Jump to content


Pershing Production, Part 1


  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

The_Chieftain #1 Posted Mar 22 2014 - 03:38

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 13132 battles
  • 9,885
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011
 

It’s about time that we started to have the long-awaited look at the fielding of Pershing. There will be a couple of articles on this matter, not necessarily consecutive Hatches. There are, of course, varying schools of thought as to just why the M26 entered into the war so late that barely a score saw combat service, with theories that perhaps they could have been commonplace by Christmas 1944, or even D-Day. I hate to bring up Cooper, again, but I’m afraid it’s one of the most common refrains to dispel. McNair gets a lot of attention as well.

 

There is little doubt that the tank probably could have entered service earlier. Just how much, or maybe, little, acceleration would have been provided, though, is a more difficult question to answer.

 

In a lecture before the Army Industrial College in January 1940, the Chief of Ordnance, Major General C.M. Wesson, estimated that development of a major item of material required a minimum of three years. Wartime pressures, of course, would prove to lower this minimum but, even at that, most Ordnance projects took over a year to go from conception to implementation.

 

I work primarily with Ordnance records, and one must always be cautious of bias in some of Ordnances’ opinions or conclusions, especially where Army Ground Forces are concerned. The dates of decisions and stages of development, however, are not really open for discussion, so we may as well start by focusing on those in this Hatch.

We’ll join the story of M26 on 15 April 1943, with the T23 program proceeding nicely with an order just having been placed to procure 250 of the things for service test, and to try torsion bars as well on one or two of them. General Campbell was of the opinion that it might not be a bad idea to put 90mm guns on the tanks, but General Devers of the Armored Force was not so enamoured of the idea. As something of a compromise, General Barnes suggested dividing the 250 T23s into several groups. 200 of them with a 76mm gun, 40 with a 90mm gun, and an additional 10 with 90mm guns and heavier armour. This ‘limited procurement’ plan was approved by the Ordnance Committee on 6 May 1943, and the two 90mm vehicles eventually became designated T25 and T26.

 

As development seemed to be progressing well enough on these two vehicles, by Sept 1943 Ordnance recommended that the production numbers for the two 90mm tanks be increased to 500 of each type, the idea being to set up for mass production. Army Service Force did not approve of this, but a smaller request in December 1943 saw ASF on 8 January 1944 accede to the production of 250 T26s, with the decision that there was an operational need for the vehicles after all, and perhaps production should be expedited. Prototypes for T25E1 and T26E1 started to be delivered in February 1944.

 

Army Ground Forces, who also weren’t incredibly enthused by the entirely new tank decided by April 1944 that they wanted 1,000 T26s. But for whatever reason, they requested that the T26s be armed with 75mm and 76mm guns. (There was also brief investigation into the 17pr, incidentally). This desire was subsequently refined into a general desire to mount the smaller guns, without reference to numbers.

 

By August 1944, Ordnance branch attempted to have T26E1 standardized, but Army Ground Forces disagreed, pointing out that the tanks had not yet been thoroughly tested. That didn’t stop the procurement wheels turning, however, for by the 1 October 1944 issue of the Army Supply Program, 3,265 T26s had been approved. (Not that the tank was approved for production, but that the Army could buy them if they wanted)

 

Although Ordnance pushed for the T26 to be given battlefield testing, AGF refused to countenance it until Armored Board, part of AGF, had completed their testing and declared the vehicles battle-worthy. They may have had a point: Testing of T25E1 at Aberdeen, Phoenix and Milford Proving Grounds all indicated a large number of failings. Armored Board subsequently declared that the vehicles be considered not battle-worthy. Testing of T26E1 at Aberdeen, Milford and Ft Knox indicated the same general deficiencies in the heavier tank as the lighter, but since T26 wasn't any -worse-, and still had more armour, it was recommended to abandon T25E1 and continue with T26E1. 

 

Armored Force considered T26E1 to be not battle-worthy, principally because of the following major defects:

Inadequate engine cooling, mechanical unreliability, inadequate gun mantlet armor, inadequate grousers and insufficient track life, unsatisfactory stowage arrangement.

