@@dapperfield595 Don’t think so. Shermans knocked out roughly twice as many T34’s as the Pershings but Sherman’s ratio was a little better than 2:1. Pershing’s knocked out fewer total but ratio was better than 6:1. The Shermans were the M4A3E8 variant and their high velocity 76 mm gun was more than a match for the T34’s they were facing.
the M26 is my favorite tank because of how generic it is. it doesn't get a lot of love, but it was a milestone in American tank development. and a amazing looking machine too.
Somehow the M46 and M47 also doesnt get much love. This is probably because of the same status as "improvement" but not the ultimate form of the America's first MBT. Or maybe because they dont see much action unlike the M48 and M4 Sherman.
I think the same goes for the early pz4 varients. While most people are familiar with tiger panther and maybe the later pz4, most people overlook the early models of the pz4 or see it just as a lead way to a superior vehicle in terms of firepower and armor. And 8 think almost all Japanese tanks get way too little love these days. Because of this I open a charity organization by the name of :love for lost tanks or short "lolts". Sign in now and show your love for a unloved tank of your choosing. Tanks like the Japanese Ta-Se and Ka-Chi, Italien m11 and German panzer 1 Ausf. F need you and your love. Help a tank. Help your soul
@@guppiapfeljustleopardthing8756 Thr M26 is better armored, better gunned but doesn't create a mythical reputation as the Sherman. There are reasons that it doesnt, in my opinion it's because it doesnt have extemsive combat record like the Sherman. Same goes to the Centurion. We all know the subsequent mods in the post war years, but the Mk.1 is severely underrated.
People can over perform in Ground RB City maps with Pershing if they are decent player because everyone isn't afraid of it. So many times you will see Tiger II stupidly turn the corner to come at you, showing their sides. Oddly enough the most famous WW2 tank clip was the duel between Pershing and Panther in Cologne. With the death of Panther crew caught on film.
I remember when ground forces launched, and the Pershing was the first tank me and my roommate blitzed towards. It was, and still is one of my favorite tanks in the game, even if it's not the best anymore
The M26E1 was the first premium I ever got, when it’s filler round was a shade over 200mm pen, way before its rounds got buffed. I still love that tank, the gun hits so hard
@@apersondoingthings5689 The only Abrams casualties were 9, and even then, they were either due to a malfunction that couldn't be fixed so they ditched and destroyed the tank, or just by friendly fire
John Pershing got a raw deal. They renamed his namesake tank after he died in 1948. M46 should still have been named Pershing, it only had some parts changes. Arguably M47 as well.
In technicality, the modifications/Solutions to fix the M26 were so numerous, the tank apparently deserved a new designation, despite the very similar aesthetics, they named it Patton after the late General George S. Patton whom famously commanded the US 3rd Army in Europe, this tank would be designated M46
@@Cobra-King3 To add to the irony, because of their fuel consumption and greater weight, in fact Patton was opposed to tanks larger then the Sherman's and rejected using the larger Pershing's in his army.
@@Cobra-King3 The U.S. Marines proved him wrong in Korea in 1950. MacArthur used a battalion of U.S.M.C. driven M26's in his invasion at Inchon and counter-attack that devastated Chinese T-34's that had previously over-ran U.S. Army Sherman's. Their main challenge at first was the 90mm AP's tended to go completely THROUGH the Chinese made T-34's (killing crew members, taking out engine blocks, etc.) before they detonated, so they had a hard time determining their hits at first. They fixed the problem by breaking back to HE rounds which were more then adequate for the enemy tanks. The M26's main problem in WW2 was the stupid way the Army "thinkers" deployed them, "sprinkling" them around here and there instead of keeping them together as the Germans did their types, essentially "unequally yoking" them with Sherman's etc.
The M26 saved the day despite its myriad of problems. At the Battle of the "bowling alley" north of Daegu in August of 1950, two lone Perishing's prevented nK armor from piercing the Busan perimeter and running amok thru Daegu to Busan.
Great video! The fully improved Pershing turned out to be the M46 Patton. I liked your comment about being "able to appreciate it aesthetically"; definitely one of the best looking tanks ever built!
The ultimate form of the original M25l6 Pershing for me is the M47. They improved the hull armor and turret. The M48 is a next step development but it doesnt resemble the the M26 in any way.
"And at just barely 12 hp/t, the Pershing was very underpowered." The Sherman had 11 hp/t so the Pershing was by no means underpowered for that period of time. Pz4 and 3 have quite similar hp/t as well so in my opinion it is average. Not good but not bad either.
I think it’s more due to the fact that the Pershing was supposed to be an improvement to the M4 and the crews in reality got less mobility for a better gun and slight improvement to armour (although not enough to put the crews at ease against any of the big cats so from what I’ve heard the crews weren’t that impressed by the armour) Also what sherman are you talking about specifically the Sherman’s went from about 10.5hp/t - 15.8hp/t depending on variant so in some cases yes it was a downgrade. Although I think the 10.5hp/t was for the jumbo which was also considered pretty bad in terms of mobility.
@@cynicalfox190 Well to be perfectly fair the improvement to armor was anything but slight. The standard M4A3 Sherman had about 63.5mm or 2.5in thick armor angled at 47 degrees from vertical on the frontal glacis for an effective thickness of about 93.1mm or about 3.7in of frontal armor. Meanwhile the M26 had a frontal glacis 101.6mm or 4in thick angled at 46 degrees from vertical for an effective frontal protection of 146.26mm or 5.76in of frontal protection. This was a substantial increase in protection for the crews. This by no means made the tank invincible but the margin of resistance to basically every gun the Germans could field went up considerably. The crews were largely dissatisfied with the armor of the Pershing because they were expecting after such a long delay that they'd be getting something that'd bounce every German shell the way the "Big Cats" were bouncing the standard short barrel 75mm gun of the less fortunate Shermans that weren't equipped with the Long 76 and that simply wasn't what they got. They received a tough nut to crack but a completely crackable (that's not a word but go with it) one at that. The largely positive yet still dissatisfied view of the Pershing by it's crews could be summed up rather simply as the Pershing wasn't what they were hoping for. It's armor was tough but far from immune to the biggest German guns (The M26 known as Fireball's less than fortunate run in with Tiger 201 during the night at close range in Dessau proved as much, Fireball was hit by three shells after it was left illuminated by the Sherman behind it was destroyed by 201 perfectly illuminating Fireball for 201. One shell penetrated the turret through the coaxial machine gun port which while an incredibly lucky shot was still a fatal one and the two following shells bounced but still gouged massive gashes in the front hull), it was both less mobile and reliable than the M4A3s they were used to, and the gun initially struggled to deal with the tanks it was made to counter until the advent of the improved T33 Armor Piercing shell. By the time the M26s received the rather legendary HVAP APCR shell for their guns the T33 AP shell was already doing perfectly fine work against everything it was designed to so it was...well a bit pointless really. There comes a point where having more armor penetration really doesn't matter especially considering how expensive and rare these shells were. It's speculated that at any time any American Tank, meaning both 76 armed Shermans and the M26s, in Europe may only have had 3-5 of these shells onboard at any time as Tank Destroyers like the M18 were given first priority when it came to supplying these more powerful shells.
i mean, even the Abrams is fairly comparable to a Pershing in component locations. its just that everything in the Abrams is vastly superior, more compact, and more dakka.
I love the fact that you properly respected the growth process of American tanks industry so you didn’t straight up call it junk but instead gave it the credit and the recognition it deserved.
@@AHappyCub Except they were not actually very slow, which is the thing. The Rolls Royce Meteor was a very, very good tank engine. Good horsepower, excellent torque, it was at least a match for any tank engine in the world at the time, and was objectively better than the piece of shit that went into the Panther, Tiger and Tiger II, which all used the same engine, and as French records showed brand new Panthers literally suffered engine fires, regularly.... In Korea Centurions could also go places where pretty much no other tanks could go, because of that outrageous torque. Mobility on the battlefield is not always about top speed, its often about getting to places fast enough and if you can get to places fast enough where the enemy (or your friends) cannot go that's a fairly significant advantage.....
@@destroyerarmor2846 Well it did for a while, then they nerfed M82 and APCR which made the tank irrelevant, and now it's good again with M82 being brought back up to snuff.
the mediocrity of the pershing is the reason why I came to love it in war thunder. it's a tank that if you're doing well in it you know it's not because you're being carried by the tank.
