Talk:M26 Pershing/Archive 1

Text removal

I removed the following section from “Combat performance”: “According to Cooper, ten Pershings were sent to the 3rd Armored Division beginning in February 1945; they would have been sent sooner, had General George S. Patton not intervened. Patton favored the Sherman tank, contending it would require less gasoline and had, in his opinion, better mobility. At that time when Patton's opinion was expressed, the inferiority of the Sherman's main gun and armor protection had yet to be demonstrated.” The above is completely untrue, see “Tank Myths” in “Armor”, September-October 2001 [1] --Roo72 11:01, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Something is now fishy with the article. I think some of the sentences have been messed up. Will try to clean it up later. --rasmusdf 15:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The article reads more like a University term paper than an encylopedia article. mhunter 23:20, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

What were the problems with the Pershings? I just read a history of the Korean War ("The Forgotten War" by Clay Blair), and it stated that the Pershing was considered to be a failure. It didn't go into details, but I got the sense that the Pershing had mobility and maintenance issues. The M4A3E8 "Easy Eight" Shermans were preferred by most tank commanders, and were considered to be quite effective against the T-34. Toiyabe 18:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

During WW2 the M26 was popular due to its good gun. Any 90-mm-armed US vehicle was valued for its ability to destroy Panthers and Tigers. Any faults were overlooked because the need for a good gun was so acute.

In Korea, where the enemy tank threat was minimal compared to WW2, the M26's faults were more apparent. The M26 had the same engine as the M4A3, but weighed about 50% more. Korea is very hilly so this mobility problem was nontrivial. Meanwhile the M4A3's 76mm gun, firing HVAP (which was plentiful, unlike during WW2) could easily deal with NKPA T-34-85s.

In general the M26 was a very good design that needed a better engine. The M46 was essentially nothing but a re-engined M26, and in that form was very successful. DMorpheus 13:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

M26 vs Tiger I

What's got a stronger gun, the Pershing or the Tiger?chubbychicken 11:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Bovington's "Fire and Movement" 1975 gives the following performance figures against homogenous armor at 30 degrees from vertical; ranges in yards.

M26 Tank, 90mm: APCBC, 500 yards, 126mm; 1000 yards, 120mm

M26 Tank, 90mm: HVAP, 500 yards, 221mm; 1000 yards, 200mm

Tiger I, 88mm: APCBC, 500 yards, 110mm; 1000 yards, 101mm

Tiger I, 88mm: APCR, 500 yards, 126mm; 1000 yards, 103mm

Doyle & Jentz, 1978, give the same figures for the Tiger I APCBC but for the PzGr 40 they give: 500 meters, 156mm, 1000 meters, 138mm. Ellis 1993 gives the same figures. Hogg 1976 gives 90mm HVAP performance at 1000 yards as between 173mm and 300mm (!) depending on type of HVAP round.

So at typical WW2 ranges, either vehicle can penetrate the other frontally. DMorpheus 13:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Why the M46?

Why is there a captioned (cloned from the M46 article) picture of the M46 on this page that has no reference or displayed reason?

The text makes mention of the fact that the M-46 was a re-engined M-26. DMorpheus 13:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The M46 was visually similar to the M26, but in addition to a different engine it had a more powerful version of the 90mm gun (used a different shell) as well as an upgraded transmission and suspension. It was a different tank - not just an up-engined M26--Lepeu1999 20:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Weren't some of them conversions? I.e., M26s rebuilt as M46s? Is there any suspension difference other than the higher drive sprocket and extra tensioning roller on the M46?

Not as far as I know. If you look at the back deck of the tanks it's totally different. To my knowladge, there were no 'conversions'. In all honesty, the differences are about the same as the M4 and the M4A3E8W(76) but for whatever reason the US Army decided to designate it as a new tank vs a variant of the M26 and I think the article should follow that. Photos of M46's have no place here.--Lepeu1999 14:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

All M46s were rebuilt M26s; there were no newly produced vehicles.--MWAK (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

