M26A1E2

dox44 · Post by **dox44** » Sat Nov 25, 2000 2:04 am

looked in US OOB and didn't see it. will it
be included in the new OOBs

thanks
casebier

Wild Bill · Post by **Wild Bill** » Sun Nov 26, 2000 1:08 pm

Was this a special version of the Pershing, Randy? I know that most of the Pershings used in Europe right at the end of the war were somewhat still in the experimental stage.

What was special about this one?

Whatever the answer, the ones to tell you if it will be included are those currently editing the OOBs.

WB

------------------
In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Coordinator, Scenario Design
Matrix Games

dox44 · Post by **dox44** » Sun Nov 26, 2000 11:25 pm

What was special about this one?

It was delivered to 3rd Armor the last week
of February 45. It was modified at a steel
fabricating shop next to the power plant at
Bergheim.

It had the experimental T15E1 high-velocity
gun, seventy calibers long. It also had new
special ammunition. This gun could produce
a muzzle velocity of 3,850 feet per second,
some 600 feet per second greater than the
88mm KwK43, that was mounted on the VIb.

It was tested against a Jagdpanzer IV in the
first week of March. At a distance of a mile
and one-half, the round went completely
through the panzer.

I went into action on 11 April 45 and this
was its only action. It knocked a tank out
at 1500 yards, don't know what.

From the book, Death Traps, pp 230-234, 266-
267, by Belton Y. Cooper.1998.

casebier

dox44 · Post by **dox44** » Sun Nov 26, 2000 11:49 pm

previous post could be confusing...they
modified the armor at the steel fabricating
shop. they added 7 tons of armor to the
tank which slowed it down 5 mph

the gun could penetrate 13" of armor at
100 yards "we all realized that we had a
weapon that could blast the hell out of
even the most powerful German Mark VI Tiger"

there is a picture of it in the book being
test fired in Niederaussen Germany. It
weighed 53 tons with the additional armor.
the author says it was the most powerful
tank in the war.

casebier

Drex · Post by **Drex** » Mon Nov 27, 2000 12:26 am

let me put my order in for two platoons. I've got some Germans to chastise.

Warrior · Post by **Warrior** » Mon Nov 27, 2000 5:01 am

Originally posted by Drex:
let me put my order in for two platoons. I've got some Germans to chastise.

I agree, but they better be sitting on a hilltop, 'cause at just 5 mph they won't be much good for maneuvering.

[This message has been edited by REMF (edited November 26, 2000).]

kao16 · Post by **kao16** » Mon Nov 27, 2000 6:05 am

Originally posted by REMF:
I agree, but they better be sitting on a hilltop, 'cause at just 5 mph they won't be much good for maneuvering.

Re-read, Speed was reduced by 5 mph not TOO 5 mph.

Mind you, what is the normal top speed of the M26? Less 5 mph?

Viriato · Post by **Viriato** » Mon Nov 27, 2000 4:48 pm

hello all

hey , put me in for 2 dozens , and my friend here wants 1 dozen more ...

now seriously , I do hope this unit makes it to the OBBs cause it would be a hell of a tank to have in the battles after 45. do you have a picture of it ?

------------------
A sorte protege os audazes

dox44 · Post by **dox44** » Mon Nov 27, 2000 9:18 pm

now seriously , I do hope this unit makes it to the OBBs cause it would be a hell of a tank to have in the battles after 45. do you have a picture of it ?
[/B][/QUOTE]

Yeah, there is a picture of it in the
"Death Traps" book...first thing that jumps
out at you is the main gun...

casebier

Viriato · Post by **Viriato** » Mon Nov 27, 2000 10:17 pm

cool , any chance of scanning that ?

------------------
A sorte protege os audazes

Slayer · Post by **Slayer** » Tue Nov 28, 2000 5:39 am

Wow, then I wouldn't have to be so jealous of the British and their 17pdr guns!

Bonzo · Post by **Bonzo** » Tue Nov 28, 2000 6:03 am

The armour modification was to the gun mantle. The overly long barrel overstressed the equilibrator spring that was to offset the extra barrel length of the original Pershing. Thes allowed the barrel to sag. The gun mantle had some "Elephant Ears" added to add weight to the breach side of the barrel pivot, counterbalancing the weight of the extra barrel length. Extra weight had to be added to the back of the turret to balance the added weight of the new mantle so that the turret would traverse smoothly when the tank was stopped on a slope. All this extra weight forward caused the rear of the tank to be somewhat raised ("cock up like a wild drake in heat").

------------------
Robert (Bonzo) Lindsay, Coordinator
28th (North-west) Battalion Headquarters
http://dreadnaught.home.icq.com
nwbattalion@icqmail.com

dox44 · Post by **dox44** » Tue Nov 28, 2000 7:16 am

Originally posted by Bonzo:
The armour modification was to the gun mantle. The overly long barrel overstressed the equilibrator spring that was to offset the extra barrel length of the original Pershing. Thes allowed the barrel to sag. The gun mantle had some "Elephant Ears" added to add weight to the breach side of the barrel pivot, counterbalancing the weight of the extra barrel length. Extra weight had to be added to the back of the turret to balance the added weight of the new mantle so that the turret would traverse smoothly when the tank was stopped on a slope. All this extra weight forward caused the rear of the tank to be somewhat raised ("cock up like a wild drake in heat").

that's it, Bonzo...had the same problem on a
slope that the Panther did...thanks!

