Tank Chats #90 | M26 Pershing | The Tank Museum
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ต.ค. 2024
- David Fletcher examines the American M26 Pershing 'Heavy' tank. The Pershing saw service in the latter days of the Second World War and Korea.
Tank Chat playlist: • Playlist
SUBSCRIBE to The Tank Museum TH-cam channel: ► / @thetankmuseum
Support the work of The Tank Museum on Patreon: ► / tankmuseum
Press the little bell above to enable NOTIFICATIONS so you don’t miss the latest Tank Museum videos.
Visit The Tank Museum SHOP: ►tankmuseumshop...
Follow The Tank Museum on FACEBOOK: ► / tankmuseum
Twitter: ► / tankmuseum
Instagram: ► / tankmuseum
Tiger Tank Blog: ► blog.tiger-tank...
Tank 100 First World War Centenary Blog: ► tank100.com/
The Tank Museum E-Newsletter sign-up: mailchi.mp/e6f...
#tankmuseum #tanks
who needs santa claus and his measly gifts, when we have Tank Chats by Mr. Fletcher.
Repent of that nonsense, David Fletcher IS Santa Klaus. Talking Tanks is what he does during the first 9 months of the year, while his elves build and repair them. It's only late in the year that he removes his disguise and plumps up a bit.
@@davidtuttle7556
EXCELLENT RESPONSE!!!
One and the same!
@@davidtuttle7556 this is explains so much! :D
@@davidtuttle7556 Does he ride a tank pulled by smaller tankettes?
@@TheXLink Yes. Yes he does. He rides a TOG II pulled by a team of Locusts and Universal Carriers.
The worst feature of the M26 Pershing during WWII was its absence from the battle field.
The 50,000 Sherman's made up for it
Blame the army minds for the slow delay.
@@kenneth9874The upgrade ones are better.
Much better than the Tigers or Jagdtigers but very unfortunate coz of its late introduction.
To be fair, the Sherman Jumbo with a 76mm was better in just about every regard to a Tiger 1, and an equal to the panther in most regards.
The M26 was simply not good enough to justify serial production. It needed a higher velocity gun, and likely a little more armor.
"It was more acurate than the 17pdr, most guns are." LOL that humor is as dry as Beefeater gin
What good is a gun if you can't hit the target with it.
17pdr had massive recoil and breech, also generated a lot of smoke after firing, that's why some gunners lost sight of target, but still 17 pdr was more powerful if it hits like fletcher said than the M3 90mm but with the American gyro stabilizer, it made the 90mm accurate
@@ramal5708 Um no the 17pdr did not hit harder than the 90mm
@Rodolfo Ramos ok Mr know it all. 17 Pdr with APDS rounds 1200 m/s initial Velocity, M3 90mm with HVAP rounds 1140 m/s , do the math. The M3 gun on M46 Pershings have gyro stabilizer and 17 Pdr on both SPG and Firefly version didn't have Gyros. But if you're talking about penetration in 100m range, the 17 Pdr with APDS could only penetrate 270mm of armor and the M3 could penetrate 300mm of armor with HVAP so penetration-wise the M3 is more powerful as they have larger shell diameter
@@ramal5708 APDS ronds were hideously inaccurate. They were the predecessor of the modern APFSDS, which is the tank rounds nearly everyone uses today, but the FS is important. Thhat stands for Fin Stabilized, and it was during the war that the British learned what the lack of fin stabilization meant. The early sabot rounds didn't have stabilization through the air and due to air resistence from their high velocity they tended to tumble, making accuracy much past 500 yards virtually impossible.
It wasn't until after the war when they figured out to put fins on the sabot rounds to keep them from tumbling around that they got the kind of performance that discarding sabot rounds were capable of. Until then conventional weapons could easily outperform the sabot at normal combat ranges, including the much-ballyhooed M1A2 76mm gun.
Fletcher asking for subs is adorable. Change my mind.
MrAzkhare I will.
He is very adorable.
No.
@@rottenpotato9290 I concur. He is to be crowned Lord Adorable the First of Bovington, Monarch of AFVs and Lord of Tank-Nerd-Lore-Upon-Bovington. The Third.
He convinced me to sub... but then I saw I already am :D
His pleas don't work on me, because I subbed long before he started doing it...
David Fletcher is the David Attenborough of tanks.
Camille Desmoulins what climate hysteria? Are you waiting for widespread crop failure then you'd believe?
@@SR-wm1kr Please inform us plebes on what is going to cause crop failure? I work in farming all around Britain and Eastern Europe and apart from some small areas which have been affected by flooding, the small climate change has improved yields. please do your own research and don't believe everything you are told.
Nailed it
two bob it's real man the it's scientific consensus. The coral reefs are bleaching cyclones and hurricanes are increasing forest fires are on the rise. Over 95% consensus among climate scientists is not exactly a conspiracy. Where did you do your own "research" exactly?
@@SR-wm1kr sCiEnTiFiC cOnSeNsUs.
LMFAO, what a joke. Climate change hysteria is just a pure doomsday called for the modern-day idiot: dissention.wordpress.com/2019/07/06/anthropogenic-climate-change-is-a-form-of-secular-apocalypticism-1/
Just sit the man down in a comfy arm chair, start a livestream and let him waffle about tanks for 12hours. People will watch it.
I would most definitely watch that all the way through, I can't get enough of Fletcher! In fact, the British Army should probably name a new tank after him and include him in the design process!
With a warm fire blazing away next to him. A cosy fireside chat.
@@matthewnewell4517 Toss in some tea and you've got a deal.
Gregory
A self-propelled gun vehicle named “Fletcher” actually sounds like a good idea!
David Fletcher should be put in the British Museum when he retires, as he is a national treasure
He needs to retire NOW! He has lost his mind obviously, "just another tank..." he is senile.
What? I thought *all* persons with a MBE were put in the British Museum, when they retired ..
@ Sam Iam
He is spot on, he always is. Everyone knows that.
He already is. *And* he is in the British Tankmuseum.
David Fletcher appeared on a regular basis as tank expert in the documentary series "Tank!" from the 1990s Discovery Channel era.
He's already technically retired from Bovington; we just keep dragging him out of his recliner to make these films.
First one I caught within a minute of being posted! Hello from Texas!
I'm from Wichita Falls.
I'm from the UK, London, love these tank chats, great museum
@@byebye1813 You can just say "Detroit". We won't judge you.
I like it from the field maintenance point of view. If it's easy to get to everything, it's easy to keep it going.
Mr. David reminds me of my grandpa so much i love him!
If I was ever insulted by Mr. Fletcher: I'd wear whatever he called me as a name-tag and thank him for the honor.
Same
David Fletcher: "The Tiger was quite old by comparison."
