M26 and Tiger I developmen parallels

[theHammer]

It has been discussed on the forum how the M26 was developed from a program that started out as a means to improve the U.S. medium tank. Sherman improvements led to essentially a new tank. At some point during the North Africa campaign a specification was set forth for a version with fire-power and armour equivalent to the Tiger I. With the need for a heavy tank more apparent, and the obvious redundancy of building the lighter version that was more refined but no more powerful than the current Sherman, the heavier T26 was green lighted and improvements from the lighter version applied to the M4.

 

While doing some reading on the German "Sturer Emil", it came to my attention that likewise the program that yielded the Tiger I started out as a project meant to provide an improved successor to the panzer Mk IV. Like the Pershing evolution, there are twists and turns, but ultimately this program bore fruit as the Tiger I heavy, and the medium version was scrapped.

 

Two historical examples of heavy tanks that initially did not begin development as such.

 

thehammer

[alejandro_]

it came to my attention that likewise the program that yielded the Tiger I started out as a project meant to provide an improved successor to the panzer Mk IV.

 

Actually, Tiger-I was originally conceived to fight heavy French tanks like 2C, and would not replace Panzer-IV. Panzer-VI was way more expensive.

[theHammer]

From achtungpanzer.com :

 

"Design of Selbstfahrlafette 12.8cm was based on Henschel's prototype of Panzer IV' successor - VK3001(H)"

 

"On September 9 of 1938, Henschel received the permission to continue their work on new medium tank in continuation with DW development. Work on VK3001(H), which was further development of DW II, started. Two similar designs were created, lighter (32 tons) VK3001(H) and later on heavier (40 tons) VK3601(H). Both resembled Panzerkampfwagen IV in their hull design but their running gear was of a new design that consisted of overlapping road wheels. Medium VK3001(H) tank and heavy VK3601(H) tank had many common parts what would make their production and service much more easier.

 

Only four VK3001(H) prototypes were produced, two in March of 1941 and other two in October of 1941. All were completed in 1942 by Henschel. In the early 1942, one prototype VK3601(H) was build along with 5 prototype chassis. Originally, it was intended to mount VK3001(H) with a turret armed 75mm L/24 or 105mm L/28 gunm but none of the prototypes were actually fitted with turrets. VK3601(H) was to be armed with 75mm KwK 42 L/70 (Gerat 725), 88mm KwK 36 L/56 (mounted in VK4501(P) turret) or 105mm L/20 or L/28 gun, but just as VK3001(H), it was never armed with any weapons.

 

Both designs were completed as prototypes but their further development was cancelled in 1942 in favour of the development of VK4501(H) - Tiger I. Turrets produced for both designs were never mounted and instead in 1944, 6 VK3001(H) turrets were used in permanent fortifications - Panzerstellung/Turmstellung of the Atlantic and West Wall. Their running gear which was later on modified and used a base for Tiger and Panther's running gear.

 

In March of 1941, two VK3001(H) were ready and from August of 1941 to March of 1942, were converted into 128mm Pak 40 L/61 gun carriers - Selbstfahrlafette 12.8cm. Other two prototypes that were completed in October of 1941, remained in Henschel's factory in Haustenbek and were used as recovery, training and test vehicles. VK3601(H) prototypes were used as recovery and towing vehicles. VK3001(H) and VK3601(H)'s design led to the subsequent development of Henschel's Tiger I. "

 

As with T26, according to this info, the project originated as a program to build an improved medium, and the heavier version was added thereafter. And as with the Pershing development, the lighter medium tank got canned, and the heavy proceeded to fruition.

 

 

thehammer

Edited September 3, 2009 by theHammer

[binder001]

For a long look at the development of what became the M26 find a copy of "Pershing, A History of the T20 Series Medium Tank" by Richard P. Hunnicutt. This covers the development in detail. One can see the growth from T20, which resembled a low profile Sherman, through the T23 series on to the T25/T26 series. You are right, the original development was for the next generation medium tank to replace the M4s. As the gun-armor race continued through the war the tank grew until the T26E3 as deployed was approximately the equivalent of the Tiger 1. The T20-26 series was not intended to be a breakthrough tank deployed in seperate battalions, they were intended to supplant the M4s as the standard medium tank, so here is a divergence in the respective development stories. Tigers were not intended to be the standard tank in a panzer division.

