M26 Pershing | From Concept to Combat Across Conflicts

[@davidk7324]

Nice work, Hank. And thanks to all the folks behind the scenes who help with scripting, production, and editing. One major factor of US WW2 tank doctrine and usage was logistics for our troops and lend lease recipients. The M4 was a modifiable jack of all trades, theaters and applications. Sacrifices (such as tank on tank capabilities) were inevitable. Would 500 Pershings have been a tactical game changing player in the Normandy Campaign, for example? I'm not sure, possibly. But given that most ammo expended by M4s was HE in support of infantry/indirect, etc., the Pershing's tank on tank improvements may have had marginal positive impact. Transition training of crews/mechanics takes time and logistical supply of new spares and tooling for field repairs may have been an obstacle. I question whether the war would have been over any sooner with significantly lower loss of American lives. Cool tank, however. Was it significantly more resistant against Panzerfausts/shrecks?

[@videodistro]

Wouldn't the Pershings also have HE rounds? If so, they certainly wouldn't have done worse in those situations. Other than less mobility, they would have been better prepared for situations that HE could not address.

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

The primary means armored vehicles defend against chemical (shaped charge) warheads are to generate standoff distance to lessen or eliminate the effect of the plasma jet generated by the charge, via coatings or other resistant surfaces, and by sloping the armor. Laminate high-tech composites came later, as did ERA (explosive reactive armor) plates. Defense against mobile hand held AT weapons as well. The M-26 was better-protected than the M4 series against all kinds of armor attack, whether KE or chemical. That said, it would have been relatively easy for a Panzershrek or Panzerfaust round to cut through its armor if a solid hit against a vertical or near-vertical surface could be obtained. The latter weapon in particular was a decade or more ahead of the efforts of engineers and designers trying to protect these vehicles and their crews. Then, in the 1960s and 1970s, the first wire-guided AT munitions appeared, which made the job even tougher. Field-expedient screens made of sheet metal or chicken-wire fencing gave some degree of warhead stand-off protection to Shermans and other Allied vehicles. These might have helped the M-26s in that situation as well. Better sloped armor is desired, too, since the closer to perpendicular the jet is to the surface being attacked, the more focused the plasma jet. It is always tough to play 'what if' history, such as in this case of asking if the M-26 would have shortened the war to any meaningful degree over the M4 Sherman. In sufficient numbers, it might have made a difference in how fast the American forces were able to advance. The closest analog I can think of would be the introduction of the T34-85 into the Red Army; it made units so equipped significantly more formidable against German forces and the crews and men supported by them certainly must have appreciated them. But by the time they were introduced, the Red Army had evolved numerous other means of knocking out the toughest German tanks, from other heavier tanks such as the IS-2 w/ 122mm main gun, to improved self-propelled guns and tank destroyers. Difficult to attach a number to the quantitative improvement given by the T34-85, because of these factors. Same for the M-26 Pershing, too.

[@s.marcus3669]

Note that at the 15:46 mark, the tank in the Korean War clip is named "Alice", from which the museum staff decided to name their tank after....

[@NMMV_USA]

Good eye!

[@stevearbuckle3143]

A little-known 1951 movie titled "The Tanks are Coming" presented a story about the arrival of the Pershing in the ETO. It was filmed at fort Knox, KY. My dad played a part in it. He was assigned to post ordnance and restored the 88 mm gun from the Patton Museum there and served the piece in the ambush scene shot at Otter creek on post.

[@grahamstrouse1165]

Sweet!

[@lukecoomer9349]

I love that movie! My dad grew up watching it, and the watched it with me and my brothers!

[@s.marcus3669]

As a kid growing up in Los Angeles in the 1970s, I watched every war movie that was shown on television but never heard of TTAC until WELL into the Internet Age and as soon as I could, I bought that movie on DVD. Lots of fun and SO much better than watching an M-47 or M-4 masquerading as a German tank as in SO many crappy movies....

