Jump to content


Found on FTR: Pershing instruction video & questions


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

Lert #1 Posted Nov 27 2014 - 13:38

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 44735 battles
  • 25,715
  • Member since:
    09-02-2010

 

Of note:

 

- 'Heavy' tank?

- Torquematic transmission? What does that mean?

- Huh. The radioman - sorry, 'assistant driver' - has his own tank driving controls.

- Mama mia, those are some big looney tunes wrenches. Are they kept on the tank?

- Adjusting track tension seems needlessly complicated.



Legiondude #2 Posted Nov 27 2014 - 14:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 20522 battles
  • 23,191
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

View PostLert, on Nov 27 2014 - 06:38, said:

- 'Heavy' tank?

Designed from a medium tank family and designated as a heavy for morale purposes, along with being employed as something like it for the US military. For the one given to the Soviets under LL, they found it poor for a "heavy" tank role

 

View PostLert, on Nov 27 2014 - 06:38, said:

- Torquematic transmission? What does that mean?

It's a mechanical transmission that takes care of part of the gear shifting for you, as said in the video with the automatic clutch handling

 

View PostLert, on Nov 27 2014 - 06:38, said:

- Huh. The radioman - sorry, 'assistant driver' - has his own tank driving controls.

Yeah, that was a feature with the T25/T26 series starting with the E1's, but the bow gunner's official designation is the assistant driver regardless of there being controls there or not AFAIK

 

 



Anlushac11 #3 Posted Nov 27 2014 - 14:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 39208 battles
  • 2,359
  • Member since:
    05-25-2013

The Automatic transmission was still in its infancy when WW2 started (GM Hydramatic entering production in 1939)

 

The Torquematic was a early version of a automatic transmission for tanks. Some still used clutches with powered or power assisted shifting since the torque converter was not invented til about 1948.



Tibbs_ #4 Posted Nov 27 2014 - 14:17

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 15145 battles
  • 165
  • Member since:
    07-08-2013

Yes, all the Looney Toon tools are kept on the tank. Either externally mounted or in the hull sponson boxes. Tank crews carry the tools needed to perform "crew level" repairs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



zloykrolik #5 Posted Nov 27 2014 - 16:23

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 37518 battles
  • 410
  • [RDTT2] RDTT2
  • Member since:
    05-05-2012
During my time on tanks, we called the biggest track adjusting wrench "Little Joe".

Dominatus #6 Posted Nov 28 2014 - 03:28

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 10311 battles
  • 13,790
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    12-21-2010

View PostLert, on Nov 27 2014 - 07:38, said:

- 'Heavy' tank?

You know, only a few years ago, before WoT came out, people generally only knew the Pershing as a heavy tank. During beta, a lot of people went "Pershing, medium, wth?"

In any event, whether it's medium or heavy is honestly up for debate. As stated, it was designed as a medium and used sort of as a heavy, while the designation was mainly morale based. Weight wise, the US also called Panthers heavies at the time I believe, so it's not so strange.



Meplat #7 Posted Nov 28 2014 - 06:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 6774 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View PostAnlushac11, on Nov 27 2014 - 06:16, said:

The Automatic transmission was still in its infancy when WW2 started (GM Hydramatic entering production in 1939)

 

The Torquematic was a early version of a automatic transmission for tanks. Some still used clutches with powered or power assisted shifting since the torque converter was not invented til about 1948.

 

The torqmatic is still around. Some changes have been made, but it's basically the same unit.

GM had the automatic pretty well thought out, what's changed since then with the Hydromatic/Torqmatic have been mainly materials and lubrication/fluid related, with some integration of things like lockout TC's and computer control instead of throttle position, vacuum and governor..



acosnil #8 Posted Dec 09 2014 - 18:47

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 3332 battles
  • 697
  • Member since:
    06-30-2013

View PostLert, on Nov 27 2014 - 12:38, said:

 

Of note:

 

- 'Heavy' tank?

- Torquematic transmission? What does that mean?

- Huh. The radioman - sorry, 'assistant driver' - has his own tank driving controls.

- Mama mia, those are some big looney tunes wrenches. Are they kept on the tank?

- Adjusting track tension seems needlessly complicated.

 

The M26 Pershing was originally conceived as a heavy tank but in practice was really just a medium compared against contemporary heavies of that period. I guess in one sense you could treat it as a very heavy medium tank or a very light heavy tank, but for most intents and purposes "heavy tank" was a name they slapped on it to make people asking for one happy.

 

 

"Torquematic" is another buzzword for a mixed automatic / manual transmission system.

 

 

Presumably the assistant driver has their own controls in the even that the driver kicks the bucket. Penetrating rounds typically only killed one person per penetrating hit so chances were if there was something strong enough to kill both of them the tank was screwed anyways. Having a system where in the event that one person can't operate the tank, having another be able to without having to physically move the first was probably a perk.

 

 

Those wrenches don't surprise me. Assuming this isn't just for demonstration purposes a larger wrench provides better leverage. The maintenance shop at my job keeps a number of 2 ft wrenches on hand for when some of the larger equipment. Clutches and drive units that seize up can be a huge pain in the [edited]to disassemble without one.

