Pershing Tank 

You can?

​@@demonbre the only thing that influenced the Abrams was the torsion bar suspension system and use of rubber padding in the tracks

The M26 was the basis for the M46-M60 series tanks. The M1 was based on the MBT-70 tank platform, which was an entirely new design concept, & intended to replace the M-60 series tanks.

@@shadovanish7435 the rolling stock is almost identical to the M60 though. The rolling stock is like a cross between M60 and M103, which was also ultimately derived from the M26. Basically all of our torsion bar tanks after the M26 can tie their lineage back to the M26.

@@wun1gee Yes, the suspension design of the M1 is a lineage from the M-26; I probably should have noticed that. The suspension design of the M26 was a major departure from the suspension design of the M3 & M4 series tanks. However, the M18 & M24 tanks had a more visually similar suspension design (road wheel arrangement) to the M-26, but I don't know if these tanks (M18 & M-24) used torsion bar suspension.

And that one was rescued from a gunnery range.

🤔 I've spent a LOT of time out hunting for WW2 relics and souvenirs ALL OVER America, but I'm yet to find ANY WW2 battlefields here! Oh wait, i havent tried New Hampshire yet! Now that I know about the aforementioned New Hampshire battles, I'll be able to find some stuff! 👍😁👌

I didn’t realize that an M26 actually resides in New Hampshire, the state I was born and raised

It the true first American MBT

My grandfather was a commander of an m18 hellcat, the first tank to cross the bridge. They later converted to an m36. 656th tank destroyer battalion 9th armored division

The Pershing made its combat debut in 1945. The Pattons didn't come out until after World War II ended. The Pershing was not classified as a main battle tank because of its suspension and a lack-luster cannon by MBT standards.

You've got it a bit backwards. The M26 came first, then the M46, M47 and M48, finally leading to the M-60 series. The link back to the Pershing was finally severed with the adoption of the M1Abrams in the 1980s and 1990s. Although many M60s continued in use for some time afterwards.

Decedents, not ancestors. But we get the drift. Thank you for your service.

No tank design is perfect. Compromises are part-and-parcel of the tank designer's reality. He must made trade-offs between the different characteristics of the tank - firepower, mobility and protection - according to the design specifications and the role intended for the particular tank he is designing. The M-26 was an excellent medium tank, comparable to the Panther and the Tiger I in terms of its performance. It was initially classed as a heavy tank, but that was an error since the King Tiger was already being fielded and it tipped the scales at nearly seventy tons. The M-26 wasn't enough to meet the King Tiger on anything like equal terms - which is why the "Super Pershing" was developed. If that tank had been fielded in quantity, it would have been a paradigm changer - because it was a leap ahead - especially compared to what we'd fielded up to that time. Its experimental 90mm gun was extremely long, and had a much larger chamber to accommodate larger, more-powerful ammunition - consequently, it was capable of stupendous performance - i.e., 3,7750 fps using APCR shot, enough to penetrate a Panther frontally at over 2,000 yards. The Pershing's history mostly lies in the Korean conflict, where it acquitted itself very well against North Korean T34-85s - as did its successor, the M-46.

We have none other than Lieutenant General George S. Patton to thank for that fact. During the run-up to the Invasion of Normandy, General Patton and some other members of the SHAEF general staff attended a demonstration of the new M-26 prototype and were asked if an effort should be made at home in America to ramp up production in time to supply American armored formations with some of the new Pershings in time for the invasion. Quoting armored force doctrine to a tee, Patton replied that the Sherman was adequate for its duties and that berthing space for one M-26 could be used for up to three M4s. Moreover, since the tank destroyers had the job of destroying enemy armor, a more-potent tank with a bigger gun would not be necessary. Patton proved the be disastrously wrong insofar as many Shermans ran into German armor which gave them trouble, not just King Tiger and Tiger I tanks, which were rare, but the more-numerous Panther tanks and Jagdpanther tank destroyers, as well as Panzer IVs and other types. And even if the Allied tanks didn't run into these fearsome opponents, the heavier and more well-sloped armor of the M26 would have helped against German AT guns and shaped-charged weapons.