And such is WWII when 2 tanks fielded 2 years apart and one is considered quite old. WWII started with tanks that were riveted together and had machine guns ended 6 years later with cast bodies and upwards of 120mm guns. The philosophies garnered in WWII spurred tank designs for the next 40 years.
@@white-dragon4424 The Maus was not some amazing feat of technology, it was a failure and a dead end like any other super heavy tanks.The Maus has zero relevance in tank designs, except on how not to design tanks.
@@Vlad_-_-_
Yup. The Maus wouldn't have done anything had it hit the battlefield. By that time the Allies had uncontested control of the skies, & the Maus was so big & made of such dated/inferior materials, it would've broken down before planes reduced it to a burning hulk.
@@TrollOfReason The Maus would have suffered the same fate as the JTiger.Brake down for multitude of reasons and / or be abandoned for lack of fuel.
Pershing and Centurion lines that turned into the Main Battle Tank was the future.
@@Vlad_-_-_
Agree. A complete waste of time and resources.
The A100 Fletcher Tank.
Gun: 150mm, firing armour piercing shells created from weaves from moustache hair of the man himself.
Armour: Pykrete that doesn't dare melt, for fear of inciting Fletcher's wrath.
Engine: Mini Cooper engine running on NOS.
Top Speed: irrelevant. Can teleport (and time travel)
Most tank victories throughout the 20th century are wrongly attributed to other tanks. Including the T34 and the Challenger 2.
your as senile as he is
@@samiam5557 You're, not your.
T34 or T-34? there is a difference :P
@@RYNOCIRATOR_V5 Use those powers of deductive reasoning. When he says, "most tank victories throughout the 20th century are wrongly attributed to other tanks, including the T34 and Challenger 2," which do you think is the more likely subject? The tank with over 50,000 units produced that saved the Soviet Union and drowned the 3rd Reich in a sea of poorly finished steel, or the 1-off American prototype?
@@samiam5557 Ok, boomer.
Just finished a book called 'Spearhead' which is a story of a crew which went from a Sherman to a Pershing. V good book.
Big difference.
I’m going to start it today, looking forward to it. The author did a podcast interview that I listened to recently
Yes it was
Excellent book!
The perfect tank will shoot enemy seeking, globe circumnavigating AP rounds in bursts of 100, have 6 feet of armor, only weigh 5000 pounds, reach speeds of 100 + mph., have a spacious crew compartment with a pool table, AND automatically drive itself to the Bovington museum when the war is over.
Also, it has to be British...to be perfect.
scockery I do know about that. I had a Triumph once. The horn would come on every time a turned a corner
@@yelwing How many pedestrian lives did that save? Ha-ha.
No, it will be imperfect if you forget the mighty boiling vessel. No tea time, no victory
I think what you are describing here is the TOG II
John Pershing had grown up as an officer in the cavalry and led dismounted Buffalo Soldiers alongside Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders in the Battle of San Juan Hill.
"Which isn't saying very much"
I can hear the wehraboos typing in anger right now.
Do you feel their anger, my friend? You do NOT insult panzers!
German tanks were overrated and bad.
@@cleanerben9636 allied tank crews burned alive in a knocked out tank would strongly disagree with you
@@gemini7SkyWell they can't disagree because they're ash.
and to clarify, the German early war tanks were actually very well designed. The late war tanks were just atrocious acts of desperation.
@@gemini7Sky German tank crews burned alive too you know a lot more actually.
Ah, yes...the Pershing....the "German" tank in just about every Hollywood movie in fhe 60s. Just paint it gray and slap a German cross on it, and you have yourself a "King Tiger"
Probably Pattons than Pershings but yeah....i watched those films and thought they sucked even as a child 😃
@@jimmytgoose476 yes, you're probably right now that I think about it.
Either way they still sucked in films ! The ironic thing is there are films of the Korean war that have other tanks masquerading as M26/M46s.....go figure 😃
Young kids don't know the difference.
Nope, M-47s.
He looks so spooked when he has to do the "youtube stuff" at the start but then he's so calm with the actual tank chat.
Never drink gin while pregnant
@@rustyshackleford7265 : Errm duly noted.
In the first view tank chats I think he even said "why not subscribe to our you tube" I guess they corrected him on that xD
@@jessehaenen5915 lol... He is such a genuine, respectable and fact filled man. I could listen to him narrate himself eating a bowl of cereal tbh.. just because of how pure and untouched by the sins of the internet lol.
@@roguekwads_fpv7368 true
When Mr Fletcher is done with his work he goes home to his tiny house in The Shire
We ALL have houses in the Shire over here. Mine is in Oxfordshire.
Good one!
Northamptonshire is where my little burrow is, just north of Mordor.
I would like David Fletcher to adopt me as his grandson. He is the universal grandfather.
Jason Sharpe cheerio, old chap!
I want to adopt him
He would knight you 😆 as grand son.
David is all for that idea Jason. He really needs someone to rub his feet.
@@richardm3023 He could do that himself with his mustache
Upgraded for operations in Korea and that sort of thing. Another classic ;)
Love the smooth cast design of the Pershing.
Best looking tank ever made, change my mind lol
M-1A2 Abrams@@lunseren
I have been waiting for Mr fletcher to review the Pershing, certainly not disappointed.”equal to the Panther, which is not saying very much” awesome.
Mr. Fletcher is off his proverbial rocker if he believes that the Panther was a bad design or for that matter, the Pershing. Maybe it is time for him to retire and play some cribbage. His videos may be interesting, but they are neither serious scholarship nor genuine military history. Hearing some old duffer mumble about his opinions on tanks and armored warfare - and poorly informed opinions, much of the time at that - does not meet the standard of the legitimate historian.
GeorgiaBoy1961, it worth finding Le Panther on the web, the French used them for a short time, it lists the issues, a lot of issues. The Chieftain, Nick Moran has explained the birth and difficulties of the Pershing. The US Army quickly moved to Patton, an upgraded Pershing with an engine that could cope. At the same time has Panther and Pershing the British brought out Comet, the last of the WW2 tanks, then the first MBT Centurion at the end of the war, which dominated armour combat for the next 30 years. Compared to Centurion he is correct.
@@DC9622 used the 75mm from the panther in some ww2 french tanks
@@GeorgiaBoy1961 missing entirely his point that the Pershing was produced a year after the Panther, and technology improved so quickly during the Second World War that it arguably should have been better than an older design.
@@GeorgiaBoy1961 Lets hear your inspired thoughts on this very average tank!
you know, he's got a solid perspective on tanks.
he's delusional the Pershing was a great tank
@@samiam5557 ok boomer
The king tiger was for white people
Hes grounded...