casebier

mogami · Post by **mogami** » Tue Nov 28, 2000 8:08 am

Hi, the Pershing was the slowest heavy tank of the period (30kmph) changing the gun from 53 cal to 70 cal only gave a slight increase in performance (the 90mm 53 cal could kill Tigers) But the 5 mile per hour reduction in speed did kill the idea. The US did not produce the "Super" Pershings for the Korean War. The Firefly's are much cheaper and they have that wonderfull 17pounder. I think I will change to a Brit. I wonder why the German players don't just stick with their wonderfull Panthers? I consider it the best all around tank of WWII, Its Fast has good armour its 75mm gun is better then the Tigers (not the KT's) The US TD's with the 90mm 50cal versus Pershing 90mm 53 cal are real nice too for the price just make sure you hide them.
The US 3rd armoured division also tried using WP rounds against german tanks. Only 1 Pershing was lost to a German AFV (JagPanther I think) Here's a gun I wish I could put on a Tank, the 76mm 62cal Otto Molero (rate of fire 80 rounds per minute) But the tank would have to be the size of a barn to hold the revolving magazine (its the gun on the O.H. Perry class FFG and Pegasus PBM's) While I wander around in confusion here what do you think of adding WP to the list of ammo for arty? And fuze VT for air bursts? Fastest way to ruin the enemies day is a big cloud of WP right on their heads.

OH, by the way WP is now against the Geneva Convention for use against personal (sorry fellas those 30 WP rounds that landed on you just now were "Spotting" rounds I fired a HE one there at the end for "effect")
------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!

[This message has been edited by Mogami (edited November 27, 2000).]

dox44 · Post by **dox44** » Tue Nov 28, 2000 8:40 am

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami:
Hi, the Pershing was the slowest heavy tank of the period (30kmph) changing the gun from 53 cal to 70 cal only gave a slight increase in performance (the 90mm 53 cal could kill Tigers) But the 5 mile per hour reduction in speed did kill the idea.

wasn't only the L70...the "ammunition was larger to accomodate a larger propellant
charge"...increased the muzzle velocity
by +1000 fps (90 53 was 2850 fps)...according to Aberdeen...it did result in slower loading though

this guy, was a Capt. with CCB, says they
lost quite a few to high velocity anti-tank
guns...thats why they added the additional
armor which was plate...all US was cast...

the Pershing's ratio was 12hp per ton, comparable to the Panther;the M4 was 10 which
made the M26 faster than the Sherman over
rough terrain---

casebier

dox44 · Post by **dox44** » Tue Nov 28, 2000 9:03 am

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami:
Hi, the Pershing was the slowest heavy tank of the period (30kmph) changing the gun from 53 cal to 70 cal only gave a slight increase in performance (the 90mm 53 cal could kill Tigers) But the 5 mile per hour reduction in speed did kill the idea.

Also the "Super Pershings" were delivered
without any additional armor...that was a
3rd Arm. Div.(local) add-on due to the loss of M-26s to german high-velocity guns...the
only difference I can find between a Pershing
and a "Super Pershing" is the gun/ammo...

thanks
casebier

mogami · Post by **mogami** » Tue Nov 28, 2000 9:44 am

Hi, I don't want to start another Grognard war like "Victorys and Draws" what I meant was the upgraded Pershing was not a revelation. The added armour was for protection from guns that were not on AFV's so making the gun bigger was not worth the cost in speed. Maybe over rough ground it was faster then a Sherman but not after they added all the weight. I feel every vechicle/weapon/troop type that was in use or on the drawing boards should have a place in the SPWaW OB's (space permiting) but allied players looking for an answer to the King Tiger should remember the Firefly and the Jackson, and not try frontal shots and get as close as possible. Buy plenty of bazooka's. What about firing WP at them? 3rd Armoured Division highly recommended it for all your German killing requirements. Whacks the tank and the infantry riding on, or walking behind it.

------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!

dox44 · Post by **dox44** » Wed Nov 29, 2000 3:42 am

i agree with you 100%. WP was used. I know of 2 instances to destroy KT (fired from m4s). Also 3rd Arm. said that early on the best thing against panthers was the M7 because the light armor on the top (1/4").

don't think you can have everything in a wargame. we could argue over turret traverse
or the early m4 engine opposed to the later
engine...it would never end..

sorry for any misunderstanding
thanks for your input

casebier

kao16 · Post by **kao16** » Wed Nov 29, 2000 6:16 am

Originally posted by Mogami:
... Here's a gun I wish I could put on a Tank, the 76mm 62cal Otto Molero (rate of fire 80 rounds per minute) But the tank would have to be the size of a barn to hold the revolving magazine (its the gun on the O.H. Perry class FFG and Pegasus PBM's)

I think the Italians built an SPAA with the 76mm/62 on a Leopard 1 hull (at least a prototype, some time in the 1980's - have a look at Janes Armour and Artillery)

mogami · Post by **mogami** » Wed Nov 29, 2000 8:58 am

Hi, they must have left all the lower gun loading components off and just went with the the tube and breach. The Mark-75 (76mm\62cal) is also built in US by FMC. Did Janes list it's rate of fire? The primary purpose of the MK-75 is AA. The MK-54 is a 5inch gun with a rate of fire near 60. I am sure if it were possible some one would employ these rapid fire guns but is there no room in a AFV for even a loader drum? Holding 3-5 rounds of ammo (of course you would have to pick your ammo type in advance)
I worked on the Mark-75 for 10 years and it seemed to be designed for maintenace by midgets.

(put it in Modern SPWaW design your own AFV)

------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!

[This message has been edited by Mogami (edited November 28, 2000).]