@@GeorgiaBoy1961 Would have saved a lot of lives...good information. Fucking shame. Patton had his mistakes and that was a big one.

@@GeorgiaBoy1961 That's nonsense. Even if Patton held that opinion it would not be his decision. Patton was not even an army group commander. He was low on the totem pole.

@@TDL-xg5nn - You're wrong. Instead of attacking others like a petulant child, maybe you ought to study some more military history of the Second World War, because you don't measure up, quite frankly. Patton was in command of 3rd Army and was a three-star or Lt. General at the time of the war's end in the ETO. Commanding an army, as Patton did, was not "low on the totem pole," as you claim; it is one of the most-senior and responsible positions in the army. Only a handful of general officers out-ranked him army-wide, and even fewer in the ETO. His rank wasn't all that lent his opinions and views credence: Patton's rank was irrelevant when it came to his expertise as a combat leader and master of mobile operations and combined arms warfare. The Germans considered him the finest ground combat leader the Anglo-Americans had, and were stunned that he had been reprimanded and almost relieved over something like slapping an enlisted man. They were stunned that he didn't lead the D-Day assault, which is one reason he was chosen by Ike to head the notional FUSAG or "First U.S. Army Group," a fictitious red-herring devised as a strategic feint by SHAEF and the "Double Cross" (XX) committee. Patton was an acknowledged master of cavalry operations, and he regarded tanks as the "new cavalry" of the modern age of warfare. However, not withstanding that skill, he was not at all an engineer or technician in the sense that one might expect. He was largely ignorant of the finer points of ballistics, tank design, and other technical subjects which are important to an overall understanding of how tanks function and operate in battle. Although he led men who used them, Patton himself never used an M4 Sherman in combat, let alone a more-advanced design such as the M-26. The M-26 Pershing could have been operational in limited numbers by D-Day, but thanks to opposition by Army Ground Forces head, General Leslie McNair, and also Patton, production was delayed - with the result that only a handful of Pershings made into the the ETO before the war's end, the so-called "Zebra Mission." Patton, like many senior officers, was not down in the mud, blood and gore of combat with his men. He led from the front more than many generals, but he did not operate or maintain the tanks himself, let alone do things like hose the blood and gore out of battle-damaged Shermans like enlisted men and lower-ranking officers had to do. Patton, after seeing the Pershing demonstrated, reported that the new tank was not needed in time for D-Day, as the Sherman was adequate to the job. Citing the then-new 76mm high-velocity gun, Patton said that the Sherman was up to facing the latest German designs. He was wrong; the 76mm was incapable of penetrating the frontal armor of the Panther tank, which was thick and well-sloped, and it also proved ineffective against the few Tigers encountered in France, as well as the various TDs and older tanks. Most tank crews could live with the inadequate armor of the Sherman, provided that they had a main gun powerful-enough to deal with enemy tanks on a first-round hit basis. The old short-barreled 75mm M3 gun was a good general-purpose weapon, but a bust as an anti-tank weapon against the latest and best-protected German armor. The new 76mm was heavily-hyped, such that no less than General Eisenhower thought it the equal of the dreaded German 88mm dual-purpose gun. When it didn't turn out to be, Ike was very unhappy indeed. Patton's opposition to the M-26 was based also upon his adherence to army doctrine, which stated that tanks were to be used to lead advances and breakthroughs, whereas tank destroyers were to fight other tanks, but also upon shipping constraints. Patton cited data that for every Pershing in the hold of a cargo ship, two or three Shermans could be delivered to the ETO. Which is correct, but sidesteps the very real question of whether the Pershing could do the work of two or three Shermans. From the modern perspective, Patton failed in one of the critical duties of a general officer, which is to see to the welfare of the enlisted men and less-senior officers under him. Specifically, rather than offer an uninformed opinion about the merits or lack of same of the Sherman and the Pershing, he should have sought council from the staff sergeants who commanded tanks in the 3rd Army before making a decision. The guys who actually had to fight these tanks in combat and whose lives would depend on the performance of their equipment. In fairness to Patton, he was far from the only senior officer to suffer from this failing. Heck he could have called up one of his subordinates or someone in one of the other army groups to solicit their views, such as Creighton Abrams, then an up-and-coming armor officer with a sterling record in combat. But he didn't do that, and it cost some men their lives.

