How Bad Was The M26 Pershing? 

Or giga Pershing

Where's the Sigma Pershing

What about the Ligma Pershing?

omega Pershing

@@johnbean2596 what’s lig-

Don't forget to increase the repair cost!!!

M 26 had better kill ratio in Korea as I recall.

@@Chiller01 tank kills, I assume the Sherman was favored for infantry support.

@@dapperfield595 Don’t think so. Shermans knocked out roughly twice as many T34’s as the Pershings but Sherman’s ratio was a little better than 2:1. Pershing’s knocked out fewer total but ratio was better than 6:1. The Shermans were the M4A3E8 variant and their high velocity 76 mm gun was more than a match for the T34’s they were facing.

@@Chiller01 huh dont really know much about Korean War, should read about that.

Awesome dude, you got anymore stories of your grandpa?

My grandfather (USMC) notoriously hated all tanks in Korea because they were either firing at you or would attract fire to you

@@dodes2698 That's what happens if your tank is made of metal

@@wowarmy8154 Look up the battle of the Bowling Alley in 1950 just north of Daegu. The M26 while it had huge problems it was able to match the T34.

More than a match both in armor and gun.

Apart from the Bob Semple...

Bob semple is enternal

Not bad mouthing the Merkava are you

What it feels like watching spookston

@@P455w0rds bmp 1 isnt a tank anyways

i remember when ground forces launched i was sliding around in t-26 on karelia i miss those days

oh, it is so far from the best it's almost unplayable

The M26E1 was the first premium I ever got, when it’s filler round was a shade over 200mm pen, way before its rounds got buffed. I still love that tank, the gun hits so hard

US tanks weren't added until later tho

@@PieGotFace Yeah, in 1.45 or so iirc. It was only Germany and the SU before that.

Somehow the M46 and M47 also doesnt get much love. This is probably because of the same status as "improvement" but not the ultimate form of the America's first MBT. Or maybe because they dont see much action unlike the M48 and M4 Sherman.

I think the same goes for the early pz4 varients. While most people are familiar with tiger panther and maybe the later pz4, most people overlook the early models of the pz4 or see it just as a lead way to a superior vehicle in terms of firepower and armor. And 8 think almost all Japanese tanks get way too little love these days. Because of this I open a charity organization by the name of :love for lost tanks or short "lolts". Sign in now and show your love for a unloved tank of your choosing. Tanks like the Japanese Ta-Se and Ka-Chi, Italien m11 and German panzer 1 Ausf. F need you and your love. Help a tank. Help your soul

@@guppiapfeljustleopardthing8756 Thr M26 is better armored, better gunned but doesn't create a mythical reputation as the Sherman. There are reasons that it doesnt, in my opinion it's because it doesnt have extemsive combat record like the Sherman. Same goes to the Centurion. We all know the subsequent mods in the post war years, but the Mk.1 is severely underrated.

@@darnit1944 basically what I wrote just with American and British vehicles instead of the examples I took.

People can over perform in Ground RB City maps with Pershing if they are decent player because everyone isn't afraid of it. So many times you will see Tiger II stupidly turn the corner to come at you, showing their sides. Oddly enough the most famous WW2 tank clip was the duel between Pershing and Panther in Cologne. With the death of Panther crew caught on film.

If you cant drive into battle in style, then what is even the point?

@@jakobc.2558 That is how you win battles.

How's the Abrams been against other tanks?

@@petersouthernboy6327 stellar, it has knocked out so many to 0 losses and is a good looking tank

​@@apersondoingthings5689 The only Abrams casualties were 9, and even then, they were either due to a malfunction that couldn't be fixed so they ditched and destroyed the tank, or just by friendly fire

M46 is basically an upgraded M26 with even some M26 hulls stateside sent back to Detroit to upgrade to M46's.

In technicality, the modifications/Solutions to fix the M26 were so numerous, the tank apparently deserved a new designation, despite the very similar aesthetics, they named it Patton after the late General George S. Patton whom famously commanded the US 3rd Army in Europe, this tank would be designated M46

@@Cobra-King3 To add to the irony, because of their fuel consumption and greater weight, in fact Patton was opposed to tanks larger then the Sherman's and rejected using the larger Pershing's in his army.

@@tomt373 He felt that the Jumbo was more than up to the task

@@Cobra-King3 The U.S. Marines proved him wrong in Korea in 1950. MacArthur used a battalion of U.S.M.C. driven M26's in his invasion at Inchon and counter-attack that devastated Chinese T-34's that had previously over-ran U.S. Army Sherman's. Their main challenge at first was the 90mm AP's tended to go completely THROUGH the Chinese made T-34's (killing crew members, taking out engine blocks, etc.) before they detonated, so they had a hard time determining their hits at first. They fixed the problem by breaking back to HE rounds which were more then adequate for the enemy tanks. The M26's main problem in WW2 was the stupid way the Army "thinkers" deployed them, "sprinkling" them around here and there instead of keeping them together as the Germans did their types, essentially "unequally yoking" them with Sherman's etc.