In all honesty, the differences are about the same as the M4 and the M4A3E8W(76)... For that matter, most of the chassis and track components of the M60A3, the last variant of the Patton-series which remained operational until 1995, were interchangeable with those of the M26. I suspect that the change in nomenclature was primarily due to the US Army being overtaken by events. The Army had already broken with convention at the time with the Pershing by naming a weapons system after a living person. (I suspect that a bunch of bureaucrats at the Pentagon and Aberdeen Proving Grounds all forgot that, although in his mid-eighties, John J. Pershing was still alive!) However, keep in mind that in early 1946, when the then-designated M26E2 with the improved drive train and gun was approved for production, George S. Patton, Pershing's protege and a man whose name was practically synonymous with American tank warfare, had just died from injuries in a car accident. So with Pershing still alive and Patton recently deceased, the Army was more than happy to rename the new model. Lyle F. Padilla, Major, Armor, US Army Reserve (Retired); lpadilla@voicenet.com 207.103.47.153 06:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed the image of the USMC M46. The article is about the M26 and it's inclusion could create confusion. The image is better served in the article on the M46--Lepeu1999 20:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I once heard that the M26s 90mm wasn't fully operational by the end of WWII, and some models went into combat with a 75mm in place of the standard weapon. Does anyone know of any cases of this being true? (JWJ)

Highly unlikely. The same 90mm gun had already been fielded successfully in at least 300 M36 tank destroyers before the first M26 was put into service in the ETO. DMorpheus 15:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

M-26 Vs. Tiger

Could someone please source the statements of the M-26 engaging Tiger tanks.

I've seen in other books about the subject that the Tiger tanks never actually engaged or were engaged by the M-26 and a complete comparison between the two is hard to say the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.222.186.58 (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure there's a well-referenced encounter between a Tiger I and an M26. However, I don't think the encounter between the 'Super Pershing' and the Tiger II is confirmed in any account (that I've read). The encouter took place as described but the ID of the enemy tank is unknown. We could ask John Irwin though; he's alive and well. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think your talking about an engagement between the Super Pershing and a Jagdpanther when Mr Irwin knocked it out of action by using a HE shell on the drive sprocket. He goes into detail in "Another River, Another Town" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.210.84.242 (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

In Death Traps, Belton Y. Cooper mentions that on 26 February 1945, a standard Pershing with the 3AD killed two King Tigers and a Mark IV with a flank ambush from a range of 1000 meters, although he doubted that the standard Pershing model would have succeeded with a frontal shot against the King Tiger because tank destroyers with the same 90mm gun had not been able to. The shootout at Dessau between the Super Pershing and the King Tiger on 21 April 1945 is documented on the 3rd Armored Division History Foundation website at [[2]]. It was quoted in the main article here on Wikepedia but keeps getting disputed and removed. Lyle F. Padilla, Major, Armor, US Army Reserve (Retired)PhantomWSO (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

T26 or M26

Both designations appear to have been used. Which was more common? Was the tank officially redesignated at some time? Drutt (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

According to R.P. Hunnicutt's book (p. 120), T26E3 was standardised as M26 in March 1945. I haven't found, if Hunnicutt provides the exact date. --ja_62 (talk) 11:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I see, so T26 was the Army designation for the pre-service prototype vehicle? Drutt (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes - as far as I know, T-designations were assigned either to experimental equipment underwenting trials prior to standardisation, or (less often) to non-standard equipment procured in limited numbers.--ja_62 (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The T26 designation covered all the vehicles in series production (and combat service) prior to the re-name. That is, it doesn't just cover a single prototype vehicle. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

All Right, Time to Fix this Awful Page

For those of you interested, I did a major fix on this page, basing my sources entirely on Hunnicutt, Zaloga, and Forty - three pretty darned good tank historians. They don't exactly agree with each other on all the small details, however, which is somewhat annoying - but I address this problem also.

Also put in John Irwin's memoir about his experience with the Super Pershing, contrasting it with Zaloga's description.

Finally, I left in the reference to Belton Cooper's "Death Traps", which has to be the most inaccurate piece of non-history ever. And yes, I have read this book more than once. I added what amounts to an extensive rebuttal of Cooper's claims, most of which come from Zaloga's book "Armored Thunderbolt", a book which Zaloga states in the Preface was written largely to address statements made about the M4 Sherman in Cooper's book. The only piece of information that Cooper gets exactly right in his book is that a lot of holes got shot in a lot of M4 Shermans, and a lot of tank crewmen were killed. All the other specifics of what he said are just plain wrong. As he did not actually fight in one of those tanks, he never figured out that, except at the Battle of the Bulge (and the Battle of Caen for the British), most of those M4 Shermans were NOT knocked out by German tanks. The majority of M4s were knocked out by the much greater numbers of German towed anti-tank guns and self-propelled anti-tank gun AFVs like the StuG III, Marder, Jagdpanzer, StuG IV, etc.. In close quarters action in towns and cities, the Panzershreks and Panzerfausts took a large toll. Germany's "vastly superior tanks" did contribute but were only part of the story of why so many M4 Shermans were knocked out. Zaloga goes over this aspect of history in great detail in "Armored Thunderbolt".

