Tank Chats #90 | M26 Pershing | The Tank Museum
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- David Fletcher examines the American M26 Pershing 'Heavy' tank. The Pershing saw service in the latter days of the Second World War and Korea.
Tank Chat playlist: • Playlist
SUBSCRIBE to The Tank Museum RUclips channel: ► / @thetankmuseum
Support the work of The Tank Museum on Patreon: ► / tankmuseum
Press the little bell above to enable NOTIFICATIONS so you don’t miss the latest Tank Museum videos.
Visit The Tank Museum SHOP: ►tankmuseumshop...
Follow The Tank Museum on FACEBOOK: ► / tankmuseum
Twitter: ► / tankmuseum
Instagram: ► / tankmuseum
Tiger Tank Blog: ► blog.tiger-tank...
Tank 100 First World War Centenary Blog: ► tank100.com/
The Tank Museum E-Newsletter sign-up: mailchi.mp/e6f...
#tankmuseum #tanks
![Tee Grizzley - Blow for Blow (feat. J. Cole) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wNLN5xsx5dc/mqdefault.jpg)
who needs santa claus and his measly gifts, when we have Tank Chats by Mr. Fletcher.
Repent of that nonsense, David Fletcher IS Santa Klaus. Talking Tanks is what he does during the first 9 months of the year, while his elves build and repair them. It's only late in the year that he removes his disguise and plumps up a bit.
@@davidtuttle7556
EXCELLENT RESPONSE!!!
One and the same!
@@davidtuttle7556 this is explains so much! :D
@@davidtuttle7556 Does he ride a tank pulled by smaller tankettes?
@@TheXLink Yes. Yes he does. He rides a TOG II pulled by a team of Locusts and Universal Carriers.
The worst feature of the M26 Pershing during WWII was its absence from the battle field.
The 50,000 Sherman's made up for it
Blame the army minds for the slow delay.
@@kenneth9874The upgrade ones are better.
Much better than the Tigers or Jagdtigers but very unfortunate coz of its late introduction.
To be fair, the Sherman Jumbo with a 76mm was better in just about every regard to a Tiger 1, and an equal to the panther in most regards.
The M26 was simply not good enough to justify serial production. It needed a higher velocity gun, and likely a little more armor.
Just finished a book called 'Spearhead' which is a story of a crew which went from a Sherman to a Pershing. V good book.
Big difference.
I’m going to start it today, looking forward to it. The author did a podcast interview that I listened to recently
Yes it was
Excellent book!
Another wonderful presentation. Thank-you.
Thank you, Mr. Fletcher. Much respect from Missouri.
The U.S Army Ordinance tested the M3 90mm and the QF 17lb. The M3 was the superior tank gun. More accurate, better HE, and adequate armor penetration.
I like how he said if the 17 pounder hit it's target.
The word adequate tells you all you need to know.
The word adequate is used because most engagements occur under 1000 yards and the M3 90mm was capable of penetrating the frontal armor of all German tanks at 1000 yards. In addition the accuracy level of the guns and the proficiency of the gunners and sights made hitting anything beyond 1000 yards a crap shot. It usually required 15-20 shots to get a kill on an enemy tank during combat. Finally some 80% of all ammunition used by tanks was HE not AP. So having a gun with a larger HE round was preferable over one that had higher muzzle velocity.
The 17lb (76.2mm) was too small, they then went on to develop the 20lb (84mm) and eventually the L7 (105mm). The L7 was in use numerous tanks including the first M1 Abrams.
Kevin Temple Ordnance
"Which isn't saying very much"
I can hear the wehraboos typing in anger right now.
Do you feel their anger, my friend? You do NOT insult panzers!
German tanks were overrated and bad.
@@cleanerben9636 allied tank crews burned alive in a knocked out tank would strongly disagree with you
@@gemini7SkyWell they can't disagree because they're ash.
and to clarify, the German early war tanks were actually very well designed. The late war tanks were just atrocious acts of desperation.
@@gemini7Sky German tank crews burned alive too you know a lot more actually.
The Chieftain covered the M26 Pershing at one point. He said that part of the reason it was so late, was that the T26 Prototype was chosen over a more desired version. Once M26 Pershing was accepted, the officials in charge went to work to get it ready for production. Not only were the Gun and Drive Systems a concern, but apparently there were a couple of dozen other faults of various kinds that concerned the various departments and boards involved.
M26 Pershing was expected to be needed. The US Army had set out once the M4 Sherman was in production to find a replacement, expecting the M4 Medium Tank to reach obsolescence by 1945/46. So they wanted another Tank, one with a bigger gun, faster mobility, and better armor in production by 1944.
Sadly for the M26, nothing actually worked out. The Chieftain broke down all of the issues that ended up plaguing the program. But eventually everything started to get done the right way by 1944. The program looked to be lagging only by months, but M26 was selected and promptly ordered prepared for mass production.
A few pilot models were built. Find all the issues, learn how the vehicle behaves, and develop all requirements from doctrine to logistics for it.
By that time, the M4 Sherman was proving to be just what the US Army wanted. Quick to make, easy to operate, simple to maintain, and still be able to be upgraded to meet new battlefield demands as they came along. The M4 Sherman was doing everything asked of it and more. There was an increasing appearance that the only the M4 couldn't do, was read.
I'm paraphrasing from the top of my head here. So these aren't the Chieftain's words. Go watch the video!
Sadly, the Battle of the Bulge rolled around. The Tiger B was a shock to American troops. Intel hadn't noticed it and the Soviets hadn't mentioned it. Fortunately, less than 1,000 Tiger B's and variants with the hull would be made. Unfortunately, the only thing that could stop them with any reliability in Europe and on hand at the time, was something with a 17-pdr (not in US Inventory) or the M18 Hellcat MGC/TD.
