M26 Pershing | From Concept to Combat Across Conflicts 

Wouldn't the Pershings also have HE rounds? If so, they certainly wouldn't have done worse in those situations. Other than less mobility, they would have been better prepared for situations that HE could not address.

If the Panther commander didn't hesitate to give the order to fire, thinking the Pershing might be a new German tank, then it could have ended very differently for the Pershing. That hesitation was the difference.

@@lyndoncmp5751 Yep, you snooze, you loose!

The M26 was not legendary - it was a terrible tank. Don't equate an overhyped encounter with a single Panther with legendary status. It was unreliable, too heavy and just as vulnerable to German anti tank fire as the Sherman. The gun was better than the Sherman's but as a complete weapon system it was inferior (at least in WW2).

One guy? 😂😂😂😂.

@@tonyromano6220 Yes - He was the Chief

McNair was an idiot on so many levels. For the doctrine of ank destroyers being the ones to fight tanks to even have a chance to work, individual TD's would have needed to be an organic part of EVERY platoon of Sherman tanks. Second, to ignore the after action reports of Allied tankers using the Sherman in Italy against Tigers and Panthers, should have been a warning call that a better armed and armored Tank, T-26! M-26 was needed prior to Normandy, third, the offer by the British to supply the excellent 17 pounder gun for use in the Sherman was rejected because the US Army would have "too many ammunition types in the supply chain." McNair was too ardent a follower of Army Armored Doctrine to recognize what was/is obvious to even the casual observer. He along with others of his ilk, are indirectly responsible for the unnecessary deaths of thousands of US Tankers who had the misfortune of serving in an obsolete, under gunned and under armored medium tank. Fortunately his successor had the good sense to green light the T-26/M-26 into Europe.

M4s did ok, I, as an ex tanker, would rather been on an M4 than T34. If you've never been in one, they are really crude. But tough, that they were. 🍀✌️

Welcome aboard!

The Centurion was the Tiger of the Korean War. The Pershings were all withdrawn from the Korean War in 1950 due to major mechanical problems.

what I've read the commanders in the field didn't want to deal with the logistics of the 90mm ammo same with the 76.2mm ammo on converting from the 75mm HE, which they felt was better overall for infantry support.

Glad we were able to subvert your exceptions! Thank you for subscribing

Which are those?

Indeed it was, but the name was given by the British, not the Americans.

Pershing v Tiger was a draw with 1 knock out each.

If the US could have gone from the Cent to the Patton in the early 60's, it'd totally agree.

Centurions didn't even see combat in ww2

The US funded a lot of the Centurions supplied to European countries via the MAP program.

The Centurion and Pershing were developed concurrently. The Centurion was not ready before the end of the war. Considering American manufacturing capabilities compared to the U.K., perhaps, had the Centurion been ready early enough, the U.S. could purchase the license to build them, and then have built them in the U.S. Then you get in to U.K. using a different sized gun than the U.S. and being able to manufacture guns quickly enough to use them.

What a common british idea for us to buy and use their tanks that they couldnt even make enough of for themsevles