I think the main criticisms of the Pershing overall is the poor mobility, lack of a stabilizer, and how vertical the frontal armor is. (Consider the T-44 was already being built)
The frontal armor on Pershing sloped. The T-44 carried the same gun as the T-34/85. It's armor was a little better shaped. Not enough heavier to stand up to tanks like Tiger or Panther. Or Pershing or Centurion. Essentially it wouldn't have been any more of a match for the Pershing than the T-34. Which is why, along with it's teething troubles, the Russians didn't bother to issue it for combat, and immediately set about improving it into what eventually became the T-54.
@@bradcampbell7253 Very few tanks had diesel engines in World War II. And none had engines like you say T26E3 "should have had from the beginning". Those were Cold War creations. What you suggest is like saying the P-51 fell short because it should have had a jet engine. The tech for that wasn't there in the early to mid 40's any more than the tech to make 800 to 1,000 hp turbo diesels was. That came much later post war.
To elaborate on the Pershing being a "learning experience..." it was a critical stepping stone on the way to the MBT. Its lineage continued to the M46 / M47, and after even more extensive redesigns, the M48 / M60.
Pershing had 6.3 to 1 kill ratio in Korea vs T34/85’s. Sherman kill ratio was a bit over 2:1. I think I would rather have ridden around in a Pershing at that time.
@@Tonyx.yt. well yes but he is comparing Pershing to a T-34 (85mm) its a little bit unfair isnt it? Better armor. Better gun, optics, more survivable. And not really slow for a medium/heavy tank. Its like getting a fight between Tiger 1H and T-34 (76mm 1940) it sure did happen but a little unfair in every aspect. And T-34 85mm could pierce M4 armor but only with some kind of ammunition. Not all of them could
correction, the sherman was preferred in korea by, often the same unit queried before and after, that expected to face north korean or chinese tank units. while there were T34-85's zooming around, they generally preferred to have a pershing. But once the enemy tanks started running dry, those same units that preferred the pershing would then prefer the sherman for its various better mobility and ease of use chracteristics. Source i'm reading from is steven zaloga.
I really do appreciate the Pershing aesthetically. The Rear-mounted engine and transmission sinks the profile down considerably from the mountain of the Sherman, the turret looks a lot beefier than the Sherman, the and the frontal armor isn't just a flat sheet anymore like some Sherman variants. I still probably prefer the later Shermans, especially the M4A3E8, but this was the first in a long line of similar looking vehicles that really changed how tanks were designed in America.
Most tanks in this game probably don't have the proper penetration values. The 85 mm cannon found on the T34s can apparently penetrate the jumbos front plate better than tigers. This game is no where near being realistic sadly.
almost all the apcr rounds are preforming poorly and nothing like the irl data says. it effects the USSR and USA TT the most since their top ap shell is a wet noodle.
The Pershing will always be my favourite tank because of the RTS game Ruse. It left such a staggering impression on me during the first mission of the campaign.
The Pershing is one of those tanks that makes you go "Yeah, that's a tank." It's alright, not really spectacular, not horrible, so it gets washed away over time.
Well since we got a calculator for penetration instead of historical data a lot of rounds have been screwed up. I get that it’s required for some of the more modern vehicles as test reports aren’t public but for vehicles where test reports are public information they should really use the IRL values for penetration.
Honestly the U.S. should have done the T23 thing and mass produced the M4A3E10 (Sherman with M26 pershing turret). They tryed it and it worked as the sherman and pershing have the same turret ring size.Just like on the M47, on the Pershing the turret was fine but it was the hull (more specificaly the engine and transmission) which caused problems. So just ploping the turret into the sherman hull would have meant that U.S. troops would have had a 90mm armed medium tank at the front line way earlyer. Also I highly suspect the M4A3E10 to be added as a premium, battlepass or event vehicle into war thunder soon.
The Pershing was the foundation for the M46, M47, M48 and M60 Patton series of tanks. In this regard the Pershing’s legacy is much longer running than any other WWII tank design. I would argue that the M26 Pershing is the first, if flawed, American Main Battle Tank. No German tank design had as much post-WWII influence on actual successful designs than Pershing did.
Pershing was giving same firepower and armor protection as Tiger but with better mobility and less weight (and not as crampy as Soviet counterparts mainly IS family [which in turn are perfect example of polishing design from earlier KV's]). One of my favourite design. Fav is of course T27/M27.
Actually decently superior firepower and objectively superior armor protection than the Tiger. However I get what you're trying to say but for information sake and for direct comparison: 1. Penetration Standard Ammunition: -M26 Pershing, T33 (APC): 193mm at 500m, 178mm at 1000m, 164mm at 1500m, 150mm at 2000m, 139mm at 2500m, 128mm at 3000m -Tiger 1, PzGr.39 (APCBC): 151mm at 500m, 138mm at 1000m, 126mm at 1500m, 116mm at 2000m, 106mm at 2500m, 97mm at 3000m 2. Penetration Specialty Ammunition: -M26 Pershing, T30E16 (APCR): 278mm at 500m, 246mm at 1000m, 218mm at 1500m, 193mm at 2000m, 171mm at 2500m, 151mm at 3000m -Tiger 1, PzGr.40 (APCR): 200mm at 500m, 179mm at 1000m, 160mm at 1500m, 143mm at 2000m, 128mm at 2500m, 115mm at 3000m 3. Frontal Hull Armor: -M26 Pershing: 102mm sloped at 44 degrees for 147mm effective thickness -Tiger 1: 104mm flat. 4. Frontal Turret Armor: -M26 Pershing: 102mm mantlet layered over a 114mm turret face and an 89mm internal spall shield for a total effective thickness of 305mm -Tiger 1: 120-200mm mantlet layered over a 100mm turret face for a total effective thickness of 220-300mm
What you may not have known is the M26 had the same engine as the M4A3, an engine designed for a tank that was 10 tons lighter than the Pershing. AGF was playing internal politics that delayed testing and production. This drawback wasn't addressed until the Korean War broke out and by that time the M46 was being put into the field which had all the corrections plaguing the Pershing.
@@LordOfChaos.x Not really. People will say it was "fixed" because it's ready rates were on par with the Panzer IV, but then forget to mention that the Panzer IV at that time was _also_ plagued by massive reliability issues due to all the extra weight slapped on it.
@@F14thunderhawk That's an Main Battle Tank not a Heavy Tank. They're two very different things. Heavy Tanks are extinct in modern warfare because they're simply not practical anymore.
So did the power-pack upgrade rectify most of the issues (aka the underpowered engine) or were there still unresolved issues? Either way great vid as always.
The engine issue was eventually solved in the M46 Patton. The M46 has better engine and better transmission. But if i remember, they are not immune to problems although not as serious as before.
@@darnit1944 Sorry for not answering this right away, but yeah I was referencing the M46 'power-pack' aka overhaul to buff up the M26's engine power. Thank you though!
The Pershing had thicker armor than the original 17pdr armed Centurion on the glacis and sides. Gun shield was only 1/2" thinner. Gun was just as powerful, but fired a better HE round than 17pdr. It also weighed less than Centurion and Panther, much less than Tiger I. Mobility was slightly down compared to the Sherman that was ten tons lighter with the same engine, but better than Axis tanks with similar armor and firepower. The Centurion had 100 more hp, but weighed 9 tons more. Army personnel that used T26E3 in ETO in 1945 and Marine units that fought with it in Korea all found Pershing to have adequate reliability, good mobility (better than Sherman on soft ground), good armor and excellent firepower. The Pershing could fight any late war German tank on equal or better terms, with the exception of Tiger II, which was in a whole other size and weight class and not nearly as mobile or reliable. It was more powerful and effective than the Sherman's it fought with and the T-34/85's it fought against in Korea. It didn't compare badly with the Centurion's it fought alongside in Korea, which is noteworthy since the first gen Pershing was fighting alongside the third gen Centurion. The Pershing, like Tiger I, could have dealt adequately with Chinese IS-2's, had they ever actually fielded them. The Pershing a poor tank? To whom? To those that don't know what they are talking about.
I just remember reading Adam Makos' 'Spearhead,' and how the crew described that every time the 90mm gun would fire, it would stun you for a few seconds due to the noise and kick. And then it would shoot fumes and smoke everywhere that you would have to choke on for a few seconds as well. It's decent enough in War Thunder if being operated by the right tanker - aka not me.