[@wwiiimpressionsinc.4727]

Again, another great video. Thanks for hi-lighting the M26. The tank duel at Koln against the Panther helped make the Pershing legendary.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

If the Panther commander didn't hesitate to give the order to fire, thinking the Pershing might be a new German tank, then it could have ended very differently for the Pershing. That hesitation was the difference.

[@wwiiimpressionsinc.4727]

@@lyndoncmp5751 Yep, you snooze, you loose!

[@chrisc8156]

The M26 was not legendary - it was a terrible tank. Don't equate an overhyped encounter with a single Panther with legendary status. It was unreliable, too heavy and just as vulnerable to German anti tank fire as the Sherman. The gun was better than the Sherman's but as a complete weapon system it was inferior (at least in WW2).

[@gandydancer9710]

@@chrisc8156 M26 wasn't a terrible tank. Don't know where you get that idea. I believe the video errs in attributing the first loss of an M26 to an encounter with a Tiger that was actually an encounter with a Nashorn. I should probably confirm this by looking it up, but that's just my memory of the incident.

[@chrisc8156]

@@gandydancer9710 The M26 was not a very good tank. It was chronically underpowered and was quickly replaced by the M46 and the true successor to the M4 which was the M47. The M26 barely saw any combat in WW2 or in the Korean War and the Army was glad to get rid of it. In essence the M26 tank was the M14 rifle of the Armored branch.

[@TheBruceGday]

I was just visiting the museum last week. Incredible! Above and beyond expectations! Nice video.

[@willcullen3743]

A misunderstanding in the use of tank destroyers by AGF. Tank destroyers per field manuals did not chase or persew enemy units and were defensive units only. Per us army doctrine tank destroyers were held in reserve for enemy armored breakthroughs and were not to be used in the assault. The reason for the t 20's series was as replacement for the sherman but none of the those were deemed acceptable and a backup design using a t 23 current on a m 4 sherman hull with the 76 mm gun was accepted as the new medium tank. The pershing came from the t 23 program as an order to upgun and up armor a t23 thus the many variants until they decided on the pershing design

[@johnnyzippo7109]

I knew it ! Just as I said , from your first narration to this piece , wow , YOU Sir have found your marks . Very well done , thank you for committing yourself to these efforts , I can assure you the improvements in craft are nothing short of phenomenal .

[@NMMV_USA]

That means a lot, thank you :-)

[@VunderGuy]

Problem: The Chieftain said that wasn't the case and that all tanks were expected to deal with tanks even doctrinally.

[@scubasteve3743]

Great video. I wish more channels were this purely informative.

[@misterstanley6161]

Hank the Tank strikes again with an excellent video!

[@HarveyAndToddTheWraith]

If I remember correctly the M26 called "Fireball" after it was damaged, it was repaired with 90mm gun from M36, because they didn't brought any spare 90mm gun.

[@guylelanglois6642]

Thank you, Mr Stark, for identifying the m 26 as the tank my father was photographed in front of in Korea when I visited last week. Awesome museum content wait to see you all again.

[@deadmeat8754]

The T/M26 was a great American WW2 "Heavy" that pushed the boundaries of what the US MIC could produce in class. The fact that a capable and (mostly) working tank was actually produced and deployed well before VE Day is a minor miracle. The T/M26, while not a "wunderwaffe", was more than capable of defeating any German armor produced during the war and went on to help save the UN in Korea.

[@Gundoctor913A]

Fantastic video! Another excellent presentation by Mr. Wilcox. A great book that focuses on the Pershings European performance is “Spearhead” by Adam Makos.

[@trappenweisseguy27]

I’m still surprised to this day that they didn’t make many,many more of the M36B1, which is basically a Sherman with the 90 mm gun turret. It would have retained the good qualities and familiarity of the Sherman with the much greater hitting power of the 90. They could have also welded on some spaced armour here and there to deal with panzer fausts. I’m also still surprised that they didn’t have the foresight of the need for more powerful engines of 650-700 horsepower range.

[@moss8448]

what I've read the commanders in the field didn't want to deal with the logistics of the 90mm ammo same with the 76.2mm ammo on converting from the 75mm HE, which they felt was better overall for infantry support.