And even that was up in the air at best.
The US Army scrambled. Their move was the M36 Jackson. In a rush to get as many as they could, Sherman hulls were pressed into being quickly reworked to carry the M36's Turret and 90mm gun. These were designated M36B Jackson and rushed to the frontlines.
Thank God for American Standardization, or that would have taken too long. M36Bs have been shown painted white and covered in snow in Europe, so they arrived before Spring 1945. The M36 would prove itself, such as one encounter an M36 punched through the front slope of a Tiger B's Turret to lodge the round in the back of the Turret several weeks later during an ill-fated German localized counterattack.
M26 Pershing was ordered to the front in response. Despite there being too few vehicles available. The Zebra Mission was equipped with the first M26s that could be made available, either from existing stocks or produced in a hurry.
The US Army dragged its heels though. The M26 had faults. Too many of them. The departments and boards in charge declared it unfit for combat. They didn't want to send it, believing that threat had passed and there were good enough vehicles until they could finish the refinements. Unfortunately, they got overruled and the M26 was rolled out.
Problems with the 90mm were known. By the end of the war, an M26 Super Pershing had been built. It had a much more powerful 90mm that was far longer and more robust than the previous 90mm guns. Testing in the field commenced and was apparently successful.
But the war ended and Pershing was not in demand for the Pacific at the time. Which was good. It's doubtful the engine would have held up at the time.
The M46 Patton wasn't just a rearmed and reengined M26. Every fault in the M26 was corrected. The M46 was to be the M26 as it was supposed to be, going into Europe in WW2. The M26 ended up getting some upgrades and went on for a longer service period than had been expected for what had essentially became an Interim Tank Design.
As for the designation, the M26 was designated Heavy Tank because of its Gun. The 90mm was to be equipped only to Heavy Tanks. The 75mm to Medium Tanks and 37mm to Light Tanks. The US Army actually had a listing of what guns would enter the three areas. By 1945, the Army had yet to find the time to adjust its system.
Well an M8 Greyhound took out a King Tiger, so there's that
""Sadly, the Battle of the Bulge rolled around. The Tiger B was a shock to American troops. Intel hadn't noticed it and the Soviets hadn't mentioned it.""
Tiger IIs were first encountered nearly half a year before the Battle of the Bulge. First by the British in Normandy around Caen in July. The Americans encountered them near Paris at the end August and then in the battles east of Aachen in November.
@skyraider87
"Well an M8 Greyhound took out a King Tiger, so there's that"
It wasn't a King Tiger. No King Tigers anywhere near St Vith. All Tiger losses in the northern sector of the Bulge are known and documented. Only 12 Tigers documented as being lost, with dates and locations.
It was likely a Panther. Panthers rear plate is only half as thick as a Tigers. Panthers were often called Tigers. Even Panzer IVs and Stugs sometimes were. There were definitely Panthers in the region the M8 incident was said to occur, but no Tigers.
This wonderful Mr.Fletcher said a rememberable thing in a Think Tank:"its not the tank that does it, its the guys in them"! - and that applies i think to most here in life, its not the machines, its us
It would be great if you'd do one about the Super Pershing and the infamous action it had caught on film at the end of WW2.
Wasn't a super pershing
A tank that can take 3 hits from a Tiger I and be made serviceable again, is not just another tank. The M-26 went on to excellent service in Korea. It was the basis for the M-47, M-48 and in ways the M-60. And it was better than any tank Britain would field for the next 10 years.
The Centurion was fielded not long after the Pershing...
This is copium.
I love how this guy talks. Just says it like it is. Way more informative then some overly formal dorknozzle.
If it wasn't for this blasted Covid lockdown, I'd go out tomorrow and call someone a 'dorknozzle'. Thank you.
Used extensively in Korea, the M-26 took on some Russian T34-85s. The 90 MM went in the fronts of the T34, (with salutary effect on the crew of the -34s) out the side of the T34 and off into the distance. The solid shot impacted near an unsuspecting US infantry outfit over 1200 yards away who called up the tankers saying "Hey, whatd'ya think your trying to do to us???" The tankers replied " Oh Gee we're sorry: next time we'll let you guys stop the t-34's"
Used extensively? They were withdrawn from combat within a year of the Korean War due to serious automotive issues.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Please don't confuse the M26 Pershing with the M46-M47 Patton tank. Introduced in 1952, retired in 1959, users considered the M46-M47 tank a flop. At the time, many tankers really preferred the M4A3E8 "Easy 8" Sherman over the newer models. Among other automotive issues, the M46-M47 engine ran 5 pulleys off one belt. The M48 and its derivative the M60 were better tanks; some still in use with foreign armies.
Pershing one of my personal favorite American tanks ever along with the Patton's especially the M60A3
4:40 It had a Ford engine, that's why it could drive through water.
Kalum Batsch Badoom tish! :) very amusing....Ford (ford)....water crossings.....
love to have a beer with this chap
On a separate note, can you place mr fletcher in a library with a chimney,, get him to sit in a confy couch, light a pipe and talk about tank history for 30 minutes as a series?
Yes, please! I'll pay good money to watch that series!
I always enjoy the way he dismisses the absurd. A man who says what he means.
David does not speak highly of the 90mm, yet it served the US and particularly the IDF, quite well. Note that the IDF had both the 17 pounder and the 90mm, yet they stuck with the 90mm. Ah well, David appears to miss this fact, but then again, this is a British production........