I can’t tell you how many hours I’ve spent reading about the M26 in Korea and I’ve never read anything abnormally bad about it. The Pershing’s in Korea (at least the original batch) were found in a warehouse in Japan, so it’s not like they were in tip top shape. But they were serviceable and most importantly they were more than a match for the T34 which the troops were having a hard time dealing with. So in the minimum they were superior to the T34s. All I’ve read is that they were better than the German tanks at the end of the war in the few engagements they had before the whole thing was over. The M26 was brand new at the very end of the war so it had wrinkles that need ironing out in the field, as opposed to the M4 which had all its wrinkles worked out in the field over years of use. To say that the M26 was inferior in anyway to the M4 is silly. The M26 was a direct result of the shortcomings of the M4 and the lessons learned from the M4 in combat. It was a very good tank for its time.
@TheBizziniss - Re: "To say that the M26 was inferior in anyway to the M4 is silly. The M26 was a direct result of the shortcomings of the M4 and the lessons learned from the M4 in combat. It was a very good tank for its time." Well-constructed arguments, well-made. The proof of your statements is easy to find in the near-ecstatic reception the new T-26 (M-26) tanks got when the Zebra Mission arrived in the ETO in early spring 1945. Adam Mako's wonderful book, "Spearhead" details the experience of one such crew. Corporal Clarence Smoyer, the gunner on that M-26, later wrote his memoirs. Which included the full story of the now-famous one-on-one confrontation between the M-26 and a German Panther in the Cologne Square near the cathedral in spring 1945. Smoyer recounts how Staff Sergeant Bob Early, the tank CO, and the crew were part of a live-fire demonstration for the brass, and how Smoyer was able to successfully engage(target) and destroy a white-brick chimney still standing by a ruined house about 1.5 miles away. It was done as something of a bet, if memory serves and the crowd cheered when he scored a first-round hit. That sort of long-range fire power had heretofore been mostly done by the Germans, and now the Americans had a tank which could do it as well. To place that shot into perspective, even today in the 21st century, that is one heck of a long poke for a tank gunner - and good marksmanship indeed to score on the first or cold-bore shot. The M-26 was an excellent design; it just suffered from the sort of bugs and problems which almost always plague complex new mechanical devices/weapons - especially when they are rushed into the field.
Not only that, but the M4 did fine in most tank engagements since they were rarely a slugging match a anyways. If you're attacking a tank from the side as you usually did, it didn't really matter if you had a 76mm or a 90mm. You were going to go through in all but the most extreme circumstances.
@@Chopstorm. yes, m4s get a bad rep bc German tanks were on the defensive which automatically gives you a higher ratio of tank kills since most German tanks were dug in. Most Sherman’s could also out maneuver German tanks if given the chance
Something that amazes me is that they JUST got this brand new all-purpose, modern design into service....and immediately go to replace it before it has really seen heavy service yet.
To coin a phrase, "It is how a rich country fights wars...." That was something a lot of German POWs said about us during the Second World War and after, but it applies here, too. Bear in mind that in 1945, U.S. industrial output was one-half of the entire world total! It had downshifted somewhat by 1950 and also transitioned to making peacetime goods, too, but still the capacity was impressive.
The Pershing wasn't a bad tank at all. It had the best fighting characteristics of any tank actually fielded by the Western Allies and stomped all over the T-34 in Korea. In armor and gunpower its ranking vs German tanks was Tiger I < Panther < Pershing < Tiger II.
@@petraral8868 Depends on the ammunition used. The Panther had a needle gun, whereas the Pershing and Tiger I cannons had more explosive potential. The Pershing was also better armored than either tank.
@@petraral8868 The 90mm gun was much stronger than the Panthers. It produced 4MJ of energy. The KwK 42 produced 3MJ, the KwK 43 5MJ. Of course ammunition plays a role as well but the 90mm had more potential.
@@thatguyfrommars3732 The Panther had better frontal armor and the Tiger had better side and turret armor compared with the Pershing , but that does not matter because the majority of the differences in their armor are around 10-20MM of armor according to wikepedia
@@petraral8868 The Panther had weaker frontal armor than the Pershing. The Panther had 80mm at 55 degrees (139.5mm) and the Tiger had 100mm basically vertical. The Pershing's front glacis was 102mm at 46 degrees (147mm). The Panther's lower front glacis was 60mm at 55 degrees (104.5mm) while the Pershing's was 76mm at 53 degrees (126mm). And bear in mind the Pershing was 3 tonnes lighter! In turret armor the Pershing had a 114.3mm curved mantlet, and where it overlapped the turret the armor behind it was 102mm, with both plates rounded in shape. The Tiger had a flat gun mantlet of uneven thickness (90mm to 200mm for the gun sleeve - but this was a tiny portion of the area) with 100mm turret armor. Both are essentially unangled. So the Pershing had thicker armor on both the hull and turret.
i feel like the hellcat was the best tank. imo speed/maneuverability and firepower are the 2 biggest advantages with little things like stabilized gun, good optics, and ease of use.
Late winter 1944-1945. A friend(squad leader) was out on a patrol just into Germany. As they headed back, they spotted 3 tanks on a hill overlooking their route. They did not recognize the tanks but, the muzzle breaks look German. So, they hid in the town for three days before the tanks moved on. They found a large amount of champagne and enjoyed those 3 days. He found out when they got back that the tanks were the new American tanks. I knew plenty of Sherman tank crewmen but I don't recall any Pershing crew men.
@ Richard Ross: The initial few - twenty or so - M-26 Pershings to make it to the ETO as part of the "Zebra Mission," as it was called, in January 1945 went to the 3rd Armored Division and the 9th Armored Division. Most famously, they participated in the Battle of Cologne and also the capture of the Remagen Bridge. So it stands to reason that relatively few GIs got the chance to see them - let alone see them in action. The book "Spearhead" by Adam Makos, based upon the recollections of former M-26 gunner Clarence Smoyer, is a great read, if the history of armored warfare in the ETO interests you. Smoyer was alive as of February 2021 at age 97.... wow! Last man alive of the guys he served with during the war. Makos did a terrific job on the book; it is really worth the price of admission.
@@GeorgiaBoy1961 Thanks. I grew up in the 1950s and 1960s and was lucky enough to have many vets share stories. My Father, FIL, and 7 Uncles served in WWII. I was an Army Engineer Officer for 27 years. Learning the lessons from the past helped to face the future challenges. Read the book just published after the war, The Damned Engineers. A thrilling and true adventure about construction workers stopping Panzer Group Piper. Good Luck, Rick
The one other useful thing the Pershing was good at was leading tank columns as it had strong enough armor to take a hit from German tanks which would usually fire at the lead tank first and the Pershing could keep fighting in spite of getting hit.
Every tank has flaws, but if the Pershing was bad, then every other tank was terrible, because it was better than most. It was far more reliable than anything it faced, who regularly took themselves out if the Pershing didn't.
The Pershing was fine by the standards and technology of its day. It was designed to fight the Tiger and other heavy German tanks and, in this, it was capable. But it suffered some of the same problems its German counterparts did in being too heavy and underpowered. That was just par for the course during World War II. It was a solid design that just wasn't quite perfected yet.
The M26 Pershing simply came too late to be a factor in WWII...not unlike the famed King Tiger tank it could supposedly take on. I'd like to see more about the special "Super Pershing" with added frontal armor and the lengthened 90mm (73 calibers) gun which was rated as equal to the KwK 43 88mm on the KT and several other mounts. In Korea, the M26s operational record was somewhat disappointing, but this is hardly a surprise. First off, it's initial deployment was in August and September of 1950, to defend the Pusan perimeter. Overheating problems with the engine and drivetrain that hardly had a chance to show up in March of '45 in Germany were evident in the heat of the Korean summer. Plus, with those Ford GAF engines, while their 500 hp was adequate for the M4A3E8 ("Easy Eight") Shermans, it was patently inadequate for a tank nearly ten tons heavier. Henceforth, most of the losses of Pershings in Korea were due to operational issues like breakdowns or getting stuck, rather than enemy fire...again, much like the German Tigers. Certainly their 90mm guns out-ranged the D5T 85mm guns on the DPRK T-34s, and the gunnery of the US tankers was noticeably better, but the hilly terrain made long-distance engagement which favored the Pershing not always possible. The M46 "Patton", which was essentially the M26 with a new, more powerful engine and drivetrain, solved some of tank's mobility issues, but it gulped even more gasoline. Also, by the time it appeared in numbers, mid-1951, the front lines, after see-sawing up and down the Korean peninsula, had stabilized fairly much along the 38th Parallel where the war had begun. They ended up being used more as self-propelled artillery rather than as tanks, as likely, with the DPRK having lost just about all its initial stock of armor, and Mao Zedong unwilling to let the PLA commit its armor, the Pershings, Pattons, and Shermans were fairly much out of their original job, which they'd done quite well. DPRK and PLA tank losses in Korea were terribly lopsided, though that can be attributed far more to deficiencies in doctrine, logistics, training, and leadership, and seldom having relief from UN air superiority, more than any technical reasons. I suspect that had a Soviet Guards armored division been deployed to Korea, with officers and senior enlisted with "Great Patriotic War' experience, they'd have fared better.
