M26 Pershing | From Concept to Combat Across Conflicts
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ก.ค. 2024
- The M26 Pershing came into production at the end of WWII, addressing the challenges of earlier US Sherman tank models. Although it missed its chance to fully counter the German Panzers in WWII, the Pershing became a formidable force in Korea, effectively facing down Russian T-series tanks. Despite its weight and width leading to the continued use of the Sherman tank, the Pershing's impact was undeniable. In this video, Associate Curator Hank Wilcox takes you through its engineering journey and highlights the technological advancements that set it apart.
- ยานยนต์และพาหนะ
I was just visiting the museum last week. Incredible! Above and beyond expectations! Nice video.
Nice work, Hank. And thanks to all the folks behind the scenes who help with scripting, production, and editing. One major factor of US WW2 tank doctrine and usage was logistics for our troops and lend lease recipients. The M4 was a modifiable jack of all trades, theaters and applications. Sacrifices (such as tank on tank capabilities) were inevitable. Would 500 Pershings have been a tactical game changing player in the Normandy Campaign, for example? I'm not sure, possibly. But given that most ammo expended by M4s was HE in support of infantry/indirect, etc., the Pershing's tank on tank improvements may have had marginal positive impact. Transition training of crews/mechanics takes time and logistical supply of new spares and tooling for field repairs may have been an obstacle. I question whether the war would have been over any sooner with significantly lower loss of American lives. Cool tank, however. Was it significantly more resistant against Panzerfausts/shrecks?
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.
Again, another great video. Thanks for hi-lighting the M26. The tank duel at Koln against the Panther helped make the Pershing legendary.
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).
Outstanding presentation
Really well done this - by jumping the development (except in summary) you avoid some seriously confusing history.
Hank the Tank strikes again with an excellent video!
It's nice to see someone got some of the stories firmed up from WWII. So many recounts are hard to understand and incomplete.
It was really just one man General Lesley NcNair Chief of Army Ground Forces that got to decide Training, Doctrine and Weapons for the US Army. He introduced the Tank Destroyer and his doctrine was only TDs would fight enemy tanks. The tank was then relegated to Reconnaissance and Infantry Support for which Sherman was adequate. Several tanks M-6, T-14, T-20 to 25 were all rejected. However McNair was killed in Normandy July 44 by a US bomb. His replacement, the more practical General Ben Lear, fast tracked the production of the M-26 but only a few made it into combat.
A little-known 1951 movie titled "The Tanks are Coming" presented a story about the arrival of the Pershing in the ETO. It was filmed at fort Knox, KY. My dad played a part in it. He was assigned to post ordnance and restored the 88 mm gun from the Patton Museum there and served the piece in the ambush scene shot at Otter creek on post.
Thank you, Mr Stark, for identifying the m 26 as the tank my father was photographed in front of in Korea when I visited last week. Awesome museum content wait to see you all again.
Very interesting. I've heard very little about this tank's role in WWII. Thanks!
Great overview. Informative and entertaining. Thank you
Excellent and informative video. Your narration also gave me a better understanding of the underlying development and production complications. Of course it is easier to judge in hindsight, but it seems to me that, at the time, the disputes were genuine technical and doctrinal concerns, not petty personality conflicts.
If I remember correctly the M26 called "Fireball" after it was damaged, it was repaired with 90mm gun from M36, because they didn't brought any spare 90mm gun.
I love Tank Hank! Thank you to all involved for making such great and engaging content!
love the incredibles reference with the opening
Great video. Would love to see an in-depth video on all the Pershing variants.
Great presentation and OUTSTANDING presenter!!
I would call it a very good tank, that never properly employed.
outstanding.
I think hank should consider sporting a huge handle bar mustache.
Other than that excellent presentation.
Great video, very informative.
Great video and nice info, I really like the part about shooting german helmets for 625 yards, never heard this before. Please add little tidbits like this to new videos
Love these videos! More please! 👍
Great video, this series nicely complements the Chieftain's and the Bovington Tank Museum's talks, and has some interesting details new to me.