Note the neat twin-.50cal arrangement @ 3:44 and then again @ 4:25 and even @ 5:10. neat!
The Americans continued to supply them with ammunition for the 90mm. We didn't with 17lb. Could be why they kept the 90mm rather than any consideration as to performance, as the 17lb was demonstrably superior as an AT gun.
they kept the one they had ammo for.
I agree with others, free ammo beats better ammo
The situation also changed a bit once the US got its finger out of its rear end and started producing 90mm HVAP. Too late for consideration in WW2 comparisons, but quite pertinent in the late 1940s.
Brilliant observation about the drivers need to hear the engine.
Excellent series, wonderful episode!
Nice large-room reverb.
Sounded great.
I love this guy
Fletcher is a legitimate ledge.
They got a Pershing at the uss Alabama complex
I like this guy looks like Doc from back to the future
“If you like tank chats, subscribe to the Tank museum”
Me: :)
The first heavy tank with torsion bar suspensions is not T26, but KV of course.
You finally post about my favorite tank.
My word that is a huge turret.
0:28 Says the Sherman wasn't the first tank named after an American general. General William T. Sherman: "Am I a joke to you?"
Typically, the Pershings were embedded within a column of Shermans (one at the front, one at the rear and several Shermans in between), so there was no requirement to go much faster than a Sherman. I believe it was rated with a top speed of 30mph compared to the Sherman's speed of 25 mph.
Thank you for presenting these tank chat videos Mr Fletcher.
At 3:44....was that duel 50's mounted on top?
It sure is! Good eye!
That was an experimental tank with twin 0.50 M2's for better anti-air capability. It was not adapted into the production models.
Particularly in Korea in 1950, at the battles that took place along the Naktong River in defense of the Pusan Perimeter, the M26 completely outclassed the Soviet-built T-34/85 tanks that the DPRK were using. It might well be argued that the North Korean tankers weren't really all that good, and the outcome might have been less favorable had a Soviet Guards tank division been sent there instead. We never got to see the M26 square off against a JS-II or JS-III, which on a tank-vs-tank match would have been more even "on paper". As usual, doctrine, logistics, leadership, experience, and training are more a predictor of failure or success on the battlefield than merely technical details.
As you were! Lee, Grant, Stuart, Sherman are ALL American names , mate.
Love these chats and Fletcher is the best, but what’s this about the British and naming the Sherman?
Wait til you find out who named the Grant :)
The British were the ones who called the M4 the Sherman and the M3 Lee/grant and the M3 light tank as the Stuart lol
While scrolling the bible this morning I found a sentence that was extremely interesting. When Moses parted the red sea it was david fletcher who had the balls to cross first. Fun fact hey
What was the Shermans kill ratio against the Panther?
Not really as good as a 17 pounder, probably more accurate most guns would be... Savage.
Or as I like to call it, the Perishable.
The Army had the M6 heavy tank but decided it was too slow and mechanicaly unreliable to use. Ordnance started work on the T20 series in 1942 to replace the M4. They had the T25 ready for production of 250 for testing and training in 1943 when Congress ordered the War Department to get a heavy tank in combat before the Fall Elections in 1944. Ordnance supersized the medium T25 into the heavy T26 that used the same Ford GAA and GM Hydromatic transmission as the T25. The Army approved it in December of 1943 with Ordnance giving out production contracts in February of '44. The assembly plant was ready by September but didn't have any parts to assemble due to parts suppliers experiencing delays obtaining machine tools and strategic materials. Assembly started in November after the election where 14 were built and 19 in December. Congress ordered the first 20 made to be sent immediately to Europe so the first 3 made were tested by being driven nonstop around a test track for 500 miles. Two made the trip while the third lost a road wheel after 300 miles..Ordnance declared that was normal wear and tear so pronounced the 20 were good to go. They had more delays getting the 20 to the port with the tanks arriving in Antwerp in early February. Those arrived without trained crews, mechanics or replacement parts so the Army refused to use them. They finally did in March after being ordered to by Ike. The Pershings had to be driven at low speed to avoid overtaxing the undersized engine and transmission so were kept in the rear of advancing columns then called up when needed. The Army reported the 20 accounted for 12 destroyec German tanks and an assortment of other armored vehicles before the war ended. Ordnance also shipped over one Super Pershing for testing..Belton Cooper was complaining about the poor armor on the M26 so Ordnance engineers allowed him to add armor plate to it. They told him stop after adding 5 tons out of fear that the transmission would burn up trying to move it if he added more. Ordnance found a crew willing to use it so they crawled off to protect the flank of an advancing unit. The crew fired at distant targers that resembled tanks but none were found by the GI's. It was knocked out by a Panzer 4 that put a shot thru the side of the hull. It was last seen at an armor dump waiting to be cut up for scrap.
Considering the Centurion was introduced at the same time, and comparing the longevity and how widespread the use of each was, the Pershing sucked.
And also the british had dispensed with the bow gun on the centurion as being practicly useless in combat
The Centurion wasn't introduced at the the same time... wasn't introduced at all during WWII. The Perishing was the best Allied tank used in combat (all be it very limited) during the war.
Eh, not really. The Pershing wasn't the best tank at its introduction, but neither was the Centurion.
The Centurion was modernized so much because the British actually cared to modernize it, the Americans simply designed a new tank that was better so they switched to that instead.
? The pershing was more than equal to the cent Mk. 1.
@@madmoses7830 i'd take a sherman over the pershing mainly for better reliability
Fletsch's moustache is more bulletproof than every tank.
The British did us a favor by naming our tanks, and continuing the tradition.