@@samiam5557 It wasn't, a few of em might of had a good record in Germany but in Korea it was really bad especially in comparison to the centurion.
Thank you David Fletcher. I so enjoy your knowledge and frankness.
The one consistency through every machine ever made. "It was always a little underpowered". Tanks, aircraft, ships, doesn't make any difference, they were always designed with engines too small for purpose. This philosophy still holds to this day.
The F-15 Eagle would like to have a word. The engines it has are so overpowered for the airframe it can fly vertically supersonic.
@@PitFriend1 the Abrams would also like a word, at least once that pesky governor is removed
I know what you mean. I learnt this a long time ago, you always should go for at least a bit more power or larger than you think you need. This was it easily meets its intended purpose rather than just scraping through.
Read what Eric "Winkle" Brown said of the deHavilland Hornet.
Not really. M26 in particular had much lower power to weight ratio than its predecessor M4 Sherman.
When I was a kid I kept scratching my head wondering why my model tank had rear drive sprockets
He says how the 90 mm wasn’t really as good as the 17 pdr. Is that true? With HVAP ammo this thing was super powerful despite already packing quite a punch.
Not happy with Fletcher's conclusion about the M26, he makes it sound like a dud, just another tank (what does that actually mean?)...that was only due to it being not yet fully refined and not used in numbers (if he had said inconsequential in impact I would have accepted that)...He ignores the fact that the 90mm gun was very effective in M36's that WERE used in reasonable numbers closing out the war. Had the US had 500 or so in service in 1945 perhaps the tank would not be considered "just another tank". There was no question it was a significant improvement over the Sherman although not necessarily an immediate complete replacement. I am no M26 apologist, but dog gone it Fletcher makes a lot of simplistic conclusions that while quaint due to his pleasant style, are not necessarily factual but generalizations, Fletcher doesn't try too hard, and as I am an old folk myself I don't blame him, but I don't hang on his every word either like so many of the fanboys here.
Pershing WAS a bit of a dud. They couldn't even fix the Pershing's mechanical issues 5 years later in Korea. They withdrew them all from combat in 1950 there because of the unreliability.
The U.S Army Ordinance tested the M3 90mm and the QF 17lb. The M3 was the superior tank gun. More accurate, better HE, and adequate armor penetration.
I like how he said if the 17 pounder hit it's target.
The word adequate tells you all you need to know.
The word adequate is used because most engagements occur under 1000 yards and the M3 90mm was capable of penetrating the frontal armor of all German tanks at 1000 yards. In addition the accuracy level of the guns and the proficiency of the gunners and sights made hitting anything beyond 1000 yards a crap shot. It usually required 15-20 shots to get a kill on an enemy tank during combat. Finally some 80% of all ammunition used by tanks was HE not AP. So having a gun with a larger HE round was preferable over one that had higher muzzle velocity.
The 17lb (76.2mm) was too small, they then went on to develop the 20lb (84mm) and eventually the L7 (105mm). The L7 was in use numerous tanks including the first M1 Abrams.
Kevin Temple Ordnance
Heavy means that it is at the upper end of in terms of weight & dimensions that the American logistics system could handle. It's ability to negotiate bridges etc in Europe as also a major consideration.
Also the opposition to the tank wasn't unreasonable. Slotting a new weapon into the logistical train isn't a trivial exercise, particularly considering that the Sherman was doing a good job and was reliable & efficient. It should be noted that the Pershing didn't meet the Armour Schools standards for being an efficient fighting vehicle.
Very true. Also, the Americans tended to define heavy tanks based on their gun rather than weight and armor.
Going by Chieftain's articles, M26's powertrain was giving grief during its development. What good are good armor and gun, if the tank can't keep up with maneuvering forces?
Yes, there were instances where the Americans seized bridges that were too damaged to support Pershings but they could get Shermans across. In that situation, the tank that's not stuck on the wrong side of the river is the best tank.
The first 256 Pershing's were built for testing purposes to work out bugs in the design while training crews and mechanics in it's operation and repairs. That usually took several months so the US Congress demand those to sent to Europe ASAP without fully trained crews and mechanics. Ordnance took the first three made and ran them non-stop around a test track for 500 miles. One made it without a breakdown and the other two lost road wheels after travelling 300 miles. Ordnance declared that was normal wear and tear so deemed them fit for battle.
I’ve been waiting for them to do the M26 Pershing. It’s one of my favorite tanks.
It could peal the turent off a T34/85
Anti German guy
Was the 17 pounder really better? Didn't the 90 have greater penetration at greater range?
@@GrandDungeonDad In WW2 they had very similar performance with the 17 pdr having a slight edge. Though the 17 pdr only fired solid shot AP ammo while the American 90mm could fire APHE (Armor Piercing High Explosive). Also like Mr Fletcher said the 17pdr was fairly inaccurate at distance. Overall the 90mm was just a better gun.
Why the gun barrel differ so much in various outtakes? The one @5:07 looks several feet longer than the one at the museum - Super Pershing or simply the museum one has been shortened?
They certainly faired well against T-34s in Korea.
So did the Shermans, though.
That's not really saying much, the North Koreans, being on average smaller and more compact that the Russians, hated the T34 because of how cramped it was. And that's not even half the issues with the T34, but better explanations exist
@jic1 you'll start to notice that in conflicts where Shermans fight T34s, the Shermans almost always did better. There's a reason for that...
The M26 was a great upgrade to the M4. More accurate than the 17 pounder, and accuracy means all. This vehicle had an adequate engine, not terribly underpowered. This vehicle has more armor, too. The M26 also has a shorter profile.
It need not have been that way. There WAS a more powerful engine available, but for some reason they just didn’t use it.
More powerful than the 17-pounder, too.
The Pershing also had a higher power to weight ratio than the Sherman Firefly, whilst delivering a more potent HE shell, and much better protected. It is seldom acknowledged the Pershing was only 8 tons heavier than the M4A3, the standard US medium tank.
@@williampaz2092I think it was to do with the transmission
Automotively it was a pig, and was so unreliable they were all withdrawn from combat in Korea in 1950.
Wow this man tells a very different story about this tank and it’s coming into service then the chieftain does.
Disappointing that he failed to note that during WW2, it was called the T-26. The M-26 designation came later when the Army redid tank designations and got rid of the T series; that it had a fast electric turret transverse and gyroscopically stabilized barrel that allowed it to acquire targets and be more accurate than anything else field at the time; and no mention of the 2 super-pershings.
@005uz345 The M26 designation showed up in March when the T26E3 was standardized as M26. The US did not "get rid of the T series", T simply stood for "test" and even vehicles like the M48 Patton III had their own T designation (T48 in this case) before they got standardized into their M designation (M standing for "model"). Nowadays, the US uses the XM designation instead of T.
