Talk:M26 Pershing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the M26 Pershing article.
Article policies
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.


I removed the following section from “Combat performance”: “According to Cooper, ten Pershings were sent to the 3rd Armored Division beginning in February 1945; they would have been sent sooner, had General George S. Patton not intervened. Patton favored the Sherman tank, contending it would require less gasoline and had, in his opinion, better mobility. At that time when Patton's opinion was expressed, the inferiority of the Sherman's main gun and armor protection had yet to be demonstrated.” The above is completely untrue, see “Tank Myths” in “Armor”, September-October 2001 [1] --Roo72 11:01, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Something is now fishy with the article. I think some of the sentences have been messed up. Will try to clean it up later. --rasmusdf 15:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The article reads more like a University term paper than an encylopedia article. mhunter 23:20, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

What were the problems with the Pershings? I just read a history of the Korean War ("The Forgotten War" by Clay Blair), and it stated that the Pershing was considered to be a failure. It didn't go into details, but I got the sense that the Pershing had mobility and maintenance issues. The M4A3E8 "Easy Eight" Shermans were preferred by most tank commanders, and were considered to be quite effective against the T-34. Toiyabe 18:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

During WW2 the M26 was popular due to its good gun. Any 90-mm-armed US vehicle was valued for its ability to destroy Panthers and Tigers. Any faults were overlooked because the need for a good gun was so acute.
In Korea, where the enemy tank threat was minimal compared to WW2, the M26's faults were more apparent. The M26 had the same engine as the M4A3, but weighed about 50% more. Korea is very hilly so this mobility problem was nontrivial. Meanwhile the M4A3's 76mm gun, firing HVAP (which was plentiful, unlike during WW2) could easily deal with NKPA T-34-85s.
In general the M26 was a very good design that needed a better engine. The M46 was essentially nothing but a re-engined M26, and in that form was very successful. DMorpheus 13:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] M26 vs Tiger I

What's got a stronger gun, the Pershing or the Tiger?chubbychicken 11:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Bovington's "Fire and Movement" 1975 gives the following performance figures against homogenous armor at 30 degrees from vertical; ranges in yards.
M26 Tank, 90mm: APCBC, 500 yards, 126mm; 1000 yards, 120mm
M26 Tank, 90mm: HVAP, 500 yards, 221mm; 1000 yards, 200mm
Tiger I, 88mm: APCBC, 500 yards, 110mm; 1000 yards, 101mm
Tiger I, 88mm: APCR, 500 yards, 126mm; 1000 yards, 103mm
Doyle & Jentz, 1978, give the same figures for the Tiger I APCBC but for the PzGr 40 they give: 500 meters, 156mm, 1000 meters, 138mm. Ellis 1993 gives the same figures. Hogg 1976 gives 90mm HVAP performance at 1000 yards as between 173mm and 300mm (!) depending on type of HVAP round.
So at typical WW2 ranges, either vehicle can penetrate the other frontally. DMorpheus 13:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why the M46?

Why is there a captioned (cloned from the M46 article) picture of the M46 on this page that has no reference or displayed reason?

The text makes mention of the fact that the M-46 was a re-engined M-26. DMorpheus 13:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
The M46 was visually similar to the M26, but in addition to a different engine it had a more powerful version of the 90mm gun (used a different shell) as well as an upgraded transmission and suspension. It was a different tank - not just an up-engined M26--Lepeu1999 20:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Weren't some of them conversions? I.e., M26s rebuilt as M46s? Is there any suspension difference other than the higher drive sprocket and extra tensioning roller on the M46?
Not as far as I know. If you look at the back deck of the tanks it's totally different. To my knowladge, there were no 'conversions'. In all honesty, the differences are about the same as the M4 and the M4A3E8W(76) but for whatever reason the US Army decided to designate it as a new tank vs a variant of the M26 and I think the article should follow that. Photos of M46's have no place here.--Lepeu1999 14:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
All M46s were rebuilt M26s; there were no newly produced vehicles.--MWAK (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
In all honesty, the differences are about the same as the M4 and the M4A3E8W(76)... For that matter, most of the chassis and track components of the M60A3, the last variant of the Patton-series which remained operational until 1995, were interchangeable with those of the M26. I suspect that the change in nomenclature was primarily due to the US Army being overtaken by events. The Army had already broken with convention at the time with the Pershing by naming a weapons system after a living person. (I suspect that a bunch of bureaucrats at the Pentagon and Aberdeen Proving Grounds all forgot that, although in his mid-eighties, John J. Pershing was still alive!) However, keep in mind that in early 1946, when the then-designated M26E2 with the improved drive train and gun was approved for production, George S. Patton, Pershing's protege and a man whose name was practically synonymous with American tank warfare, had just died from injuries in a car accident. So with Pershing still alive and Patton recently deceased, the Army was more than happy to rename the new model. Lyle F. Padilla, Major, Armor, US Army Reserve (Retired); lpadilla@voicenet.com 207.103.47.153 06:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Removed the image of the USMC M46. The article is about the M26 and it's inclusion could create confusion. The image is better served in the article on the M46--Lepeu1999 20:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I once heard that the M26s 90mm wasn't fully operational by the end of WWII, and some models went into combat with a 75mm in place of the standard weapon. Does anyone know of any cases of this being true? (JWJ)

Highly unlikely. The same 90mm gun had already been fielded successfully in at least 300 M36 tank destroyers before the first M26 was put into service in the ETO. DMorpheus 15:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] M-26 Vs. Tiger

Could someone please source the statements of the M-26 engaging Tiger tanks.

I've seen in other books about the subject that the Tiger tanks never actually engaged or were engaged by the M-26 and a complete comparison between the two is hard to say the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.222.186.58 (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)