Mostly accurate, with only a few mistakes. Not bad.
The m26 was a good step to tanks better than a Sherman
How many are here because of the video thumbnail and stayed for the quality content?
I subscribed
Also, when are we getting one of the T-72?!
Too little too late ? Wardaddy would've loved it.
Sherman was an American Civil War General.
I'm assuming he means that the British gave it that name? I don't know if that's true, but that is what I guess he means.
Surprising if so!
Fletcher trolling the chieftain after being trolled about rotatrailer. "Myths of American Armor. TankFest Northwest 2015" and other talks have other take on why it did not go to Europe.
Probably more accurate than the 17 pounder? Is that British understatement?
"It was more acurate than the 17pdr, most guns are." LOL that humor is as dry as Beefeater gin
What good is a gun if you can't hit the target with it.
17pdr had massive recoil and breech, also generated a lot of smoke after firing, that's why some gunners lost sight of target, but still 17 pdr was more powerful if it hits like fletcher said than the M3 90mm but with the American gyro stabilizer, it made the 90mm accurate
@@ramal5708 Um no the 17pdr did not hit harder than the 90mm
@Rodolfo Ramos ok Mr know it all. 17 Pdr with APDS rounds 1200 m/s initial Velocity, M3 90mm with HVAP rounds 1140 m/s , do the math. The M3 gun on M46 Pershings have gyro stabilizer and 17 Pdr on both SPG and Firefly version didn't have Gyros. But if you're talking about penetration in 100m range, the 17 Pdr with APDS could only penetrate 270mm of armor and the M3 could penetrate 300mm of armor with HVAP so penetration-wise the M3 is more powerful as they have larger shell diameter
@@ramal5708 APDS ronds were hideously inaccurate. They were the predecessor of the modern APFSDS, which is the tank rounds nearly everyone uses today, but the FS is important. Thhat stands for Fin Stabilized, and it was during the war that the British learned what the lack of fin stabilization meant. The early sabot rounds didn't have stabilization through the air and due to air resistence from their high velocity they tended to tumble, making accuracy much past 500 yards virtually impossible.
It wasn't until after the war when they figured out to put fins on the sabot rounds to keep them from tumbling around that they got the kind of performance that discarding sabot rounds were capable of. Until then conventional weapons could easily outperform the sabot at normal combat ranges, including the much-ballyhooed M1A2 76mm gun.
I love this guy
Fletcher asking for subs is adorable. Change my mind.
MrAzkhare I will.
He is very adorable.
No.
@@rottenpotato9290 I concur. He is to be crowned Lord Adorable the First of Bovington, Monarch of AFVs and Lord of Tank-Nerd-Lore-Upon-Bovington. The Third.
He convinced me to sub... but then I saw I already am :D
His pleas don't work on me, because I subbed long before he started doing it...
David Fletcher is the David Attenborough of tanks.
Camille Desmoulins what climate hysteria? Are you waiting for widespread crop failure then you'd believe?
@@SR-wm1kr Please inform us plebes on what is going to cause crop failure? I work in farming all around Britain and Eastern Europe and apart from some small areas which have been affected by flooding, the small climate change has improved yields. please do your own research and don't believe everything you are told.
Nailed it
two bob it's real man the it's scientific consensus. The coral reefs are bleaching cyclones and hurricanes are increasing forest fires are on the rise. Over 95% consensus among climate scientists is not exactly a conspiracy. Where did you do your own "research" exactly?
@@SR-wm1kr sCiEnTiFiC cOnSeNsUs.
LMFAO, what a joke. Climate change hysteria is just a pure doomsday called for the modern-day idiot: dissention.wordpress.com/2019/07/06/anthropogenic-climate-change-is-a-form-of-secular-apocalypticism-1/
Just sit the man down in a comfy arm chair, start a livestream and let him waffle about tanks for 12hours. People will watch it.
I would most definitely watch that all the way through, I can't get enough of Fletcher! In fact, the British Army should probably name a new tank after him and include him in the design process!
With a warm fire blazing away next to him. A cosy fireside chat.
@@matthewnewell4517 Toss in some tea and you've got a deal.
Gregory
A self-propelled gun vehicle named “Fletcher” actually sounds like a good idea!
David Fletcher should be put in the British Museum when he retires, as he is a national treasure
He needs to retire NOW! He has lost his mind obviously, "just another tank..." he is senile.
What? I thought *all* persons with a MBE were put in the British Museum, when they retired ..
@ Sam Iam
He is spot on, he always is. Everyone knows that.
He already is. *And* he is in the British Tankmuseum.
David Fletcher appeared on a regular basis as tank expert in the documentary series "Tank!" from the 1990s Discovery Channel era.
He's already technically retired from Bovington; we just keep dragging him out of his recliner to make these films.
First one I caught within a minute of being posted! Hello from Texas!
I'm from Wichita Falls.
I'm from the UK, London, love these tank chats, great museum
@@byebye1813 You can just say "Detroit". We won't judge you.
If I was ever insulted by Mr. Fletcher: I'd wear whatever he called me as a name-tag and thank him for the honor.
Same
The perfect tank will shoot enemy seeking, globe circumnavigating AP rounds in bursts of 100, have 6 feet of armor, only weigh 5000 pounds, reach speeds of 100 + mph., have a spacious crew compartment with a pool table, AND automatically drive itself to the Bovington museum when the war is over.
Also, it has to be British...to be perfect.
scockery I do know about that. I had a Triumph once. The horn would come on every time a turned a corner
@@yelwing How many pedestrian lives did that save? Ha-ha.
