Misplaced Pages

#630369

77-836: The M26 Pershing is a heavy tank , later designated as a medium tank , formerly used by the United States Army . It was used in the last months of World War II during the Invasion of Germany and extensively during the Korean War . The tank was named after General of the Armies John J. Pershing , who led the American Expeditionary Force in Europe in World War I . The M26 was intended as

154-627: A heavy tank , the Pershing was a significant upgrade from the M4 Sherman in terms of firepower, protection, and mobility. On the other hand, it was unsatisfactory for a medium tank (because it used the same engine that powered the M4A3, which was some ten tons lighter) and its transmission was somewhat unreliable. In 1948, the M26E2 version was developed with a new powerplant. Eventually, the new version

231-508: A tank gun 's range, and sheer armour mass was no longer a guarantee of survivability against the largest HEAT warheads of tank guns or missiles. Chamberlain, Peter; Ellis, Chris (1981) [1969], British and American Tanks of World War II , Arco Publishing Background: History of the tank , Tank classification , Tanks in World War I Background: History of the tank , Tank classification , interwar period Background: History of

308-403: A Panther upper glacis welded to the mantlet, covering the front. This added about five tonnes to the tank weight, requiring extra armor added to the turret for balance. An account of the combat actions of this tank appeared in the war memoir Another River, Another Town , by John P. Irwin, who was the tank gunner. Zaloga described three actions in his book. On 4 April, between Weser and Nordheim,

385-509: A heavy tank force and did not want to compromise its 4,800 km (3,000 miles) supply line to Europe. The M6 heavy tank was designed in 1940 but held few advantages over medium tanks and planned production of several thousand was stopped. The Anglo-American T14 heavy tank project started in 1941 did not deliver a pilot model until 1944. The US preferred to use tank destroyers (mobile but relatively lightly armoured vehicles) for anti-tank defence, and prior to 1944 there were few indications that

462-511: A much longer high-capacity chamber allowing it to penetrate up to 330mm of armor. This gave it a muzzle velocity of 3,750 ft/s (1,140 m/s) with the T30E16 APCR shot and could penetrate the Tiger's frontal armor beyond 3,300 yd (3,000 m). The model shown used single-piece 50-inch-long (1,300 mm) ammunition and was the only Super Pershing sent to Europe. Firing trials with

539-410: A nearby fire, the Pershing was in a disadvantageous position. A concealed Tiger tank fired three shots from about 100 yd (91 m). The first penetrated the turret through the machine gun port in the mantlet, killing both the gunner and the loader. The second shot hit the gun barrel, causing the round that was in the chamber to fire with the effect of distorting the barrel. The last shot glanced off

616-529: A penetration through the lower gun shield. On 6 March, just after the 3rd Armored Division had entered the city of Cologne , a famous tank duel took place. A Panther tank on the street in the front of Cologne Cathedral was lying in wait for enemy tanks. Two M4 Shermans were supporting infantry and came up on the same street as the Panther. They ended up stopping just before the Cathedral because of rubble in

693-528: A range of under 300 yd (270 m). There were two other tank engagements involving the T26E3, with one Tiger I knocked out during the fighting around Cologne, and one Panzer IV knocked out at Mannheim. The T26E3s with the 9th Armored Division saw action in fighting around the Roer River with one Pershing disabled by two hits from a German 150 mm field gun. A platoon of five M26s, less one that

770-573: A replacement of the M4 Sherman , but a prolonged development period meant that only a small number saw combat in Europe. Based on the criteria of firepower, mobility, and protection, US historian R. P. Hunnicutt ranked the Pershing behind the German Tiger II heavy tank, but ahead of the Tiger I heavy and Panther medium tanks. It was withdrawn in 1951 in favor of its improved derivative,

847-487: A request for production of the T26E1. In January 1944, 250 T26E1s were authorized. General Barnes of Ordnance continued to press for production of 1,000 tanks. According to Forty, Ordnance recommended that 1,500 of the T26E1 be built. The Armored Force recommended only 500. The AGF rejected the 90 mm version of the tank and wanted it to be built with the 76 mm gun instead. Somehow, Ordnance managed to get production of