Cooper's description of the episode where Task Force Welborn was ambushed by a company of Tiger II tanks of the 3./schwere Panzer-Abteilung 507 near Paderborn was also inaccurate and highly incomplete (these details, like the name of the ambushed armor force and the location, can be found in other sources, such as Wolfgang Schneider's excellent "Tigers in Combat I" - Cooper did not put these details in his book and he did not cross check what he did put in his book with other historical sources). Tigers could not shoot accurately while on the move, as Cooper claimed happened during this ambush. The attack was not a rolling counterattack as described in "Death Traps", but a pure ambush, as the Tigers were hiding in some nearby woods as Task Force Welborn drove by. Cooper failed to mention the key part - the entire battalion of 21 Tiger IIs of the 507 schwere Panzer-Abteilung was knocked out of action in two weeks, while Task Force Welborn kept on driving into Germany. The moral of the story: it doesn't matter if you have a "vastly superior" tank if you don't have very many of them, because no tank, however superior, is invincible. Tanks get used up in combat like bullets, and you need lots and lots of good but cheap bullets. What you don't want to do is put all your money and industrial energy into owning a very few "vastly superior" bullets that get used up very quickly. Hitler never understood this concept, which is why the German army was always short of tanks and struggled with this failed strategy of trying to stem the Allied advance with a mobile reserve of these "vastly superior tanks" that launched point counterattacks. They didn't have enough tanks to defend their lines properly and could not support their poor struggling infantry, which had to make do with the towed anti-tank guns, and SPGs, and Panzershrek/Panzerfausts.

Cooper extolled the M26 as a tank that could have won the war earlier for the US. NOT TRUE. He conveniently left out the parts of the story about the M26 where they were knocked out in combat. I have included every M26 combat action known to have happened during WWII to give the complete picture. The M26 was not invincible. And they were underpowered, prone to breakdowns, and could not cross many of the bridges of Europe, including the one at Remagen. And they would not have made any difference in Eisenhower's refusals to let Gen. Patton's Third Army continue its drive towards Germany in Sept. 1944, and Gen. Devers's Sixth Army Group attack into Strasbourg in Nov. 1944 BEFORE the Germans had set their defenses. These poor strategic decisions and Eisenhower's concurrent decisions to waste resources on Operation Market Garden and have First Army attack into the useless and horrendous Battle of Hurtgen Forest had much more to do with the US Army wasting time and the lives of many soldiers in the period of Sept 1944 through March 1945 than the mere absence of a tank with better armor and firepower. The Battle of the Bulge would likely not have happened had either Patton or Devers been driving into Germany, as the German armor reserve being built up for that attack would have most likely had to be used to counter those armies.

The M26 at best could hold its own against the Panther and Tiger tanks. As demonstrated by the photo of the knocked out M26 Fireball versus the video of the Cologne Panther getting brewed up by an M26, it just all depended on who shot first and who shot the most accurately. The tactical situation most often dictated the outcome of a tank battle - tanks were most vulnerable when ambushed, and tanks moving against a prepared defensive position were more likely to get ambushed. U.S. tanks were generally in an offensive mode from 1944-45 and so were vulnerable to getting shot up by the Germans. On occasions when German tanks attacked into a prepared defense, they were the ones that got ambushed and knocked out (e.g., the demise of Michael Wittmann, Tiger Ace, and the Battle of Arracourt). This is a point that Zaloga makes repeatedly in "Armored Thunderbolt".

Cooper also did not get the story of the Super Pershing quite right - his descriptions of the combat action are again highly incomplete compared with Zaloga's analysis and Irwin's recollections.

Yes, the M26 was a better tank than the M4 Sherman and should have been produced sooner, but blaming it on Patton is incredibly wrong and really bad history. Cooper's false proclamations are out there everywhere now, too many people believe them and keep posting them as references, hence the long section, based mostly on Zaloga's book, explaining what REALLY HAPPENED.

How the heck did this guy get on History Channel? DarthRad (talk) 09:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S.