The M26 also did not have a stabilizer, and it's turret traverse was hydraulic, much like the Shermans. In fact, it was just as fast as the Shermans.
The one
"The tank was not very heavy " (-tank weighs more than any other British or American tank that saw combat in WW II-Lol)
If comparing with the standard ammo mostly supplied to M36 crews, it is probably fair to say the 90mm wasn't quite as powerful as 17pdr. With the T33 and HVAP ammo supplied to the Zebra Mission tanks, the 90mm was more accurate and packed a bit more punch.
Really enjoy these videos. Thank goodness for tank chats!
Not really as good as a 17 pounder, probably more accurate most guns would be... Savage.
do love seeing these videos pop up
"Ruddy nuisance." He kills me.
I'm going to find a reason to say that tomorrow.
I think the 90mm doesn't get quite as much credit as it should.
Eventually they developed the T33 shell, which used a different heat treating process to avoid shattering. It actually outperformed solid shot from the 17 pdr., and they continued to make gradual improvements to the AP rounds before eventually moving onto APCR (which was extremely effective, and by some documentation could pierce the Tiger II's front plate) and HEAT, although by the time HEAT shells were widespread the M26/46 was outdated.
David Fletcher: This British tank wasn't very good at all
US username: Hell yeas, they were all trash!
David Fletcher: This German tank was more trouble than it's actually worth
US username: Hoot Hoot! All German tanks are overrated!
David Fletcher: This Soviet tank was not easy on the eye
US username: Don't show commie tanks here! We won the war? Why do you even bring up Soviet tanks?
David Fletcher: This French tank was good tank by 1940 standards but was badly deployed
US username: Ha ha! The French tanks only have a gear for reversing! Pu..ies!
David Fletcher: This late war American tank was decent but arrived too late to help Sherman drivers, it's gun didn't have the loads of development late war 88mm guns had and it's power needed improvements by upgrades.
US username: David Fletcher is a d..k! How could he? USA! USA! He is so biased! He is using facts to back up an personal view! That's not fair! He knows nothing about tanks! Go and do your research better, well educated tank curator from a highly ranked museum of TANKS!
....David Fletcher: And here we have a log and a bottle of alcohol with some tar and petrol for taste.
Finnish username: Hey, they have one of our tanks too! Torilla tavataan!
Lets see... Yes, trusting the comment's timer it took seven hours to the point of "us username", genius? "Texas101"? "Milwaukee apple pie" and "...your own, festering, inferiority complex"
Considering that my original comment is an obvious and gross oversimplification, I really hope Phil is not from US. Otherwise the irony will just blow up this thread. :)
In my town there is an M-60 sitting out in front of a transportation museum, its interesting that the casting on this Pershing looks better that on the M60! (IF someone didnt know better they would think the Persh was the better built tank, and perhaps it was. )
It really wasn't. Also what casting are you refering to?
Thank you David Fletcher. I enjoy watching your informative videos.
May not be the best, but in my eyes, prettiest.
What a cool guy mr fletcher is, knows his stuff could listen to him for hours what a hero
There are somethings that I just completely disagree with.
Saying that the 17 pounder was "better" in some respects is, while undeniably true, also extremely vague and misleading. The US ran tests comparing a 90 mm armed M26, a 17 pounder armed M4A3 (yes, they took an M4A3 hull and slapped a Sherman Firefly turret on it) and a 76 mm M1 armed M4, and came to the general conclusion that the US cannons were preferred. Obviously, this conclusion can be biased since the tests were conducted by the US, but characteristics such as inaccuracy and obscuration simply killed the 17 pounder's chances. The flash and smoke produced by the 17 pounder when firing APCBC was so excessive that the gunner and commander could not see if the enemy tank had been hit if the range were less than 1000 yards.
Also saying that the 17 pounder would deal more damage if it hit is just outright not true.
Unlike the 17 pounder, the 90 mm can actually penetrate the UFP of the Panther with normal projectiles, both M77 AP and T33 APBC, however M77 could only do so up to about 600 yards while T33 would do so up to at least 1100 yards. And even M304 HVAP could do this task up to at least 450 yards.
To do the same task, the 17 pounder requires APDS rounds, as the AP, APC and APCBC rounds are simply not capable of going through the upper plate of a Panther that doesn't have low quality armor. These rounds were so inaccurate that out of 42 rounds fired at a stationary Panther that was just 400 yards away, only 24 hit, so 43% of the rounds fired just missed the Panther. And even in the case that it were a low quality Panther, which the normal AP rounds could damage, the 90 mm is still substantially more accurate with its AP rounds, so it would be more likely to even score the hit in the first place, while, again, its rounds could go through even higher quality Panthers.
M4 was named after an American Civil War general: William Tecumseh Sherman.
Yes, but named by the British which they were quire good at. The P-51 got it's name from the British as well, Mustang.
I thought the Sherman was named after General Sherman of the Civil war
Eric Yung was named BY the British FOR Sherman
All the American tanks used by the British were given American Generals names, The British named things, while the Americans tendered to officially number until we see the Pershing, but for sure the names stuck and were unofficial used by the US
David does not speak highly of the 90mm, yet it served the US and particularly the IDF, quite well. Note that the IDF had both the 17 pounder and the 90mm, yet they stuck with the 90mm. Ah well, David appears to miss this fact, but then again, this is a British production........
Note the neat twin-.50cal arrangement @ 3:44 and then again @ 4:25 and even @ 5:10. neat!
The Americans continued to supply them with ammunition for the 90mm. We didn't with 17lb. Could be why they kept the 90mm rather than any consideration as to performance, as the 17lb was demonstrably superior as an AT gun.
they kept the one they had ammo for.
I agree with others, free ammo beats better ammo
The situation also changed a bit once the US got its finger out of its rear end and started producing 90mm HVAP. Too late for consideration in WW2 comparisons, but quite pertinent in the late 1940s.
Fun Fact: Mr. Fletcher's mustache is thicker than the armor on a Pershing. 👍✌️
Does the MBE belong to Mr Fletcher or his moustache?
"the 17 pounder, if it hit , did a lot of damage"... Classic
Yeah but if a German 75 or 88 from their tanks hit the Firefly first did it matter? Some really thick headed American military planners did not approve this tank until too late really and it is sad because a lot of allied tankers would have survived even if hit in a Pershing than any Sherman. So I 🤔
A tank that can take 3 hits from a Tiger I and be made serviceable again, is not just another tank. The M-26 went on to excellent service in Korea. It was the basis for the M-47, M-48 and in ways the M-60. And it was better than any tank Britain would field for the next 10 years.
The Centurion was fielded not long after the Pershing...