I really like these style videos. How about a video critiquing the chieftain? It was also quite the controversial tank. How about the French autoloaders? They’re so unique and it always confused me. And one other idea, how about the addition of the polsten cannon in the centurion 1 and later AMX 30?
Polsten Cannon on an AMX 30 ??? The 20F2 in the AMX 30 was created as a french 20mm that could use the HS820-type ammo which was becoming standard in Europe. Nothing Polsten. However France did mount the earlier 20mm Oerlikons (which is what the Polsten is based on) on Citroen trucks as AA defence in 1940.
A lack of design knowledge didn’t cause the M4’s height issue. The US didn’t have a suitable engine when the M3/M4 began their designs, so they used the R975 radial aircraft engine. The power-shaft coming off so high off of that engine made the entire tank taller. The Ford GAA V8 engine wasn’t ready until June 1943. The Pershing could be built around the GAA engine because it was the state of the art at that time. Early versions of the engine were available for testing in 1942 which is partially why they had so many problems with it. Incidentally the GAA is the largest displacement production gasoline V8 in history, a true beast but a bit of a dead end.
Wow, the Pershing pretty much was to the Sherman, what the KV and IS tanks were to the T-34. Some of the Soviet heavy tanks were damn near invincible. Even the vaunted "88" could only pierce their rear armor. But Stalin's metal monsters were slow, and there weren't very many of them.
So nice of you to skip over it's one bright spot, career wise, Korea. With some gibberish about the Easy Eight instead. If we didn't have the Pershing at Busan, we never have had a South Korea after.
This is why all those fan boys wishing the Pershing was introduced during ww2 was wrong: it would have taken time to debug which would be a problem since it needs to be shippes from the US.
Introducing it sooner would have given the technical people more to sort out the bugs which always accompany new gear and equipment into the field, especially during wartime. Where that sort of thing is concerned, more time is better than less. It isn't always a straight-forward process to sort those kinds of technical issues out. It can take time, money and effort.
The best thing about the Pershing is that it had no significant problems dealing with the NK T34 85s. In fact my un c le who was in Korea e a mentioned that it shot them go pieces.
@ Joseph Freeman: The North Koreans had encountered in the early days of the war, little in the way of U.S. armor (South Korea had no armored force in 1950, because the Truman administration would not equip them with tanks), and then only M-24 Chaffee medium tanks which proved to be no match for the T-34/85s. Moreover, existing AT weapons were 2.3" WWII-era bazookas, some recoilless rifles and some howitzers pressed into service against armor. So the T34s ran wild in the beginning. However, the tide began to turn when 3.5" Super Bazookas arrived as these were good medicine against the NK tanks, and things really looked up when the M4A3E8 Shermans and M-26 Pershings began to arrive. Although it was possible for a T34-85 to destroy an M-26, the contest was an uneven one and the American tanks almost always got the better of the communist ones. The M-26 was as-good or better of a tank, and our crews were much better trained and many had previous combat experience together in WWII.
When anyone hears “American tanks” they often think of the M1 or the Sherman but usually I do think of em but I also think of the M26, M46, M47, M48, And the M60 cuz those tanks were also pretty good I really think a lot of American tanks are underrated
If the Super Pershing was so great, why is there no Ultra Pershing?
Or giga Pershing
Where's the Sigma Pershing
What about the Ligma Pershing?
omega Pershing
@@johnbean2596 what’s lig-
IRL: "US Army tankers preferred late Model Sherman M4s"
Gaijin: "So you're telling me Pershing should be 7.0 and face Leopard 1s and T-54s"
Don't forget to increase the repair cost!!!
M 26 had better kill ratio in Korea as I recall.
@@Chiller01 tank kills, I assume the Sherman was favored for infantry support.
@@dapperfield595 Don’t think so. Shermans knocked out roughly twice as many T34’s as the Pershings but Sherman’s ratio was a little better than 2:1. Pershing’s knocked out fewer total but ratio was better than 6:1. The Shermans were the M4A3E8 variant and their high velocity 76 mm gun was more than a match for the T34’s they were facing.
@@Chiller01 huh dont really know much about Korean War, should read about that.
The Pershing was one of the things that kept my grandpa alive at Chosin so to me it's the best tank the US ever built
Awesome dude, you got anymore stories of your grandpa?
My grandfather (USMC) notoriously hated all tanks in Korea because they were either firing at you or would attract fire to you
@@dodes2698 That's what happens if your tank is made of metal
@@wowarmy8154 Look up the battle of the Bowling Alley in 1950 just north of Daegu. The M26 while it had huge problems it was able to match the T34.
More than a match both in armor and gun.
the M26 is my favorite tank because of how generic it is. it doesn't get a lot of love, but it was a milestone in American tank development. and a amazing looking machine too.
Somehow the M46 and M47 also doesnt get much love. This is probably because of the same status as "improvement" but not the ultimate form of the America's first MBT.
Or maybe because they dont see much action unlike the M48 and M4 Sherman.
I think the same goes for the early pz4 varients.
While most people are familiar with tiger panther and maybe the later pz4, most people overlook the early models of the pz4 or see it just as a lead way to a superior vehicle in terms of firepower and armor.
And 8 think almost all Japanese tanks get way too little love these days.
Because of this I open a charity organization by the name of :love for lost tanks or short "lolts".
Sign in now and show your love for a unloved tank of your choosing.
Tanks like the Japanese Ta-Se and Ka-Chi, Italien m11 and German panzer 1 Ausf. F need you and your love.
Help a tank. Help your soul
@@guppiapfeljustleopardthing8756 Thr M26 is better armored, better gunned but doesn't create a mythical reputation as the Sherman. There are reasons that it doesnt, in my opinion it's because it doesnt have extemsive combat record like the Sherman.
Same goes to the Centurion. We all know the subsequent mods in the post war years, but the Mk.1 is severely underrated.
@@darnit1944 basically what I wrote just with American and British vehicles instead of the examples I took.
People can over perform in Ground RB City maps with Pershing if they are decent player because everyone isn't afraid of it. So many times you will see Tiger II stupidly turn the corner to come at you, showing their sides. Oddly enough the most famous WW2 tank clip was the duel between Pershing and Panther in Cologne. With the death of Panther crew caught on film.
I remember when ground forces launched, and the Pershing was the first tank me and my roommate blitzed towards. It was, and still is one of my favorite tanks in the game, even if it's not the best anymore
i remember when ground forces launched i was sliding around in t-26 on karelia i miss those days
oh, it is so far from the best it's almost unplayable
The M26E1 was the first premium I ever got, when it’s filler round was a shade over 200mm pen, way before its rounds got buffed. I still love that tank, the gun hits so hard
US tanks weren't added until later tho
@@PieGotFace Yeah, in 1.45 or so iirc. It was only Germany and the SU before that.
Ah yes, the best tank stat: Aesthetics
If you cant drive into battle in style, then what is even the point?
@@jakobc.2558 That is how you win battles.
How's the Abrams been against other tanks?
@@petersouthernboy6327 stellar, it has knocked out so many to 0 losses and is a good looking tank
@@apersondoingthings5689
The only Abrams casualties were 9, and even then, they were either due to a malfunction that couldn't be fixed so they ditched and destroyed the tank, or just by friendly fire
John Pershing got a raw deal. They renamed his namesake tank after he died in 1948. M46 should still have been named Pershing, it only had some parts changes. Arguably M47 as well.
M46 is basically an upgraded M26 with even some M26 hulls stateside sent back to Detroit to upgrade to M46's.
In technicality, the modifications/Solutions to fix the M26 were so numerous, the tank apparently deserved a new designation, despite the very similar aesthetics, they named it Patton after the late General George S. Patton whom famously commanded the US 3rd Army in Europe, this tank would be designated M46
@@Cobra-King3 To add to the irony, because of their fuel consumption and greater weight, in fact Patton was opposed to tanks larger then the Sherman's and rejected using the larger Pershing's in his army.
@@tomt373 He felt that the Jumbo was more than up to the task
@@Cobra-King3 The U.S. Marines proved him wrong in Korea in 1950.
