I know they encountered Panthers but I was curious about the King Tiger (or even Tiger I's).

One of the first Pershings into combat "fireball" was knocked out by a Tiger 1. That Pershing was avenged by another Pershing who took the Tiger out. I do not know of any Tiger 2 encounters. However, there were the "super pershings" - and up armored up gunned Pershing (a couple of great pictures in the Hunnicutt book). To my knowledge these "bastardized" pershings Never saw combat.

Yes, the T26E3 (M26) Pershing engaged Tiger I and Pz.kpfw. IV tanks during the fight to cross the Hohenzollern Bridge over the Rhine.

By the time the Pershing got into action the german cats were getting kinda scarce...We all know the Panther in front of the church was taken out by a Pershing ...I also have a picture of a tiger I that was knocked out by a Pershing ..I'm sure that fireball (not a great name for a tank if you ask me ) was taken out by a Nashorn..and I think the other destroyed Perhing was hit by the Tiger that was later shown to have been destroyed by the Pershing ...By this time of the war most of the heavy tanks were on the eastern front ...I don't think they ever met face to face...I might be wrong but , I,ve been working on my Pershing for the last month and haven't seen any evidence of such a meeting ...I'm sure they would have made a big deal of it if it had happened..

Rick

Of the 2 Super Pershings shipped to Europe, 1 did see combat with the 3rd AD. The extra armour though was applied in the field. the sucess of that tank though was the deciding factor in sending the Pershings to Europe. The SP was shipped and tested in combat in Summer of '44. the first finalised Pershings arriving in Jan-Feb of '45. BTW The SP was not upgunned it was the same as the production models just with a longer Barrel. Also the hydralic rams for gun elevation were removed for the production version. The 3rd AD added the stell counter balance to the Mantle and welded extra armour from a knocked out Panther. This was added to increase crew confidence during combat testing, and was proven later by production Pershingsto have been unnessecary. HTH STUG

Agreeing with stugIIIf, there were 2 super pershings. Check out the book "Deathtraps" by Belton Cooper. He had an Engineering education and was involved with the "SP"s.

As far as the Super Pershing, I thought I would share this site, which BTW is killing me with anticipation:
Shhh, just don't tell anyone else.

THE "SUPER PERSHING" T26E4-1

Gee, why not? I''ll apologize up front to all the Shermanoholic's.

To throw an answer at the original question. The Pershing should have been the tank that was thrown at the german steel in the first place! I won't go into the person responsible for this significant 'faux pas' (because I don't want to lure another group of 'torch-carrier's' after me) but suffice it to say the Pershing had very limited active participation in the final events of engagement in WW II. I would LOVE to have seen the conflict unfold if Pershing's were faced- off against the german steel instead of the Sherman. Methink's there would have been a more expedient and rank-swelling end to the conflict.....

Tread.

O.K.......now you can yell!

No need for anyone to yell, Tread, what you say is correct.

U.S. doctrine at the time did not want tanks fighting tanks head-to-head. Believe it or not, Patton was one of the biggest supporters of this doctrine. They wanted enemy tanks to be taken out by air, artillery, tank destoyers or infantry. U.S. tanks were supposed to attack in support of infantry.

The Pershing series could have entered battle much earlier in the war, but the leadership was against it. I think that somehow, someone convinced someone else that Pershings were "medium" tanks and could therefore deploy like Shermans.

I'm sure that someone with more doctrinal history knowlege than I can chime in now ...

:-) ...thx Hollowpoint...nice to know I won't be alone when the villager's carrying torche's attack the cottage!

Tread.

Nice site there and in late February there is going to be detailed article. So if anyone wants to build a super Pershing can only scratch the details , or it already exists in a kit ?

I think Accurate Armour produces a conversion set now. The current Tamiya magazine has an article on the Super Pershing.

You are not alone...I am a ardent anti-Patton policy person (say that three times fast). I think things could have been made better for the troops had the well-being of the troops been higher on the list of...well...

TH & HP - You are both partly correct> Patton did not want to stop the shipment and training on the M4 Shermans. GEN Leslie McNair was the individual in charge of doctrine and was the one that actually delayed the production of the M26. Patton would have accepted the M26, if it arrived in theater. The problem was the disruption that would have resulted if M4 production was halted and M26 production intiated. With the US provided tanks to the British Commonwealth, Russia and China, M4 production could not be halted. The M4 was excellent for Patton's form of slashing combat, i.e., the Breakout and Pursuit following Normandy. However, it was not a good vehcle for stand-up shootout with heavier armor.

Now, American tanks were not designed to solely support the Infantry. That was the purpose of the independent tank battlions that were attached to the divisions. There the 75mm, which had one of the beat tank cannon HE rounds in the war, was a good tank. The tanks assigned to the armored divisions had the mission (by doctrine, not necessarily in fact) to run rapid in the enemy rear areas (the Tanker's happy hunting ground). Here, too in theory, the 75mm was a good cannon for shooting up the trucks, vans, wagons, command posts, etc., found in the rear areas. However, one thing forgotten by the Army doctrine folks, is that an armored force running around in an enemy's rear area is normally countered by an enemy armored force - mobile fire power being the key. The 75mm was not very good against armor, thus the 76.2mm.

The M26 would have made little to no difference in the Bocage, but once the war was out in teh open, it would have leveled the battle field for American tankers. Now how much would the Brits, Canadian, and Polish tankers have screamed for their own M26s?