This is copium.
Used extensively in Korea, the M-26 took on some Russian T34-85s. The 90 MM went in the fronts of the T34, (with salutary effect on the crew of the -34s) out the side of the T34 and off into the distance. The solid shot impacted near an unsuspecting US infantry outfit over 1200 yards away who called up the tankers saying "Hey, whatd'ya think your trying to do to us???" The tankers replied " Oh Gee we're sorry: next time we'll let you guys stop the t-34's"
Used extensively? They were withdrawn from combat within a year of the Korean War due to serious automotive issues.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Please don't confuse the M26 Pershing with the M46-M47 Patton tank. Introduced in 1952, retired in 1959, users considered the M46-M47 tank a flop. At the time, many tankers really preferred the M4A3E8 "Easy 8" Sherman over the newer models. Among other automotive issues, the M46-M47 engine ran 5 pulleys off one belt. The M48 and its derivative the M60 were better tanks; some still in use with foreign armies.
The 90mm was a version of a high velocity antiaircraft cannon.
A majority of good tank gun during the war was a modified AA gun, example german 8.8cm kwk 36, the soviet 85mm D-5T and the American 90mm M3, I wonder didn't think the British modify their 3.7 inch AA gun to be used as a tank gun since everyone seems to be doing that.
@@poisonousteapot2394 3.7 inch AA had a lot of issues that prevented it from being used horizontal. Many stem from the mount but some also with the design. It was very difficult to load when horizontal. It had no sights for shooting horizontal and the mount itself was very heavy and took a very long time to setup.
After the fall of france Britain lost ALOT of equipment so kept producing the QF-2lber as a dedicated anti tank gun and didn't have the industrial capacity to design up a dedicated 3.7 inch AA and honestly they didn't need to. The OF-6lber was already designed and ready just couldn't be produced fast enough so they stuck to the 2 lber. And once production was available they had the 17lber so no reason.
@@poisonousteapot2394 I recall reading that the anti-aircraft units which had 3.7 inch guns fought very hard to avoid having any of their guns diverted to use as anti-tank guns. Inter-service rivalry? Maybe it was just that they were so short of the weapon.
In all ww2 games it's a real step up
Ah yes , the inevitability of British superiority comes through in the end . they just can't help themselves.
Explain....
I've never had a real idea of how big the Pershing was from photos until seeing Fletcher there i front of it. It always looked a bit smaller in pictures. Probably because of the change in layout compared to the sherman.
It would be great if you'd do one about the Super Pershing and the infamous action it had caught on film at the end of WW2.
Wasn't a super pershing
Read up about the Super Pershing which took on a Tiger 2 in Dasaau in April 1945
I do enjoy Mr. Fletcher's work, and his onscreen presence. However, I find it amusing that he praises the Comet (which I myself am a fan of), yet calls the Pershing "just another tank". I'm not sure why he finds it strange the Pershing is classified as a heavy. The typical British or American tank in WW II weighed about 30 to 35 tons. The Pershing weighed 46 tons. The only tank used in regular combat by the English speaking Allied countries with heavier armor (if one excludes the Sherman Jumbo) was the Churchill VII, but the Churchill's armor was not sloped. The Pershing's that saw combat with the 3rd armored were all equipped with T33 and HVAP ammo. So equipped, the 90mm was certainty not inferior to the 17pdr in AT capability, and fired a more effective HE than the 17pdr. In addition to it's much improved frontal protection, the Pershing had 76mm side armor, much improved over the typical British or American tank, and better than the Panther. Slightly less than Tiger I. This would make the Pershing less vulnerable to side shots than many Allied tanks, and better suited to the heavy role than anything else used in combat by Britain or America before the end of WW II.
The only German tank with significant superiority to Pershing in both firepower and armor was the Tiger II, and not very many of those were used on the Western front. Given it's small numbers, great weight and poor mobility, it is debatable whether or not the Tiger II could be labeled a "success", in any case. How often was an Allied tank called upon to actually fight a Tiger II?
Always enjoy the videos, and the comments. I hope there are many more to come.
Seeing as an M8 Greyhound took out a Tiger II during the battle of the bulge, I'd say the Tiger II was a pretty massive failure
@@skyraider87A high angle engine deck shot is a freak, uncommon occurrence, but would disable any tank. Not just the Tiger II. Lol.
@@garyhill2740 well seeing as Germany still lost the war despite having this "super advanced military technology", I'd go as far as to say the technology wasn't super advanced
funniest thing on this entire channel: "that 90mm isn't really as good as the British 17-pounder in some respects... probably more accurate, most guns would be... but the 17-pounder, IF it hit..."
Its always heart warming to see david fletcher asking for subscriptions and likes, its like a granpa trying to figure out how to use the internet....
6:21 The Banner says:
"Unity of all anti-fashists is the guarantee [ ] for the establishment of a democratic Germany"
I guess the colour of the banner was red...
The sign above the door says "Kommunistische partei Deuchlands" and there's a star with the hammer and sickle above it and a flag with the hammer and sickle flying above the US flag, so there's not much guesswork needed :P
The Chieftain covered the M26 Pershing at one point. He said that part of the reason it was so late, was that the T26 Prototype was chosen over a more desired version. Once M26 Pershing was accepted, the officials in charge went to work to get it ready for production. Not only were the Gun and Drive Systems a concern, but apparently there were a couple of dozen other faults of various kinds that concerned the various departments and boards involved.
M26 Pershing was expected to be needed. The US Army had set out once the M4 Sherman was in production to find a replacement, expecting the M4 Medium Tank to reach obsolescence by 1945/46. So they wanted another Tank, one with a bigger gun, faster mobility, and better armor in production by 1944.
Sadly for the M26, nothing actually worked out. The Chieftain broke down all of the issues that ended up plaguing the program. But eventually everything started to get done the right way by 1944. The program looked to be lagging only by months, but M26 was selected and promptly ordered prepared for mass production.
A few pilot models were built. Find all the issues, learn how the vehicle behaves, and develop all requirements from doctrine to logistics for it.
By that time, the M4 Sherman was proving to be just what the US Army wanted. Quick to make, easy to operate, simple to maintain, and still be able to be upgraded to meet new battlefield demands as they came along. The M4 Sherman was doing everything asked of it and more. There was an increasing appearance that the only the M4 couldn't do, was read.
I'm paraphrasing from the top of my head here. So these aren't the Chieftain's words. Go watch the video!
Sadly, the Battle of the Bulge rolled around. The Tiger B was a shock to American troops. Intel hadn't noticed it and the Soviets hadn't mentioned it. Fortunately, less than 1,000 Tiger B's and variants with the hull would be made. Unfortunately, the only thing that could stop them with any reliability in Europe and on hand at the time, was something with a 17-pdr (not in US Inventory) or the M18 Hellcat MGC/TD.