SECTION 10

#1732773248631

924-456: A shot to the belly. Irwin described this German tank as a Tiger, but Zaloga was skeptical of this claim. The tank was likely a Panzer IV. After the war, the single Super Pershing in Europe was last photographed in a vehicle dump in Kassel, Germany, and was most likely scrapped. In May 1945, as fierce fighting continued on the island of Okinawa , and M4 tank losses mounted, plans were made to ship

1001-451: A weapon weighing about 1,200 lb (540 kg). The 3 inch front hull armor was .5 in (13 mm) thicker than the 63 mm (2.5 in) front armor of the M4. The glacis plate slope was similar at 46°. The T20's overall weight was approximately the same as the M4. The T20 used an early version of the horizontal volute spring suspension (HVSS), another improvement compared to

1078-579: Is inadequate against the German Mark VI (Tiger) tank. General Devers pressed on with his advocacy for the T26, going over McNair's head to General George Marshall, and, on 16 December 1943, Marshall overruled McNair and authorized the production of 250 T26E1 tanks. Then, in late December 1943, Devers was transferred to the Mediterranean, where he eventually led the invasion of Southern France with

1155-487: Is often assumed that heavy tanks suffered inferior mobility to medium tanks , this was not always the case, as many of the more sophisticated heavy tank designs featured advanced suspension and transmissions to counteract this drawback. As mentioned previously, heavy tanks are often extremely expensive and resource-intensive to produce and operate. The German Tiger I , for example, had similar speed and better terrain-handling characteristics when compared to its main competitor,

1232-467: The Interwar period , these larger vehicles with stronger defensive and offensive capabilities became known as "heavy" tanks. Heavy tanks had gradually progressed from their trench warfare and bunker destroying role to dedicated anti-tank purposes by the onset of World War II . Heavy tanks saw limited deployment by France at the beginning of the war, and were only ever used in conflict by Nazi Germany and

1309-570: The M1 Combat Car and progressed to the M2 Light Tank , M2 Medium Tank , M3 Lee , and finally the M4 Sherman . These tanks all had rear-mounted Continental air-cooled radial aircraft engines and a front sprocket drive. This layout required a driveshaft to pass under the turret, which increased the overall height of the tank, a characteristic shared with German tanks of World War II that also used this layout. The large diameter of

1386-688: The M24 Chaffee were operational under the U.S. Far East Command. In July 1950, when the M24 was revealed ineffective against North Korean tanks such as the T-34-85, the U.S. military hurriedly began to mobilize medium-sized tanks to deal with them. The Far East Command urgently maintained three M26 tanks, which were left unattended at the Tokyo ordnance depot, and organized into a provisional tank platoon, commanded by Lieutenant Samuel Fowler, and deployed them to

1463-464: The M4 Sherman . Several design features were tested in the prototypes. Some of these were experimental dead-ends, but many became permanent characteristics of subsequent U.S. Army tanks. This series of prototype vehicles began as medium tank project that was similar to, but more modern than the recently introduced M4 Sherman, and ended several years later as the U.S. Army's first operational heavy tank . The U.S. Army's first lineage of tanks evolved from

1540-645: The M46 Patton , which had a more powerful and reliable engine and advanced suspension. The lineage of the M26 continued with the M47 Patton , and was reflected in the new designs of the later M48 Patton and M60 tank . The M26 was the culmination of a series of medium tank prototypes that began with the T20 in 1942, and it was a significant design departure from the previous line of U.S. Army tanks that had ended with

1617-594: The M6 , had been standardized in February 1942, but proved to be a failure. The U.S. Army had no doctrinal use for a heavy tank at the time. The T20 was designed to have a more compact hull than the M4. The Ford GAN V-8, a lower silhouette version of the GAA engine used in later variants of the M4, had become available. The engine had originally been an effort by Ford to produce a V-12 liquid-cooled aircraft engine patterned after

SECTION 20

#1732773248631

1694-541: The Rolls-Royce Merlin , but failed to earn any aircraft orders and so was adapted as a V-8 for use in tanks; use of this lower profile engine together with the choice of a rear transmission and rear sprocket drive layout made it possible to lower the hull silhouette and eliminate the side sponsons. The T20 was fitted with the new 76 mm M1A1 gun , the 3-inch M7 was considered too heavy at about 1,990 lb (900 kg). New stronger steels were used to create