For a great account of fighting in the Pershing (and Sherman) read the biography of Clarence Smoyers, the 'Hero of Cologne' "Spearhead : an American tank gunner, his enemy, and a collision of lives in World War II" by Makos, Adam. Clarence died a couple of years ago, the last surviver of the 3rd Armoured Division aka 'Spearhead'.
A misunderstanding in the use of tank destroyers by AGF. Tank destroyers per field manuals did not chase or persew enemy units and were defensive units only. Per us army doctrine tank destroyers were held in reserve for enemy armored breakthroughs and were not to be used in the assault.
The reason for the t 20's series was as replacement for the sherman but none of the those were deemed acceptable and a backup design using a t 23 current on a m 4 sherman hull with the 76 mm gun was accepted as the new medium tank.
The pershing came from the t 23 program as an order to upgun and up armor a t23 thus the many variants until they decided on the pershing design
This is a fantastic and concise video. Only viewer question: Why focus so hard on action in Europe, 45, when the Korean campaign exploits was the highlight of the type? It was The Tiger of that war - slow, devastating, small in number.
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.
I’m still surprised to this day that they didn’t make many,many more of the M36B1, which is basically a Sherman with the 90 mm gun turret. It would have retained the good qualities and familiarity of the Sherman with the much greater hitting power of the 90. They could have also welded on some spaced armour here and there to deal with panzer fausts. I’m also still surprised that they didn’t have the foresight of the need for more powerful engines of 650-700 horsepower range.
New to channel, good details & history. Good historical videos. Subscribed 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Welcome aboard!
Good video
I'm amazed you didn't talk about the tank duel at the Cologne Cathedral
I'd have to guess the transmission was at the rear to balance out the weight of the tank. If they didn't they'd get uneven wear on the suspension.
Problem: The Chieftain said that wasn't the case and that all tanks were expected to deal with tanks even doctrinally.
Great vid.
Lots of little nit pick info in this.
Thanks folks!
😎👍
They should making M46 out of T26E5 instead of T26E3 chassis
Kind of a sidetrack (pun)
But why did the US insist on facing the chevrons on their tracks in a downward direction?
This displaces mud and allows the vehicle to sink, whereas if they were facing upward, they would create extra flotation, while still providing traction.
Seems odd, but I am far from genius.
Personally, I preferred the Pershing variants armed with 105 and 120 mm main guns
Which are those?
The 90 and the 85 are not different enough to claim advantage. The pershings armor was the advantage
Just goes to show that those in charge have no idea how war is fought. If you're in a tank you will eventually run across another tank that is shooting at you.
Well done, especially since the trend the last 5 years has been for the Gen McNair apologists to appear and make their weak cases. It's no coincidence that these apologists have come out of the woodwork just as the WW2 tankers, who could and would take issue with their arguments, have mostly died off.
I got this in my feed, and first when watching a millennial presenting, I thought this would be utter 💩. But this boy really knows his stuff. Yeah, some small deviations on the way, but he did a fricking great job! You got a new subscriber!
Glad we were able to subvert your exceptions! Thank you for subscribing
A Pershing was knocked out by a Nashorn
Honey?
Yes?
Where is my Tiger buster?
What?
I said, WHERE is my TIGER buster?
I uh, put it away.
WHERE!
Why do you need to know?
II NEED IT. Wait never mind all the Tigers are gone.
Pershing v Tiger was a draw with 1 knock out each.
The T26 should never have seen battle. Too unreliable. That said, it was the future, with the kinks worked out in the M47 and M48.
It was good enough for the time. When you try to get everything in the 1950‘s you are gonna make mistakes
If history was different if there wasn't a bunch of Bumbling idiots horse ass around the purposing could have been deployed on D day it would have given the allies significant firepower and protection Advantage compared to the Sherman's..
You should have just bought Centurions.
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