Pershing M26 follow-up

[ninjrk]

So, in Hunnicutt"s 'Patton" book there is a single page on the proposed follow-up to the M26 Pershing proposed in 1945, along with an artist's representation. With the end of the war it got shelved and instead we got incremental improvements to the Pershing until the M47's in the early 50's. However, this paper design would have been impressive with 8" of front armor and a 3" main gun, along with a whole bunch of fixed MG's so you'd know it was a proposed US Army design. . . Aside from this one page I've never found additional information on this design. Has anybody out there had better luck?

Matt

 

[goose]

Thats a much more modern looking than the M26. It reminds me of the Lepard 1. Do you have any more info on this tank, its a new one to me.

 

[ninjrk]

I wish that I did. This is literally the only thing I've been able to find on this proposal, which is kind of driving me nuts at the moment.

Matt

 

[JWilly]

It's interesting to note from the artist's representation that the gun barrel diameter and muzzle brake size seem more consistent with a Panther-like high velocity 75/76mm gun than with either the M3 or M15 90mm guns.

I wonder if this proposal was a last gasp of Army Ground Forces' eventually-losing argument that 90mm guns were unneeded and tanks should stick with (or in this case, go back to) 75mm/76mm guns?

 

[MadRat]

Wasn't the 76mm much higher velocity than a 75mm? I'm too lazy to look.

 

[Pioneer]

So, in Hunnicutt"s 'Patton" book there is a single page on the proposed follow-up to the M26 Pershing proposed in 1945, along with an artist's representation. With the end of the war it got shelved and instead we got incremental improvements to the Pershing until the M47's in the early 50's. However, this paper design would have been impressive with 8" of front armor and a 3" main gun, along with a whole bunch of fixed MG's so you'd know it was a proposed US Army design. . . Aside from this one page I've never found additional information on this design. Has anybody out there had better luck?

Matt

There seems to be much more German influence in the shape of the design.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[JWilly]

Wasn't the 76mm much higher velocity than a 75mm? I'm too lazy to look.

The M3 75mm L/40 gun's MV was a bit over 2000 fps, and the M1A1 76mm L/52 gun's MV was about 2600 fps, in both cases for the usually provided armor piercing conventional ammo.

For comparison, the Panther's 7.5cm L/70 gun's muzzle velocity with its usually provided armor piercing conventional ammo was 3070 fps.

An even longer gun, as seemingly shown in the illustration, might have had an even higher muzzle velocity.

 

[JWilly]

The turret "blister guns" look very late-30s...as if an office general was directing the artist's sketching, and the general was blending in his mind what he'd seen of Panther photos with a few remaining pre-war ideas.

 

[Elan Vital]

AGF's "Improved Medium Tank" - Tank Encyclopedia

The Improved Medium Tank came from the specifications laid down by the US Army Ground Force trying to put create the ultimate medium tank.

tanks-encyclopedia.com

"The single-piece ammunition for the gun was to achieve the specified performance of being able to defeat enemy armor up to 8″ (203.2mm) thick at an angle of 30 degrees at a range of 1000 yards (915 m). The firing though would have to cause as little smoke as possible as there was a problem with target obscuration after firing and it had to not cause excessive barrel wear. The dimensions for the ammunition were specified to not exceed 35 lbs in weight (15.9kg) or be longer than 30″ (762mm) inches in length with a total length of 33″ (832.8mm) being the absolute limit.
The penetration requirement of just over 200mm was certainly not impossible with the use of special ammunition like Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot (APDS). In terms of shell size, for comparison, the APDS shell for the British 17pdr gun was just an inch longer at 34″ and could achieve 200mm of penetration, just under the requirements made. Some development might have been needed but effectively the AGF was looking at a gun not that different from the British 17 pounder firing ‘special’ AP ammunition."

 

[Moose]

Pretty ballsy of AGF to crap on the T20 series for, among other things, introducing manufacturing and transport issues compared to M4, only to turn around and propose this bloated concept. At least they stuck to their "smallest gun we can possibly get away with" philosophy.