M-26 Pershing & Panther Ausf A head to head

The low silouette of the Pershing is a neat feature, but it had 1 foot 2 inch ground clearance comapred to 22 inch for Panther. An 8 inch difference. I chose it because it seems the one allied tank with a comparable gun to the German 88 & 75. Whether it was as accurate as the 75/L/70 I have my doubts.

 

That & the later 17 pounder that is.

 

Here's a good sum up of the 88, 90 mm, & the 75. 17 pounder good similiar penetration to German 75, just not as accurate.




In spite of the great variety of results obtainable with different types of ammunition, the fact remains that the 7.5cm KwK 42 showed superior armor penetration using the standard APCBC projectiles readily available during the latter months of the war. The complete APCBC round for the Panther's gun weighed about 31 pounds compared to 43 and 34 for those of the Pershing and Tiger I respectively. The lighter weight made the ammunition easier to handle in the tank turret, increasing the rate of fire. The larger guns could, of course, fire a higher capacity high explosive shell, but they were less effective as the hole punchers required for tank versus tank action. On this basis the Panther must be rated first in regard to firepower followed by the Pershing and then the Tiger I.

- unquote

Quick Q. WHich was more powerful/better? The German 88mm or the British 17 pounder? - Topic Powered by Eve For Enterprise

 

According to Hunnicutt the M26 has 18.8" of ground clearance. This appears about typical for most tanks.

As for the 90/50 versus the 75/70:

The later is only better at 500 yards or less. At 500 yards there is no real difference in penetration and at 1000 the 90 is slightly better. By 1500 yards it is significantly better. This has much to do with it being a much heavier round so it retains momentum better.
When you compare the APCR / HVAP round the 90 is devastatingly better.

 

General der Panzertruppen Heinz von Guderian thought otherwise. IIRC this comment is quoted by New Vanguards reference book to Pz V. Insofar as I am concerned, that puts a rest to that issue.

It is not. The Germans said so. Thomas Jentz had reproduced a German tactical field manual for Tiger I crews on the 88s lethal envolope against allied tanks in his book on the Tiger tank. This table is on the net, acessible in both THE ARMOR SITE and google books.

Which is a bit irrelevant as the Panther's armor would not resist 90 L/50 at normal combat ranges.

 

The actual combat record of it would prove that view incorrect circa 1944. I would like to see his actual comment. If it is this one, it is entierly time irrelevant to the thread timeframe.

Shortly before the battle of Kursk Guderian added, about the Panther and its crews:

They are simply not ready yet for the front.




Regardless, it did serve successfully 44-45 regardless of your view. That settles that. He may well have thought it needed upgrading, but to infer it was unbattleworthy or that he meant it was "not capable of doing battle" when it did well in battle is a stretch of semantics. & a view not supportable by the actual combat record in the timframe referenced..

 

Quote:
The larger guns could, of course, fire a higher capacity high explosive shell, but they were less effective as the hole punchers required for tank versus tank action.

Which is a bit irrelevant as the Panther's armor would not resist 90 L/50 at normal combat ranges.


Which is irrelevant as the point of discussion is which is more effective at tank killing. & not all combats take place at normal combat ranges. To hit 1st at longe range is the better tactic.

 

The figure of 1 foot 2 inch came from here. 17 inch is listed elsewhere.

http://www.freewebs.com/hedgehobbit/m26.pdf

 

Besides being technically correct, it is of interest when one considers the 75 mm was even better.

It is not. The Germans said so. Thomas Jentz had reproduced a German tactical field manual for Tiger I crews on the 88s lethal envolope against allied tanks in his book on the Tiger tank. This table is on the net, acessible in both THE ARMOR SITE and google books.


Yes it is & the Germans didn't say so.


Here is some info on the Pak-Kwk 43 88mm, for 1500 & 3000 Meters.

1500 m 148 mm 95 % 61 %
3000 m n/a 61 % 23 %

 

Some say the HVAP 90 mm was never used in the war.

AFAIK 90mm HVAP almost certainly never saw service in WW2, unless someone has evidence to the contrary?

Axis History Forum • View topic - Firefly's 76mm 17pdr gun just as effective as tiger's 88 mm?