And even that was up in the air at best.
The US Army scrambled. Their move was the M36 Jackson. In a rush to get as many as they could, Sherman hulls were pressed into being quickly reworked to carry the M36's Turret and 90mm gun. These were designated M36B Jackson and rushed to the frontlines.
Thank God for American Standardization, or that would have taken too long. M36Bs have been shown painted white and covered in snow in Europe, so they arrived before Spring 1945. The M36 would prove itself, such as one encounter an M36 punched through the front slope of a Tiger B's Turret to lodge the round in the back of the Turret several weeks later during an ill-fated German localized counterattack.
M26 Pershing was ordered to the front in response. Despite there being too few vehicles available. The Zebra Mission was equipped with the first M26s that could be made available, either from existing stocks or produced in a hurry.
The US Army dragged its heels though. The M26 had faults. Too many of them. The departments and boards in charge declared it unfit for combat. They didn't want to send it, believing that threat had passed and there were good enough vehicles until they could finish the refinements. Unfortunately, they got overruled and the M26 was rolled out.
Problems with the 90mm were known. By the end of the war, an M26 Super Pershing had been built. It had a much more powerful 90mm that was far longer and more robust than the previous 90mm guns. Testing in the field commenced and was apparently successful.
But the war ended and Pershing was not in demand for the Pacific at the time. Which was good. It's doubtful the engine would have held up at the time.
The M46 Patton wasn't just a rearmed and reengined M26. Every fault in the M26 was corrected. The M46 was to be the M26 as it was supposed to be, going into Europe in WW2. The M26 ended up getting some upgrades and went on for a longer service period than had been expected for what had essentially became an Interim Tank Design.
As for the designation, the M26 was designated Heavy Tank because of its Gun. The 90mm was to be equipped only to Heavy Tanks. The 75mm to Medium Tanks and 37mm to Light Tanks. The US Army actually had a listing of what guns would enter the three areas. By 1945, the Army had yet to find the time to adjust its system.
Well an M8 Greyhound took out a King Tiger, so there's that
""Sadly, the Battle of the Bulge rolled around. The Tiger B was a shock to American troops. Intel hadn't noticed it and the Soviets hadn't mentioned it.""
Tiger IIs were first encountered nearly half a year before the Battle of the Bulge. First by the British in Normandy around Caen in July. The Americans encountered them near Paris at the end August and then in the battles east of Aachen in November.
@skyraider87
"Well an M8 Greyhound took out a King Tiger, so there's that"
It wasn't a King Tiger. No King Tigers anywhere near St Vith. All Tiger losses in the northern sector of the Bulge are known and documented. Only 12 Tigers documented as being lost, with dates and locations.
It was likely a Panther. Panthers rear plate is only half as thick as a Tigers. Panthers were often called Tigers. Even Panzer IVs and Stugs sometimes were. There were definitely Panthers in the region the M8 incident was said to occur, but no Tigers.
Under-rated tank. The few that made it to the frontline did well securing the Rhine bridges. If it hadn't of been held up by bureaucrats the allies would have cruised into Berlin.
They did.
One was assigned to the armor unit that captured the bridge over the Rhine at Remagan. The M4's got there first and their M26 showed up 25-30 minutes later since it was too slow to keep up with them. It stayed at it's hilltop position while the M4's crossed the Rhine on pontoon bridging. It finally crossed days later after Army engineers found a motorized barge downstream to take the heavy M26 across the river. Those were the two reasons why the US Armor commanders didn't want a heavy tank thru out the war and only accepted to use 29 M26's to get Ike off the hook.
Ordnance was content developing prototypes of a heavy tank since the armor commanders didn't want one. At that time the US newspaper and radio reporters were telling horror stories of the M4's getting wasted right and left by the big German tanks which caused alarm in the general public. That caused concern with the politicians that were up for re-election in 1944 so members of Congress began to pressure General George C. Marshall, the Army and Ordnance to do something about it. Ordnance showed Marshall their T26 design who then got the Army to approve manufacturing 256 for testing. The War Department then gave out contracts to build the production plant, the tooling and production of the parts. The 256 were assembled destined for testing grounds where they could train crewmen in it's operation and mechanics that had to repair them as the bugs were worked out. Congress instead demanded those to be shipped to Europe ASAP so were without trained crews and mechanics. The US Armor commanders refused to accept any due to that and finally did to get the politicians off Ike's back. Eisenhower didn't want them shipped over either but had no say in the matter.
>underrated
Tell that to COH players. Pershing is their Big Poppa Pump and owns the battlefield, unless there is a King Tiger around.
@@billwilson3609 Your arguments will largely fall on deaf ears. Everyone thinks of tanks as "bigger must be better" and ignore the actual battlefield reports. The US didn't field a heavy tank because they didn't need to. It is really as simple as that. Heavy tanks have downsides that can quickly outweigh (pun intended) their benefits in actual combat deployment. Over and over the ordnance department tinkered with heavy tanks that failed to impress while armored force continued to plug along with the sherman. By the time of the E8 suspension and high-velocity 76mm the sherman was quite capable of going on the offense all the way to Berlin and could actually cross the railroad and engineer bridges to do it. Sure it wasn't a Tiger/Tiger II but it didn't need to be. Post war heavy tanks were largely abandoned and the main battle tank concept was adopted. In tank combat whoever shoots first typically wins and more tanks, not heavier tanks, means more shots down range when you do shoot.
Even judged in hindsight armored force did well with the shermans they had. They had a good kill rate, a good survival rate, and despite the notion of being a "death trap" the sherman crew had one of the highest survival rates of all the armored forces.
@@JD_79 How do you suppose that thinking would have changed, if at all, had the Western Allies and the Soviets decided to go ahead and completely destroy Europe after Germany's capitulation? Would the heavy tank concept have accelerated or would the Allied armies have continued on as they were and put even MORE emphasis on tactical fighter bombers? Those heavy Soviet assault tanks of the late war period, from what I can recall, seemed to have given the allies a 'come to Jesus' moment. Of course, hindsight is always 50/50 but it is a fascinating thought exercise.
On a separate note, can you place mr fletcher in a library with a chimney,, get him to sit in a confy couch, light a pipe and talk about tank history for 30 minutes as a series?
Yes, please! I'll pay good money to watch that series!
Ha! What a load of BS British propaganda. The 90mm gun was proven to be far superior to the 17 pounder. The 90mm gun was the only Allied gun that could penetrate the sloped frontal armor of the Panther and Jagdpanther. The 90mm was way more accurate and it had a much more powerful HE round than the 17 pounder. An M36 Jackson TD with a 90mm gun, was credited with a Panther kill at 4,600 yards, and another Panther kill at 4,200 yards. The 17 pounder was only reliably accurate to 500 meters.