[@RobertNicolson-x5i]

Outstanding presentation

[@l4x3rj]

I love Tank Hank! Thank you to all involved for making such great and engaging content!

[@phil20_20]

It's nice to see someone got some of the stories firmed up from WWII. So many recounts are hard to understand and incomplete.

[@Boric78]

Really well done this - by jumping the development (except in summary) you avoid some seriously confusing history.

[@ChetJang]

It's interesting to hear that the Pershing was used several times in Europe. Many sources make it sound like it was in only one battle. It was a savior in Korea when all the Soviet M34s were storming through Korea. The Shermans couldn't stand up to them.

[@KARLMARX56]

M4s did ok, I, as an ex tanker, would rather been on an M4 than T34. If you've never been in one, they are really crude. But tough, that they were. 🍀✌️

[@billballbuster7186]

It was really just one man General Lesley NcNair Chief of Army Ground Forces that got to decide Training, Doctrine and Weapons for the US Army. He introduced the Tank Destroyer and his doctrine was only TDs would fight enemy tanks. The tank was then relegated to Reconnaissance and Infantry Support for which Sherman was adequate. Several tanks M-6, T-14, T-20 to 25 were all rejected. However McNair was killed in Normandy July 44 by a US bomb. His replacement, the more practical General Ben Lear, fast tracked the production of the M-26 but only a few made it into combat.

[@tonyromano6220]

One guy? 😂😂😂😂.

[@billballbuster7186]

@@tonyromano6220 Yes - He was the Chief

[@geoffreyscheuerman2378]

McNair was an idiot on so many levels. For the doctrine of ank destroyers being the ones to fight tanks to even have a chance to work, individual TD's would have needed to be an organic part of EVERY platoon of Sherman tanks. Second, to ignore the after action reports of Allied tankers using the Sherman in Italy against Tigers and Panthers, should have been a warning call that a better armed and armored Tank, T-26! M-26 was needed prior to Normandy, third, the offer by the British to supply the excellent 17 pounder gun for use in the Sherman was rejected because the US Army would have "too many ammunition types in the supply chain." McNair was too ardent a follower of Army Armored Doctrine to recognize what was/is obvious to even the casual observer. He along with others of his ilk, are indirectly responsible for the unnecessary deaths of thousands of US Tankers who had the misfortune of serving in an obsolete, under gunned and under armored medium tank. Fortunately his successor had the good sense to green light the T-26/M-26 into Europe.

[@tonymanero5544]

@@tonyromano6220yes, and McNair could only be overruled by someone like Gen. George Marshall. Even the field commanders like Patton, Bradley, Eisenhower, etc. were not in charge of what was happening back in the USA.

[@tonymanero5544]

@@geoffreyscheuerman2378McNair, with the hindsight of history, seemed to have made bad decisions. But, staying with the M-4 meant many more thousands were built and delivered. A supply line of 3,000 to 8,000 miles with UBoats not eliminated was a huge consideration in 1943 with the M-4 and 75mm good enough. The British upguning M-4 to 17pdr worked for them as the Comet and Centurion were still under development.

[@MM-vv8mt]

Please do a doc about the role played by Tank Ordinance Engineers with the Advanced Section of Command Zone in Europe during WWII. My dad was an ombudsman with AdSec assigned to 1st US Army and tasked to work with 2nd and 3rd ADs to set up their armored logistics trains (recovery and repair) for the line units as they moved off the water and moved up to the front.

[@joetheplumber5781]

Great video! Thank you!

[@pczTV]

Great overview. Informative and entertaining. Thank you

[@fload46d]

Hope this narrator is an army officer. He is very knowledgeable and gives an excellent presentation.

[@bwilliams463]

Excellent and informative video. Your narration also gave me a better understanding of the underlying development and production complications. Of course it is easier to judge in hindsight, but it seems to me that, at the time, the disputes were genuine technical and doctrinal concerns, not petty personality conflicts.

[@VegasCyclingFreak]

Very interesting. I've heard very little about this tank's role in WWII. Thanks!