 

 

Adjusting track tension needs to be complex. If it were simple it would be the question of whether or not normal usage of the tank could inadvertently increase or decrease tension through that mechanism.



Anlushac11 #9 Posted Dec 09 2014 - 19:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 39208 battles
  • 2,359
  • Member since:
    05-25-2013

I do not believe the T2x series was ever intended as a heavy tank, it was originally intended as a replacement for the M4 Sherman with a low profile hull using VVSS suspension and a lower profile version of the Ford V8.

 

The developing parties and testers wasted years testing every conceivable technology on the T20 series (T20's, T23's, T26's, etc)

 

The closest to a replacement medium would have been the M27 which was proposed for production, would have been similar armor to M4, low profile hull, and VVSS suspension with Sherman Ford GAx engine and transmission.

 

The T26E3 was renamed a heavy to give US tankers a morale boost thinking they now had a heavy tank. It was May of 1945 or May 1946 when it was redesignated back to being a medium tank.

 

By comparison T26E3 had slightly better armor protection than M4A3E2 jumbo with lower profile, 90mm gun, and roughly same weight.

 

 

In reality T26E3 was very comparable in firepower and armor protection to a Tiger I ausf E. In this case I would give nod to mechanical reliability to the Tiger I. The T26E3's were horribly unreliable, the bugs never being truly worked out til the M46 series.


Edited by Anlushac11, Dec 09 2014 - 19:27.


ImCrius #10 Posted Dec 09 2014 - 20:03

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 23211 battles
  • 320
  • [WFDN] WFDN
  • Member since:
    07-18-2013
I'm sure glad to be able to fix a track with two key presses...  And yes those are some big wrenches, they make the soldiers look like Oompa Loompas.

Anlushac11 #11 Posted Dec 09 2014 - 21:41

    Major

  • Players
  • 39208 battles
  • 2,359
  • Member since:
    05-25-2013

View PostImCrius, on Dec 09 2014 - 14:03, said:

I'm sure glad to be able to fix a track with two key presses...  And yes those are some big wrenches, they make the soldiers look like Oompa Loompas.

 

Or a Crunka Lunka

acosnil #12 Posted Dec 09 2014 - 22:38

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 3332 battles
  • 697
  • Member since:
    06-30-2013

View PostAnlushac11, on Dec 09 2014 - 18:05, said:

I do not believe the T2x series was ever intended as a heavy tank, it was originally intended as a replacement for the M4 Sherman with a low profile hull using VVSS suspension and a lower profile version of the Ford V8.

 

The developing parties and testers wasted years testing every conceivable technology on the T20 series (T20's, T23's, T26's, etc)

 

The closest to a replacement medium would have been the M27 which was proposed for production, would have been similar armor to M4, low profile hull, and VVSS suspension with Sherman Ford GAx engine and transmission.

 

The T26E3 was renamed a heavy to give US tankers a morale boost thinking they now had a heavy tank. It was May of 1945 or May 1946 when it was redesignated back to being a medium tank.

 

By comparison T26E3 had slightly better armor protection than M4A3E2 jumbo with lower profile, 90mm gun, and roughly same weight.

 

 

In reality T26E3 was very comparable in firepower and armor protection to a Tiger I ausf E. In this case I would give nod to mechanical reliability to the Tiger I. The T26E3's were horribly unreliable, the bugs never being truly worked out til the M46 series.

 

I've seen nothing that suggests the M26 was intended to replace the M4 Sherman. Even in Korea the M4 Sherman excelled beyond the Pershing due to the relative reliability compared to the Pershings that were often brought out of moth balls and having to MacGyver their way to functionality. If this was a serious thought it didn't last into tank deployment. M26's were sorely lacking in terms of mobility that the M4 had in spades.

 

 

It was a heavy in the sense that it weighed what a Panther did, which was heavier than an M4. US 90mm guns were significantly better in performance than the 88's you saw on Tiger 1's, especially considering wider availability of specialty ammunition.

 

 

Most of the reliability issues associated with the M26 was a consequence of the fact that the US hadn't really developed an engine that could adequately deal with the weight of a heavy tank that could produce the mobility characteristics they wanted in the dimensions they wanted to fit in the engine compartment for their tank. Comparable heavy tanks ranging from the Tiger 1 (remember: the Panther used the same HL230) to the IS-2 made due with engines that had between 100 and 200 more horse over the V-8 the US stuck in the M26. Even the M6 sported an engine which pulled 825 horse, albeit on a significantly larger silhouette.



Anlushac11 #13 Posted Dec 10 2014 - 02:44

    Major

  • Players
  • 39208 battles
  • 2,359
  • Member since:
    05-25-2013

You misunderstood what I wrote.

 

The T20 series was started in 1942 as a follow on medium tank design intended to succeed the M4.