The only allied gun....? Hmmm...
4:40 It had a Ford engine, that's why it could drive through water.
Kalum Batsch Badoom tish! :) very amusing....Ford (ford)....water crossings.....
It surprises me that he considers the German Tiger tanks to be superior to the M26. In reality, the German 88MM and the 90mm American guns were about equal in most ways of measurement. In terms of reliability, speed, workmanship, ease of maintenance and repair, crew comfort, engine and transmission design, lighter weight, range, ergonomics, more degree of slope to frontal armor, fuel and ammunition capacity and suspension, the M26 is a better tank than anything the Germans produced. I think Fletcher is just wrong in his assessment of the M26.
The Pershing was actually less reliable than the Tiger. They never fixed it's automotive issues, despite having 4 years to do so by the time of the Korean War.
Tiger was a better tank in its time than the Pershing was it its time.
Mr. Fletcher we LOVE your Tank Chats!!!! I've watched almost all of them!!!
Its a shame that some US Army generals opposed this tank's production and they came too late in Europe to counter german heavy tanks. I think it would be a fair match against Tiger I and Panthers and their service records in WWII was only 5 months than in 2+ years service in Korean War. With regards with the M3 90mm gun it was developed or derivative from an AA gun and took a while to find the right armor piercing shell to make the gun effective, but its still lacks hitting power of british 17 pounder
Not necessarily. You can watch the Cheiftan's content if you really want to get into the nitty gritty of the Pershing and why it was not fielded sooner.
Having driven Shermans and run a Pershing, I can say that just sitting in the M26 you can feel you're in a more capable tank. Less mobile, but when you can shoot at a target through a building, who cares? It really 'barks' when it starts... FUN. Also, didn't the M46 have the 'wobble stick' driver's control, rather than laterals?
So the Pershing wasn’t the best, but if most call the panther the best tank of world war 2, and the Pershing is called it’s equal, shouldn’t that say something?
Whomever left the thumb down, I'm going to find you, make you change the thumb status and then break your thumbs.
michael howell I gave you a TD. 😂
@@TheOsfania touchdowns are fine, I support those.
It sounds like those in charge of U.S. tank designs were desk jockeys and administrators. Seems to me that if you're going to be the general in charge of tank production, you should have experience in a tank...preferably battlefield experience. I'm guessing that would go a long way toward addressing concerns of tank crews.
Pershing’s tash is almost as fine as Fletchers!
Another wonderful presentation. Thank-you.
Love Fletcher... kinda down plays how good this tank was... very few saw combat so it played no real part in the outcome but it was the most advanced tank to see combat in the war on either side. Was also the best tank (with some improvements) to see combat in the Korean War... the prototype modern tank for decades... very underplayed in this video, should give it a little more credit.
Flash Jones Kinda forgetting that Centurion was about to exist around the time of WWII, and that Centurion served in Korea.
I mean, the Pershing lineage was a good one, but Centurion is definitely a great tank and probably better suited to Korea.
The M 26 was the prototype American MBT, Centurion was better developed and held the same role for the British.
Dave is totally wrong there. The Americans named the Sherman after Union general Wm. Sherman. The British didn't do that.
The British named the American lend-lease tanks after great American generals: infantry tanks were named after infantry generals, and cruiser tanks after cavalry generals. This eventually became so popular that the Americans themselves adopted the system.
The American 90mm gun started out the same way as the German 88mm gun. Both were originally intended to be AA guns. The American shell was designed with a bigger bursting charge, so it was very useful against soft targets, but as an anti-tank gun it just wasn't as good. Interesting story about the Ford V-8. It was originally Fords intention to build a V-12 with 1000hp to compete with the Packard V-12 which powered some American aircraft. But the upgraded Packard produced 1250 HP and won the contract. So, Ford reduced the number of cylinders and offered it to the Army as a V-8 tank engine with 500 hp. They even considered putting it into a re-designed Sherman but no one wanted to stop the production lines so they put it in the Pershing. I'm thinking that if they had put a turbo charger on it it might have produced 600hp. But they stuck with what they knew, and had, so they wound up with an under powered tank.
Bullettube,there was a version of the M4 Sherman that used the Ford V8,liquid cooled engine.Wikipedia has the info.I am sure that I am correct in this because I have seen an M4 with the V8 Ford,also the Tank recovery vehicle that was based on the M4,called the M74 VTR, used the Ford V8.
@@korvtm Yes, the Sherman you were referring to did use the Ford V-8. Ford was very disappointed when the Army didn't except their aero engine, but the cut down V-8 was actually a good engine. The problem as usual was logistics, supplying parts for different engines was a pain, so none of the Shermans with the new engine went to Europe, but they did try it out in the M-26 which became the Pershing. The Brits liked the Chrysler multi block engine, and later the Continental company, which made aircraft engines then and now, built an aircooled engine for tanks. A lot of people don't realize that American made diesel engines at the time were really crappy engines. The Detroit Diesel company made excellent marine diesel engines at the time and GM bought them out (with government consent along with Allison) to gain expertise in diesels and aircraft engines. Ford did the Same with International to make diesels, and no Ford doesn't make a diesel of their own, they are all International Harvester designs. The Ford diesel in some American tanks is a design from International as well.
Well I am confused, or is it someone else? Packard made a version of the R-R Merlin. Packard also made an engine which was intended as an aircraft engine but ended up powering Navy torpedo boats. Ford almost made the Merlin but backed out of the deal at Henry Ford's insistence. Ford ended up making Pratt & Whitney R2800 radials. General Motors had Alison building the excellent V1710. GM also had Cleveland Diesel (former Winton company) making locomotive diesels which were used in Navy Submarines during the war. GM took the Cleveland Diesel design and down-sized it to 71 CID from 567 CID per cylinder for trucks and other smaller applications. These engines were modular in design and designated by number of cylinders and displacement of cylinders. and built from 2 cylinder to 12 cylinder (2-71, 3-71, 4-71, 6-71, 8-71, 12-71). They were 2-stroke designs with a low pressure supercharger forcing the intake air into the cylinder through ports at the bottom of the cylinder. The 71 series was a pre-war design built by GM's Detroit Diesel Division. The M4A2 used a version of the 71 engine with 2, 6-71 engines geared together as one unit. The Soviet Union got most of these though some were used by the Marine Corps in the pacific. Ford GAA V8 engines were used in the M4A3 Sherman. The Pershing's GAF engine was not very different than this. The GAC was the V12 version at 770 HP for the T29 and T32.