MacArthur used a battalion of U.S.M.C. driven M26's in his invasion at Inchon and counter-attack that devastated Chinese T-34's that had previously over-ran U.S. Army Sherman's.
Their main challenge at first was the 90mm AP's tended to go completely THROUGH the Chinese made T-34's (killing crew members, taking out engine blocks, etc.) before they detonated, so they had a hard time determining their hits at first.
They fixed the problem by breaking back to HE rounds which were more then adequate for the enemy tanks.
The M26's main problem in WW2 was the stupid way the Army "thinkers" deployed them, "sprinkling" them around here and there instead of keeping them together as the Germans did their types, essentially "unequally yoking" them with Sherman's etc.
The M26 saved the day despite its myriad of problems. At the Battle of the "bowling alley" north of Daegu in August of 1950, two lone Perishing's prevented nK armor from piercing the Busan perimeter and running amok thru Daegu to Busan.
Great video! The fully improved Pershing turned out to be the M46 Patton. I liked your comment about being "able to appreciate it aesthetically"; definitely one of the best looking tanks ever built!
The ultimate form of the original M25l6 Pershing for me is the M47. They improved the hull armor and turret. The M48 is a next step development but it doesnt resemble the the M26 in any way.
"And at just barely 12 hp/t, the Pershing was very underpowered."
The Sherman had 11 hp/t so the Pershing was by no means underpowered for that period of time.
Pz4 and 3 have quite similar hp/t as well so in my opinion it is average. Not good but not bad either.
I think it’s more due to the fact that the Pershing was supposed to be an improvement to the M4 and the crews in reality got less mobility for a better gun and slight improvement to armour (although not enough to put the crews at ease against any of the big cats so from what I’ve heard the crews weren’t that impressed by the armour)
Also what sherman are you talking about specifically the Sherman’s went from about 10.5hp/t - 15.8hp/t depending on variant so in some cases yes it was a downgrade. Although I think the 10.5hp/t was for the jumbo which was also considered pretty bad in terms of mobility.
@@cynicalfox190 Well to be perfectly fair the improvement to armor was anything but slight. The standard M4A3 Sherman had about 63.5mm or 2.5in thick armor angled at 47 degrees from vertical on the frontal glacis for an effective thickness of about 93.1mm or about 3.7in of frontal armor. Meanwhile the M26 had a frontal glacis 101.6mm or 4in thick angled at 46 degrees from vertical for an effective frontal protection of 146.26mm or 5.76in of frontal protection. This was a substantial increase in protection for the crews.
This by no means made the tank invincible but the margin of resistance to basically every gun the Germans could field went up considerably. The crews were largely dissatisfied with the armor of the Pershing because they were expecting after such a long delay that they'd be getting something that'd bounce every German shell the way the "Big Cats" were bouncing the standard short barrel 75mm gun of the less fortunate Shermans that weren't equipped with the Long 76 and that simply wasn't what they got.
They received a tough nut to crack but a completely crackable (that's not a word but go with it) one at that.
The largely positive yet still dissatisfied view of the Pershing by it's crews could be summed up rather simply as the Pershing wasn't what they were hoping for.
It's armor was tough but far from immune to the biggest German guns (The M26 known as Fireball's less than fortunate run in with Tiger 201 during the night at close range in Dessau proved as much, Fireball was hit by three shells after it was left illuminated by the Sherman behind it was destroyed by 201 perfectly illuminating Fireball for 201. One shell penetrated the turret through the coaxial machine gun port which while an incredibly lucky shot was still a fatal one and the two following shells bounced but still gouged massive gashes in the front hull), it was both less mobile and reliable than the M4A3s they were used to, and the gun initially struggled to deal with the tanks it was made to counter until the advent of the improved T33 Armor Piercing shell.
By the time the M26s received the rather legendary HVAP APCR shell for their guns the T33 AP shell was already doing perfectly fine work against everything it was designed to so it was...well a bit pointless really. There comes a point where having more armor penetration really doesn't matter especially considering how expensive and rare these shells were.
It's speculated that at any time any American Tank, meaning both 76 armed Shermans and the M26s, in Europe may only have had 3-5 of these shells onboard at any time as Tank Destroyers like the M18 were given first priority when it came to supplying these more powerful shells.
I agree
With Sherman the power/weight ratio depends on the variant. The M4A3(76)W HVSS (M4A3E8) for example had the same 500hp Ford engine as the M26.
Conclusion: every tank was bad
Apart from the Bob Semple...
Bob semple is enternal
Not bad mouthing the Merkava are you
What it feels like watching spookston
@@P455w0rds bmp 1 isnt a tank anyways
Well he's right on one thing, it is certainly a beauty.
And it *did* establish a basic tank design that lasted well into the '90s,
i mean, even the Abrams is fairly comparable to a Pershing in component locations. its just that everything in the Abrams is vastly superior, more compact, and more dakka.
pov: ur an M26
spookston: ur bad
@@Pearldey i cri
Your name is based it is an amazing tank as it is my favorite
@@apersondoingthings5689 'tis so indeed!
I love the fact that you properly respected the growth process of American tanks industry so you didn’t straight up call it junk but instead gave it the credit and the recognition it deserved.
I think a video on the centurion would be cool tbh I just want some British tank or something
Or a StuG, would also encourage the Jagd. Panther or some SPAA, we could even get a SU, 85 or 152?
Honestly the only thing i personally dont like about the Centurions is how slow they are, like why not give it better engine, then again who knows
The Centurion is widely regarded as a great tank, a "How Bad Was" type of video isn't fitting.
@@ricardoricardoricardoricardo oh it certainly would be fitting. I think spookston already did a "if historical" video on it
@@AHappyCub Except they were not actually very slow, which is the thing. The Rolls Royce Meteor was a very, very good tank engine. Good horsepower, excellent torque, it was at least a match for any tank engine in the world at the time, and was objectively better than the piece of shit that went into the Panther, Tiger and Tiger II, which all used the same engine, and as French records showed brand new Panthers literally suffered engine fires, regularly....
In Korea Centurions could also go places where pretty much no other tanks could go, because of that outrageous torque. Mobility on the battlefield is not always about top speed, its often about getting to places fast enough and if you can get to places fast enough where the enemy (or your friends) cannot go that's a fairly significant advantage.....
Brand new tank built with latest, state of the art technology!
Engine and transmission problems: *allow us to introduce ourselves*
The engine was a well tested one. Used in the "Easy Eight" Sherman as well. It was just overworked with the heavier Pershing
I remember when the M26 came into Warthunder and it just shit stomped everything around it.
Still does
@@destroyerarmor2846 Well it did for a while, then they nerfed M82 and APCR which made the tank irrelevant, and now it's good again with M82 being brought back up to snuff.
I know, I have over 400 kills in it.
Just like in Korea
Nah still dogshit, panthers at 5.3 can easily front plate you across the map
The Heavium Tonk has been Pershied.
Lol
the mediocrity of the pershing is the reason why I came to love it in war thunder. it's a tank that if you're doing well in it you know it's not because you're being carried by the tank.
I think the main criticisms of the Pershing overall is the poor mobility, lack of a stabilizer, and how vertical the frontal armor is. (Consider the T-44 was already being built)
Turbo diesel from the start.
Engine shoulda been
@@bradcampbell7253 they rectified the issue with the M46
The frontal armor on Pershing sloped. The T-44 carried the same gun as the T-34/85. It's armor was a little better shaped. Not enough heavier to stand up to tanks like Tiger or Panther. Or Pershing or Centurion. Essentially it wouldn't have been any more of a match for the Pershing than the T-34. Which is why, along with it's teething troubles, the Russians didn't bother to issue it for combat, and immediately set about improving it into what eventually became the T-54.
@@bradcampbell7253 Very few tanks had diesel engines in World War II.
And none had engines like you say T26E3 "should have had from the beginning". Those were Cold War creations.
What you suggest is like saying the P-51 fell short because it should have had a jet engine. The tech for that wasn't there in the early to mid 40's any more than the tech to make 800 to 1,000 hp turbo diesels was.
That came much later post war.
To elaborate on the Pershing being a "learning experience..." it was a critical stepping stone on the way to the MBT. Its lineage continued to the M46 / M47, and after even more extensive redesigns, the M48 / M60.
Pershing had 6.3 to 1 kill ratio in Korea vs T34/85’s. Sherman kill ratio was a bit over 2:1. I think I would rather have ridden around in a Pershing at that time.
i mean at that point T-34 was outdated pretty much.
@@L-33_Tankette Along with North Koreans being less well trained than even the late war Germans.