No, it will be imperfect if you forget the mighty boiling vessel. No tea time, no victory
I think what you are describing here is the TOG II
When Mr Fletcher is done with his work he goes home to his tiny house in The Shire
We ALL have houses in the Shire over here. Mine is in Oxfordshire.
Good one!
Northamptonshire is where my little burrow is, just north of Mordor.
Love the smooth cast design of the Pershing.
Best looking tank ever made, change my mind lol
M-1A2 Abrams@@lunseren
He looks so spooked when he has to do the "youtube stuff" at the start but then he's so calm with the actual tank chat.
Never drink gin while pregnant
@@rustyshackleford7265 : Errm duly noted.
In the first view tank chats I think he even said "why not subscribe to our you tube" I guess they corrected him on that xD
@@jessehaenen5915 lol... He is such a genuine, respectable and fact filled man. I could listen to him narrate himself eating a bowl of cereal tbh.. just because of how pure and untouched by the sins of the internet lol.
@@roguekwads_fpv7368 true
Ah, yes...the Pershing....the "German" tank in just about every Hollywood movie in fhe 60s. Just paint it gray and slap a German cross on it, and you have yourself a "King Tiger"
Probably Pattons than Pershings but yeah....i watched those films and thought they sucked even as a child 😃
@@jimmytgoose476 yes, you're probably right now that I think about it.
Either way they still sucked in films ! The ironic thing is there are films of the Korean war that have other tanks masquerading as M26/M46s.....go figure 😃
Young kids don't know the difference.
Nope, M-47s.
I would like David Fletcher to adopt me as his grandson. He is the universal grandfather.
Jason Sharpe cheerio, old chap!
I want to adopt him
He would knight you 😆 as grand son.
David is all for that idea Jason. He really needs someone to rub his feet.
@@richardm3023 He could do that himself with his mustache
I have been waiting for Mr fletcher to review the Pershing, certainly not disappointed.”equal to the Panther, which is not saying very much” awesome.
Mr. Fletcher is off his proverbial rocker if he believes that the Panther was a bad design or for that matter, the Pershing. Maybe it is time for him to retire and play some cribbage. His videos may be interesting, but they are neither serious scholarship nor genuine military history. Hearing some old duffer mumble about his opinions on tanks and armored warfare - and poorly informed opinions, much of the time at that - does not meet the standard of the legitimate historian.
GeorgiaBoy1961, it worth finding Le Panther on the web, the French used them for a short time, it lists the issues, a lot of issues. The Chieftain, Nick Moran has explained the birth and difficulties of the Pershing. The US Army quickly moved to Patton, an upgraded Pershing with an engine that could cope. At the same time has Panther and Pershing the British brought out Comet, the last of the WW2 tanks, then the first MBT Centurion at the end of the war, which dominated armour combat for the next 30 years. Compared to Centurion he is correct.
@@DC9622 used the 75mm from the panther in some ww2 french tanks
@@GeorgiaBoy1961 missing entirely his point that the Pershing was produced a year after the Panther, and technology improved so quickly during the Second World War that it arguably should have been better than an older design.
@@GeorgiaBoy1961 Lets hear your inspired thoughts on this very average tank!
you know, he's got a solid perspective on tanks.
he's delusional the Pershing was a great tank
@@samiam5557 ok boomer
The king tiger was for white people
Hes grounded...
@@samiam5557 It wasn't, a few of em might of had a good record in Germany but in Korea it was really bad especially in comparison to the centurion.
Upgraded for operations in Korea and that sort of thing. Another classic ;)
I’ve been waiting for them to do the M26 Pershing. It’s one of my favorite tanks.
It could peal the turent off a T34/85
Anti German guy
Was the 17 pounder really better? Didn't the 90 have greater penetration at greater range?
@@GrandDungeonDad In WW2 they had very similar performance with the 17 pdr having a slight edge. Though the 17 pdr only fired solid shot AP ammo while the American 90mm could fire APHE (Armor Piercing High Explosive). Also like Mr Fletcher said the 17pdr was fairly inaccurate at distance. Overall the 90mm was just a better gun.
Why the gun barrel differ so much in various outtakes? The one @5:07 looks several feet longer than the one at the museum - Super Pershing or simply the museum one has been shortened?
The one consistency through every machine ever made. "It was always a little underpowered". Tanks, aircraft, ships, doesn't make any difference, they were always designed with engines too small for purpose. This philosophy still holds to this day.
The F-15 Eagle would like to have a word. The engines it has are so overpowered for the airframe it can fly vertically supersonic.
@@PitFriend1 the Abrams would also like a word, at least once that pesky governor is removed
I know what you mean. I learnt this a long time ago, you always should go for at least a bit more power or larger than you think you need. This was it easily meets its intended purpose rather than just scraping through.
Read what Eric "Winkle" Brown said of the deHavilland Hornet.
Not really. M26 in particular had much lower power to weight ratio than its predecessor M4 Sherman.
They certainly faired well against T-34s in Korea.
So did the Shermans, though.
That's not really saying much, the North Koreans, being on average smaller and more compact that the Russians, hated the T34 because of how cramped it was. And that's not even half the issues with the T34, but better explanations exist
@jic1 you'll start to notice that in conflicts where Shermans fight T34s, the Shermans almost always did better. There's a reason for that...
The A100 Fletcher Tank.
Gun: 150mm, firing armour piercing shells created from weaves from moustache hair of the man himself.
Armour: Pykrete that doesn't dare melt, for fear of inciting Fletcher's wrath.
Engine: Mini Cooper engine running on NOS.