Another problem with HVAP rounds was that there wasn't enough of it issued to the Tank Battalions. The majority of it went to the Tank Destroyer Battalions. This was a matter fo the Doctrine AGF (Army Ground Force) followed


So, we have our problem of HVAP, due to doctrine the majority of it found its way to the towed and self propelled units of the Tank Destroyer Force. HVAP was produced in the following calibers. 75mm (very little, mainly for training purposes), 3 inch (for use with the towed 3 in gun and the M-10 GMC), 76mm (for use with the M4(76mm)and the M18 Hellcat GMC) and 90mm (for use with the M1 and M2 90mm AA Gun, 90mm T8 towed AT gun, the M26 Pershing, and the 90mm M36 GMC).


In my openion the HVAP would have been better issued to the Tank battalions, who had to face the Tigers and Panthers, then to the Tand Destroyers who wasted alot of it on targets that could have been taken out by regular AP rounds.


WikiAnswers - Why didn't America build better tanks in World War 2

 

The combat history of the Panther tank from 1944-45 consisted of an unbroken string of defeats, attributable in part to the Panther's lack of dependibility and striking range. This is easy to prove. The German army did not win any offensive battle after its adoption of the Panther tank.

We know that Guderian did not approve the Panther tanks' battleworthiness until after Kursk. Someone who has the dates will be able to find whether it was the A or G model that influenced that decision.

While I cannot find that Guderian quote at this time, I had however found in Zaloga's Panther v. T-34 that "no German unit with Panther Ausf D or A models were able to sustain an operation readiness above 35% for any sustained period in 1943."(33)

In his Panther v. Sherman that the Panther tank's overall combat readiness rate was 71% on the eve of the December offensive in 1945, "inspite of the fact that almost all were new vehicles manufactured September-November 1944." (32) Those, of course, were also tanks that hadn't been subject to hard-driving in a mobile operation.

Battle-worthiness is not merely the ability of driving up to the battlefront and firing its weapons; it refers to a weapon system's adequacy or lack thereof in performing the full specturm of military operations in all likely field conditions, within the constraints of cost-effectiveness. Panther A does not live up to that standard.

Bullocks! The IS-2's turret, mantlet and upper front hull armor would not fail against the 88 at ranges over 100 meters.

Source : JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics; ISBN 0-7643-0225-6

The IS-2 had a turret front of 160mm and hull front of 120mm of well-sloped armor.

 

Consolidated.

 

I had however found in Zaloga's Panther v. T-34 that "no German unit with Panther Ausf D or A models were able to sustain an operation readiness above 35% for any sustained period in 1943."(33)


Right & timeframe is 44. So that's bollocks. Can't find Guderians quote, so that's bollocks. Bollocks consolidated.

 

Here is the armor of the IS 1. Type Heavy Tank Late 1943 - Early 1944

Armor Detail Front Side Rear Top/Bottom
Hull 100mm@60° 90mm@90° 60mm@49° 30mm@0°(front)
60mm@18°(glacis) 20mm@0°(back)
Superstructure 120mm@60°(driver) 90mm@75° 60mm@41° 30mm@0°
Turret 100mm@round 100mm@72° 100mm@60° 30mm@0-5°
Mantlet 100mm@round - - -

IS-1 (Iosef Stalin), also IS-85, and JS-1




Here is some info on the Pak-Kwk 43 88mm, for 1500 & 3000 Meters.

1500 m 148 mm 95 % 61 %
3000 m n/a 61 % 23 %

Game set match, consolidated.

 

So It is your argument that by replacing the old 1943 calendar with the improved new model calendar 1944, the ausf A's dependability problems will just go away?

So what part of "No German unit with either Panther Ausf D or A models were able to sustain an operation readiness above 35%" don't you understand?

The Panther A which you specified for discussion had seen no foudemental changes in its design throughout this period. In fact, the 1944 average readiness rate of mostly Panther G tanks was still just 60-65%. In fact, 31% of the new model Gs that were supposedly "fixed" and "fit for service" deadlined just waiting for Wacht am Rhein to begin!

Good God! They should shoot the school teacher who taught you how to count. Because apparently, you can't keep it together past 1! It goes in this order: 1... 2... 3...!

You know, I am talking about the IS-2, the tank armed with the 122 gun?