[@DSS-jj2cw]

I enjoyed visiting the museum. It was very nice. In hindsight the U.S Army should have spent all those resources they spent on Tank destroyers on the heavy tank. They really should have had the Pershing after North Africa.

[@RichardCorongiu]

Supremely informative in every way Thank you

[@elsamu9458]

14:25 I love that face of those girls on the left. They are happy about the war ending, but they are not smiling. Maybe, because they hate that people have had to kill eachother to win. Win what? Or that a war ending doesn't mean anything if things and people stay the same. May all rest in peace and may we all live in peace

[@DeaconBlu]

Great vid. Lots of little nit pick info in this. Thanks folks! 😎👍

[@TheAngriestGamer.]

WOW finally new Info on the pershing. this is cool af please tell us about the 9ths use of the Pershing too. noone talks about that stuff. everyone seems to just repeat 1 or 2 books so their isnt much info other than calone panther. bridge over remagin and thats it.

[@ExcavationNation]

Amazing video man

[@greendayfan4519]

love the incredibles reference with the opening

[@Sawyersmaple]

Great video. Would love to see an in-depth video on all the Pershing variants.

[@gandydancer9710]

It's available on different channels. Maybe Chieftain's, iirc. I wouldn't trust this guy for anything not in that book, and maybe not even that.

[@Roboticus_Prime_RC]

There aren't that many variants. It got a new gun and some other components, but when they gave it a new power plant, the brass renamed it to M46 Patton.

[@VFRSTREETFIGHTER]

I'm amazed you didn't talk about the tank duel at the Cologne Cathedral

[@gandydancer9710]

He did.

[@s.marcus3669]

We got saddled with twelve years of Obama thanks to people like you who don't bother to LISTEN....

[@petesheppard1709]

Great presentation and OUTSTANDING presenter!! I would call it a very good tank, that never properly employed.

[@KenHeying]

It amazing, we had aircraft carriers, submarines, airplanes or semiautomatic rifles, during WWII. Generals were always, fighting the last wars.

[@JerseyBill-x9r]

Great video, very informative.

[@katekarin3838]

Amazing explanation

[@KARLMARX56]

The Armor collar insignia for US ARMY dress uniforms has an M26 and crossed swords. It truly was revolutionary -ex 19E/K

[@Trojan0304]

New to channel, good details & history. Good historical videos. Subscribed 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

[@NMMV_USA]

Welcome aboard!

[@Chris-ev7xo]

Great video and nice info, I really like the part about shooting german helmets for 625 yards, never heard this before. Please add little tidbits like this to new videos

[@cody481]

I think hank should consider sporting a huge handle bar mustache. Other than that excellent presentation.

[@twinsaretrouble]

This is a fantastic and concise video. Only viewer question: Why focus so hard on action in Europe, 45, when the Korean campaign exploits was the highlight of the type? It was The Tiger of that war - slow, devastating, small in number.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

The Centurion was the Tiger of the Korean War. The Pershings were all withdrawn from the Korean War in 1950 due to major mechanical problems.

[@wacojones8062]

Biggest problem in Korea was getting tanks up on ridges fast hitting 3 targets for the grunts then getting back off the ridge before Chinese and North Korean counter fire could start. Basic problem with the M26 was Transmisson slippage on grades. The M46 transmission was a redesigned unit to be a refit item for M-26 tanks as well as for new build as M-46.

[@Roboticus_Prime_RC]

My theory is that the brass was still butthurt over the Pershing getting deployed in Europe that they renamed it as soon as they could. The M46 is literally just the M26 with an upgraded drive train. Hell, there are more differences in M4 variants. Lol

[@billd8031]

Great video, this series nicely complements the Chieftain's and the Bovington Tank Museum's talks, and has some interesting details new to me. For a great account of fighting in the Pershing (and Sherman) read the biography of Clarence Smoyers, the 'Hero of Cologne' "Spearhead : an American tank gunner, his enemy, and a collision of lives in World War II" by Makos, Adam. Clarence died a couple of years ago, the last surviver of the 3rd Armoured Division aka 'Spearhead'.