1771-808: The T28 GMC and ' Tortoise ' had casement designs and weighed around 80 tonnes but did not enter service. The immediate post-war period saw the final fielding of heavy tanks, including the US M103 heavy tank , the British FV214 Conqueror , and the French ARL 44 (in very limited numbers for the ARL 44), all in response to the Soviet heavy tanks of the period . The largest tank guns were approaching maximum calibre whose shell could still be handled by

1848-546: The 1st Army, which split them between the 3rd and 9th Armored Divisions . A total of 310 T26E3 tanks were eventually sent to Europe before VE Day , with 200 being issued to the troops. The actual number that engaged in combat is unknown. In February 1945, Major General Gladeon M. Barnes , chief of the Research and Development Section of Army Ordnance, personally led a special team to the European Theater, called

1925-431: The 6th Army Group. In his absence, further attempts were made to derail the T26 program, but continued support from Generals Marshall and Eisenhower kept the production order alive. Testing and production of the T26E1 proceeded slowly, however, and the T26E1 did not begin full production until November 1944. These production models were designated as the T26E3. A single prototype of a T26 turret mounted on an M4(105) chassis

2002-488: The 76 mm gun, electrical transmission T23. Theater commanders generally favored a 76 mm gun medium tank such as the T23 and were against a heavy 90 mm gun tank. However, testing of the T23 at Fort Knox had demonstrated reliability problems in the electrical transmission of which most army commanders were unaware. The new 76 mm M1A1 gun approved for the M4 Sherman seemed to address concerns about firepower against

2079-520: The German tanks. Although it could reliably penetrate the frontal armor of a Tiger 1 at standard ranges, all participants in the debate were, however, unaware of the inadequacy of the 76 mm gun against the frontal armor of the Panther tank , specifically its upper glacis (although its turret could still be penetrated at standard ranges), as they had not researched the effectiveness of this gun against

2156-532: The Korean Peninsula along with the M26 Pershing tank. The 70th Tank Battalion at Fort Knox Kentucky had pulled World War II memorial M26s off of pedestals and reconditioned them for use, but had to fill out two companies with M4A3s. The 72nd Tank Battalion at Fort Lewis Washington and the 73rd Tank Battalion at Fort Benning Georgia were fully equipped with M26s. The 89th Medium Tank Battalion

2233-453: The Korean Peninsula by the end of 1950, and 29 North Korean tanks were defeated by them during the same period. Although it had better anti-tank capability than the M4A3E8 thanks to its 90 mm gun, its underpowered engine which wasn't well suited to Korea's mountainous terrain, and its tendency to overheat quickly made it less liked among crews, and most were thus temporarily withdrawn in favor of

2310-492: The Korean Peninsula. However, while defending Jinju on 31 July, all of these tanks experienced engine overheating and became immobilized due to insufficient maintenance on belts and cooling fans, and eventually all of them were self-destructed. Around the same time, various tank battalions of the Army and a tank company from the 1st Marine Provisional Brigade, which were all fully organized armored training units, were dispatched to

2387-469: The Korean War (unlike World War II), was a closer match to the T-34-85 as both tanks could destroy each other at normal combat ranges. After November 1950, North Korean armor was rarely encountered. China entered the conflict in February 1951 with four regiments of tanks (a mix of mostly T-34-85 tanks, with a few IS-2 tanks, and some other AFVs). However, because these Chinese tanks were dispersed with

M26 Pershing - Misplaced Pages Continue

2464-547: The M26 Pershing tanks to that battle. On 31 May 1945, a shipment of 12 M26 Pershing tanks were dispatched to the Pacific for use in the Battle of Okinawa. Due to a variety of delays, the tanks were not completely offloaded on the beach at Naha, Okinawa until 4 August. By then, fighting on Okinawa had come to an end, and VJ Day followed on 2 September 1945. At the outbreak of the Korean War , only four tank companies equipped with

2541-450: The M4 Sherman. The T23 turret was used on all production versions of the 76 mm M4 Sherman as the original M4 75 mm turret was found to be too small to easily mount the 76 mm M1A1 gun. The first production 76 mm M4 with the T23 turret, the M4E6, was built in the summer of 1943. The T25 and T26 lines of tanks came into being in the midst of a heated internal debate within