I think it’s more due to the fact that the Pershing was supposed to be an improvement to the M4 and the crews in reality got less mobility for a better gun and slight improvement to armour (although not enough to put the crews at ease against any of the big cats so from what I’ve heard the crews weren’t that impressed by the armour) Also what sherman are you talking about specifically the Sherman’s went from about 10.5hp/t - 15.8hp/t depending on variant so in some cases yes it was a downgrade. Although I think the 10.5hp/t was for the jumbo which was also considered pretty bad in terms of mobility.

@@cynicalfox190 Well to be perfectly fair the improvement to armor was anything but slight. The standard M4A3 Sherman had about 63.5mm or 2.5in thick armor angled at 47 degrees from vertical on the frontal glacis for an effective thickness of about 93.1mm or about 3.7in of frontal armor. Meanwhile the M26 had a frontal glacis 101.6mm or 4in thick angled at 46 degrees from vertical for an effective frontal protection of 146.26mm or 5.76in of frontal protection. This was a substantial increase in protection for the crews. This by no means made the tank invincible but the margin of resistance to basically every gun the Germans could field went up considerably. The crews were largely dissatisfied with the armor of the Pershing because they were expecting after such a long delay that they'd be getting something that'd bounce every German shell the way the "Big Cats" were bouncing the standard short barrel 75mm gun of the less fortunate Shermans that weren't equipped with the Long 76 and that simply wasn't what they got. They received a tough nut to crack but a completely crackable (that's not a word but go with it) one at that. The largely positive yet still dissatisfied view of the Pershing by it's crews could be summed up rather simply as the Pershing wasn't what they were hoping for. It's armor was tough but far from immune to the biggest German guns (The M26 known as Fireball's less than fortunate run in with Tiger 201 during the night at close range in Dessau proved as much, Fireball was hit by three shells after it was left illuminated by the Sherman behind it was destroyed by 201 perfectly illuminating Fireball for 201. One shell penetrated the turret through the coaxial machine gun port which while an incredibly lucky shot was still a fatal one and the two following shells bounced but still gouged massive gashes in the front hull), it was both less mobile and reliable than the M4A3s they were used to, and the gun initially struggled to deal with the tanks it was made to counter until the advent of the improved T33 Armor Piercing shell. By the time the M26s received the rather legendary HVAP APCR shell for their guns the T33 AP shell was already doing perfectly fine work against everything it was designed to so it was...well a bit pointless really. There comes a point where having more armor penetration really doesn't matter especially considering how expensive and rare these shells were. It's speculated that at any time any American Tank, meaning both 76 armed Shermans and the M26s, in Europe may only have had 3-5 of these shells onboard at any time as Tank Destroyers like the M18 were given first priority when it came to supplying these more powerful shells.

I agree

With Sherman the power/weight ratio depends on the variant. The M4A3(76)W HVSS (M4A3E8) for example had the same 500hp Ford engine as the M26.

The ultimate form of the original M25l6 Pershing for me is the M47. They improved the hull armor and turret. The M48 is a next step development but it doesnt resemble the the M26 in any way.

Lol

Or a StuG, would also encourage the Jagd. Panther or some SPAA, we could even get a SU, 85 or 152?

Honestly the only thing i personally dont like about the Centurions is how slow they are, like why not give it better engine, then again who knows

The Centurion is widely regarded as a great tank, a "How Bad Was" type of video isn't fitting.

@@ricardohumildebrabo oh it certainly would be fitting. I think spookston already did a "if historical" video on it

@@AHappyCub Except they were not actually very slow, which is the thing. The Rolls Royce Meteor was a very, very good tank engine. Good horsepower, excellent torque, it was at least a match for any tank engine in the world at the time, and was objectively better than the piece of shit that went into the Panther, Tiger and Tiger II, which all used the same engine, and as French records showed brand new Panthers literally suffered engine fires, regularly.... In Korea Centurions could also go places where pretty much no other tanks could go, because of that outrageous torque. Mobility on the battlefield is not always about top speed, its often about getting to places fast enough and if you can get to places fast enough where the enemy (or your friends) cannot go that's a fairly significant advantage.....

Still does

@@destroyerarmor2846 Well it did for a while, then they nerfed M82 and APCR which made the tank irrelevant, and now it's good again with M82 being brought back up to snuff.