@@L-33_Tankettebut at the same time M4 armor was easly pierced by 85mm gun from t34
@@Tonyx.yt. well yes but he is comparing Pershing to a T-34 (85mm) its a little bit unfair isnt it?
Better armor. Better gun, optics, more survivable. And not really slow for a medium/heavy tank.
Its like getting a fight between Tiger 1H and T-34 (76mm 1940) it sure did happen but a little unfair in every aspect.
And T-34 85mm could pierce M4 armor but only with some kind of ammunition. Not all of them could
@@L-33_Tankette yes, pershing it's far superior to t34-85
Problem with pershing and super pershing is how much thier repair cost normal perhsing is 12.000 while super is 18.000
T25 is 7k but that's still alot and doesnt offer much actually after they removed the stabilizer
lol my pershing is only 8k while my super is still 18k
Tiger 2 (p) laughing in 2,200 repair cost
@@avregecenturion5719 *Tiger II H cries in bajingas level expensive and also placed in 7.0*
Also the Super Pershing br is now 6.7 like wtf why? This tank is my favorite on 5.3 to 6.3 br now it's unplayable.
correction, the sherman was preferred in korea by, often the same unit queried before and after, that expected to face north korean or chinese tank units. while there were T34-85's zooming around, they generally preferred to have a pershing. But once the enemy tanks started running dry, those same units that preferred the pershing would then prefer the sherman for its various better mobility and ease of use chracteristics. Source i'm reading from is steven zaloga.
I really do appreciate the Pershing aesthetically. The Rear-mounted engine and transmission sinks the profile down considerably from the mountain of the Sherman, the turret looks a lot beefier than the Sherman, the and the frontal armor isn't just a flat sheet anymore like some Sherman variants. I still probably prefer the later Shermans, especially the M4A3E8, but this was the first in a long line of similar looking vehicles that really changed how tanks were designed in America.
The Pershing will always be one of the favorite tanks, an equal to the T-44, Panther, and Centurion. Heavy WW2 mediums, becoming MBTs
3:29 ah yes the T33 one of the oldest bug reported rounds in the game which is probably never going to get fix
What’s wrong with it? I never use it
@@idik653 It doesn't have the penetration values it should. It is able to penetrate the Panther's UFP IRL, yet it can't in game
@@idik653 Its slope modifier is wrong. It was noted for being able to hole Panther UFPs at 1000m IRL, but can't do it point blank ingame.
Most tanks in this game probably don't have the proper penetration values. The 85 mm cannon found on the T34s can apparently penetrate the jumbos front plate better than tigers. This game is no where near being realistic sadly.
almost all the apcr rounds are preforming poorly and nothing like the irl data says. it effects the USSR and USA TT the most since their top ap shell is a wet noodle.
Spookston : M26 Pershing is bad.
Also Spookston : *decided to wipe the entire enemy team*
The Pershing will always be my favourite tank because of the RTS game Ruse. It left such a staggering impression on me during the first mission of the campaign.
Let's be honest its a breath of fresh air after being stuck with the Sherman for so. Fucking. Long.
Say what you may. In Korea it was the M-26 and the upgrade M46 that really help turn the tide against the T34-85.
My grandfather was a tanker on an M4 and Pershing and he said the Pershing was a definite step above the M4.
Good to hear something from someone who actually knows.
Man I just love the ending song. It makes me feel like I’m a lone soldier in a futuristic African city trying to find my platoon.
The Pershing is one of those tanks that makes you go "Yeah, that's a tank." It's alright, not really spectacular, not horrible, so it gets washed away over time.
Spookston I like your channel but I love that you've reintroduced me to rain and now I'm hooked on listening to rain and can't get it out of my head
1:20
Everything wrong with volumetric in a nutshell
Remember when the t25 had a stabilizer in-game? :(
Man if the T33 was designed to pen the front of panthers then the one we have in game is severely under performing
Well since we got a calculator for penetration instead of historical data a lot of rounds have been screwed up. I get that it’s required for some of the more modern vehicles as test reports aren’t public but for vehicles where test reports are public information they should really use the IRL values for penetration.
Honestly the U.S. should have done the T23 thing and mass produced the M4A3E10 (Sherman with M26 pershing turret).
They tryed it and it worked as the sherman and pershing have the same turret ring size.Just like on the M47, on the Pershing the turret was fine but it was the hull (more specificaly the engine and transmission) which caused problems. So just ploping the turret into the sherman hull would have meant that U.S. troops would have had a 90mm armed medium tank at the front line way earlyer. Also I highly suspect the M4A3E10 to be added as a premium, battlepass or event vehicle into war thunder soon.
The Pershing was the foundation for the M46, M47, M48 and M60 Patton series of tanks. In this regard the Pershing’s legacy is much longer running than any other WWII tank design. I would argue that the M26 Pershing is the first, if flawed, American Main Battle Tank. No German tank design had as much post-WWII influence on actual successful designs than Pershing did.
Pershing was giving same firepower and armor protection as Tiger but with better mobility and less weight (and not as crampy as Soviet counterparts mainly IS family [which in turn are perfect example of polishing design from earlier KV's]). One of my favourite design. Fav is of course T27/M27.
Actually decently superior firepower and objectively superior armor protection than the Tiger. However I get what you're trying to say but for information sake and for direct comparison:
1. Penetration Standard Ammunition:
-M26 Pershing, T33 (APC): 193mm at 500m, 178mm at 1000m, 164mm at 1500m, 150mm at 2000m, 139mm at 2500m, 128mm at 3000m
-Tiger 1, PzGr.39 (APCBC): 151mm at 500m, 138mm at 1000m, 126mm at 1500m, 116mm at 2000m, 106mm at 2500m, 97mm at 3000m
2. Penetration Specialty Ammunition:
-M26 Pershing, T30E16 (APCR): 278mm at 500m, 246mm at 1000m, 218mm at 1500m, 193mm at 2000m, 171mm at 2500m, 151mm at 3000m
-Tiger 1, PzGr.40 (APCR): 200mm at 500m, 179mm at 1000m, 160mm at 1500m, 143mm at 2000m, 128mm at 2500m, 115mm at 3000m
3. Frontal Hull Armor:
-M26 Pershing: 102mm sloped at 44 degrees for 147mm effective thickness
-Tiger 1: 104mm flat.
4. Frontal Turret Armor:
-M26 Pershing: 102mm mantlet layered over a 114mm turret face and an 89mm internal spall shield for a total effective thickness of 305mm
-Tiger 1: 120-200mm mantlet layered over a 100mm turret face for a total effective thickness of 220-300mm
What you may not have known is the M26 had the same engine as the M4A3, an engine designed for a tank that was 10 tons lighter than the Pershing. AGF was playing internal politics that delayed testing and production. This drawback wasn't addressed until the Korean War broke out and by that time the M46 was being put into the field which had all the corrections plaguing the Pershing.
I see im here on time
Indeed
It's amazing how the M26 is dissed, and the Tiger is seen as an unfaltering Super Tank!
The Tiger was an old design by the time the Pershing reached the battlefield, that’s why.
@@heycidskyja4668Tiger is also “German engineering at it’s finest!”
"They finally had a tank, which had mached the Panther." Yeah, I mean it did have transmission and engine problems, so fair play by the americans..
Well as any new introduced tank failure was imminent
Panther had its issues fixed thru the last 60% of tanks produced
@@LordOfChaos.x Not really. People will say it was "fixed" because it's ready rates were on par with the Panzer IV, but then forget to mention that the Panzer IV at that time was _also_ plagued by massive reliability issues due to all the extra weight slapped on it.
Honestly, did ANY heavy tank NOT suffer from constant breakdowns?
@@bkjeong4302 abrams
@@F14thunderhawk That's an Main Battle Tank not a Heavy Tank. They're two very different things. Heavy Tanks are extinct in modern warfare because they're simply not practical anymore.
One thing that the Pershing did excel at was closing T-34’s in Korea.
2:54
Pershing ambushes German counter attack 1945 colorized
Personally my favorite of all time is the T29. There’s just something so lovely about it to me for some reason
So did the power-pack upgrade rectify most of the issues (aka the underpowered engine) or were there still unresolved issues? Either way great vid as always.
The engine issue was eventually solved in the M46 Patton. The M46 has better engine and better transmission. But if i remember, they are not immune to problems although not as serious as before.
@@darnit1944 Sorry for not answering this right away, but yeah I was referencing the M46 'power-pack' aka overhaul to buff up the M26's engine power. Thank you though!