2618-585: The Soviet IS series . Note that "heavy" versus "medium" is more a question of tactical roles than weight; the Panther , for example, was a "medium" tank that outweighed most Allied "heavy" tanks. American forces rarely fielded heavy tanks, as they still held on to the infantry-support doctrine like the British; in addition, the Americans recognized the logistical and mobility issues that came with possessing

2695-492: The Super Pershing engaged and destroyed a German tank, or something resembling a tank, at a range of 1,500 yd (1,400 m). According to Zaloga, it is possible this vehicle was a Jagdpanther from the 507th Heavy Panzer Battalion. On 12 April, the Super Pershing claimed a German tank of unknown type. On 21 April, the Super Pershing was involved in a short-range tank duel with a German tank, which it knocked out with

2772-468: The T15E1 revealed that the length and weight of the single-piece ammunition made it difficult to stow inside the tank and load into the gun. A second pilot tank was converted from a T26E3 and used a modified T15E2 gun that had two-piece ammunition. Twenty-five production models of the tank, designated T26E4, were built. An improved mounting removed the need for stabilizer springs. Post-war, two M26 tanks had

2849-410: The T26 tank other than the conception of a tank versus tank duel—which is believed unsound and unnecessary. Both British and American battle experience has demonstrated that the antitank gun in suitable number and disposed properly is the master of the tank. Any attempt to armor and gun tanks so as to outmatch antitank guns is foredoomed to failure... There is no indication that the 76 mm antitank gun

2926-776: The T26E1 started in November 1944. Forty primarily quoted from a post-war report from the Ordnance Dept. Production finally began in November 1944. Ten T26E3 tanks were produced that month at the Fisher Tank Arsenal, 30 in December, 70 in January 1945, and 132 in February. The Detroit Tank Arsenal also started production in March 1945, and the combined output was 194 tanks for that month. Production continued through

3003-493: The T26E3s were too large and heavy to cross the damaged bridge and had to wait five days before getting across the river by barge. Europe's bridges were in general not designed for heavy loads, which had been one of the original objections to sending a heavy tank to Europe. A single Super Pershing was shipped to Europe and given additional armor to the gun mantlet and front hull by the maintenance unit before being assigned to one of

3080-515: The T54 gun installed, which had the same long gun barrel, but the ammunition cartridge was designed to be shorter and fatter, while still retaining the propellant force of the original round. The tanks were designated as the M26E1 tank, but lack of funds cut off further production. In May 1946, due to changing conceptions of the U.S. Army's tank needs, the M26 was reclassified as a medium tank . Designed as

3157-497: The U.S. Army about its future tank needs. The accounts of what exactly happened during this time vary by historian, but all agree that Army Ground Forces was the main source of resistance that delayed production of the T26. In September–October 1943, a series of discussions occurred over the issue of beginning production of the T26E1, which was advocated by the head of the Armored Force, General Jacob Devers . Ordnance favored

M26 Pershing - Misplaced Pages Continue

3234-417: The U.S. Army from mid-1943 to early 1944 over the need for tanks with greater firepower and armor. A 90 mm gun mounted in a massive new turret was installed in both series. The T26 series were given additional frontal hull armor, with the glacis plate increased to 4 in (100 mm). This increased the weight of the T26 series to over 40 short tons (36 t) and decreased their mobility and durability as

3311-668: The U.S. Marine Tank Company destroyed three T-34-85s of the 109th Tank Regiment of the North Korean army in a few minutes during their first contact at Obong-ri, Changnyeong . Then, during the Battle of the Bowling Alley , M26s of the 73rd Tank Battalion, which supported the ROK 1st Infantry Division during the Battle of Tabu-dong , destroyed 13 T-34-85 tanks and five SU-76M self-propelled guns. A total of 309 M26 tanks were fielded on

3388-493: The US M103 heavy tank shared many components with the lighter Patton tank , including transmission and engine. As a result, they tend to be either underpowered and comparatively slow, or have engine and drive train reliability issues. In case of an entirely new design development, which was the case with the German Tiger I , designs often became needlessly complex and costly, resulting in low production numbers. Although it

3465-605: The US M4 Sherman was outclassed in terms of armor and weapons by German heavy tanks which were few in number. Near the end of World War II, a few early model M26 Pershings were sent to Europe to gain combat experience. Aside from these the closest the Americans came to putting a heavy tank into service were up-armored M4 Sherman "Jumbos" which were used as assault guns . Both the US and UK developed very well-armoured and armed tanks intended for assaulting heavily defended areas -