68.120.230.38 is me. Forgot to sign in (again). DarthRad (talk) 09:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

A lot more work and cleaning up to do on this page. Have left most of the Korea and Post WWII stuff intact. The M26 saw way more combat in Korea, and should get a bigger piece written about it here. DarthRad (talk) 09:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

P.P.S.

Just received my copy of Zaloga's 2000 book M26/M46 Pershing Tank 1943-53. I had ordered this book just to be complete. I flipped the book to page 12, and just about fell out of my chair. Right on that page, Zaloga states that Patton opposed the M26 and was influential in stopping the tank.

Zaloga completely changes his story in Armored Thunderbolt (2008), which, being a more recent and much more detailed book, has newer and more thorough research. Patton is not mentioned at all in the extended description of the development controversies of the M26 discussed in Armored Thunderbolt. The fact that Patton could not have been the main cause of the delayed M26 production is only logical when one looks at the WWII timeline and it becomes apparent that the Army's bureaucratic fight over M26 production occurred precisely at the same time that Patton had fallen into disgrace for slapping the soldier in Sicily. Patton spent this time mostly cooling his heels in Europe as a decoy for the Normandy invasion, worried that his career in the Army was coming to an end.

This newer version of the story is as I have set down in the M26 Wiki article.

Also different in M26/M46 Pershing Tank 1943-53 is the story of the "Super Pershing", on p. 15. Here again, Zaloga's version of the story matches Belton Cooper's version - that the Super Pershing only fired its weapon once, on an unidentified armored vehicle at long range.

I am beginning to suspect that Zaloga and Belton Cooper were both somehow misled by a common source back in the late 90's to 2000 period when M26/M46 Pershing Tank 1943-53 and Death Traps were both written. In the beginning of M26/M46 Pershing Tank 1943-53, Zaloga only credits two main sources - the Patton Museum and the US Military History Institute at the US Army War College. One or both of these places must have been the source of the bad info about Patton and the Super Pershing.

In Armored Thunderbolt, Zaloga gives a much, much more extensive source list, including the locations (down to the exact files at the National Archives) of the papers of the wartime Ordnance department and the AGF, as well as Gen. Lesley McNair's papers. The reason for the change in history thus appears to be that Zaloga discovered more of the raw documents of history.

Hunnicutt and Forty's versions of what happened were based mainly on a review of original documents. Hunnicutt's book references a variety of documents from Ordnance, the Armored Board, the Aberdeen Proving Ground, and the War Dept. Forty mainly references a postwar summary report written by Ordnance - The Ordnance Department on Beachhead and Battlefront. Forty also references Gen. Barnes and Gen. Levin Campbell of Ordnance directly in his book and probably spoke or corresponded with them directly.

George Forty, by the way is the curator of the Bovington Tank Museum in England, and was a former Lieutenant Colonel of the Royal Tank Regiment.

I should note that some of Zaloga's other earlier works have also contained bothersome mistakes - for instance there is this claim that the Soviet 122mm gun punched a shell all the way through a Panther tank, which is attributed to Zaloga's 1984 book Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two. Jentz's Panther book with its range penetration tables showed that this could not have been possible. I tried my darndest to delete this claim about the 122mm gun from the Wikipedia Panther tank and IS-2 entries, but no luck - somebody kept putting that back in.

All I can say is, at least Zaloga keeps doing more research in search of the real truth.

For sure I am not putting M26/M46 Pershing Tank 1943-53 down as a reference for this article.

Trust no one....

DarthRad (talk) 08:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Major Problems with new section "ZEBRA MISSION" (now under heading of "Additional Developmental History")

Problems:

1. This ENTIRE SECTION was not about the Zebra Mission at all, but merely added more details about the various prototypes of the M26. Thus, information from this section should be incorporated into the "Development" section of this Wiki entry, not put into the WWII Combat history, and definitely should NOT be under it's own heading (ALL CAPS) of ZEBRA MISSION.

Of what is said in this new section, about two paragraphs have enough additional information in them that they could be merged in with the rest of the developmental history. However, it's quite a headache and chore for anybody to WANT TO EDIT somebody else's sloppy writing. I am not a professional editor, merely a tank nerd interested in making sure that the Wiki tank pages are not spouting seriously false history.

And so for now, I have just moved these two new paragraphs to the end of the "Development" section as "Additional Developmental History". This should be considered as a temporary parking space until somebody has enough editing energy to come along and tidy up this section by merging this information into the rest of the Development section.

