Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

IS-3, M26 Pershing, or Koingstiger? Which was the best heavy tank?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • IS-3, M26 Pershing, or Koingstiger? Which was the best heavy tank?

    Of the three latest heavy tank designs of the second world war, which of the trio was the overall best tank, and which tank was the best in certain categories?

    Some people I asked elsewhere told me the Pershing wasn't really much of a heavy tank though.
    Standing here, I realize you were just like me trying to make history.
    But who's to judge the right from wrong.
    When our guard is down I think we'll both agree.
    That violence breeds violence.
    But in the end it has to be this way.

  • #2
    The Centurion.
    "Profanity is but a linguistic crutch for illiterate motherbleepers"

    Comment


    • #3
      Of these three designs IS-3 never saw combat in WW2, and Peshing apperared so late it's hard to judge its performance.
      www.histours.ru

      Siege of Leningrad battlefield tour

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by ShAA View Post
        Of these three designs IS-3 never saw combat in WW2, and Peshing apperared so late it's hard to judge its performance.
        Substitute the Is-2 and Churchill tanks for the IS-3 and pershing if need be.
        Standing here, I realize you were just like me trying to make history.
        But who's to judge the right from wrong.
        When our guard is down I think we'll both agree.
        That violence breeds violence.
        But in the end it has to be this way.

        Comment


        • #5
          They're really different classes of tank. The KT was "heavy" in every sense of the word, while M26 and IS2 were lighter significantly and would have rated as mediums in German service. They were more in Panther's weight class.

          Gunpower was similar with the IS2 having an edge in HE and lagging in the AT role. All in all I'd say M26 was the most balanced design out of the three, especially when taking into account the two piece ammo, slow rate of fire, and limited ammo stowage on the IS2. As pointed out earlier KT had no peers in tank to tank, and was a fine defensive system, but I think M26 was, overall, the one I'd choose. KT was just too immobile and prone to breakdown.

          Comment


          • #6
            Unfortunately the M26 wasn't quite as reliable as a Sherman.They had transmission issues.
            ALL LIVES SPLATTER!

            BLACK JEEPS MATTER!

            BLACK MOTORCYCLES MATTER!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Gixxer86g View Post
              Unfortunately the M26 wasn't quite as reliable as a Sherman.They had transmission issues.
              That's true, good point. However it was still better in that category than KT, and I think at least on par with IS2.

              Comment


              • #8
                The closest US equivalent in weight to a Tiger II is the T29 heavy tank.
                Both weigh about 70 tons.
                But, the T29 is significantly better.
                The frontal armor is 8 to 11" thick making much of the front of the vehicle immune to a Tiger II's gun at any sort of combat range. The sides are 3 to 7" thick or about the same or better than a Tiger II.
                The main gun is the 105mm T5E1 that is a rough analog to the NATO L7 105 in performance (3000 fps mv with APBC-T ammunition).
                With the HVAP round it can drill a Tiger out to about 3000 yards.
                It has a Ford GAC 12 cylinder engine with 770 hp (versus the 750 hp Maybach in the Tiger). Ground pressure is lower at about 12 psi and maximum road speed is about 22 mph.

                That is an apples to apples comparison. The M 26 was intended more as a medium tank and is more closely compared with the Panther as is the IS 2.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Possibly the Super Pershing with the extra long main gun. Individual vehicles were deployed in combat in the final months of the war. It was very promising but it wasn't a series production tank yet and certain problems were still being ironed out when the war ended.


                  "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
                  --Frederick II, King of Prussia

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I think only one Super Pershing was deployed.
                    ALL LIVES SPLATTER!

                    BLACK JEEPS MATTER!

                    BLACK MOTORCYCLES MATTER!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      If you wanted an even match up, put that T-29 against a Jagdtiger.
                      Gets a little more interesting, doesn't it?

                      Now, as for the original 3, the Pershing was the most reliable and agile, and 310 were in Europe they the end of the war. Not exactly a negligible presence.
                      There were also the ONLY Heavy tanks the US Army received in Europe.

                      IS 2&3 had their good points. If I were attacking a fortress or a Pak-front, one of them would be my first choice.

                      But we can't sell the KT short. As shown, there was nothing at all in it's weight class. It wasn't so unreliable that it didn't make a good showing when it was handled the right way. In a defensive or counter-strike, it could and did destroy many times it's number of enemy tanks without taking serious damage itself.

                      Guns & ammo, armor, optics, communications, King Tiger seems like the best way to score kills and survive the war.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Exorcist View Post
                        Guns & ammo, armor, optics, communications, King Tiger seems like the best way to score kills and survive the war.
                        Though perhaps not win it.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by llkinak View Post
                          Though perhaps not win it.
                          In all honesty, I'd rather stay alive until the cessation of hostilities and then surrender without becoming an invalid. I don't want to celebrate the end of the war with my arms and legs missing like the American tankers from 3rd Armored Division which suffered 1400% losses from Normandy till the Nazi capitulation. It was a great personal tragedy for those young men regardless of the outcome of the war. After the war many of them wished they had been killed outright. I think those invalids were strangely absent from photographs when America was celebrating victory. They lived out their lives in nursing homes and other shiteholes.
                          Last edited by MonsterZero; 16 Jun 10, 22:08.

                          "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
                          --Frederick II, King of Prussia

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by MonsterZero View Post
                            In all honesty, I'd rather stay alive until the cessation of hostilities and then surrender without becoming an invalid. I don't want to celebrate the end of the war with my arms and legs missing like the American tankers from 3rd Armored Division which suffered 1400% losses from Normandy till the Nazi capitulation. It was a great personal tragedy for those young men regardless of the outcome of the war. After the war many of them wished they had been killed outright. I think those invalids were strangely absent from photographs when America was celebrating victory. They lived out their lives in nursing homes and other shiteholes.
                            What you say is true, and I sympathize. However everyone who actually fights runs that risk, no matter what country, armed force, branch, or job they do. If you face the other guys who are trying to kill you it's the possibility you have to accept. Just being in something with thicker armor is no gaurantee. Celebrate with missing limbs horrible? Absolutely. I'd never debate that horrible truth. Try losing in the same condition.
                            Last edited by llkinak; 17 Jun 10, 00:47.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by MonsterZero View Post
                              Possibly the Super Pershing with the extra long main gun. Individual vehicles were deployed in combat in the final months of the war. It was very promising but it wasn't a series production tank yet and certain problems were still being ironed out when the war ended.

                              This was a bastard modification of a Pershing. The recoil buffers were welded on top of the turret on the outside because they wouldn't fit. The gun is the same 105mm fitted to the T29. And, yes, that gun is devastating for 1945. The one field moded "Super Pershing" was not something the US ordinance department was going to approve.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X