3542-565: The USSR from about 1943 to the war's end. This tank type remained a decisive factor in the early years of the Cold War. The purpose of heavies would not change until their replacement by the main battle tank . Often referred to as MBTs, these designs effectively filled all roles required by armies, thus rendering more specialized designs obsolete. The first British tank, the Mark I of World War I,

3619-535: The Zebra Mission. Its purpose was to support the T26E3 tanks, which still had teething problems, as well as to test other new weapons. In March, the T26E3 tanks were redesignated as the M26. The 3rd Armored first used the M26 to engage the enemy on 25 February near the Roer River . On 26 February, a T26E3 named Fireball was knocked out in an ambush at Elsdorf while overwatching a roadblock. Silhouetted by

3696-440: The battlefield today. There are indications that the enemy concurs in this view. Apparently, the M4 is an ideal combination of mobility, dependability, speed, protection, and firepower. Other than this particular request—which represents the British view—there has been no call from any theater for a 90 mm tank gun. There appears to be no fear on the part of our forces of the German Mark VI (Tiger) tank... There can be no basis for

3773-403: The crew, even using awkward two-part ammunition (separate projectile and propellant case, similar to battleship guns), which greatly slowed their rate of fire. Thanks to improved shell designs and fire control technology improving accuracy, postwar medium tanks were catching up to heavy tanks in firepower. The tactical value of heavy tanks thus declined to the point that no new designs were fielded;

3850-712: The deficiencies in the 75 mm-gunned M4 Shermans and tank destroyers in the American units. This deficiency motivated the military to ship the tanks to Europe, and on 22 December 1944, the T26E3 tanks were ordered to be deployed to Europe. Due to the repeated design and production delays, only 20 Pershing tanks were introduced into the European theater of operations before the Battle of the Bulge. This first shipment of Pershings arrived in Antwerp in January 1945. They were given to

3927-478: The end of the war, and over 2,000 were produced by the end of 1945. The 90 mm M3 gun of the Pershing was similar to the German 88 mm KwK 36 used on the Tiger I. In an effort to match the firepower of the King Tiger's more powerful 88 mm KwK 43 , the T15E1 90 mm gun was developed and mounted in a T26E1 in January 1945. This tank was designated T26E1-1. The T15E1 gun was 73 calibers in length and had

SECTION 50

#1732773248631

4004-413: The engine and powertrain were not improved to compensate for the weight gain. The T26E3 was the production version of the T26E1 with a number of minor modifications made as the result of field testing. In February 1945, the T26 was fielded in the European Theater, where its performance received early praise from Army Ordnance officials. The Army named the tank after Army General John J. Pershing when it

4081-601: The engine driving a generator that powered two traction motors . The concept was similar to the drive system of the German "Porsche Tiger" . It had performance advantages in rough or hilly terrain, where the system could better handle the rapid changes in torque requirements. The electrical transmission T23 was championed by the Ordnance Department during this phase of development. After the initial prototypes were built in early 1943, an additional 250 T23 tanks were produced from January to December 1944. These were

4158-403: The first tanks in the U.S. Army with the 76 mm M1A1 gun to go into production. However, the T23 would have required that the army adopt an entirely separate line of training, repair, and maintenance, and so was rejected for combat operations. The primary legacy of the T23 would thus be its production cast turret, which was designed from the outset to be interchangeable with the turret ring of

4235-418: The gun shield and two on the side. The two side hits went completely through and out the other side. Four of the Panther's crew were able to successfully bail out of the stricken tank before it was destroyed. The action was recorded by a Signal Corps cameraman T/Sgt. Jim Bates. On the same day, another T26E3 was knocked out in the town of Niehl near Cologne, by a rarely-seen Nashorn 88 mm tank destroyer , at

4312-731: The heavily armed mediums came to be known as the main battle tank (MBT). Doctrine held that less expensive self-propelled artillery could serve in the infantry support role. The weight of MBTs quickly increased during the Cold War , and most third generation MBTs including the M1 Abrams , Challenger 2 , Leopard 2 , Merkava , Arjun MBT , and Type 99 have weights similar to those of 1950s heavy tanks. Older heavy tanks with steel armour were rendered obsolete by anti-tank guided missiles and high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) ammunition. The much more flexible missiles are effective at ranges beyond

