Dear AR; I have to dissagree with the posit that no KTs were destroyed by frontal shots. There is ample evidence to the contrary sitting in half a dozzen tank museums around the world, including Aberdeen Md. I also saw several in various sites in Germany in the '70s. If you look threw the DoD history/publication foto files, there are more than a few pics of KTs knocked out with holes threw the frontal glasis armor. After all it was not magic and only 150MM thick at 45 degrees angle. Most of the perforations that I saw came from APCR shot. Easy to prove by the non-discarding sabot's marks on the armor plate around the perforation. Although I saw at least two from 90MM guns.

A good but flawed analysis. The Sherman was the best tank in the war because of it's supirior Strategic and tactical mobility and ease of production. These are also traits that the KT lacked. Therefore the KT was not the equal of the M-4 but infirior to it as a weapons system. I did not say that indavidual tanks they carried the sam rankings, but that 35 shermans that all ran like trains and were ALL available at the time and place required were infanitely supirior to ONE KT, that might or might not be able to get where it was required and might break down on the way more than made it to the fight. Mobility and producability are every bit IF NOT MORE IMPORTANT that fire power and armor protection. If you want a historical picture of how bad the KT was, before placing one on your table top war map, roll a D-10. Any roll of 6 or less means that that particular tank is broken down far from where it is needed and may not enter the board. Repeat this procedure for every KT that wishes to enter the board. In the scenario previously mooted, the ten KTs become four and the Shermans can enter from and map edge. Just to make the picture crystal clear. Finnaly, the M-26 was infanitely more reliable and had supirior armor, mobility and a range finder, IIRC! All things that made it a much better weapon!

A quick review of all of the previous posts on this thread reveals that all data found by all posters indicates that no KTs were ever suffered a frontal-armor penetration. All of the pictures that anyone has seen of knocked-out KTs are either of abandoned vehicles, or vehicles destroyed due to side shots, air strikes, etc. The implication is that we are discussing only "combat events", not "firing range results". There are indeed several KTs in museums, and many of them still show damage of some sort. The Russians used at least one as a firing target. As many KTs were lost by being abandoned, I suspect that any penetrating damage was due to firing range testing, not combat. If I recall correctly, the KT at Aberdeen had the armor on the right side of the turret removed for analysis. The tank was then repaired to look "original"; whether the original armor was replaced, or some sort of patch was used is unknown to me. Implicitly, some "damage" may be due to an oxy-acetylene torch. A link, or any specific reference, to the "DoD history/publication foto files" that you mention, would be of considerable interest. If you have anything, please post. S-2's post (http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/2-14976.asp) suggests that the war historian George Prada previously came to the same conclusion, and after doing considerable research..... There is a report that a (the?) "Super Pershing" managed to kill a KT, using HVAP at very close range on the lower hull, as the KT started to climb a mound of rubble. Whether this event actually happened or not is not known to me. As for the Sherman being the best tank of the war, this is generally agreed to be not true. By August 1944, US tankers were quite certain of this. The Korean War confirmed this. The opening NK attack into SK pitted T-35/85s against various M4s equipped with 76mm guns, both tanks being WW2 vintage. The M4 was clearly at a significant disadvantage against the T-34/85, and it took the M-26 and US airpower to change the situation. I do not argue that the T-34 series was the best tank of WW2 (although I will argue that it was the most influential), but from 1940 to the appearance of the Tiger I, the T-34/76 (or maybe the KV-1) was the best. This discussion is a separate thread. My point is that, for a given time period, the average model T-34 was technically better than the average M4. The crews, of course, could change things either way. However, when the latest WW2-version M-4 met the latest WW2-version T-34, the M4 was shown to not be the better design. I do not argue that the M4 was a bad tank; it was quite good until the appearance of the Tiger I and the Panther. All M4s should have been up-gunned with the 76mm gun in 1943, but the correct solution was the M-26, as the first version was the same armor and gun class as the Tiger I and Panther. Your point "Mobility and producability are every bit IF NOT MORE IMPORTANT that fire power and armor protection." is essentially an improved version of the theory behind the US armor doctrine in WW2. It was shown to be incorrect then. Looking at current tank design, the main gun and armor are the two most important factors. Other threads on the Armor board ("Bring Back the Tank Destroyer?", "M1AG", "Light Tamk ...", etc.) discuss the reasons. For a historical event of the KT’s combat record, I refer you to my posting (http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/2-14987.asp). Of particular interest to you should be the link recounting Karl Körner's retreat to Berlin (in a single KT). Please pay attention to the distance traveled, the number and type of Soviet tanks destroyed, and the fact that only 1 KT was involved. While your wargame may indicate that 35 Shermans stood a reasonable chance of killing a single KT, you should be aware of the fact that you are playing a simulation or game that reflects, among other things, the designer's approximations and simplifications for playability. Again, the real, historical events of Karl Korner’s retreat and the later actions in Berlin, show that the KT was quite a good weapon system. Remember, the M4A3E8, while a good tank, was not in the same league as the T-34/85, and certainly not the JS-2. Fortunately for the Allies, the KT appeared very late in the war, and in small numbers. If your wargame cannot recreate actual historical performance, events and outcomes, at least 50% of the time, then your wargame is a game, not a simulation, and you should not rely on the results. The reason that the T-29, which I assume you also saw at Aberdeen, is superior to the KT is that the T-29 is a later generation tank. To grossly oversimplify, the Tiger-I and Panther were designed based upon the German experiences with the T-34/76 and KV-1. The JS-2 (and SU-85, -100 and JSU series) was the Russian response to the Tiger-I and Panther. The KT was the German response to the JS-2.