Since much of the new details, such as the precise dates that some of these prototype appeared, are not that important to the history of the M26, a good case could be made for just deleting this new section altogether, especially since no references were given other than an internet website (not allowed for Wiki Tank articles - too much crap out there on the internet about WWII tanks). The rather jumbled and meandering language of the new section, makes this new section quite confusing to read and needs to be cleaned up also. I think if somebody can edit this new material seamlessly into the rest of the Development history, and give it proper references, this material should stay, otherwise it could be deleted without losing anything important.Ultimately only about 2-3 sentences from this new section have any added value.

I am troubled by the attibution of events to "AGF" in this new section. AGF's role was primarily to train and supply troops and supply weapons and ordnance to the armies in the field. I don't think it was responsible for all the things that it was given credit for. Ordnance and the Armored Force Board were also involved in this process.

2. There are no references given for the new information (see above re: internet references). Hence the "citations needed" additions. If none are forthcoming, I propose that the new info be deleted as extraneous.

3. New heading (ALL CAPS) of ZEBRA MISSION inserted. Other than mentioning it, almost nothing else is said about the Zebra Mission. I have thus deleted the new heading of ZEBRA MISSION. The Zebra Mission had already been discussed in the main body of the WWII combat history.

4. Two or three sentences at the end of the new section were about the deployment of the M26 to Europe. These repeat what were already in the article. I have deleted these extraneous sentences.

5. The statement about McNair's death having no effect on M26 development/production was deleted. First of all, there had been nothing in this article that said one way or the other about this issue. Second of all, we don't know if McNair, had he lived, would have changed his mind about the M26 and supported their production, and we don't know if he was still against them and would have continued to be a roadblock. We just know that McNair was killed, the M26 went into production 3-4 months later, and was deployed in limited numbers into combat 3 months after that. And that's all that was in the article, and that's all that should be said about McNair's death.

OOPS, forgot to login again. I am 68.120.83.49

DarthRad (talk) 08:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Ja_62 now points out this section was copied from an internet website. I am all for deleting this section, unless somebody finds a good reason to keep it.

DarthRad (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

BilCat: Please explain your reversion

I have re-reverted this article to the last good version which contained my major re-write of this formerly horrendous page. A few good people have chipped in since with some minor edits which are retained in this re-reversion.

I think I have tried to be fair and explain everything that I wrote in this discussion. The previous version was truly badly written, and contained Belton Cooper's inaccurate claims about the M26 and a reference from somebody's personal website. As I explained, the version I wrote is based almost entirely on the latest book by Zaloga (Armored Thunderbolt), and works by highly esteemed tank historians Richard Hunnicutt and George Forty.

I challenge anybody to challenge these sources. Have you even read the books that I have cited?

Some paragraphs of what I wrote are not fully referenced down to the factoid in each paragraph, but almost everything I wrote is from one of these three sources.

DarthRad (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Every paragraph needs to be cited, which they are not. Quite frankly, I found your additions very confusingly written, which was partly why I just reverted the whole thing. In addition, the 200+ edits you and your IPs used to add the material also make it very difficult on other editors. You've been asked not to do so many edits, yet you seem to care lees about making things difficult for others. Anyway, I won't revert you again, and since crap is what you seem to be promoting, I'll let you own the article in pieces. - BilCat (talk) 04:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this is badly cited, contains a lot of OR and confusing writing, and needs a re-write. regards, DMorpheus (talk) 02:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

_____

Thank you BilCat. Have you ever heard of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia?

If you truly want to assist another Wikipedia writer instead of just arbitrarily calling other people's work crap, you could do some of the dirty work of EDITING and make suggestions as to how to IMPROVE the article. If you read my extensive edits of the Panther tank article, and the associated discussion page, I am quite open to constructive criticism and congenial discussions with others as to how to improve my writing. Instead, you just did this major revert without even bothering to post anything into this Discussion page. For all I could tell, this was just sheer VANDALISM. I had to dig up your profile page to find out that you are a self-styled Wikipedia aircraft article expert. So what the heck are you doing screwing up a tank article?

On your talk page, I asked you a couple of simple questions (which you've deleted) - have you even READ ANY OF THE REFERENCES I CITED? Did you even bother to read this Discussion page before doing your revert? If not, stay out of this article, please. You seriously do not know what you are doing.