4389-627: The infantry, tank to tank battles with UN forces were uncommon. Heavy tank Heavy tanks achieved their greatest, albeit limited, success when fighting lighter tanks and destroying fortifications. Heavy tanks often saw limited combat in their intended roles, instead becoming mobile pillboxes or defensive positions, such as the German Tiger I and Tiger II designs, or the Russian KV and IS designs. Heavy tanks feature very heavy armor and weapons relative to lighter tanks. Many heavy tanks shared components with lighter tanks. For example,

4466-463: The less robust vertical volute spring suspension (VVSS) of the early versions of the M4. Later prototypes of the M26 tested a torsion bar suspension , which became the standard for future U.S. tank suspension systems. The T22 series reverted to the M4 transmission because of problems with the early Torqmatic transmission used in the T20. The T22E1 tested an autoloader for the main gun and eliminated

4543-485: The loader's position with a small two-man turret. Through much of 1943, there was little perceived need within the U.S. Army for a better tank than the 75 mm M4 Sherman, and so, lacking any insights from the rest of the Army as to what was needed, the Ordnance Department then took a developmental detour into electrical transmissions with the T23 series. The electrical transmission was built by General Electric and had

4620-570: The main cause of the delay in production of the M26 was opposition to the tank from the Army Ground Forces , headed by General Lesley McNair . Zaloga in particular has identified several specific factors that led both to the delay of the M26 program and limited improvements in the firepower of the M4: From mid-1943 to mid-1944, development of the 90 mm up-armored T26 prototype continued to proceed slowly due to disagreements within

4697-450: The more reliable "Easy Eight" Sherman. The M26 tank was then gradually replaced by or upgraded in standards to the new M46 tank in 1951 due to its chronic lack of mobility as the war evolved into battles between mountains. A 1954 survey concluded that there were in all 119, mostly small scale, tank vs. tank actions involving U.S. Army and Marine units during the Korean War, with 97 T-34-85 tanks knocked out and another 18 probables. The M4A3E8

SECTION 60

#1732773248631

4774-400: The new German tanks, which had already been encountered in combat. Gen. Lesley J. McNair had agreed to the production of the 76 mm M4 Sherman, and he strongly opposed the additional production of the T26E1. In the fall of 1943, he wrote this letter to Devers, responding to the latter's advocacy of the T26E1: The M4 tank, particularly the M4A3, has been widely hailed as the best tank on

4851-423: The original layout set down by the Pershing. Development of the M26 during World War II was prolonged by a number of factors, the most important being opposition to the tank from Army Ground Forces. However, the tank losses experienced in the Battle of the Bulge against a concentrated German tank force composed of some 400 Panther tanks, as well as Tiger II tanks and other German armored fighting vehicles, revealed

4928-548: The other street [where the Sherman had been destroyed]. However, as we entered the intersection, our driver had his periscope turned toward the Panther and saw their gun turning to meet us. When I turned our turret, I was looking into the Panther's gun tube; so instead of stopping to fire, our driver drove into the middle of the intersection so we wouldn't be a sitting target. As we were moving, I fired once. Then we stopped and I fired two more shells to make sure they wouldn't fire at our side. All three of our shells penetrated, one under

5005-427: The radial engines in M4 tanks added to the hull height. These features accounted for the high silhouette and large side sponsons that were characteristic of the M4 lineage. In the spring of 1942, as the M4 Sherman was entering production, U.S. Army Ordnance began work on a follow-up tank. The T20 tank reached a mock-up stage in May 1942, and was intended as an improved medium tank to follow the M4. An earlier heavy tank,

5082-474: The significantly lighter Panzer IV medium tank. However, low reliability and limited resources meant that just 1,347 were produced, compared to roughly 8,800 Pz.Kpfw. IV. The origins of the class date to World War I and the first tank designs, which were intended to operate in close concert with infantry . Virtually all early tanks possessed thick armor to allow them to survive in no man's land . As lighter and more maneuverable designs were introduced during