 

Gary

[theHammer]

For a long look at the development of what became the M26 find a copy of "Pershing, A History of the T20 Series Medium Tank" by Richard P. Hunnicutt. This covers the development in detail. One can see the growth from T20, which resembled a low profile Sherman, through the T23 series on to the T25/T26 series. You are right, the original development was for the next generation medium tank to replace the M4s. As the gun-armor race continued through the war the tank grew until the T26E3 as deployed was approximately the equivalent of the Tiger 1. The T20-26 series was not intended to be a breakthrough tank deployed in seperate battalions, they were intended to supplant the M4s as the standard medium tank, so here is a divergence in the respective development stories. Tigers were not intended to be the standard tank in a panzer division.

 

Gary

 

I will not disagree, but will however point out that the T26E3's, by then classified as heavies, were deployed along with the M4's, with the M4 being still the standard medium, and the T26E3's being the supporting heavy hitters. (Obviously some of that had to do with the fact that there were few Pershing's available at the time, but it worked.) Ironically, in Korea, by then classed as a "medium", the main value of the Pershing became that it could out fight the Korean T-34/85's, the best Russian medium of WW II to see combat. The Pershing definitely looks like a "heavy" compared to T-34.

Regardless of how they were employed, I was just drawing attention to the parallel that the Tiger I emerged from a project that started off as an improved medium, but finally the series resulted in the Tiger I. Likewise, the Pershing started off as a project to produce a better medium, but the tank that resulted grew into a heavy. Light for a heavy by German standards in weight, but comparable to Tiger I in capability, indeed to every German tank but the Tiger II, which can be termed a "super heavy". Similar in size and weight to the Russian heavy IS-2, and by British and American standards, the heaviest tank to see combat with the Western Allies before war's end. Separate battalions or no. I'm not sure that organization is a defining factor. When the German Army mixed Tiger I's into battle groups with other vehicles like the Mk IV on the Russian Front to spread the firepower out more, did that make them no longer heavies, but mediums by association?

 

thehammer

[Colin Williams]

I will not disagree, but will however point out that the T26E3's, by then classified as heavies, were deployed along with the M4's, with the M4 being still the standard medium, and the T26E3's being the supporting heavy hitters. (Obviously some of that had to do with the fact that there were few Pershing's available at the time, but it worked.) Ironically, in Korea, by then classed as a "medium", the main value of the Pershing became that it could out fight the Korean T-34/85's, the best Russian medium of WW II to see combat. The Pershing definitely looks like a "heavy" compared to T-34.

Regardless of how they were employed, I was just drawing attention to the parallel that the Tiger I emerged from a project that started off as an improved medium, but finally the series resulted in the Tiger I. Likewise, the Pershing started off as a project to produce a better medium, but the tank that resulted grew into a heavy. Light for a heavy by German standards in weight, but comparable to Tiger I in capability, indeed to every German tank but the Tiger II, which can be termed a "super heavy". Similar in size and weight to the Russian heavy IS-2, and by British and American standards, the heaviest tank to see combat with the Western Allies before war's end. Separate battalions or no. I'm not sure that organization is a defining factor. When the German Army mixed Tiger I's into battle groups with other vehicles like the Mk IV on the Russian Front to spread the firepower out more, did that make them no longer heavies, but mediums by association?

 

thehammer

 

From this perspective one could argue that the German tank closest to the Pershing would be the Panther, since it started and ended as medium tank but also become much heavier than originally anticipated.

[theHammer]

From this perspective one could argue that the German tank closest to the Pershing would be the Panther, since it started and ended as medium tank but also become much heavier than originally anticipated.

 

Good point. Not to mention that while the Panther, like the Pershing, was never organized into separate battalions, nor was it ever intended to be, it was fully capable of operating in the heavy role by creating breakthroughs and breaking up enemy attacks.

 

 

thehammer

Edited September 4, 2009 by theHammer

[binder001]

A good point has been raised! I always think of the M26 as a parallel to the Tiger due to their statistical similarity, however the Panther is a better tactical analogy. Due to small numbers the M26s were issued in batches to supplement the armored divisions. The intent of both was to replace the older medium tanks but numbers didn't allow for that to happen. Both the M26 and Panther suffered from rushed development and deployment and suffered mechanical reliability as a result. Both were intended to be true medium designs but during development their armor was increased due to foreign developments. In Korea the M26 did get to serve in complte battalion sets (except for one battalion that mixed the M4A3 and M26) in the medium tank role, alongside the tank in was to replace.