I acknowledged that every paragraph has not been properly referenced. I do other work for a living, and Wikipedia is only a hobby, not my life, and eventually I will get around to filling out all of the citations. If you want to assist in this EDITING CHORE, which is the least desirable aspect of writing for Wikipedia, you could point out areas that require citations, as Ja_62 has. Or, if you REALLY KNEW WHAT YOU WERE DOING, you could even find the proper references for factoids that need references and fill them out yourself. I have done that for SEVERAL other tank articles, and so have many other writers. Be that as it may, I am already aware of what paragraphs need citations and will get around to filling those out eventually. Nothing in this article has been generated out of thin air.

And, I do not feel that I OWN this article. Anybody that can make it better is welcome to contribute and I am not going to arbitrarily screw up their writing like you just tried to do. The post-WWII part of the article was written by others and I have only changed the most egregiously FALSE and badly written parts of it that had to do with the development and WWII combat actions of the M26 tank.

Parts of the article are indeed a bit dense and probably difficult to slug through for people not familiar with tank history. Suggestions as to how to improve clarity without removing essential information are certainly welcome.

The reason for giving the highly detailed specifics of the different versions of the M26 development history has to do with the persistent raging controversy generated by Belton Cooper's book. I wanted to document once and for all the authoritative sources that contradict Cooper's book, rather than just refer the reader to a personal webpage, which was how the article was written before.

As for the multiple edits, that is the way I write - piecemeal. It has been that way forever, and although I understand everybody's complaints, I can't change the way I write.

DarthRad (talk) 17:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you have a look at Bill's massive contribution history before insulting him like that. Material which isn't cited can be removed at any time, and some of what you'd added appears to be your personal opinion. Rather than abuse Bill, why don't you explain why the article needs a long and, to be frank, rambling section rebutting one of the many books which cover this tank? The material on the different historians views on what contributed to the M26's late introduction to combat has value, but is massively over-long and could be summarised into a few paras. Nick-D (talk) 09:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

______

Perhaps in twenty years, it will no longer be necessary to have to refute this one truly bad book "Death Traps". But, if you read any WWII tank forums, if you read any of the Wikipedia discussion pages of other WWII tanks, you will find the opinions expressed in Belton Cooper's book to have become widely permeated in what people think they know about tanks. If you look at the ancient histories of both this M26 article and the M4 Sherman, both have lots of back and forth changes over this one issue.

Yes, the one section devoted to refuting this claim that Patton stopped development of the M26 tank is quite long. But this mistake appeared not only in Belton Cooper's book but also in Zaloga's earlier (2000) M26 book.

Just to give you an idea of how widespread this falsehood is out there on the Internet as a result, it appears in the lead review for this book on Amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/M26-Pershing-Tank-1943-53-Vanguard/dp/1841762024/ref=cm_cr-mr-title

And so this is a problem that falls into the category of an Internet-disseminated urban legend that has to be refuted rather than simply stating the correct history. If you are at all familiar with the original page that BilCat tried to revert this page to, you will know that the original page contained the Belton Cooper version of the story and a refutation based on somebody's personal Internet page. Now, tell me, how does that fit into Wikipedia's standards of excellence?

So to properly refute this urban legend now requires a fairly extensive explanation of what source material is being used to document the historical truth of the matter. This refutation is made more difficult because the three major tank historians that I cited do not completely agree with each other on the small details, and the differences appear to be because they referenced different documents, which each had a different perspective of the controversy.

But I do keep things to a minimum with, as you say, one paragraph for Hunnicutt and Forty's versions.

As for insulting BilCat, BilCat is the only one who has launched any insults by using the word "crap".

Thank you BilCat for your adherence to the principles of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. I believe I deserve an apology for being insulted. I put a huge amount of time researching and writing these changes into this article.

Read my posts again. I do not believe that I insulted BilCat. I only asked him if he had read either the reference sources I cited or the Discussion section of this M26 article. Just because he has made massive contributions to Wikipedia in the past does not mean that he understands what the problems are with this previously very troubled tank article, or how to fix them, and that is the only thing that matters.

Once again, if anybody out there actually wants to improve this article, I would suggest that you follow the Five Pillars, and instead of debating or insulting ME on a personal level, please do the following:

1. Read the three major references of Zaloga, Hunnicutt, and Forty on which I based the majority of the revisions.

2. Read the Discussion page to understand why I wrote what I wrote

3. Understand that I know that the reference citations are not complete and I do intend to fill them in eventually (although, if you look closely, about 80% of the paragraphs and factoids have reference citations, which is a lot better than other Wiki articles). If you really you want to help, you could look up the references and fill them in! If you think what I wrote is wrong, find a fact in some other reference and write that in instead. And cite the reference. I currently have some books on Patton on order to help fill out some of these references. Also have to take care of my day job during this busy end of the year time.