5159-417: The street and did not see the enemy Panther. The lead Sherman was knocked out, killing three of the five crew. A T26E3, nicknamed Eagle 7 , was in the next street over and was called over to engage the Panther. What happened next was described by the T26E3 gunner Cpl. Clarence Smoyer: We were told to just move into the intersection far enough to fire into the side of the enemy tank, which had its gun facing up

5236-417: The tank crews of the 3rd Armored Division. The new gun on the Super Pershing could pierce 13 inches (330 mm) of armor at 100 yards (91 m). The front hull was given two 38 mm steel boiler plates, bringing the front up to 38+38+102 mm of armor. The plates were applied at a greater slope than the underlying original hull plate. The turret had 80 mm thick rolled homogeneous armor (RHA) from

5313-474: The turret side, taking off the upper cupola hatch. While backing up to escape, the Tiger became entangled in debris and was abandoned by the crew. Fireball was quickly repaired and returned to service on 7 March. Shortly afterwards, also at Elsdorf, another T26E3 knocked out a Tiger I and two Panzer IVs . The Tiger was knocked out at 900 yd (820 m) with the 90-mm HVAP T30E16 ammunition. Photographs of this knocked out Tiger I in Hunnicutt's book showed

5390-408: Was being serviced, played a key role in helping Combat Command B of the 9th Armored capture the Ludendorff Bridge during the Battle of Remagen on 7–8 March 1945, providing fire support to the infantry in order to take the bridgehead before the Germans could blow it up. In encounters with Tigers and Panthers, the M26 performed well. Some of the division's other tanks were able to cross the bridge, but

5467-413: Was built by Chrysler in the summer of 1944, but did not progress into production. Hunnicutt, researching Ordnance Department documents, asserts that Ordnance requested production of 500 each of the T23, T25E1, and T26E1 in October 1943. The AGF objected to the 90 mm gun of the tanks, whereas the Armored Force wanted the 90 mm gun mounted in a Sherman tank chassis. General Devers cabled from London

5544-608: Was constituted in Japan with three companies of reconditioned M4A3s and one of M26s from various bases in the Pacific; due to the shortage of M26s, most regimental tank companies had M4A3 Shermans instead. Two battalions detached from the 2nd Armored Division at Fort Hood Texas, the 6th Medium and 64th Heavy Tank Battalions, were fully equipped with M46 Patton tanks. The 1st Marine Division at Camp Pendleton California had all M4A3 howitzer tanks, which were replaced with M26s just days before boarding ships for Korea. On 17 August, one M26 of

5621-439: Was designed under the British infantry tank concept, which is similar to the heavy tank, having thick armour and tending to weigh more than their other tanks. However, it is usually considered separate because infantry tanks generally had less firepower, with their cruiser tanks (comparable to mediums) at the time having the same main armament but more machine guns. Later war examples were the German Tiger I and II , as well as

5698-533: Was introduced to break through German defensive lines of trenches and barbed wire . When lighter, faster tanks were introduced, the larger tanks were classified as heavy. The French Char 2C was one of the largest tanks ever produced. At the start of World War II, France and the Soviet Union were the only countries to have inventories of heavy tanks, such as the Char B1 , T-35 , and KV-1 . The Matilda II

5775-520: Was involved in 50% of the tank actions, the M26 in 32%, and the M46 in 10%. The M26/M46 proved to be an overmatch for the T-34-85 as its 90 mm HVAP round could – at point blank range – punch all the way through the T-34 from the front glacis armor to the back, whereas the T-34-85 had difficulty penetrating the armor of the M26 or M46. The M4A3E8, firing 76 mm HVAP rounds that were widely available during

5852-633: Was redesignated the M46 Patton and 1,160 M26s were rebuilt to this new standard. Thus, the M26 became a base of the Patton tank series, which replaced it in early 1950s. The M47 Patton was an M46 Patton with a new turret. The later M48 Patton and M60 , which the former saw service later in the Vietnam War and both saw combat in various conflicts in the Middle East and still serve in active duty in many nations today, were evolutionary redesigns of

5929-428: Was redesignated the M26 in March. After World War II, some 800 M26 tanks were upgraded with improved engines, transmissions, and the improved 90mm gun M3A1. These were designated as the M26E2 and later redesignated as M46 Patton . The M26 was introduced late into World War II and saw only a limited amount of combat. Tank historians, such as R. P. Hunnicutt, George Forty and Steven Zaloga , have generally agreed that

#630369