a couple clarifications: the m-4 was NOT a good tank after 1942. Period. The Italians produced alot of tanks of m-14/32 class in the early yrs. SO? large numbers do not equate to quality. The only good quality of the sherman was that it was mechanically reliable. It is true that better models appeared and some with good armour and a better gun, but when they did appear, their upgrades only made it more survivable, not equal. Its only saving grace were the rounds carried. It was a good tank for the 8th army in the desert. It was good in the pacific, but it was woefully outclassed after 43....sorta like the zero after 42 or the He-111 after 40. The T-34-based on some threads comments could be counted as the best tank of the war... 1)it has the first effective slope of armour. 2)It was very reliable 3)it was fairly fast 4)It was fairly maneuverible 5)It was easy to upgrade 6)when introduced, it was hard to knock out-cant be claimed by the m-4 7)its upgrade-t-34/85 was farsuperior to any m-4 upgrade during the war 8)combined, more were produced by the end of 45 than the m-4(but up till may 45? I am not sure, I think the m-4 has the lead, but total production of model goes to the t-34) BUT.....the t-34, from the battle field prospective was outclassed by the panter by far. Only in the area of mechanical reliability was it better The pather was FAR superior to it in both models when comparing armour and firepower-even the 85mm. Its speed was not much less, and during combat, the extra 2-3 mph was not a deciding factor-few tanks went max. speed in battle-only on good roads.... the t-34 did not have basic communications till in mid-late 42. The panther, contrary to poplular belief, was generally mechanically reliable after mid 43. early on...no, and it kept the reputation from kursk. After that, they had time to work on it and though they never made it AS reliable as the t-34/M-4, it was still good in late 43 and onward -I have read a couple of accounts of where m-4 crews stated that the panther was more maneuverible due to the larger tracks and more powerful engine-the panther generally had almost a 16hp/tn ratio while the m-4 had a massive 11.2/tn up to 13.5hp/tn....and it was actually slower than the panter!!!I think few people realize that(this) As far as the Pershing...It was good, but armour inferior. Its gun was ALMOST up to par with the 75mm L/70. While heavier than the panther, its engine was pathetic-the same as the sherman-470-500hp at 46tn weight. The panther was a 700hp engine for all but 200 or so. -less than 11hp/tn. It was much slower than the panther. EVEN the TIGER I had a slightly better power ratio. So, In general, except for mechanical reliability, the panther was better-though with the sherman, the allies almost achieved pariety. As far as the King Tiger...Ok, I have not seen the all the info, but as Arblast writes, if there was penetration, it was on the test range, NOT on the BATTLEFIELD. Was it shooter who said "it was only 150mm" -I think indication that at 150mm, it could easily be penetrated by weapons, who, when looking on the performance charts can penetrate that, and 200+mm. In actuality, the thickness was 150mm, but its effectivness was the equivilent of about 345mm due to the angle and the quality of the steel/production process(for those not sabatouged(sp))-In the last 2 months or so of the war, quality went down, so it was not the equiv of 345mm... not even at point blank could the 90mm penetrate-I think even with APFSDS(?)rds. On the test range, when the russians tested 130mm ANTITANK guns, I think a few might have penetrate-but I am not sure and it would have to depend on the round. With the 100mm, I think that unless the rd was changed, it would not have penetrated till different rds were devolped in the late 40's. For the few that bragged about IS-2s ambushing and destroying KTS, well, the key word is AMBUSH. ITs easy to destroy the best vehicle with only fair weapons in a well executed ambush... That is not a test...and if you want to get technical, during that ambush, it was poorly executed. -Even with 122mm guns at a closer range, and during an ambush, they still did not wipe out the KT and several were hit/or destroyed. Testimony to the survivability of the KT and the skill of the crew and the general ineptness of most(not all) russians. I will not debate the KT was mechanically unreliable and probably most losses were due to breakdowns as opposed to actual combat losses. In an open field, say Kursk, it would have rocked. -also remember, that though it had 80mm on the sides as the tiger did, it had a slight slope to it, thusly, increasing its effectiveness slightly(perhaps 10+% for the hull and perhaps 15-20% for the turrent).......... To sum it up: The m-4 was obselete by late 42/early 43. The T-34 was the best when introduced in 41, but eclipsed by the panther by aug of 43