Top Speed: irrelevant. Can teleport (and time travel)
Most tank victories throughout the 20th century are wrongly attributed to other tanks. Including the T34 and the Challenger 2.
your as senile as he is
@@samiam5557 You're, not your.
T34 or T-34? there is a difference :P
@@RYNOCIRATOR_V5 Use those powers of deductive reasoning. When he says, "most tank victories throughout the 20th century are wrongly attributed to other tanks, including the T34 and Challenger 2," which do you think is the more likely subject? The tank with over 50,000 units produced that saved the Soviet Union and drowned the 3rd Reich in a sea of poorly finished steel, or the 1-off American prototype?
@@samiam5557 Ok, boomer.
He says how the 90 mm wasn’t really as good as the 17 pdr. Is that true? With HVAP ammo this thing was super powerful despite already packing quite a punch.
The M26 was a great upgrade to the M4. More accurate than the 17 pounder, and accuracy means all. This vehicle had an adequate engine, not terribly underpowered. This vehicle has more armor, too. The M26 also has a shorter profile.
It need not have been that way. There WAS a more powerful engine available, but for some reason they just didn’t use it.
More powerful than the 17-pounder, too.
The Pershing also had a higher power to weight ratio than the Sherman Firefly, whilst delivering a more potent HE shell, and much better protected. It is seldom acknowledged the Pershing was only 8 tons heavier than the M4A3, the standard US medium tank.
@@williampaz2092I think it was to do with the transmission
Automotively it was a pig, and was so unreliable they were all withdrawn from combat in Korea in 1950.
"Ruddy nuisance." He kills me.
I'm going to find a reason to say that tomorrow.
Not happy with Fletcher's conclusion about the M26, he makes it sound like a dud, just another tank (what does that actually mean?)...that was only due to it being not yet fully refined and not used in numbers (if he had said inconsequential in impact I would have accepted that)...He ignores the fact that the 90mm gun was very effective in M36's that WERE used in reasonable numbers closing out the war. Had the US had 500 or so in service in 1945 perhaps the tank would not be considered "just another tank". There was no question it was a significant improvement over the Sherman although not necessarily an immediate complete replacement. I am no M26 apologist, but dog gone it Fletcher makes a lot of simplistic conclusions that while quaint due to his pleasant style, are not necessarily factual but generalizations, Fletcher doesn't try too hard, and as I am an old folk myself I don't blame him, but I don't hang on his every word either like so many of the fanboys here.
Pershing WAS a bit of a dud. They couldn't even fix the Pershing's mechanical issues 5 years later in Korea. They withdrew them all from combat in 1950 there because of the unreliability.
David Fletcher: "The Tiger was quite old by comparison."
And such is WWII when 2 tanks fielded 2 years apart and one is considered quite old. WWII started with tanks that were riveted together and had machine guns ended 6 years later with cast bodies and upwards of 120mm guns. The philosophies garnered in WWII spurred tank designs for the next 40 years.
@@white-dragon4424 The Maus was not some amazing feat of technology, it was a failure and a dead end like any other super heavy tanks.The Maus has zero relevance in tank designs, except on how not to design tanks.
@@Vlad_-_-_
Yup. The Maus wouldn't have done anything had it hit the battlefield. By that time the Allies had uncontested control of the skies, & the Maus was so big & made of such dated/inferior materials, it would've broken down before planes reduced it to a burning hulk.
@@TrollOfReason The Maus would have suffered the same fate as the JTiger.Brake down for multitude of reasons and / or be abandoned for lack of fuel.
Pershing and Centurion lines that turned into the Main Battle Tank was the future.
@@Vlad_-_-_
Agree. A complete waste of time and resources.
Disappointing that he failed to note that during WW2, it was called the T-26. The M-26 designation came later when the Army redid tank designations and got rid of the T series; that it had a fast electric turret transverse and gyroscopically stabilized barrel that allowed it to acquire targets and be more accurate than anything else field at the time; and no mention of the 2 super-pershings.
@005uz345 The M26 designation showed up in March when the T26E3 was standardized as M26. The US did not "get rid of the T series", T simply stood for "test" and even vehicles like the M48 Patton III had their own T designation (T48 in this case) before they got standardized into their M designation (M standing for "model"). Nowadays, the US uses the XM designation instead of T.
The M26 also did not have a stabilizer, and it's turret traverse was hydraulic, much like the Shermans. In fact, it was just as fast as the Shermans.
The one
Ah yes , the inevitability of British superiority comes through in the end . they just can't help themselves.
Explain....
Thank you David Fletcher. I enjoy watching your informative videos.
"the 17 pounder, if it hit , did a lot of damage"... Classic
Yeah but if a German 75 or 88 from their tanks hit the Firefly first did it matter? Some really thick headed American military planners did not approve this tank until too late really and it is sad because a lot of allied tankers would have survived even if hit in a Pershing than any Sherman. So I 🤔
The 90mm was a version of a high velocity antiaircraft cannon.
A majority of good tank gun during the war was a modified AA gun, example german 8.8cm kwk 36, the soviet 85mm D-5T and the American 90mm M3, I wonder didn't think the British modify their 3.7 inch AA gun to be used as a tank gun since everyone seems to be doing that.
@@poisonousteapot2394 3.7 inch AA had a lot of issues that prevented it from being used horizontal. Many stem from the mount but some also with the design. It was very difficult to load when horizontal. It had no sights for shooting horizontal and the mount itself was very heavy and took a very long time to setup.
After the fall of france Britain lost ALOT of equipment so kept producing the QF-2lber as a dedicated anti tank gun and didn't have the industrial capacity to design up a dedicated 3.7 inch AA and honestly they didn't need to. The OF-6lber was already designed and ready just couldn't be produced fast enough so they stuck to the 2 lber. And once production was available they had the 17lber so no reason.