 

So significant were the changes required, that it also resulted in a new nomenclature to E3. These changes, amongst others, saw:

Elimination of the turret platform, and rearrangement of the turret stowage. Addition of a muzzle brake. Elimination of water protected ammunition racks and an increase in the number of 90mm rounds from 48 to 70. Redesign of the differential to provide longer brake like. Redesign of the cooling system to provide increase cooling for differential, transmisison and engine. Strengthening of suspension parts and redesign of the track for improved grouser action. Increased ventillation for the crew compartment of the vehicle from 400cu ft to 1,000 cu ft per minute. Numerous changes in the electrical system and oil piping to give more reliable performance. The steering ratio was changed to increase brake life.

 

Although the General Staff later overruled the AGF and authorized the dispatch of the 20 Pershings to Europe for testing on the two-way firing range, before they got there the Armored Board completed its testing. Armored Board did conclude on 20 January 1945, before the tanks reached theater, however, that the T26E3s were significantly improved and should be considered battleworthy. They did point out that it was still not perfect, with insufficient traction, weak suspension, ballistically weak engine compartment grills and insufficient cruising range, but they would be happy enough to have those modifications made in the course of production. In the meantime, send the tank. Even before the testing was completed, though, testing was so promising that 2,500 additional tanks were ordered as lmited procurement type in early January 1945.

 

It was thus 22 March of 1945 by the time Ordnance had implemented the recommended changes requested by the Armored Board and recommended also that the vehicle be standardized as M26. Though it would not be until May that ASF formally approved this recommendation, they did provide informal approval in March and processes worked on from that.

So those are most of the significant dates in question.

 

For those of you who don't know, I've a Facebook page here , and when I get back from my trip, I promise I'm going to try streaming more, at http://www.twitch.tv/the_chieftain, probably late afternoon Pacific time.



Vollketten #2 Posted Mar 22 2014 - 16:46

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 32952 battles
  • 8,672
  • [----] ----
  • Member since:
    12-26-2011

Another nicely written piece. I like these articles Chief.

Looking forward to reading the next part.


Edited by Vollketten, Mar 22 2014 - 16:47.


TheFishlord #3 Posted Mar 22 2014 - 17:49

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 35645 battles
  • 995
  • Member since:
    11-02-2010
So the war basically ended in Europe with some issues resolved, some issues remaining, if I read it correctly. How did things stand during the ramp up to Okinawa and the invasion of Japan? Were those issues resolved yet?

Hurk #4 Posted Mar 22 2014 - 17:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 55849 battles
  • 17,382
  • [KGR] KGR
  • Member since:
    09-30-2012

grr... soo hard not to comment on the faulting super pershing in game!

 

thanks for the article Chief, its excellent as always. and sadly, as a government employee, decisions taking 3+ months is standard :( 



Secretly_Asian #5 Posted Mar 22 2014 - 18:56

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 34361 battles
  • 148
  • [F0CUS] F0CUS
  • Member since:
    06-03-2011
Bring back the T23 Medium tank. I miss it from the beta days :(

Dabomb48 #6 Posted Mar 22 2014 - 20:38

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 6839 battles
  • 809
  • Member since:
    10-10-2011

View Postdattankerdude, on Mar 22 2014 - 12:56, said:

Bring back the T23 Medium tank. I miss it from the beta days :(

 

From what I've heard they are bringing it back as a premium medium tank, it would be called the T23E3 if I remember correctly. For now the fate of the tank is uncertain but if the news is true, the T23 may come back as a premium in possibly 9.2 or so...

 

Also nice article chieftain :great:


Edited by Dabomb48, Mar 22 2014 - 20:38.


Xlucine #7 Posted Mar 22 2014 - 21:24

    Major

  • Players
  • 7663 battles
  • 7,603
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-03-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Mar 22 2014 - 02:38, said:

So significant were the changes required, that it also resulted in a new nomenclature to E3. These changes, amongst others, saw:

Elimination of the turret platform

 

No turret basket? Sounds uncomfortable



GGscrubnz #8 Posted Mar 22 2014 - 22:10

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 21427 battles
  • 710
  • [PRGY] PRGY
  • Member since:
    01-19-2012

Bring back the T23 Medium tank. we must have it back

 



The_Chieftain #9 Posted Mar 22 2014 - 22:49

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 13132 battles
  • 9,885
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostXlucine, on Mar 22 2014 - 21:24, said:

 

No turret basket? Sounds uncomfortable

 

You missed my video...?



