Quoted Text
The M26 failed the Armored Board Test, and Army Ground Forces acted upon the Armored Board recommendation. The GAF Engine was not what was needed and that was why they started the program that eventually became the M46, because the GAF Engine was too under powered and to improve the coolant system of the M26. It was Ordnance that pushed the deployment of the T26E3.
http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/pc-browser/21/The_Chieftains_Hatch_Pershing_1/
That's the first of a series of articles on the Pershing, and stats that the mechanical reliability is a major reason for its rejection...and he uses source documents.
Nevertheless, despite the failure of the M26 in the Armor Board's tests, 2,000 of them were built and many of these were deployed in Korea. Perhaps, as I mentioned earlier, IF the M26 had been given TOP PRIORITY, isn't it logical that TOP PRIORITY might have also been given to ironing out the M26's failings? Yes, the Ford GAF Engine was under-powered- The US possessed THE largest industrial-base in the world, especially in the field of producing engines of ALL types for the various Armed Services, "Lend-Lease" notwithstanding. Isn't it just a wee bit possible that this "industrial might" could have come up with a worthy replacement for the Ford GAF..? Packard built Rolls-Royce Merlins (under license) not only for the USAAF's P-51Bs, Cs, Ds and P-40Fs, but also for the RAF, and also de-rated (less Supercharger), marine-application Merlins for the US NAVY, using 3 each of them in our PT Boats. A Merlin wasn't that big in it's outside dimensions, so just for "$#!+$ & Giggles", couldn't a Merlin have been fitted into some kind of an armored application..? As it was, ALL of the US Heavy Tanks that I had mentioned previously, (T29, T30, et al) used much larger engines than the Ford GAF, with correspondingly higher horse-power ratings.
Another reason the M26 wasn't developed to it's full potential was that the various powers-that-be had asked major "armor-domo" General Patton whether the M26 should be manufactured in lieu of existing M4-types. Patton answered in the negative, mainly because he was afraid that a switch in production priorities would have deprived his Armored Forces of Shermans which he never thought he had enough of. Also, Patton was in the "dog house" again at the time over some faux pas that he had recently committed, (at some British Ladies' Organization function, I believe), and he was desperately afraid of being sent home for good if he ruffled anyone else' feathers... Ike had warned Patton "for the last time"...
There are viable arguments in favor of a switch-over from Sherman production to a superior weapons system, as well as against, and these arguments have raged ever since the M4-series Medium first came up against certain "superior" German Tanks, i.e, Tigers I & II, and Panthers.
It's been well established by numerous authorities on the subject that these "superior" German Tanks were pretty unreliable, mechanically speaking- Yes, they had superior armament and armor; no one is disputing that. Check the figures of German armored combat losses against the figures of these "vaunted" Tigers and Panther that suffered mechanical failures (Engines, Transmissions, Final Drives and Suspension Components) and also Engine Compartment FIRES. If US AFVs had suffered as many breakdowns, and systems failures, comparatively speaking of course, it would have been cause for a goodly number of official congressional inquiries, and BY GOD, HEADS WOULD HAVE ROLLED...