@@poisonousteapot2394 I recall reading that the anti-aircraft units which had 3.7 inch guns fought very hard to avoid having any of their guns diverted to use as anti-tank guns. Inter-service rivalry? Maybe it was just that they were so short of the weapon.
There are somethings that I just completely disagree with.
Saying that the 17 pounder was "better" in some respects is, while undeniably true, also extremely vague and misleading. The US ran tests comparing a 90 mm armed M26, a 17 pounder armed M4A3 (yes, they took an M4A3 hull and slapped a Sherman Firefly turret on it) and a 76 mm M1 armed M4, and came to the general conclusion that the US cannons were preferred. Obviously, this conclusion can be biased since the tests were conducted by the US, but characteristics such as inaccuracy and obscuration simply killed the 17 pounder's chances. The flash and smoke produced by the 17 pounder when firing APCBC was so excessive that the gunner and commander could not see if the enemy tank had been hit if the range were less than 1000 yards.
Also saying that the 17 pounder would deal more damage if it hit is just outright not true.
Unlike the 17 pounder, the 90 mm can actually penetrate the UFP of the Panther with normal projectiles, both M77 AP and T33 APBC, however M77 could only do so up to about 600 yards while T33 would do so up to at least 1100 yards. And even M304 HVAP could do this task up to at least 450 yards.
To do the same task, the 17 pounder requires APDS rounds, as the AP, APC and APCBC rounds are simply not capable of going through the upper plate of a Panther that doesn't have low quality armor. These rounds were so inaccurate that out of 42 rounds fired at a stationary Panther that was just 400 yards away, only 24 hit, so 43% of the rounds fired just missed the Panther. And even in the case that it were a low quality Panther, which the normal AP rounds could damage, the 90 mm is still substantially more accurate with its AP rounds, so it would be more likely to even score the hit in the first place, while, again, its rounds could go through even higher quality Panthers.
What a cool guy mr fletcher is, knows his stuff could listen to him for hours what a hero
"The tank was not very heavy " (-tank weighs more than any other British or American tank that saw combat in WW II-Lol)
If comparing with the standard ammo mostly supplied to M36 crews, it is probably fair to say the 90mm wasn't quite as powerful as 17pdr. With the T33 and HVAP ammo supplied to the Zebra Mission tanks, the 90mm was more accurate and packed a bit more punch.
Really enjoy these videos. Thank goodness for tank chats!
Heavy means that it is at the upper end of in terms of weight & dimensions that the American logistics system could handle. It's ability to negotiate bridges etc in Europe as also a major consideration.
Also the opposition to the tank wasn't unreasonable. Slotting a new weapon into the logistical train isn't a trivial exercise, particularly considering that the Sherman was doing a good job and was reliable & efficient. It should be noted that the Pershing didn't meet the Armour Schools standards for being an efficient fighting vehicle.
Very true. Also, the Americans tended to define heavy tanks based on their gun rather than weight and armor.
Going by Chieftain's articles, M26's powertrain was giving grief during its development. What good are good armor and gun, if the tank can't keep up with maneuvering forces?
Yes, there were instances where the Americans seized bridges that were too damaged to support Pershings but they could get Shermans across. In that situation, the tank that's not stuck on the wrong side of the river is the best tank.
The first 256 Pershing's were built for testing purposes to work out bugs in the design while training crews and mechanics in it's operation and repairs. That usually took several months so the US Congress demand those to sent to Europe ASAP without fully trained crews and mechanics. Ordnance took the first three made and ran them non-stop around a test track for 500 miles. One made it without a breakdown and the other two lost road wheels after travelling 300 miles. Ordnance declared that was normal wear and tear so deemed them fit for battle.
Fun Fact: Mr. Fletcher's mustache is thicker than the armor on a Pershing. 👍✌️
Does the MBE belong to Mr Fletcher or his moustache?
I do enjoy Mr. Fletcher's work, and his onscreen presence. However, I find it amusing that he praises the Comet (which I myself am a fan of), yet calls the Pershing "just another tank". I'm not sure why he finds it strange the Pershing is classified as a heavy. The typical British or American tank in WW II weighed about 30 to 35 tons. The Pershing weighed 46 tons. The only tank used in regular combat by the English speaking Allied countries with heavier armor (if one excludes the Sherman Jumbo) was the Churchill VII, but the Churchill's armor was not sloped. The Pershing's that saw combat with the 3rd armored were all equipped with T33 and HVAP ammo. So equipped, the 90mm was certainty not inferior to the 17pdr in AT capability, and fired a more effective HE than the 17pdr. In addition to it's much improved frontal protection, the Pershing had 76mm side armor, much improved over the typical British or American tank, and better than the Panther. Slightly less than Tiger I. This would make the Pershing less vulnerable to side shots than many Allied tanks, and better suited to the heavy role than anything else used in combat by Britain or America before the end of WW II.
The only German tank with significant superiority to Pershing in both firepower and armor was the Tiger II, and not very many of those were used on the Western front. Given it's small numbers, great weight and poor mobility, it is debatable whether or not the Tiger II could be labeled a "success", in any case. How often was an Allied tank called upon to actually fight a Tiger II?
Always enjoy the videos, and the comments. I hope there are many more to come.
Seeing as an M8 Greyhound took out a Tiger II during the battle of the bulge, I'd say the Tiger II was a pretty massive failure
@@skyraider87A high angle engine deck shot is a freak, uncommon occurrence, but would disable any tank. Not just the Tiger II. Lol.