My dad deployed to Korea in July, 1950 with the 70th Armor Bn. (Separate), attached to the 1st Cav. Div. While they retained their Pershings, other independant battalions deployed at the same time, when later given the opportunity to exchange their M-26s for Shermans, did so. My guess would be that the armor threat posed by the NKPA and Chinese was negligible compared to the terrain demands of the Korean countryside by the time of the exchange. Cause and effect at work, for sure. As my dad commanded a Chaffee, his fate was cast for better or worse.

"The Employment of Armor in Korea Vol. 1", by H.D. MacDonald, E.D. Strong, et al, from the Operations Research Office, (a 330 page PDF, about 28Mb) indicates (page 10 and page 20), that the M4’s performance in Korea was superior to the M26 because of logistics and repair. It also discusses the M24 and M46 performance, but it is a large document. There is also an implication that the M4 had somewhat better mobility than the M26, due to a better power-to-weight ratio. I also read this somewhere (specific reference to Korean experience), during the search, but can’t find the link. As the Korean War progressed, tanks played less of a role for the NKs due to US airpower. This document can be found using Google (all pay sites, apparently), but the version I have was free. I can’t seem to find the link where I downloaded it. Perhaps searching for "M26" or "M-26" will yield the free site, but the document is 28Mb.

oztank- "As for why the Brits put the 17pndr on the Fireflies when they didn't consider tanks to be tank hunters, i think it was a case of realizing a bit late that maybe they were wrong and that was the best they could come up with as a stop gap."

One poster claimed that the Peshing weighed more than the Panther.

In what way, ground pressure kilograms per cm^2 or total tank weight?

I seem to remember that the Pershing was a forty-one tonne(metric) tank. The Panther by contrast was a forty-five tonne(metric) tank.

How could the Pershing weigh more than the Panther unless we discusss tread area footprint? Am I mistaken?

Herald

The standard production M26 (T-26E3) weighed about 92.000lb, which is indeed less than the Panther (about 98,700lb). But there was an assault version, the T26E5, which had more armor; 6" on the hull front, and an 11" thick mantlet, for a total of 51 tons.

 

The failure to upgrade all M4s from the 75mm to the 76mm gun, before May 1944 is a political / doctrinal blunder.  Failing to standardize the experimental 75mm HVAP round (could penetrate the Tiger 1 side armor at 200-300m) and then supply it in quantity by August 1944, is also puzzling.

 

There was at least one design study to put a 90mm on the M4, but the turret seems to be noticably larger.  It's not clear (technically) to me why the new style turret (as seen on the M4A3E8) could not handle the 90mm, as the Israelis upgunned many of their M4s to carry the French 105mm.  It may be that it was not an obvious fit (the M-36 had a new turret), and therefore the risk to tank production was felt, at the time, to outweigh the combat benefits.