 

Attahced are a couple of sections from Russian Battlefield web site

And shows the two common types of IS2
View attachment 5631

View attachment 5632

Additionally I have cut and pasted this section which is relevant to the present discussion

this above information is from the same original source as that you quote from the Onwar Web site it would have been better if you had looked at the Russian Battlefield site which his probably one the best none western source of information on Soviet vehicles- doubly good because much of it is in English.

Further whilst the Tank vs Tank books are probably a good basic starting reference I would really want to check out before relying on them- there a bit like Wiki but at least Wiki warns that a citation should be sought.

It is generally accepted that Hunnicutt Books are accurate especially which regard to technical details, some historical information needs minor amendment because particularly as Pershing is now almost 40years old further information has come to light.

I think this statement is very subjective, are you alluding to the poor showing of a very few M26 in the early part of the Korean War,
for the most part Army/Marine Technical Services had the measure of any mechanical problems with the Pershing.

Steve

 

Is it better for a tank to have high capacity of HE shells (like the Panther) over far fewer, but individually more powerful HE shells (JS-2) in anti-infantry missions ?

 

Him Razin, IS 1 a bit different to JS 2. & here is the Korea reliability data from page 1.

2. Mechanical unreliability was a major problem, for example in the period 8th April 1951 to 8 June 1951, 31 M26 Pershings were lost due to mechanical failure out of a total strength of 88

Pershing vs Sherman in Korea - The Dupuy Institute Forum


& as to 43 vs 44 vintage Panthers, yes there were differences. & really, head to head, 44-45 Panthers were the ones a Pershing would encounter. A to G. Field mods are also worth considering. Um, yes Triple Panther didn't win the war. Allied airpower plus the 2 front situation did. That does not mean the Panther did not successfully operate in major battles.

a monocular telescopic sight for the gunner were introduced in November 1943. Also in November, an engine governor set at 2500rpm was installed. With the engine governor, turret traverse speed was limited to one revolution in 18 seconds. Later production

Pz.Kpfw.Panther

 

Him Razin, IS 1 a bit different to JS 2. & here is the Korea reliability data from page 1.

2. Mechanical unreliability was a major problem, for example in the period 8th April 1951 to 8 June 1951, 31 M26 Pershings were lost due to mechanical failure out of a total strength of 88

Pershing vs Sherman in Korea - The Dupuy Institute Forum


& as to 43 vs 44 vintage Panthers, yes there were differences. & really, head to head, 44-45 Panthers were the ones a Pershing would encounter. A to G. Field mods are also worth considering. Um, yes Triple Panther didn't win the war. Allied airpower plus the 2 front situation did. That does not mean the Panther did not successfully operate in major battles.

a monocular telescopic sight for the gunner were introduced in November 1943. Also in November, an engine governor set at 2500rpm was installed. With the engine governor, turret traverse speed was limited to one revolution in 18 seconds. Later production

Pz.Kpfw.Panther

 

Chromeboomerang

The difference between the IS1 and IS122 (ChKZ Stepped hull front) is an 85mm gun with only 115 manufactured. I put the armor basis drawings up to assist both You and Triple C in your arguements as both are making errors in your figures. However Triple C is correct in that a IS2 is an overmatch for the Panther and this arguement has already been done in the last few months on two threads.

With regard to the Dupuy Institute post I read through the information and really I don't think your points holds up. Both the M26 and later M46 had more or less the same loss rate due to mechanical failure, the M46 was a much later development of the M26 with a superior drive train, therefore unless each loss is anylised it is not really possible to attribute the losses to any mechanical failing of either tank.

The losses were probably due to failures that can happen to any tank -if M60s had been used the MTBF could well have been the same, for the reason that it was probably mechanical failure due to the conditions, the ability of the crews, the lack of spares, specialist equipment and technicians.

Added to which there is no mention of how long the vehicles had been in theatre which has a major bearing on the loss rate. However the loss rate for mechanical failure of the M26 which had been in theatre for a considerable time, is the same as the failure to deploy statistic for the Panther at the beginning of the Bulge Battle.

The monocular sight? this doesn't change the parameters of the tank, it probably just cost less to manufacture, incidently the M71c and M10 periscope fitted to M26 were also Monocular.

Steve