 

Gary

[theHammer]

A good point has been raised! I always think of the M26 as a parallel to the Tiger due to their statistical similarity, however the Panther is a better tactical analogy. Due to small numbers the M26s were issued in batches to supplement the armored divisions. The intent of both was to replace the older medium tanks but numbers didn't allow for that to happen. Both the M26 and Panther suffered from rushed development and deployment and suffered mechanical reliability as a result. Both were intended to be true medium designs but during development their armor was increased due to foreign developments. In Korea the M26 did get to serve in complte battalion sets (except for one battalion that mixed the M4A3 and M26) in the medium tank role, alongside the tank in was to replace.

 

Gary

 

Nothing ever fits neatly in the box, does it? Good analogy. More than one parallel can easily be drawn for the Pershing depending upon the angle of view. LOL!

 

thehammer

Edited September 8, 2009 by theHammer

[theHammer]

Interestingly, from what Ellis and Chamberlain state in their British and American tank book, the T26E3 resulted in an Army specification for a version of the T20 series with comparable armour and gun power to the Tiger I after encountering it in North Africa. (How they could ever have expected such a requirement to result in anything other than a heavy tank, I do not know.) The Pershing met, and in some ways exceeded, this requirement.

 

Then, ironically, was pitted against the T-34, one of the Soviet tanks the Tigers and Panthers had been built to dominate to begin with, in Korea. The Pershing, similarly, could handle the T-34/85. Pershing was deployed as a medium in regular strength, but it really provided the muscle like the Tiger did. Once the enemy armour was neutralized, the M4's could take care of the rest about as well as the M26's.

 

The Panther was likewise a medium that could handle anything the opposition tossed at it until the Pershing and the IS-2 came along, effectively making it usable as a heavy whenever the situation demanded.

 

BTW-I remember reading in a Michael Green Tiger book that Tiger I's were often mixed in to battle groups on the Russian front that included various other lighter tanks and AFV's, sort of like the way the "Zebra" Pershing were brought in to support the Sherman's of the 3rd AD in 1945.

 

thehammer

[bojan]

...How they could ever have expected such a requirement to result in anything other than a heavy tank, I do not know...

Bu a radical new design. Don't forget that T-54 after all had double the armor Tiger did, better gun and was way lighter. In the hindsight there is nothing in T-54 that makes it imposible to be made during WW2.

Edited September 8, 2009 by bojan

[Jussi Saari]

The Panther was likewise a medium that could handle anything the opposition tossed at it until the Pershing and the IS-2 came along, effectively making it usable as a heavy whenever the situation demanded.

 

Only as long as everything went as planned in that hostile fire came from about frontal 60-deg or so sector... Tiger was a tough nut to crack from all directions, whereas Panther's sides were easily penetrated by 45mm and 76mm weapons.

[Gammenon]

Bu a radical new design. Don't forget that T-54 after all had double the armor Tiger did, better gun and was way lighter. In the hindsight there is nothing in T-54 that makes it imposible to be made during WW2.

 

That is a question I have had many times: T-54 was possible in WWII, and I think it is what Panther had to be: small, well armed and mobile. Were Germans able to produce a tank like a T-54?

[binder001]

That is a question I have had many times: T-54 was possible in WWII, and I think it is what Panther had to be: small, well armed and mobile. Were Germans able to produce a tank like a T-54?

 

The basic concept POSSIBLY would be within their technology except that Germany wasn't into casting armor, so the turret would likely have been welded and the Germans would have had to adopt a low-profile power plant to equate to the diesel in the T54.

[Exel]

Bu a radical new design. Don't forget that T-54 after all had double the armor Tiger did, better gun and was way lighter. In the hindsight there is nothing in T-54 that makes it imposible to be made during WW2.

 

So what was it that made the Tiger less weight-efficient than the T-54? Was it a problem with manufacturing technology, engineering or rather with war-time production quality and toleraces?

[bojan]

So what was it that made the Tiger less weight-efficient than the T-54? Was it a problem with manufacturing technology, engineering or rather with war-time production quality and toleraces?

 

Whole concept of of rear engine/front transmision, 5 vs 4 man crew etc. So, mostly constructive reasons.

[Gammenon]

Whole concept of of rear engine/front transmision, 5 vs 4 man crew etc. So, mostly constructive reasons.

 

Also, it was bigger because of German crew habitability standards i.e. more space to work inside tank. I guess a Tiger had more internal volume tan a T-54 for each crew, hadn't it?

[bojan]

...German crew habitability standards...

 

An oximoron I'd say - they after all put 5 men to a quite small Pz-3. And the tank worked well.

Edited September 10, 2009 by bojan