I know, I have over 400 kills in it.

Just like in Korea

Nah still dogshit, panthers at 5.3 can easily front plate you across the map

The engine was a well tested one. Used in the "Easy Eight" Sherman as well. It was just overworked with the heavier Pershing

i mean, even the Abrams is fairly comparable to a Pershing in component locations. its just that everything in the Abrams is vastly superior, more compact, and more dakka.

pov: ur an M26 spookston: ur bad

@@Pearldey i cri

Your name is based it is an amazing tank as it is my favorite

@@apersondoingthings5689 'tis so indeed!

Turbo diesel from the start.

Engine shoulda been

@@bradcampbell7253 they rectified the issue with the M46

The frontal armor on Pershing sloped. The T-44 carried the same gun as the T-34/85. It's armor was a little better shaped. Not enough heavier to stand up to tanks like Tiger or Panther. Or Pershing or Centurion. Essentially it wouldn't have been any more of a match for the Pershing than the T-34. Which is why, along with it's teething troubles, the Russians didn't bother to issue it for combat, and immediately set about improving it into what eventually became the T-54.

@@bradcampbell7253 Very few tanks had diesel engines in World War II. And none had engines like you say T26E3 "should have had from the beginning". Those were Cold War creations. What you suggest is like saying the P-51 fell short because it should have had a jet engine. The tech for that wasn't there in the early to mid 40's any more than the tech to make 800 to 1,000 hp turbo diesels was. That came much later post war.

T25 is 7k but that's still alot and doesnt offer much actually after they removed the stabilizer

lol my pershing is only 8k while my super is still 18k

Tiger 2 (p) laughing in 2,200 repair cost

@@avregecenturion5719 *Tiger II H cries in bajingas level expensive and also placed in 7.0*

Also the Super Pershing br is now 6.7 like wtf why? This tank is my favorite on 5.3 to 6.3 br now it's unplayable.

i mean at that point T-34 was outdated pretty much.

@@L-33_Tankette Along with North Koreans being less well trained than even the late war Germans.

​@@L-33_Tankettebut at the same time M4 armor was easly pierced by 85mm gun from t34

@@Tonyx.yt. well yes but he is comparing Pershing to a T-34 (85mm) its a little bit unfair isnt it? Better armor. Better gun, optics, more survivable. And not really slow for a medium/heavy tank. Its like getting a fight between Tiger 1H and T-34 (76mm 1940) it sure did happen but a little unfair in every aspect. And T-34 85mm could pierce M4 armor but only with some kind of ammunition. Not all of them could

@@L-33_Tankette yes, pershing it's far superior to t34-85

What’s wrong with it? I never use it

@@idik653 It doesn't have the penetration values it should. It is able to penetrate the Panther's UFP IRL, yet it can't in game

@@idik653 Its slope modifier is wrong. It was noted for being able to hole Panther UFPs at 1000m IRL, but can't do it point blank ingame.

Most tanks in this game probably don't have the proper penetration values. The 85 mm cannon found on the T34s can apparently penetrate the jumbos front plate better than tigers. This game is no where near being realistic sadly.

almost all the apcr rounds are preforming poorly and nothing like the irl data says. it effects the USSR and USA TT the most since their top ap shell is a wet noodle.

Indeed

Well as any new introduced tank failure was imminent Panther had its issues fixed thru the last 60% of tanks produced

@@LordOfChaos.x Not really. People will say it was "fixed" because it's ready rates were on par with the Panzer IV, but then forget to mention that the Panzer IV at that time was _also_ plagued by massive reliability issues due to all the extra weight slapped on it.

Honestly, did ANY heavy tank NOT suffer from constant breakdowns?

@@bkjeong4302 abrams

@@F14thunderhawk That's an Main Battle Tank not a Heavy Tank. They're two very different things. Heavy Tanks are extinct in modern warfare because they're simply not practical anymore.

Well since we got a calculator for penetration instead of historical data a lot of rounds have been screwed up. I get that it’s required for some of the more modern vehicles as test reports aren’t public but for vehicles where test reports are public information they should really use the IRL values for penetration.

The Tiger was an old design by the time the Pershing reached the battlefield, that’s why.

@@heycidskyja4668Tiger is also “German engineering at it’s finest!”

Not only that, but the M4 did fine in most tank engagements since they were rarely a slugging match a anyways. If you're attacking a tank from the side as you usually did, it didn't really matter if you had a 76mm or a 90mm. You were going to go through in all but the most extreme circumstances.