Why?

And my too.

axel usul Panther II was never mass produced

axel usul Konigstiger and Tiger Is were in too small numbers to make a difference.

True but neither did the "best" allied tanks reach units until the war was nearly over. Such as the Comet or the Pershing saw more action in Korea...

axel usul Another point I forgot to mention, is the concept of M4 vs. Panther. Though, let's not be daft, on paper the Panther G outclassed any M4. However in combat, any variant of Panther, or any variant of M4, it varies. And in the case of various units of the British 21st Army Group, and the U.S. Third and Fourth Armored, the M4 had a positive K:L ratio against the Panther. So it was deemed that nothing that was logistically inept compared to the M4 would see combat, save the T26. Though I do get your point, and have subtle wishes that the T23E3/M27 or the lesser known variants of the M4 saw action, and at least saw a years or more worth of combat.

I agree in principle, we cannot compare the performance of 2 tanks, statistically or by specification or crew experience, especially near the end of the war. Its not so much about allied "wonder" tanks saving the day, but the discrepancy in the quality of armor. Look at the testimony and records of M4 Crews knowing the havoc a Michael Wittmann would wreak with his experienced crew and 88mm Tiger Tank. It borders on suicide, but that is the reality of War, not our childish interest of the Tank. But best hardware, training and intelligence with Experience and Logistics wins out...

Yep, I just discovered the Wright Museum late last year right after they had closed for the season. I reside in northern Vermont and it's about a 2 1/2 hour drive each way but plan on making the drive early next month.

It is a very cool place well worth a visit. I was there about 12 years ago. I love the Stewart coming through thr front wall.

Well, not really. By the time pershings started rolling into Germany the Germans had already produced the tiger 2 which could very easily have taken out a Pershing.

So the Sherman stood A better chance? Because of sheer numbers yes but the Pershing would have been A 1 to 1. At least they were not out gunned by every German tank with the Pershing's 90mm. Remember the Sherman's had low velocity 76mm and very few had the Firefly.

+backwoodsbully Small error here, the early Shermans had a 75mm anti tank gun. Later versions had the 76mm anti tank gun. They also started to deploy more tank hunters with 76mm anti tank guns, like the M10 and M18 in 1944 they also got a vew Shermans converted basically to M36s with a new turret and the 90mm gun, there are images that show them in combat during the battle of the buldge. But later in the war more M36 would arrive in Europe. The Pershing would have been a good addition, even though it was only comparable to the Panther and Tiger I, both could defeat the Pershing on usual combat ranges. And as far as I know there was a Pershing which was knocked out by a Panzer IV. Though, there was also a Pershing that knocked out a couple of Panzer IVs, Tigers and Panthers. But even without the Pershing, the US forces havn't been always outguned.

+backwoodsbully Were just lucky that they managed to take out a tank factory, because if they didn't, we would have been crushed by the Maus and E-100.

xx Acegaming xx But the Germans would have been crushed by the fuel consumption, maintenance and impracticallity of the Maus and E100.

The gas didn't have the correct amount of lead additive needed to help the tank run smooth. That's what caused the rough idle and the back firing when we were pulling it back in the Museum.

I have a nice picture of a Panther brewing up after being taken out by an M-26.