The Pershing had thicker armor than the original 17pdr armed Centurion on the glacis and sides. Gun shield was only 1/2" thinner. Gun was just as powerful, but fired a better HE round than 17pdr. It also weighed less than Centurion and Panther, much less than Tiger I. Mobility was slightly down compared to the Sherman that was ten tons lighter with the same engine, but better than Axis tanks with similar armor and firepower. The Centurion had 100 more hp, but weighed 9 tons more.
Army personnel that used T26E3 in ETO in 1945 and Marine units that fought with it in Korea all found Pershing to have adequate reliability, good mobility (better than Sherman on soft ground), good armor and excellent firepower.
The Pershing could fight any late war German tank on equal or better terms, with the exception of Tiger II, which was in a whole other size and weight class and not nearly as mobile or reliable. It was more powerful and effective than the Sherman's it fought with and the T-34/85's it fought against in Korea. It didn't compare badly with the Centurion's it fought alongside in Korea, which is noteworthy since the first gen Pershing was fighting alongside the third gen Centurion. The Pershing, like Tiger I, could have dealt adequately with Chinese IS-2's, had they ever actually fielded them.
The Pershing a poor tank? To whom?
To those that don't know what they are talking about.
Pershing wasn't more reliable than the Tiger II.
@garyhill2740 - Great write-up!
I love that he uses the Halo 3 ODST theme at the end of his videos.
Love the M26. It seems like such an underdog in armored history.
Improved over time
I just remember reading Adam Makos' 'Spearhead,' and how the crew described that every time the 90mm gun would fire, it would stun you for a few seconds due to the noise and kick. And then it would shoot fumes and smoke everywhere that you would have to choke on for a few seconds as well.
It's decent enough in War Thunder if being operated by the right tanker - aka not me.
The M26 had a better KD than the Patton in Korea vs the T34-85. It did very well
Take those numbers with a lot of salt. The M46 arrived rather late in the war
The pershing is fine, but the repair costs are out of whack with other equal tanks
The Pershing was the bridge between the medium tanks that fought WW2 and the more modern Main Battle Tanks of the Cold War.
I can’t tell you how many hours I’ve spent reading about the M26 in Korea and I’ve never read anything abnormally bad about it. The Pershing’s in Korea (at least the original batch) were found in a warehouse in Japan, so it’s not like they were in tip top shape. But they were serviceable and most importantly they were more than a match for the T34 which the troops were having a hard time dealing with. So in the minimum they were superior to the T34s. All I’ve read is that they were better than the German tanks at the end of the war in the few engagements they had before the whole thing was over. The M26 was brand new at the very end of the war so it had wrinkles that need ironing out in the field, as opposed to the M4 which had all its wrinkles worked out in the field over years of use. To say that the M26 was inferior in anyway to the M4 is silly. The M26 was a direct result of the shortcomings of the M4 and the lessons learned from the M4 in combat. It was a very good tank for its time.
@TheBizziniss - Re: "To say that the M26 was inferior in anyway to the M4 is silly. The M26 was a direct result of the shortcomings of the M4 and the lessons learned from the M4 in combat. It was a very good tank for its time."
Well-constructed arguments, well-made. The proof of your statements is easy to find in the near-ecstatic reception the new T-26 (M-26) tanks got when the Zebra Mission arrived in the ETO in early spring 1945. Adam Mako's wonderful book, "Spearhead" details the experience of one such crew. Corporal Clarence Smoyer, the gunner on that M-26, later wrote his memoirs. Which included the full story of the now-famous one-on-one confrontation between the M-26 and a German Panther in the Cologne Square near the cathedral in spring 1945.
Smoyer recounts how Staff Sergeant Bob Early, the tank CO, and the crew were part of a live-fire demonstration for the brass, and how Smoyer was able to successfully engage(target) and destroy a white-brick chimney still standing by a ruined house about 1.5 miles away. It was done as something of a bet, if memory serves and the crowd cheered when he scored a first-round hit.
That sort of long-range fire power had heretofore been mostly done by the Germans, and now the Americans had a tank which could do it as well.
To place that shot into perspective, even today in the 21st century, that is one heck of a long poke for a tank gunner - and good marksmanship indeed to score on the first or cold-bore shot.
The M-26 was an excellent design; it just suffered from the sort of bugs and problems which almost always plague complex new mechanical devices/weapons - especially when they are rushed into the field.
Funny how soldiers still preferred the m4 over the m26 at the time. Just shows you how little tank engagements actaully occurred
Not only that, but the M4 did fine in most tank engagements since they were rarely a slugging match a anyways. If you're attacking a tank from the side as you usually did, it didn't really matter if you had a 76mm or a 90mm. You were going to go through in all but the most extreme circumstances.
@@Chopstorm. yes, m4s get a bad rep bc German tanks were on the defensive which automatically gives you a higher ratio of tank kills since most German tanks were dug in. Most Sherman’s could also out maneuver German tanks if given the chance
Thank you kind sir
Gotta love the subnautica music
John, our transmission broke
1:22 "Just a ricochet, we're ok."
"Bullshit! That's a Kraut high velocity gun, I can hear it whistling!"
Something that amazes me is that they JUST got this brand new all-purpose, modern design into service....and immediately go to replace it before it has really seen heavy service yet.
Just in case the Sherman didn't perform well.
To coin a phrase, "It is how a rich country fights wars...." That was something a lot of German POWs said about us during the Second World War and after, but it applies here, too.
Bear in mind that in 1945, U.S. industrial output was one-half of the entire world total! It had downshifted somewhat by 1950 and also transitioned to making peacetime goods, too, but still the capacity was impressive.
The Pershing wasn't a bad tank at all. It had the best fighting characteristics of any tank actually fielded by the Western Allies and stomped all over the T-34 in Korea. In armor and gunpower its ranking vs German tanks was Tiger I < Panther < Pershing < Tiger II.
I'm pretty sure the Panther had a stronger gun than the Pershing , but it's not a big difference
@@petraral8868 Depends on the ammunition used. The Panther had a needle gun, whereas the Pershing and Tiger I cannons had more explosive potential. The Pershing was also better armored than either tank.
@@petraral8868 The 90mm gun was much stronger than the Panthers.
It produced 4MJ of energy. The KwK 42 produced 3MJ, the KwK 43 5MJ.
Of course ammunition plays a role as well but the 90mm had more potential.
@@thatguyfrommars3732 The Panther had better frontal armor and the Tiger had better side and turret armor compared with the Pershing , but that does not matter because the majority of the differences in their armor are around 10-20MM of armor according to wikepedia
@@petraral8868 The Panther had weaker frontal armor than the Pershing. The Panther had 80mm at 55 degrees (139.5mm) and the Tiger had 100mm basically vertical. The Pershing's front glacis was 102mm at 46 degrees (147mm). The Panther's lower front glacis was 60mm at 55 degrees (104.5mm) while the Pershing's was 76mm at 53 degrees (126mm). And bear in mind the Pershing was 3 tonnes lighter!
In turret armor the Pershing had a 114.3mm curved mantlet, and where it overlapped the turret the armor behind it was 102mm, with both plates rounded in shape. The Tiger had a flat gun mantlet of uneven thickness (90mm to 200mm for the gun sleeve - but this was a tiny portion of the area) with 100mm turret armor. Both are essentially unangled. So the Pershing had thicker armor on both the hull and turret.
That's halo in the end! Makes me happy all the time
man two videos in a row with Subnautica music in the background
The pershing, a somewhat good tank, but with definitely the best aesthetics in his era out there
It's design is so ubiquitous too
i feel like the hellcat was the best tank. imo speed/maneuverability and firepower are the 2 biggest advantages with little things like stabilized gun, good optics, and ease of use.
Awesome vid, can you do a vid on the Churchill’s! Please!
The M26 is my fav tank, tho its
underrated, an underdog, and over BRd
Nice Subnautica music at the beginning, such a good game with good music
Heavy tanks: *Exist*
Problems: *Hello*
Late winter 1944-1945. A friend(squad leader) was out on a patrol just into Germany. As they headed back, they spotted 3 tanks on a hill overlooking their route. They did not recognize the tanks but, the muzzle breaks look German. So, they hid in the town for three days before the tanks moved on. They found a large amount of champagne and enjoyed those 3 days. He found out when they got back that the tanks were the new American tanks. I knew plenty of Sherman tank crewmen but I don't recall any Pershing crew men.