Just another view

the british did actually trial several M26's, and ordered around 3000 tanks in 1945, but the order was cancelled once the superior centurion design was proven

cheers

joe

Another problem with US doctrine at the time was in accepting SPG's...look at the fiasco with the 155mm M12 and how long it took to get things up for the other SPG's. While the M4 had a good HE round for sure, I think the 155mm had a evern BETTER one. Personally, I liked soviet doctrine of having tanks with anti-tank oriented guns to deal with other tanks, and having assualt guns for "bunker busting" and anti-tank uses as well.

Imagine, if you will, that the Pershing was fielded in force in late '44, and that a APG assualt gun, based onthe Pershing chassis, with a 155mm main gun, was used for assaulting fortifications and towns? not only MAY the war have ended sooner, but I think we may have elicited more respect fromthe Warsaw Pact in the following years. (Holy crap Ivan, have you seen their assault gun?)

Actually, IIRC, the gunner in the Super Pershing that saw service wrote a memoir. It's not that great, but it's a quick read. He's now a philosophy professor somewhere, so he wasn't too fixated on technical details when he wrote the book. Here's the amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375507752/qid=1076598537/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-7073771-5492800?v=glance&s=books

The M26 was designated as a HEAVY tank, with a 'battle weight of 92,000 pounds .

There was an M18 that did knock out a Kingtiger through it's hull side at 1,000 yards with 2 rounds of HVAP . I can't recall the TD Btn the the M18 was from but I have the account somewhere in my U.S. TD's of WW2 History book.

The kingtiger turret (both Henschel & Porsche), superstructure, and hull armor was only 80mm at the sides, which is about 4-1/4 inches. So I'm quite sure if the M18 could do the job, it would not be a problem for the M26, unless it's was a round fired at the 50 degree sloped armor of the kingtiger's hull front, or it was obviously out of range.

The thing that mattered the most against U.S. tank & TD armament & ammo / rounds was the SLOPED armor on the German panzers, such as the Panther & the Kingtiger. The Panther front hull was only 4-1/4 inches thick BUT had a 55 degree angle/slope - This slope or angle actually increased the effect of the armor thickness by 50% ! ( 25% at 30 degrees & 100% at 60 degrees ) and also caused deflection of enemy rounds. It was much harder to penetrate the front armor on the Panther than the Tiger I. For the record, if within range and using HVAP the M26, M10, M18 & M36 could all penetrate the armor plate and knock out the Tiger I from the front. ..... ALONGS THE TIGER DID NOT GET OFF A ROUND AND HIT IT'S MARK FIRST.

Anyhow the "icing on the cake ' for the American 76mm guns was the HVAP rounds. Using HVAP, the M10 & M18 could penetrate :
.... 135mm ( about 5-1/2 inches ) of armor plate @ 30 degrees from 1000 yds.
.... 98mm ( roughly 4inches ) of armor @ 30 degrees from 2000 yds.

The M36 with its 90mm gun and HVAP could penetrate 8 inches of armor plate @ 30 degrees from 1000 yds. and at 2000 yds out would penetrate a bit over 6 inches of armor.
Regular APC rounds would have penetrated less at the same 1000 & 2000 yd. range ..... obviously !

I don't have ref's to the M26 90mm gun, but they must be quite similiar to the M36 specs, unless the muzzle velocity differed

- ralph

Correction on the history of the T26E4 Super Pershing: I don't mean to be a nitpicker but some of the facts in stugIIIf's post are incorrect.

A) Not a test case for other Pershings:

There were two T26E4's created in January of 1945. And eventually the first pilot model was shipped over to Europe with the intention to see how it would fare under combat conditions -- the 2nd one stayed in Maryland and was to be the basis for the production series of T26E4's. The 1st pilot model was shipped to Europe and was sent to the 3rd Armored Div for field mods and deployment. (T26E3 Pershings had been in theatre since January as part of the "Zebra Mission". The Super Pershings were in no way a "test" case in summer of '44 (D Day invasion?) to see whether or not T26E3 Pershings would be deployed) cf. Hunnicutt's "Pershing" and Cooper's "Death Traps"

B) Super Pershing Killed a Tiger II and more:

In the cited book by John Irwin "Another River Another Town", Irwin and his crew (just surviving an M4A3 (76) brew up) are issued the upgunned and up armored Super Pershing from the 3AD replacement pool. He recalls killing 3 tanks (and some lesser AFV's and softskins I think) while serving as the Super's gunner. His first tank kill in the T26E4 was the Tiger II. In the encounter, the T2 fired first but its shot glanced off the upper nose armor of the SP. The SP's 1st shot also glanced off the T2 nose armor. While manuevering, the T2 went over a pile of rubble and exposed its belly. Irwin shot low and pierced the T2's belly armor. Later in an urban environment, a disabled Panther with an operable turret fired off a couple of shots at the SP. Irwin brews it up too. Finally, the SP encountered two mediums (Mark IVs?) that drive in front of its parked position. The first shot killed one. The second one stopped and its crew exited and surrendered.

Irwin and his crew end the war in the SP. It's unknown if Irwin's crew is the only one to use it. The SP may have been manned by another crew before Irwin's crew was issued it on March 14, 1945.

Whew, glad to see someone else was familiar with Irving's book and that I was recalling correctly that he was a Super Pershing gunner.

Have to agree with the Sgt here ( stug ref's are incorrect ) and also the testing was not the deciding factor for the M26 being sent to Europe ...... it was the inadequacies in the light armor and underpowered gun of the M4, that was THE deciding factor, ..... especially in the Battle of the Bulge. The U.S. General Staff intervened, and start shipping the M26's (T26E3) in January 45' without letting it ever finish the FULL TRIALS !


There was testing of the 10 - T26E1's (76mm ) produced by Grand Blanc Arsenal from Mar-June 1944, but all testing was done here in the U.S.

Just for the record, it's said that a total of 25 T26E4's were produced.

- ralph