DarthRad (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem

This article was automatically listed at the Copyright Problems board for evaluation by an uninvolved administrator at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 December 3. The material tagged for review has been removed, as it replicated previously published content that cannot be verified to be free for reuse in a manner inconsistent with non-free content policy and guideline. Wikipedia:Copyrights only permits such replication in accordance with that policy and guideline unless the material can be verified to be public domain or otherwise compatibly licensed. Quotations must be brief, must explicitly acknowledge their origin and can only be used for reasons such as those set out at WP:NFC. This material was added on November 26, 2009. Contributors to the article are welcome to use any verifiable facts in their own language but are asked not to restore the text verbatim except in full compliance with WP:NFC or if the original source can be located and verified to be free for reuse. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That was the "ZEBRA MISSION" - "Additional Developmental History" section. Good. DarthRad (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Heavy tank classification

Although this tank was originally classified as a Heavy tank, it was reclassified as a medium tank. In the Infobox, might we change type to Heavy/medium tank? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.61.156 (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Filling in the Details

Did lots more work on this page, as promised.

1. Added reference citations everywhere. I think every bit of information I inputted has a citation now.

2. Laid out all the information in Hunnicutt's book about M26 prototypes and variants into an easily accessible table. No doubt there will be those who scream TMI! But a table is much easier to understand than to just list the prototypes/variants and drone on and on about them. With this table, especially with the dates of production, a number of things become immediately obvious. The Ordnance Dept. pretty much wasted all of 1943 working on the electrical transmission T23. All the arguments about more armor and firepower did not really begin until the time frame of mid 1943 to mid 1944. With this table, we quickly see the full evolution of the M26, what was tried and failed, and what succeeded.

3. Fleshed out more of the details in the section about Belton Cooper and his claims about George Patton. I checked three Patton biographies in all, and cited only the best one. The story of the M26 (and the 76mm Sherman) really was so much more complicated than "Patton was against the M26 and stopped its development", and "the Germans had vastly superior tanks because of the arrogance of a few generals" ...

A few more things to tidy up still....

DarthRad (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I found this bad statement in the end of the combat history section. "Europe's bridges were in general not designed to hold heavy tanks, which had been another one of the original objections to sending a heavy tank to Europe." This is rhetorical as most bridges are not designed for tank traffic. A better statement would have been: "One of the reasons for objections to heavy tank's had been that most bridges could not hold them."-Anyonomus contributer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.68.169 (talk) 01:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Most of the bridges in Europe would have been blown up by the retreating Germans before any Allied tanks got to them. They would then have been replaced with Bailey bridges, so the limitations of the original bridges would have been, for the most part, academic.

Presumably the British already knew this as their contemporary vehicle, the Centurion Mk I, was around the same weight as the Pershing, at about 40-45 tons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Production numbers

ACcording to Global Security.com "more than 2400" Pershings were produced. Would there be any objection to me putting this into the infobox as the production number? (since the value of "2000+" in the lower table is uncited)--L1A1 FAL (talk) 07:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

M 26 Armour

Why is there no info given for the M26`s armour ? On p 85 my copy of Osprey tanks (as sold at Bovington ! ) for the T26E3 quotes :
Mantlet = 115mm
Hull upper = 100mm
Turret sides and hull lower = 76mm
Hull sides = 50 to 75mm
I`d have added it to the info box but it was so complicated I couldn`t work it out, can someone who knows how to add the spec do it ?--JustinSmith (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Belton Cooper's "Death Traps" is FABRICATED NON-HISTORY and should not be used as a reference

I just removed a reference from Cooper's book that somebody tried to sneak in.

Please read the above Talk page descriptions of all of the horrendously BAD HISTORY that is in Cooper's book. The original version of this Wikipedia article that I did had a much longer section describing and refuting Cooper's fundamental error in claiming that Patton was the main culprit responsible for delaying M26 Pershing production. Most of this section has since been stripped out by other editors, which is OK, as I think in general the tank articles on Wikipedia no longer use anything from Cooper's book, and the echoes of this horribly bad book do not haunt us like it did several years ago.