@ Richard Ross: The initial few - twenty or so - M-26 Pershings to make it to the ETO as part of the "Zebra Mission," as it was called, in January 1945 went to the 3rd Armored Division and the 9th Armored Division. Most famously, they participated in the Battle of Cologne and also the capture of the Remagen Bridge. So it stands to reason that relatively few GIs got the chance to see them - let alone see them in action. The book "Spearhead" by Adam Makos, based upon the recollections of former M-26 gunner Clarence Smoyer, is a great read, if the history of armored warfare in the ETO interests you. Smoyer was alive as of February 2021 at age 97.... wow! Last man alive of the guys he served with during the war. Makos did a terrific job on the book; it is really worth the price of admission.
@@GeorgiaBoy1961 Thanks. I grew up in the 1950s and 1960s and was lucky enough to have many vets share stories. My Father, FIL, and 7 Uncles served in WWII. I was an Army Engineer Officer for 27 years. Learning the lessons from the past helped to face the future challenges. Read the book just published after the war, The Damned Engineers. A thrilling and true adventure about construction workers stopping Panzer Group Piper. Good Luck, Rick
The one other useful thing the Pershing was good at was leading tank columns as it had strong enough armor to take a hit from German tanks which would usually fire at the lead tank first and the Pershing could keep fighting in spite of getting hit.
Every tank has flaws, but if the Pershing was bad, then every other tank was terrible, because it was better than most. It was far more reliable than anything it faced, who regularly took themselves out if the Pershing didn't.
1:10 DID HE JUST PEN THE TIGER DRIVER PORT
3.30 that’s a great idea for a diorama, an M4 Sherman passing a T26 on the side of the road as it crosses a pontoon bridge
The Pershing was fine by the standards and technology of its day. It was designed to fight the Tiger and other heavy German tanks and, in this, it was capable. But it suffered some of the same problems its German counterparts did in being too heavy and underpowered. That was just par for the course during World War II. It was a solid design that just wasn't quite perfected yet.
I think you should do a video on the m18 or m36
The M26 Pershing simply came too late to be a factor in WWII...not unlike the famed King Tiger tank it could supposedly take on. I'd like to see more about the special "Super Pershing" with added frontal armor and the lengthened 90mm (73 calibers) gun which was rated as equal to the KwK 43 88mm on the KT and several other mounts.
In Korea, the M26s operational record was somewhat disappointing, but this is hardly a surprise. First off, it's initial deployment was in August and September of 1950, to defend the Pusan perimeter. Overheating problems with the engine and drivetrain that hardly had a chance to show up in March of '45 in Germany were evident in the heat of the Korean summer. Plus, with those Ford GAF engines, while their 500 hp was adequate for the M4A3E8 ("Easy Eight") Shermans, it was patently inadequate for a tank nearly ten tons heavier. Henceforth, most of the losses of Pershings in Korea were due to operational issues like breakdowns or getting stuck, rather than enemy fire...again, much like the German Tigers. Certainly their 90mm guns out-ranged the D5T 85mm guns on the DPRK T-34s, and the gunnery of the US tankers was noticeably better, but the hilly terrain made long-distance engagement which favored the Pershing not always possible.
The M46 "Patton", which was essentially the M26 with a new, more powerful engine and drivetrain, solved some of tank's mobility issues, but it gulped even more gasoline. Also, by the time it appeared in numbers, mid-1951, the front lines, after see-sawing up and down the Korean peninsula, had stabilized fairly much along the 38th Parallel where the war had begun. They ended up being used more as self-propelled artillery rather than as tanks, as likely, with the DPRK having lost just about all its initial stock of armor, and Mao Zedong unwilling to let the PLA commit its armor, the Pershings, Pattons, and Shermans were fairly much out of their original job, which they'd done quite well. DPRK and PLA tank losses in Korea were terribly lopsided, though that can be attributed far more to deficiencies in doctrine, logistics, training, and leadership, and seldom having relief from UN air superiority, more than any technical reasons. I suspect that had a Soviet Guards armored division been deployed to Korea, with officers and senior enlisted with "Great Patriotic War' experience, they'd have fared better.
I really like these style videos. How about a video critiquing the chieftain? It was also quite the controversial tank. How about the French autoloaders? They’re so unique and it always confused me. And one other idea, how about the addition of the polsten cannon in the centurion 1 and later AMX 30?
Polsten Cannon on an AMX 30 ??? The 20F2 in the AMX 30 was created as a french 20mm that could use the HS820-type ammo which was becoming standard in Europe. Nothing Polsten. However France did mount the earlier 20mm Oerlikons (which is what the Polsten is based on) on Citroen trucks as AA defence in 1940.
@@jeandelacroix6726 I think you misinterpreted my wording. I meant that the polsten was on the centurion and the AMX later got the F2
The main (only?) critique on Centurion I know of was range. The Meteor was very fuel hungry. What else was there?
A lack of design knowledge didn’t cause the M4’s height issue. The US didn’t have a suitable engine when the M3/M4 began their designs, so they used the R975 radial aircraft engine. The power-shaft coming off so high off of that engine made the entire tank taller. The Ford GAA V8 engine wasn’t ready until June 1943.
The Pershing could be built around the GAA engine because it was the state of the art at that time. Early versions of the engine were available for testing in 1942 which is partially why they had so many problems with it.
Incidentally the GAA is the largest displacement production gasoline V8 in history, a true beast but a bit of a dead end.
Wow, the Pershing pretty much was to the Sherman, what the KV and IS tanks were to the T-34. Some of the Soviet heavy tanks were damn near invincible. Even the vaunted "88" could only pierce their rear armor. But Stalin's metal monsters were slow, and there weren't very many of them.
Also comparable to the German big cats in this aspect. Heavy tanks must be cursed with breakdowns
What? Even The pz IV could penetrate the stalins at close range in most areas. Tigers and panthers could do it up to 1500 meters.
Remember the 1970s copper shortages that bad
you should talk about the ARL-44 next. i am curious as to its performance
Could you do one on the T-80? I think its reputation is worse than it actually was and a chance at redemption would be nice for it
I think the T-70 is the one with the bad rep, which is quite deserved.
They only built a few T-80s in comparison.
@@Kuschel_K Hang on, I think we are talking about the wrong T-80s. I was talking about T-80 the gas turbine powered MBT, and also my favorite tank
So nice of you to skip over it's one bright spot, career wise, Korea. With some gibberish about the Easy Eight instead. If we didn't have the Pershing at Busan, we never have had a South Korea after.
Everyone: talking about tanks
Me: Oooo subnautica song
"If nothing else I can appreciate it aesthetically"
By God if it ain't a handsome tank
If you play the Pershing like it's a tiger 1 it seems to work pretty well
This is why all those fan boys wishing the Pershing was introduced during ww2 was wrong: it would have taken time to debug which would be a problem since it needs to be shippes from the US.
Introducing it sooner would have given the technical people more to sort out the bugs which always accompany new gear and equipment into the field, especially during wartime. Where that sort of thing is concerned, more time is better than less. It isn't always a straight-forward process to sort those kinds of technical issues out. It can take time, money and effort.
Hey man
thanks for your engagement in this comment
The best thing about the Pershing is that it had no significant problems dealing with the NK T34 85s.
In fact my un c le who was in Korea e a mentioned that it shot them go pieces.
@ Joseph Freeman: The North Koreans had encountered in the early days of the war, little in the way of U.S. armor (South Korea had no armored force in 1950, because the Truman administration would not equip them with tanks), and then only M-24 Chaffee medium tanks which proved to be no match for the T-34/85s. Moreover, existing AT weapons were 2.3" WWII-era bazookas, some recoilless rifles and some howitzers pressed into service against armor. So the T34s ran wild in the beginning. However, the tide began to turn when 3.5" Super Bazookas arrived as these were good medicine against the NK tanks, and things really looked up when the M4A3E8 Shermans and M-26 Pershings began to arrive. Although it was possible for a T34-85 to destroy an M-26, the contest was an uneven one and the American tanks almost always got the better of the communist ones. The M-26 was as-good or better of a tank, and our crews were much better trained and many had previous combat experience together in WWII.
3:44 was me, I’d just recovered from an earlier engagement and saw you a millisecond too late
M26 what Rr is this tank on ? Its looks like Br 5.3 . It's way over kill for tiger h1 or E
When anyone hears “American tanks” they often think of the M1 or the Sherman but usually I do think of em but I also think of the M26, M46, M47, M48, And the M60 cuz those tanks were also pretty good I really think a lot of American tanks are underrated
Great job!
What about the m3 lee?
Definitely one of the best looking tanks.
Bovington’s resident genius of understatement says “…just another tank”.😹👍