[@SomeRandomHuman717]

Plus 1000!!!! An EXCELLENT book that lucky for us can be picked up on eBay for pocket change. There was some talk that the book was going to become the basis for a movie, but who knows when if ever.

[@gsr4535]

Love these videos! More please! 👍

[@jsipple31]

Good video

[@OfOld]

beautiful tank

[@thurin84]

outstanding.

[@billwilson-es5yn]

The US Army didn't want a heavy tank in 1943 yet Congress did since they were worried about not being re-elected in 1944. The press had the public worked up over the big German cats blowing away the puny M4. Ordnance began design work on the T20 series as soon as the M4 went into production. By making it lower they could increase the thickness of the armor. They experimented with torsion bar suspensions and two types of drivetrains. One was the Ford GAA driving the Buick Hydromatic automatic transmission and a gasoline-electric drive where one electric motor powered each track. Both were tried out first on the cancelled M6 heavy tank. The M6 used a larger Wright radial engine with a fluid drive. The radial spun a generator for the electric motor drive. The armor users were really interested in the electric drive since that allowed the tank to travel at the same speeds in forward and reverse. Congress threatened to cut further funding for tank development if Ordnance didn't have heavies in combat before the 1944 Fall Elections so the Ordnance engineers supersized the T23 into the T26 that used the same engine and trans as the T23 medium. They showed it to Congress in December of '43 who ordered it into production in February of '44. In the meantime Ordnance placed orders for 250 T23 GAA w/Hydromatic and 250 electric T23s. GM's Fisher Tank Arsenal (Fisher Body) was selected to be the assembly plant. Fisher was producing the M10 TD so was given the contract to produce the M36 turret to mount on their M10 hulls. Fisher had time to do that since they had to wait on machinery to produce the M26. Fisher had labor problems so fell behind on building the M10 hulls. Ordnance then directed Ford to set the M36 turret on new M4's coming off the production line and finish the conversion outside in the storage yards. Ordnance then rounded up all the M10's at training bases to be refurbished at other plants to become a M36. Fisher was ready to assemble the M26 in September but didn't have any parts yet. Their suppliers were delayed by filling existing contracts then having difficulty obtaining the needed strategic materials. While waiting Fisher designed and built the M4 Jumbos. The M26 finally started production in November after the elections. Congress now demanded for the first 20 made to be sent to Europe ASAP. Ordnance took the first three made and ran them nonstop around a test track for 500 miles. Two made it with the third losing road wheels after travelling 300 miles. Ordnance declared that was normal wear and tear so said the 20 were ready for battle. Those arrived in February without trained crews, mechanics or replacement parts. The Army refused to use them until ordered to by Ike who had Congress and General George C. Marshall raising Hell about that.

[@tonymanero5544]

“Complacency of the U.S. Government.” Ah, no. It’s was purely an internal Army decision based on doctrine (infantry tank vs. tank destroyers), logistics of delivering every soldier and provisions 3-8,000 miles away (it was reported that Gen. Leslie McNair ordered a 57 cal 75/76mm gun shortened to no more than 53 cal for transport, and suppressed any effort to upgun to 90mm). According to Steven Zagola, the M-4 could handle any German Tank in 1942, and we know what happened after, as the video said in Italy and then Normandy, the Sherman’s were outclassed. For Overload, The British and Canadians were assigned to engage the German mobile and Panzer forces by attacking inland important sites like Caen, meeting more than 80% of Panzer units, while the U.S. army built up (via mulberries) for Operation Cobra. The British upgraded 2,000 Shermans to the mount the 17pdr of which about 600 were available during Normandy. The British lost about 2,000 tanks and 60,000 casualties in the Normandy campaign,and would have a tougher time without the Sherman Fireflies. Bottom line, it were US Army internal decisions that resulted in the Sherman vs heavy tank allocation, and I do resent the labeling of this as a civilian U.S. Government matter. In the end, this was a war of attrition where the army with the most men and equipment would prevail as long as they didn’t employ bad tactics.