Cooper gets almost every historical fact WRONG in his book, except for the fact that a lot of holes got shot into a lot of American tanks, and a lot of American tank crew were killed in WWII. Many parts of his book are so thoroughly debunked by other much better documented and authoritative sources that they can only be described as outright FABRICATIONS.

So, PLEASE DO NOT USE COOPER'S BOOK AS A REFERENCE CITATION for this article (or any other article). The only mention of Cooper's book that belongs in this article is how WRONG he is about Patton being the main reason that the the M26 production was delayed. And the need for that statement in this article remains, as people who have read his book probably continue to mistakenly think that is true history.

DarthRad (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Planning Munitions for War

This is an interesting treatise on the Ordnance Department written as part of their WW II history and covers the M26 and other subjects. There's little said I haven't read elsewhere but it is the Ordnance viewpoint on some issues. Links to the free pdf and web site follow. Those who are skittish can search for:

cmh pub 10-9

http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/010/10-9/index.html

http://www.tothosewhoserved.org/usa/ts/usatso01/

Also interesting are Cmh pub 10-11 On Beachhead and Battlefront (which includes mure about procurement and development) and Cmh Pub 10-10 Procurement and Supply.

JDNatWiki (talk) 14:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I lookit these searched the pdfs an it seems Devers is responsible for the T26. Didn't he suggest the 90mm on the T23? Then want it on an improved tank? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.190.21.165 (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

T23 history?

"Through much of 1943, there was little perceived need within the U.S. Army for a better tank than the 75 mm M4 Sherman, and so, lacking any insights from the rest of the army as to what was needed, the Ordnance Department next took a developmental detour into electrical transmissions with the T23 series."

Hunnicutt indicates the T23 was started earlier around the same time as the T22.Jdnwiki2016 (talk) 11:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Heavy or Medium

This article seems to be very confusing on when the tank was considered medium or heavy. The first paragraph indicates medium, with a ref-note stating that the heavy designation was only brief and development went ahead as medium in 1942. The later post-ww2 section states it was heavy prior to 1946. This could probably do with a paragraph in the intro as it's particularly unusual but I'm not in a position to know one way or the other.Lkchild (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: this is carrying on over onto the classification in the ww2 tanks template, wher Ive just undone a change based on the text of the article, not the reference-note which contradicts.Lkchild (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Chamberlain and Ellis note it was called Heavy Tank T26E1 in 1944. Which is about the time a few of them where in process of being sent to Europe. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, after reading two books on the M26, it was a Medium tank designed to take the place of a Medium tank, but then when the T26E3s were shipped to Europe they redesignated them as Heavy tanks in 1944, and kept the Heavy tanks designation until May 1946, when tanks that were in development were going to be larger than the M26, so they were once again redesignated them, this time back to Medium tanks. Part of me wonders if the powers that be designated them Heavy tanks in an effort to boost morale or something, but I have absolutely no proof of this. If someone else doesn't make any changes to try and clear this up in the article I will try too soon. Pennsy22 (talk) 09:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Well done both :) Lkchild (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Lead image

Comments and suggestions about the lead image. Per MOS:LEADIMAGE

Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see.

This would normally mean a three quarters view of the tank, where it fills the image as much as possible.

Currently, we have the following, which doesn't fit the criteria.

• 
  Current image. Poor view and angle for instant recognition, cluttered background, high quality and high pixel count

Proposals. Add more as required. My preferences would be: Three quarters view, high quality, period image if possible.

• 1) A recent suggestion. Goodish view (background clutter). Low quality. Tired, outdoor museum piece
  1) A recent suggestion. Goodish view (background clutter). Low quality. Tired, outdoor museum piece
• 
  2) Good view. High quality. Tired, outdoor museum piece
• 
  Could be cropped to: Goodish view, partly obscured by people on hull. High quality, period image.

My current preference would be 2). (Hohum ^@) 18:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Cylinders

What are the two cylinders on top of the super pershing's turret?

According to http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/us/t26e4-super-pershing - stabilizing springs for the gun. Source probably isn't good enough to use in the article though. It may be mentioned in "Pershing, A History of the Medium Tank T20 Series, R.P. Hunnicut" - but I don't have it to refer to. (Hohum ^@) 17:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

"Intended As A Sherman Replacement"

The M26 was originally designed as a heavy tank, meant to counter the new heavier German tanks, and while reclassified as a medium tank after WWII, built as a heavy tank it seems incorrect to dub it as the intended successor to the Sherman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:245:C101:9C70:C85C:A90E:DE14:4250 (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)