@@Chopstorm. yes, m4s get a bad rep bc German tanks were on the defensive which automatically gives you a higher ratio of tank kills since most German tanks were dug in. Most Sherman’s could also out maneuver German tanks if given the chance

The engine issue was eventually solved in the M46 Patton. The M46 has better engine and better transmission. But if i remember, they are not immune to problems although not as serious as before.

@@darnit1944 Sorry for not answering this right away, but yeah I was referencing the M46 'power-pack' aka overhaul to buff up the M26's engine power. Thank you though!

Good to hear something from someone who actually knows.

Actually decently superior firepower and objectively superior armor protection than the Tiger. However I get what you're trying to say but for information sake and for direct comparison: 1. Penetration Standard Ammunition: -M26 Pershing, T33 (APC): 193mm at 500m, 178mm at 1000m, 164mm at 1500m, 150mm at 2000m, 139mm at 2500m, 128mm at 3000m -Tiger 1, PzGr.39 (APCBC): 151mm at 500m, 138mm at 1000m, 126mm at 1500m, 116mm at 2000m, 106mm at 2500m, 97mm at 3000m 2. Penetration Specialty Ammunition: -M26 Pershing, T30E16 (APCR): 278mm at 500m, 246mm at 1000m, 218mm at 1500m, 193mm at 2000m, 171mm at 2500m, 151mm at 3000m -Tiger 1, PzGr.40 (APCR): 200mm at 500m, 179mm at 1000m, 160mm at 1500m, 143mm at 2000m, 128mm at 2500m, 115mm at 3000m 3. Frontal Hull Armor: -M26 Pershing: 102mm sloped at 44 degrees for 147mm effective thickness -Tiger 1: 104mm flat. 4. Frontal Turret Armor: -M26 Pershing: 102mm mantlet layered over a 114mm turret face and an 89mm internal spall shield for a total effective thickness of 305mm -Tiger 1: 120-200mm mantlet layered over a 100mm turret face for a total effective thickness of 220-300mm

Take those numbers with a lot of salt. The M46 arrived rather late in the war

apcr is so shit in this game its frustrating

@@dakotagau I don't have warthunder installed a anymore, but iirc T33 isn't even APCR, it's just an AP round.

Uhhh bro only 1 super Pershing existed and it was scraped

It was just a regular pershing that got fucked by the nashy

But 1 pershing took out a panther, 1 took out a tiger 1, the super pershing took out 2 bigs cats 1 unknown but said to be a king and the second 1 being confirmed a jagdpanther.

i believe he has said in the past that the hstv-l doesn’t need this as it would be a little op. the s tanks are easy to kill if you destroy their transmission so thats why they have it

well, the look doesn't have really anything to do with the performance

@@lutscher7979 he didn't say that it had though

@@lutscher7979 If it was shaped weird it would've.

Just in case the Sherman didn't perform well.

It's design is so ubiquitous too

Polsten Cannon on an AMX 30 ??? The 20F2 in the AMX 30 was created as a french 20mm that could use the HS820-type ammo which was becoming standard in Europe. Nothing Polsten. However France did mount the earlier 20mm Oerlikons (which is what the Polsten is based on) on Citroen trucks as AA defence in 1940.

@@jeandelacroix6726 I think you misinterpreted my wording. I meant that the polsten was on the centurion and the AMX later got the F2

The main (only?) critique on Centurion I know of was range. The Meteor was very fuel hungry. What else was there?

Was the Mk1 ever used operational? AFAIK they only build around 20 then switched to Mk2. And even those never saw combat and where mostly rebuild to recovery vehicles etc. Korean War was the first war use and those where Mk3

@ Richard Ross: The initial few - twenty or so - M-26 Pershings to make it to the ETO as part of the "Zebra Mission," as it was called, in January 1945 went to the 3rd Armored Division and the 9th Armored Division. Most famously, they participated in the Battle of Cologne and also the capture of the Remagen Bridge. So it stands to reason that relatively few GIs got the chance to see them - let alone see them in action. The book "Spearhead" by Adam Makos, based upon the recollections of former M-26 gunner Clarence Smoyer, is a great read, if the history of armored warfare in the ETO interests you. Smoyer was alive as of February 2021 at age 97.... wow! Last man alive of the guys he served with during the war. Makos did a terrific job on the book; it is really worth the price of admission.

@@GeorgiaBoy1961 Thanks. I grew up in the 1950s and 1960s and was lucky enough to have many vets share stories. My Father, FIL, and 7 Uncles served in WWII. I was an Army Engineer Officer for 27 years. Learning the lessons from the past helped to face the future challenges. Read the book just published after the war, The Damned Engineers. A thrilling and true adventure about construction workers stopping Panzer Group Piper. Good Luck, Rick