[@abergethirty]

It was a logistical decision. Shipping heavy tanks in quantity would have required an upgrade our entire shipping infrastructure. The Germans could transport their heavy tanks on Rail or even just drive them to their units. Putting them on ships and transporting them across an ocean is another thing. The Sherman was right at the limit for most Dock hoists, for example.

[@AlfredPedneau]

Please do a DRAGON WAGON review !!! 😊😊😊

[@johndyson4109]

They already had so many varients on the Sherman. The Firefly was thee best Sherman varient and the war was already lost by Germany.. So why put the Pershing into mass production and change all the manufacturing facilities to produce a newer tank? The Sherman did the jon after the varients were created..

[@g-3409]

I got this in my feed, and first when watching a millennial presenting, I thought this would be utter 💩. But this boy really knows his stuff. Yeah, some small deviations on the way, but he did a fricking great job! You got a new subscriber!

[@NMMV_USA]

Glad we were able to subvert your exceptions! Thank you for subscribing

[@stephentraveler5291]

This was the Panzer IV equivalent! To bad they didnt meet out there in North Africa !

[@deejayimm]

Kind of a sidetrack (pun) But why did the US insist on facing the chevrons on their tracks in a downward direction? This displaces mud and allows the vehicle to sink, whereas if they were facing upward, they would create extra flotation, while still providing traction. Seems odd, but I am far from genius.

[@jasonrusso9808]

Is that a Wyoming hat? The Buffalo stands out to me, I'm from Buffalo NY. Lol

[@roderickhamilton9891]

Wow can't believe you managed to get Bo Burnham to host a video

[@alanevans-s6q]

M26 could have entered combat in the ETO in med to late 1944 to fight the evil German Tiger tank

[@ericcampoli9933]

The Sherman Tank wasn’t named after General Sherman from the Civil War?…

[@NMMV_USA]

Indeed it was, but the name was given by the British, not the Americans.

[@Jeffrey-i1n]

Logistics plain and simple, much harder to move from USA to Africa or Europe or overseas

Its a 90 mm Gun not a cannon. It is rifled witch makes it a gun not a cannon. It is a rifle.

[@Jagdtyger2A]

Personally, I preferred the Pershing variants armed with 105 and 120 mm main guns

[@Alphacuremom55]

Which are those?

[@gandydancer9710]

@@Alphacuremom55 In his imagination.

[@kotenara10]

They should making M46 out of T26E5 instead of T26E3 chassis

[@Roboticus_Prime_RC]

The M46 was literally just an up engined M26. The brass was so butthurt over the Pershing that they renamed it. Lol

[@davidjernigan8161]

Just goes to show that those in charge have no idea how war is fought. If you're in a tank you will eventually run across another tank that is shooting at you.

[@Theiliteritesbian]

My only mad comment is that instead of watching cool tank videos as you narrated i had to look at a dude in front of a tank tank that was NOT moving.

[@lachbullen8014]

If history was different if there wasn't a bunch of Bumbling idiots horse ass around the purposing could have been deployed on D day it would have given the allies significant firepower and protection Advantage compared to the Sherman's..

[@sargeast1629]

Well done, especially since the trend the last 5 years has been for the Gen McNair apologists to appear and make their weak cases. It's no coincidence that these apologists have come out of the woodwork just as the WW2 tankers, who could and would take issue with their arguments, have mostly died off.

[@bobkohl6779]

A Pershing was knocked out by a Nashorn

[@gandydancer9710]

That becomes a Tiger in this video.

[@SomeRandomHuman717]

Basically one of each---one of the first two Pershings knocked out was by a Nashorn, the other was in the Tiger engagement mentioned in the video. Not sure which was first but I'm sure that's something easily looked up.

[@gandydancer9710]

@@SomeRandomHuman717 A Nashorn knocked out a Pershing on March 6, 1945. A Pershing knocked out a Tiger II on April 21 but was not itself knocked our in that engagement. At this point I'd have to review what the video said to check that it conflated the two encounters, but that was my impression. The latter was the only encounter of a Pershing with a Tiger.

[@finallyfriday.]