 

There were T20's, T21's, T22's, T23's, T24's and T25 and T26. And various sub-variants of all those models

 

The T23E3 and T20E3 were requested to be put into production in late 1943 by Army Ordnance as the M27 and M27B1 but Army Ground Forces rejected the idea.  The M27 would have been a T20 series hull with T23 turret with 76mm, torsion bar suspension, and M4's 5 speed manual transmission.

 

The T26E3 was a medium tank, then was reclassified as a heavy on June 29th 1944. Was accepted as M26 in US Army service in March 1945, and reclassified as a medium tank in May 1946.

 

The T26 was rushed into service to address a perception that the US was falling behind in armored vehicle design. Devers had to bypass Army Ground Forces and go straight to Marshall to get Marshall to approve a trial batch of 250 T26E3's

 

US 90mm HVAP ammo was not common to US even late in war and even then tank destroyers would have had first priority. German PzGr.40 APCR was probably impossible to get late 1944 early 1945.

 

Much like the Panther, the T26E3/M26 started life intended to be a 32 ton vehicle. Armor was added on and a new heavily armored larger turret for the 90mm was added which brought weight up to about 45 tons. The suspension was never designed for this weight and the engine and transmission were stressed.

 

The M26 had a horrible reputation for reliability in Korea and M4's were rock solid reliable. The reliability was never fixed in the M26 and the M46 was for all intents is a M26 with a new Continental V12 engine and new cross drive transmission.

 

Ironically the M4A3E2 Jumbo had little problems with its suspension as long as the suspension was not driven at speed over rough terrain bottoming out the bogies.

 



acosnil #14 Posted Dec 10 2014 - 21:19

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 3332 battles
  • 697
  • Member since:
    06-30-2013

View PostAnlushac11, on Dec 10 2014 - 01:44, said:

You misunderstood what I wrote.

 

The T20 series was started in 1942 as a follow on medium tank design intended to succeed the M4.

 

There were T20's, T21's, T22's, T23's, T24's and T25 and T26. And various sub-variants of all those models

 

The T23E3 and T20E3 were requested to be put into production in late 1943 by Army Ordnance as the M27 and M27B1 but Army Ground Forces rejected the idea.  The M27 would have been a T20 series hull with T23 turret with 76mm, torsion bar suspension, and M4's 5 speed manual transmission.

 

The T26E3 was a medium tank, then was reclassified as a heavy on June 29th 1944. Was accepted as M26 in US Army service in March 1945, and reclassified as a medium tank in May 1946.

 

The T26 was rushed into service to address a perception that the US was falling behind in armored vehicle design. Devers had to bypass Army Ground Forces and go straight to Marshall to get Marshall to approve a trial batch of 250 T26E3's

 

US 90mm HVAP ammo was not common to US even late in war and even then tank destroyers would have had first priority. German PzGr.40 APCR was probably impossible to get late 1944 early 1945.

 

Much like the Panther, the T26E3/M26 started life intended to be a 32 ton vehicle. Armor was added on and a new heavily armored larger turret for the 90mm was added which brought weight up to about 45 tons. The suspension was never designed for this weight and the engine and transmission were stressed.

 

The M26 had a horrible reputation for reliability in Korea and M4's were rock solid reliable. The reliability was never fixed in the M26 and the M46 was for all intents is a M26 with a new Continental V12 engine and new cross drive transmission.

 

Ironically the M4A3E2 Jumbo had little problems with its suspension as long as the suspension was not driven at speed over rough terrain bottoming out the bogies.

 

 

I see.

 

 

And yes, that's going to be the key detail- HVAP and other specialty rounds for the US may have been rare, but they existed. By '43 and '44 Germany had virtually no access to the resources necessary for their APCR and similar rounds.

 

 

 

The US wouldn't really get over its issues with designing heavy tanks (read: tanks that weigh a lot, not necessarily heavy tanks) until the M103 or so.



Meplat #15 Posted Dec 11 2014 - 02:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 6774 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View Postacosnil, on Dec 09 2014 - 10:47, said:

 

"Torquematic" is another buzzword for a mixed automatic / manual transmission system.

 

 

 

Unless Allison changed it, it's a fully automatic planetary trans last I saw. Even the modern ones.  You merely selected ranges to keep it from hunting.

Muzzle_Maus #16 Posted Dec 11 2014 - 04:17

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 19094 battles
  • 200
  • [NEVER] NEVER
  • Member since:
    08-14-2013

Thank you Lert,

I really enjoyed that.  I felt like I just had 20 minutes of tank school at Ft. Knox.  Makes you fell like you could adopt a Pershing and take care of one at home.  At least I feel I can handle track tension maintenance.  I did get some up close time with a Pershing at a WW2 event over 15 yrs over at Ft. Indian Town Gap Pennsylvania. It rolled past me on the road, as l lay "dead" in the ditch, with my Panzerschreck, only 3 feet away.  I was the bad guy.  The Pershing really is a monster in scale when compared the M4, and T-34 mediums when you have to fight then up close, barehanded, or danger close with a Panzerfaust or Panzerschreck.  The good old daze.  Now it is just digi tanks on the PC.


Edited by Muzzle_Maus, Dec 11 2014 - 04:21.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users