From Tank duell at Cologne? The panther killed a 76 W Sherman and later the panther take 3 hits from the M26 but all Crew members came out alive

Sturminfantrist Two of the Panthers crew died. One while climbing out of the top turret hatch when the turret was hit by another shell, and the other in a hospital a short time later. I'll provide a link with some great info on the duel. anicursor.com/colpicwar2.html

Sturminfantrist Get your facts straight, the German tank crew died. The German you saw trying to get away died within minutes of their injuries.

Actually not many Pershing to T-34 encounters in Korea, most T-34s were lost to air attacks, which is quite evident in period photos. It however would have fared pretty well, given it's brief encounters with Panthers and Tiger 1s, where a few Pershings were brought to Europe during the Zebra Mission for their combat trials.

One of the first actual encounters between a M26 and T34/85 occurred near the Pusan phase of the war. A Marine unit was guarding a road and 4 T34s came up. Since the fight took place at close range, like less than 100 yards the HV/AP rounds that the M26 shot went right through the lead tanks and out the back. In fact a friendly unit thought it was being fired upon and called it for them to stop shooting.

Not difficult considering the t34 only had 45mm of frontal armour

Highly unlikely it would have outperformed the Sherman

@@chadjustice8560 It would've, had it gotten a better engine, like the ones on the Pattons

Me too. A little bit more development with some extra horsepower and upgraded ammo and the Pershing would have made a big impact on the battlefield. Operation Zebra was a 9th inning effort to get some early Pershings into combat for some live-fire trials, and they performed pretty darn good all things considered.

Development time is preventing all of the good American tanks. They had to make sure the tank is extremely reliable, easy to maintain because they are fighting far away from home

It is underpowered, having problematic transmission, and tank cannon technology has progressed. Which is why it evolved into the M46 Patton. Just check it out. It offers many more capabilities while retaining the same silhouette as the Pershing.

Yup, the turret was just repaired a few months ago. And they just got done rebuilding the new Sherman engine.!

Baller, would love to see a new video, it'd be even greater if the 90mm cannon shot, but I kinda doubt it, It's been a loooong time since the Earth heard the roar of a M26 Pershing firing. Also is the engine on the M26 running better? It sounded a bit hic-up-ey.

Sad to say that the barrels been neutered. :-(

Aww. That's...actually, really sad. It's like when on the way to Desert Storm they off loaded tens of thousands of surplus armaments into the ocean, namely M14s. I mean they made like, 2,000,000 M14s, but they sure don't sell the M14 at 2,000,000 piece prices. (because about 16,000 are left.)

@@SSFhighcommandJOHN I've always wanted an M14. A company named lrb is making M14s in semiauto with GI parts on them and think they're based in rhode island or somewhere on the east coast in that area.

1,100 cubic inch Ford V-8. One of the best engines Ford ever built, imo

@@TacticalOni I'd like to have one of these engines crammed in a Ford f350!

+jtoddjb there is one at the waterville me. american legion,one at camp keyes in augusta,another at the coles land transportation mueseum in bangor( there is also a half track there as well)

+jtoddjb Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland according to my dad who served in that area. He said there is a major armor museum there.

It was in Korea not for very long before replaced by the Sherman which saw more action than any other us tank in korea

The book should have said "armored vehicles" instead of tanks

You mean cable? Yeah, it wasn't set up right but it got the job done.

@ Rip: Many of the top Panzer generals didn't want Tigers or Panthers in their formations when on fast-moving offensive operations because of how prone to breakdown they were, how heavy and thirsty for fuel they were, and how difficult and time-consuming to repair they were. They much preferred Panzer Mk. IVs in greater numbers, already established designs which had been prove in action. Once the teething problems were ironed-out, the complaints lessened, but the issue remained. The biggest, heaviest German tanks were better defensive weapons than offensive ones.

+NovaMan 350 Alright Germany bring the Jagdtiger and the Königstiger