. Sure it was hard to bring him in position in a bad terrain..

And to the russian testing`s....I give nothing to it...at this time, the russians claimed himselfs r the best and her equipment was the greatest and you will not find any positiv test from products outside the Soviet union...may i did not need to say this..the US guys know this allready ))

Oh..im now outside of the thread..

[rexford]

The Russian Battlefield makes many statements about shortcomings of Russian ammo and equipment: poor armor on IS-2, and poor ammo for 45mm during '41-'42 period, and poor shells for 57mm anti-tank gun, and how 76.2mm field guns needed muzzle brakes cause carriage was not designed for that big a gun.

It does not seem good to discount everything one reads on the basis of national bias. There are many reasonable and creditable things on The Russian Battlefield, including potentially poor armor on Tiger II.

The way to deal with these things is to see if they make sense.

We analyzed the firing tests against Tiger II presented in Jentz' books and The Russian Battlefield, and they show that the side armor was about equal to U.S. good armor. The Russians said Tiger II armor was inconsistent. I can live with that.

U.S. 90mm guns penetrated the front hull of some Tiger II's that required poor armor.

[rexford]

IS-2 is big compared to T34/85, which is the point the post was making.

Tiger II against Pershing, face-to-face, is to compare frontal armor of Pershing against 88L71 gun. 88L71 and 128 are only guns to consistently penetrate Pershing front, regardless of hit location. There is a need to consider Tiger II against Pershing.

HVAP is so fast and has such a flat trajectory that some gun sight drawbacks may be neutralized. There are stories of M18's hitting 3 tanks with 3 shots at 2000 yards, so gun sight deficiencies only show up some of the time.

U.S. gun sights probably didn't have range lines for HVAP, but conversion factors were available.

Eisenhower report has many cases where U.S. tanks bounce many shots off panzers at 2000m or longer range, problem is they bounced, not that they missed.

[ 05-08-2001: Message edited by: rexford ]

[Splinty]

I'm not up on all the penatration values or anything like that,but one thing I really like about the Pershing and Super Pershing is the ability to take on Uberpanzers at long range,(850M and up)something lacking in most of the other Allied tanks. Just my .02$.

[Ari Maenpaa]

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

Panther G has 2.5/5.0 gun sight magnification, what does Pershing have?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There’s some information about Pershing’s sights and periscopes in http://www.kithobbyist.com/AFVInteriors/m26/m26a.html

Unfortunately those are mostly post-war pictures, so it’s difficult to say which equipment were used during the war.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Pershing is good but not great. 88L71 Pak would give Pershing a difficult time, and 88L56 Flak, given enough shots, could stop alot of Pershings by punching through the mantlet. Remember, German crews trained to aim at turret/hull line, which is where that 102mm at 20° front armor is.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now when you said it, it’s quite easy to spot the "weaker" area on the middle of the glacis plate, just below the mantlet. I hadn’t noticed that before.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

M36B1 with 90mm gun had HVAP late 1944, sources suggest that Pershings had ALOT of HVAP rounds, especially since there were only a few around for experimental purposes and why not spend on them.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So the Jacksons had those HVAP rounds after all. From what source you could verify that? There is an old thread where numerous knowledgeable people told that they had never seen any indication of it. One more reason for a little CMBO fix in future, BTS

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

U.S. 90mm guns penetrated the front hull of some Tiger II's that required poor armor.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When and where did those 90mm penetrations happen? During the war? I haven’t heard that before.

Ari

[MikeyD]

I've never read ANY reports of the KT turret front being penetrated by anything, ever, in combat. I've never read any reports of the KT hull front being penetrated by 76mm, ever. I have a dim recollection of a possible 17 pounder penetation of a KT lower hull front, but I may be wrong. And Pershing never got a crack at hunting a KT, if memory serves. CM seems to be a bit too generous with its KT K.O.s.

[LynnL53]

If you have tiger's in combat 2 there is a picture of a KT with the left front of the turret holed page 294 alas it does not tell what did it-- also on the Russian Battlefield read " Was the Tiger really King?" It is nothing but firing tests and they found that the 76 could get through the flat turret front it is in a picture in the article which I down loaded and put in my copy of Tigers n Combat --

[rexford]

We're looking for source of 90mm HVAP penetration of Tiger II front, which hopefully will be front hull glacis.

The report we are searching for may also indicate if M36B1's have 90 HVAP, from what I remember Tiger II report was before Pershings made the scene.

There are many little details that evolve into really long threads. We had one on U.S. 57mm anti-tank gun APDS some time ago on AFV News site. It appears that it was available and "probably" was used, even though it was not included in any official manuals or firing instructions or even ammo logs.

Hunnicutt is usually a good source for HVAP availability dates, was 90mm HVAP around at same time as 90mm M36B1? That would suggest something, especially if Pershing was not in action at same time.

Anyway, we're looking.

I live in Albany, New York, and there is a real history of tanks, guns and ammo development in this area. Watervliet Arsenal, just north of Albany, built guns, a firm in Schenectady built tanks including the Grant and Lee (firm previously made locomotives), and some work on HVAP may have been completed in Schenectady.

The Priest was also built in Schenectady, was a "secret weapon" that was designed to counter the "88". Priest built on Lee tank basis. Have read articles on the extreme precautions that were taken to hide the Priest from being disclosed. High walls were the rule to keep German spies from seeing anything.

Some locals told me that there were several little sayings about the Lee during the war, none of which were positive. This was after Kasserine Pass.

Lee armor was kind of thin if combat with Tigers, PzKpfw IVf2/G and 88 Flak guns was entered into.

They have a 57mm anti-tank gun set up in the middle of Schenectady, and the Watervliet arsenal has a small but unusual assortment of guns, an odd looking anti-aircraft vehicle and what may be an M60 in the yard facing I-787. Watervliet built BIG naval guns with precision tools, and still builds gun barrels.

Was HVAP developed by a Schenectady firm?

[rexford]

We found notes on 90 HVAP penetration of Tiger II glacis, nit sure if it is firing test or combat. 90mm gun aimed down at tank, which was in some sort of depression, so glacis angle less than 50° from vertical.

Say armor angle is 47°. 150mm at 47° resists HVAP like 350mm at 0°. If armor quality is 0.90, than armor resistance drops to 315mm at 0°.

Maybe Tiger II armor was 0.85 quality, or HVAP had more velocity than the average.

TM9-1907 gives 90mm HVAP 314mm 0° penetration at point blank, so penetration of 150mm at 47° possible at very close range. Baily's Faint Praise book has something on this HVAP penetration of Tiger II by 90 gun.

We started to collect firing test results about 20 years ago, and several boxes of my collection have disappeared every time we move. Can't find the 90 HVAP report, but scribbled notes suggest that Tiger II was in a depression or was lower than firing gun, or something like that.

[Freak]

Great stuff Rexford. Can't wait to see your book.

[rexford]

U.S. put out little ordnance reports for tankers and gun crews based on actual firing tests, as opposed to questionable calculations by some guys in an office in Detroit.

90mm HVAP against Tiger II was in a January 1945 report pamphlet, so tests must have been during the fall sometime. M36B1 was in action during November, which opens up the possibility of that vehicle having HVAP and using it during the test against Tiger II.