Interesting that Ford had been planning the aero engine (V-1650?) as they did sign a contract to build the Merlin and then backed out of it, leaving Packard to take it over. I wonder if they thought they could produce a 'clean sheet of paper' design faster than Packard could get up to speed on their version of the Merlin? The Ford engine even had the same bore and stroke as the Merlin. The official story was that the Army Air Corp had committed to the Merlin and the Navy had decided to stick with air cooled radial power so Ford ended the project. Maybe Ford bought tooling for the Merlin engine and was looking to cut it's losses by building something else with it?
@@keithstudly6071 Ford had demonstrated to Rolls in their England factory that they could build a Merlin as well as Rolls, plus making it lighter. Rolls had a tendency to make parts thicker rather then redesign them. And Ford had become very good at making intricate castings that eliminated some machining.
If you really want to be confused try and follow the congressional committee transcripts done after the war when they looked into graft by the various contractors. Either the people recording misheard, or the congressman were just dumb! Some of the allegations turned out to be false as due to bureaucratic mistakes. But some involved outright criminal actions as contractors thought the government was in too much of a hurry not to notice things. GM, and Ford especially, came under investigation as Henry Ford had been the author of various anti-Jewish essays, and Ford and GM had both tried to maintain their factories in Germany right up to 1942. There were two competing designs for the PT boats, four designs for trucks, and the bidding to build Jeeps was full of intrigue! Allison and Packard both built the Merlin, as well as their own aero engines. Despite all the inefficiencies and misdeeds I've concluded that it was a true miracle that America built what it did!
@@bullettube9863 Really, Allison built the Merlin? I'd like to see you prove that. The V1710 Allison built was superior to the Merlin (V1650) in most ways except for high altitude power.
The Packard V12 PT boat engine started life as a design for aircraft and I am not aware of it ever making it into an airplane.
The place that is interesting is Ford as they signed a contract to build the Merlin and backed out. I've seen notes that R-R employee made about producing in the USA and his high regard for the work Ford did before Ford dropped the contract. He seemed more comfortable with their work than the Packard people who finally did the job.
What I had read and believed was that the Merlin contract was dumped at the insistence of Henry Ford over the objections of Edsel who was supposed to be running the company because Henry didn't like doing war production for England. If Ford had it's own engine in the wings that posses some other possibilities.
As a Yank you had me at 17 pounder!
McNair made tough choices. He got most of them right. A broken down maintenance nightmare with a wonder gun of the war is worse than a squad of operational M4s.
What a disappointing segment. Yes, you got many things right, but you repeated the slander of McNair. That's not what the evidence tells us.
First of all the field commanders of the 1st & 2nd Armored Divisions (the only two we had at that time) fought over the need for it. There was NO unanimity between the them on the need for the tank.
Second, the 76mm gun was perfectly adequate and many pushed the Sherman to be the upgraded tank. LIke the British did with the Firefly. McNair was a proponent of THIS strategy as it reduced logistical complexity and made supply more robust.
Third, not only were they split on the tank upgrades, the US Army was further split between the tank doctrine and the tank-destroyer doctrine.
Fourth, they were ordered in January, 1944. But production delays and design flaws and rework meant they couldn't be deployed FOR FIELD TESTING until January, 1925. That was the Zebra Technical Mission.
Most egregious though, you criminally underplayed the 90mm gun. In testing not only did it cut through the Tiger's frontal armor like a hot-knife through butter, but it went through gun breach AND the engine block and exited the rear of the vehicle and lodged the shell so deep in the berm behind the tank even though they dug nine-feet into the berm, they could never find the shell. In fact, the 90mm gun was MORE POWERFUL than the 88mm gun as it had greater penetration, 8.5 inches of 30-degree sloped armor at 1,000 yards versus just 7.5 inches of penetration of unsloped armor at 1,000 yards (and that was the 88mm Pak 43, L/71, their best 88mm gun) and was 600 feet-per-second FASTER. It was also at least as accurate, possibly more accurate.
I love how this guy talks. Just says it like it is. Way more informative then some overly formal dorknozzle.
If it wasn't for this blasted Covid lockdown, I'd go out tomorrow and call someone a 'dorknozzle'. Thank you.
Not as good as the 17 pounder but more accurate. Idk, to me if the round is delivered accurately it’s certainly more effective than one that misses entirely 🤷♂️😆
I want to see fletcher design a tank.
Too bad it wasn't ready for D-Day,it should have been ,but it got delayed too many times.
I'm surprised there was no comparison to the Centurion. Both designs of the same time, both much larger than their predecessors. But the results are fairly different.
Pershing's development is a little before Centurion, though. It started out life as a derivative of T23, which was rolling around in steel in Mid-43. Centurion was a fresh start, which was rolling a full year later. You are correct, though, in saying that as 'post-war' tanks, there is much to consider, though I suspect that Cent vs M46/47 is probably a better comparison.
The thing was slow as hell, but that 90mm gun could penetrate the front armor of a Tiger or Panther at long range. Bottom line? The Pershing stood a *much* better chance against German heavies than the Sherman. It's got thicker armor than the Sherman Firefly and it's gun is bigger.
When it comes to tank chats, I basically have a timer on hand for how long it takes for the 17 pounder the be mentioned. It's a bit like Godwin's Law, all discussions about tanks undertaken by a Brit will inevitably lead to the 17 pounder.
But he is still correct though.
@@lyndoncmp5751 in your mind, the 90 was more powerful and much more accurate
I’m not sure what he means by the Pershing being the first American tank named for one of their own.
The M3 Grant was named after General Ulysses Grant.
The M3 Stuart was named after Confederate Calvary General Jeb Stuart.
The Sherman was named after Union Calvary General William T. Sherman.
Did I misunderstand his statement?
The notion that the 17lbr was more devastating than the 90mm seems ridiculous to me. Even if we're talking solid shot for both, typically the higher diameter round causes more damage and transfers more energy, the 17lbr being an extra high velocity 75mm gun not dissimilar to the Panther's gun. Their advantage over the Pershing's 90mm is a slight increase in penetration, but the amount of damage caused by that 90mm round, especially given the extremely good American APHE round, would be more devastating than even the 88 of the tiger series with about 20% more explosive filler.
"...taking an English name like the Sherman." What? Sherman was a US Civil War general. The M36 TD was also named after a Civil War (Confederate) general: Jackson. And the M3 and M5 was the Stuart, who was yet another Civil War (Confederate) general.
I DO FIND THAT I LIKE TANK CHATS!!! I DO!!! I REALLY DO!
Holy f the pershing is bigger than I expected
You really really underrated this tank
I'd rather take the 90mm than the 17 pdr because of the difference in HE performance. It's most of what you're doing to be firing anyway.