@@garyhill2740 well seeing as Germany still lost the war despite having this "super advanced military technology", I'd go as far as to say the technology wasn't super advanced
6:21 The Banner says:
"Unity of all anti-fashists is the guarantee [ ] for the establishment of a democratic Germany"
I guess the colour of the banner was red...
The sign above the door says "Kommunistische partei Deuchlands" and there's a star with the hammer and sickle above it and a flag with the hammer and sickle flying above the US flag, so there's not much guesswork needed :P
I like it from the field maintenance point of view. If it's easy to get to everything, it's easy to keep it going.
Ha! What a load of BS British propaganda. The 90mm gun was proven to be far superior to the 17 pounder. The 90mm gun was the only Allied gun that could penetrate the sloped frontal armor of the Panther and Jagdpanther. The 90mm was way more accurate and it had a much more powerful HE round than the 17 pounder. An M36 Jackson TD with a 90mm gun, was credited with a Panther kill at 4,600 yards, and another Panther kill at 4,200 yards. The 17 pounder was only reliably accurate to 500 meters.
The only allied gun....? Hmmm...
I thought the Sherman was named after General Sherman of the Civil war
Eric Yung was named BY the British FOR Sherman
All the American tanks used by the British were given American Generals names, The British named things, while the Americans tendered to officially number until we see the Pershing, but for sure the names stuck and were unofficial used by the US
Mr. Fletcher we LOVE your Tank Chats!!!! I've watched almost all of them!!!
It surprises me that he considers the German Tiger tanks to be superior to the M26. In reality, the German 88MM and the 90mm American guns were about equal in most ways of measurement. In terms of reliability, speed, workmanship, ease of maintenance and repair, crew comfort, engine and transmission design, lighter weight, range, ergonomics, more degree of slope to frontal armor, fuel and ammunition capacity and suspension, the M26 is a better tank than anything the Germans produced. I think Fletcher is just wrong in his assessment of the M26.
The Pershing was actually less reliable than the Tiger. They never fixed it's automotive issues, despite having 4 years to do so by the time of the Korean War.
Tiger was a better tank in its time than the Pershing was it its time.
Under-rated tank. The few that made it to the frontline did well securing the Rhine bridges. If it hadn't of been held up by bureaucrats the allies would have cruised into Berlin.
They did.
One was assigned to the armor unit that captured the bridge over the Rhine at Remagan. The M4's got there first and their M26 showed up 25-30 minutes later since it was too slow to keep up with them. It stayed at it's hilltop position while the M4's crossed the Rhine on pontoon bridging. It finally crossed days later after Army engineers found a motorized barge downstream to take the heavy M26 across the river. Those were the two reasons why the US Armor commanders didn't want a heavy tank thru out the war and only accepted to use 29 M26's to get Ike off the hook.
Ordnance was content developing prototypes of a heavy tank since the armor commanders didn't want one. At that time the US newspaper and radio reporters were telling horror stories of the M4's getting wasted right and left by the big German tanks which caused alarm in the general public. That caused concern with the politicians that were up for re-election in 1944 so members of Congress began to pressure General George C. Marshall, the Army and Ordnance to do something about it. Ordnance showed Marshall their T26 design who then got the Army to approve manufacturing 256 for testing. The War Department then gave out contracts to build the production plant, the tooling and production of the parts. The 256 were assembled destined for testing grounds where they could train crewmen in it's operation and mechanics that had to repair them as the bugs were worked out. Congress instead demanded those to be shipped to Europe ASAP so were without trained crews and mechanics. The US Armor commanders refused to accept any due to that and finally did to get the politicians off Ike's back. Eisenhower didn't want them shipped over either but had no say in the matter.
>underrated
Tell that to COH players. Pershing is their Big Poppa Pump and owns the battlefield, unless there is a King Tiger around.
@@billwilson3609 Your arguments will largely fall on deaf ears. Everyone thinks of tanks as "bigger must be better" and ignore the actual battlefield reports. The US didn't field a heavy tank because they didn't need to. It is really as simple as that. Heavy tanks have downsides that can quickly outweigh (pun intended) their benefits in actual combat deployment. Over and over the ordnance department tinkered with heavy tanks that failed to impress while armored force continued to plug along with the sherman. By the time of the E8 suspension and high-velocity 76mm the sherman was quite capable of going on the offense all the way to Berlin and could actually cross the railroad and engineer bridges to do it. Sure it wasn't a Tiger/Tiger II but it didn't need to be. Post war heavy tanks were largely abandoned and the main battle tank concept was adopted. In tank combat whoever shoots first typically wins and more tanks, not heavier tanks, means more shots down range when you do shoot.
Even judged in hindsight armored force did well with the shermans they had. They had a good kill rate, a good survival rate, and despite the notion of being a "death trap" the sherman crew had one of the highest survival rates of all the armored forces.
@@JD_79 How do you suppose that thinking would have changed, if at all, had the Western Allies and the Soviets decided to go ahead and completely destroy Europe after Germany's capitulation? Would the heavy tank concept have accelerated or would the Allied armies have continued on as they were and put even MORE emphasis on tactical fighter bombers? Those heavy Soviet assault tanks of the late war period, from what I can recall, seemed to have given the allies a 'come to Jesus' moment. Of course, hindsight is always 50/50 but it is a fascinating thought exercise.
Dave is totally wrong there. The Americans named the Sherman after Union general Wm. Sherman. The British didn't do that.
The British named the American lend-lease tanks after great American generals: infantry tanks were named after infantry generals, and cruiser tanks after cavalry generals. This eventually became so popular that the Americans themselves adopted the system.