Slashdot7 #10 Posted Mar 22 2014 - 23:44

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 61621 battles
  • 14
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011
Arnold Schwarzenegger owns his own tank an M47 Patton, produced between 1951 and 1953. Tell us more about this model/

Legiondude #11 Posted Mar 23 2014 - 00:34

    Major

  • Players
  • 20522 battles
  • 23,193
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

View PostHurk, on Mar 22 2014 - 11:50, said:

grr... soo hard not to comment on the faulting super pershing in game!

He artfully dodges this because he primarily spoke on the T26E3's introduction



Xlucine #12 Posted Mar 23 2014 - 02:20

    Major

  • Players
  • 7663 battles
  • 7,603
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-03-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Mar 22 2014 - 21:49, said:

 

You missed my video...?

 

Forgot about, actually. For those who did miss it:



shapeshifter #13 Posted Mar 23 2014 - 02:24

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 17863 battles
  • 2,900
  • Member since:
    09-11-2010

If you read the report for General Eisenhower about U.S vs German gear it's very telling.

 

Crews really wanted a better gun, floatation, ability to turn on the spot, sights and armor. lots of complaints about lack of HVAP rounds for the 76mm as well. many of them seem excited about getting the M26, but most note that have no idea how it will perform as they have not seen one. I think one fellow from a tank destroyer with the 90mm said something like "If it's gun is anything like ours the boys in the tanks will be happy"


Edited by shapeshifter, Mar 23 2014 - 02:24.


Toad5tool #14 Posted Mar 23 2014 - 03:51

    Private

  • Players
  • 10151 battles
  • 4
  • [THM] THM
  • Member since:
    01-05-2012

Great article chief, Subsequently i looked into the 1st action in combat the Pershing saw. I found this when i searched for it. The 1st and only time the T26e4 would see combat with the king tiger. its a great read and I thought it was something worth showing. 

 

http://www.3ad.com/h....pershing.1.htm



Legiondude #15 Posted Mar 23 2014 - 03:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 20522 battles
  • 23,193
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

View PostToad5tool, on Mar 22 2014 - 21:51, said:

Great article chief, Subsequently i looked into the 1st action in combat the Pershing saw. I found this when i searched for it. The 1st and only time the T26e4 would see combat with the king tiger. its a great read and I thought it was something worth showing. 

 

http://www.3ad.com/h....pershing.1.htm

You need to read this



Walter_Sobchak #16 Posted Mar 23 2014 - 16:52

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010

Block Quote

Elimination of water protected ammunition racks and an increase in the number of 90mm rounds from 48 to 70.

 

So Pershing did not have a wet stowage ammo system like the late war Shermans?   Sounds like a retrograde step in terms of crew survivability.  I guess the M-26 Pershing would have been a real "Death Trap" for the crew if penetrated (take that Belton Cooper!)



Xlucine #17 Posted Mar 23 2014 - 18:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 7663 battles
  • 7,603
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-03-2011
With most of the ammo so low down it wouldn't be a major issue, at least compared to the big cats

rfrancis2332 #18 Posted Mar 23 2014 - 20:29

    Private

  • Players
  • 59999 battles
  • 7
  • Member since:
    07-11-2012
awesome

SG_ONeill #19 Posted Mar 24 2014 - 17:05

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 12173 battles
  • 62
  • Member since:
    12-16-2010
Interesting read. I had always thought that it was inter-departmental politics that kept the Pershing from reaching the front lines but it seems technical issues were part of the problem. As for the Army's request to mount the smaller guns rather than the 90mm, it's a bit odd considering there are still Tigers and Panthers operating. It was late in the war though so maybe they thought superior airpower would take care of them.

The_Chieftain #20 Posted Mar 24 2014 - 18:43

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 13132 battles
  • 9,885
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostSG_ONeill, on Mar 24 2014 - 17:05, said:

Interesting read. I had always thought that it was inter-departmental politics that kept the Pershing from reaching the front lines but it seems technical issues were part of the problem. As for the Army's request to mount the smaller guns rather than the 90mm, it's a bit odd considering there are still Tigers and Panthers operating. It was late in the war though so maybe they thought superior airpower would take care of them.

 

The 76mm was a pretty good gun, and they expected it to be capable of dealing with Tigers and Panthers. Tigers, they were correct. Panthers, not so much, until they finally developed the hot ammo. If it was reasonably capable of doing the job, then the 76mm would have other advantages in ammunition capacity, rate of fire etc, and be one less type of munition that Armored Force needed to supply its battalions with.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users