Huh? Beaurocrats playing general harming their own country's troops? That can't be right!

[@itsmethelauri1183]

Honey? Yes? Where is my Tiger buster? What? I said, WHERE is my TIGER buster? I uh, put it away. WHERE! Why do you need to know? II NEED IT. Wait never mind all the Tigers are gone.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Pershing v Tiger was a draw with 1 knock out each.

[@maddthomas]

It seems, I could be mistaken, but you seem to be repeating myths that have been debunked by people like 'The Chieftain', specifically that 'tanks are not for antitank warfare' 'antitank warfare would be handled by tank destroyers'. But overall, good video.

[@DanielAlley]

Nice hat

[@stephenhigginson5061]

The word is mobile, not Mobil, that's a petrol company !

[@historyandpoliticsexplaine4876]

It was good enough for the time. When you try to get everything in the 1950‘s you are gonna make mistakes

[@brucenorman8904]

Wrong, wrong, wrong! The Army manuals on use of tanks stated that tanks were expected to engage all enemy encountered including tanks. The tank destroyer doctrine was formulated as a response to German massed panzer attacks. The TDs were to be held in reserve and kept concentrated so that they could be used to block or impede massed panzer attacks

[@thegameshooters4188]

The M26 took way too long to deploy. I think the generals had a lot to do with that. Meanwhile, Yankee and Brit tankers were roasting like hunks of meat in the overmatched Shermans. I think that Yankee generals are not just military men, but corporate execs as well. They double as business reps in the field, throttling the introduction of replacement weapons onto the battlefield to benefit the production schedules and profits of Ford, General Motors, Boeing, Grumman, Consolidated, North American etc. Meanwhile, the ordinary soldier suffers. The Navy is different. That branch is just plain stupid. I'm just sayin'

[@SomeRandomHuman717]

A little bitter, are we? LOL

[@alfranco7467]

The first clash was definitely a loss for the person. I don’t care if they recovered the vehicle the tiger was never hit by that Persian to call it a tie it shows your bias.

[@historyandpoliticsexplaine4876]

The 90 and the 85 are not different enough to claim advantage. The pershings armor was the advantage

[@basedjorts]

What do you mean? The US testing of the Russian 85mm found it lacking, even compared to the 76mm of the Sherman.

[@davidkubasiak9093]

My father in law , who was in a lot of WW2 combat. Told me the Shermans were deathtraps. One hit from a German 88 and they were gone. Wear as the Shermans rounds just bounced off the big cat German tanks. They needed the Pershing. The Germans used to say it took 10 Shermans to knock out 1 Panther or Tiger.

[@nehrigen]

The doctrine side of this is wrong, probably fallout of crews that didn't know their doctrine and doctrine writers that ignored other works. Tanks were doctrinally meant to face tanks, and TDs were doctrinally meant to stop tank assaults.

[@George_M_]

The T26 should never have seen battle. Too unreliable. That said, it was the future, with the kinks worked out in the M47 and M48.

[@georgeferguson7114]

You should have just bought Centurions.

[@gr8990]

If the US could have gone from the Cent to the Patton in the early 60's, it'd totally agree.

[@angryviper1]

Centurions didn't even see combat in ww2

[@2805662]

The US funded a lot of the Centurions supplied to European countries via the MAP program.

[@TheBruceGday]

The Centurion and Pershing were developed concurrently. The Centurion was not ready before the end of the war. Considering American manufacturing capabilities compared to the U.K., perhaps, had the Centurion been ready early enough, the U.S. could purchase the license to build them, and then have built them in the U.S. Then you get in to U.K. using a different sized gun than the U.S. and being able to manufacture guns quickly enough to use them.

[@Salamandra40k]

What a common british idea for us to buy and use their tanks that they couldnt even make enough of for themsevles

[@slobodanmitic1354]

Not bad video, but with obvious attempt to uphype the otherwise poor experience with Pershing in European theatre...

[@jmmck2361]

Why weren’t better American tanks more prominent? It was partly because of change in production lines but mostly because of money being made as fast as manufacturers could get it before the war ended