Super Pershing vs King Tiger Face-off at Dessau - The Real Story
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 06. 2024
- The M26 Pershing provided a much-needed boost to the fighting capabilities of the American armored units. The Panthers and Tigers; The nemesis’ of the good old M4 Sherman, were no longer untouchable.
Despite its significant capabilities, the M26 still faced challenges when confronting the Tiger II heavy tanks or King Tigers.
To match the formidable firepower of the Tiger II's 88 mm KwK43, the 90 mmT15E1 gun was developed and then installed in a T26 tank, in January 1945.
This tank was designated T26E1-1 and later was known as the Super Pershing.
A single Super Pershing tank was transported to Europe and underwent modifications by the maintenance unit, which included adding extra armor to the gun mantlet and front hull. The tank was later assigned to one of the tank crews of the 3rd Armored Division.
An account of the combat actions of this tank appeared in the war memoir - Another River Another Town by John P Irwin, who was the tank gunner.
On 21 April, the Super Pershing was involved in a short range tank duel with a German tank identified as a Tiger which it knocked out with a shot to the belly.
I can say the morale of the soldiers marching with a single super pershing were incredibly high like they could conquer the world. The thrill and excitement of having such a beast of a tank making it's way along with you. The goosebumps.
you can say this how ?
This story is really funny, if they passed this tank after knocking it out, they should have been able to identify it. I noticed this as well. The combat camera footage covers the engagement between an M26 commanded by Cpl. Clarence Smoyer and a Panther on March 6, 1945, during the assault on Cologne. Check out the book 'Spearhead.' That was a good read. This supposed engagement of the Super Pershing ended with neither side having any confirmation of such a fight. Other sources quoted this vehicle was possibly a Jagdpanther from the 507th Heavy Panzer Battalion which also is unconfirmed. Official sources identified this unit was on the Eastern Front at the time.
It would have been much photographed, yes. Just as the regular Pershing v Tiger I at Elsdorf.
Smoyer was not the TC. Gunner.
@waltjaeger9273 My mistake. I confused Smoyer with the TC. It was awhile since I read the book.
Not a single Konigstiger got penetrated frontally by allied tanks or by anti tank guns. But when u factor in the numbers of that 90mm, Im confidant that it would penetrate the Konigstiger frontally apart from maybe hiting it at some extreme angle in the upper front plate...
@@lyndoncmp5751It most likely would not have been photographed. You people don't understand how much was not documented and how difficult wartime photography/ recording was back then
3AD 32nd Armored Regiment D Company Pershing (serial number 36) knocked out a Tiger I in Cologne with two rounds of T33 ammunition. My dad was the commander of that tank.
Very good feature but the T44 HVAP's 330mm penetration capability referred to, was at 100 meters range while the noted capability to penetrate the Tiger II's frontal armor although correct, it must be specified that this means the turret face of 180mm thickness @ 10 degrees which can be penetrated (correct again) at beyond 3,000 meters. To be more precise, the T15E1 had a 50% chance of penetrating the turret face at 3,300 meters or 80% at 3,150 meters (as per US test data with 4% standard deviation). This gun could never penetrate the Tiger II glacis, 150mm @ 50 degrees, not even at point blank range. Please also note that using the more readily available APCBC round, the KwK was still superior to US gun, whether the latter is firing the T41APCBC or the T43 APBC. That said, this remains a very good video without bias and unwarranted criticism.
WW2 HVAP (APCR, APDS) was also, at its best, only marginally superior to the standard rounds against sloped armor. I'll guess because the subcalibre ammo had less of an "overmatch" ratio.
The T55 has about the same performance as the APCBC round of the Kwk 43
@@kanyewhite429 If you mean the experimental T50 APCBC round, not even that equaled the KwK 43's Pzgr 39/1. The former could penetrate 205mm and 180mm at 1000 and 2000 yards respectively which equate to 200mm at 1000 meters. The latter could penetrate 205mm at 1000 meters according to Bird & Livingston and 209mm by Jenz.
And wasn't there only one Super Pershing (modified monstrosity) at the very end of WW2 in Europe with an experimental T15E2 gun without the still futuristic T50 round that was earmarked for the experimental T32 tank!
Interesting conversation folks but basically all moot, as it says in the video (if true) that the German tank drove over some rubble exposing it's belly armor to the Pershing, so with that in mind even an M4 with the 76 mm High velocity could penetrate and destroy a King Tiger as bottom frontal armor was only 40 mm at 90 degrees (which it would have been while going over rubble). Also the video mentions something about a King Tiger unit 100 km south of Berlin, Dessau about 100 km southwest of Berlin, hmm... possible. But the biggest point of all is that not one of us was there, so who the heck are we to say what happened!!!!!!!!!!
@@clinc2464 A Tiger II destroyed by the mythical Super Pershing would have been a prize photo for any war correspondent and would have won him the Bayeux Calvados-Normandy Award, (yes, I know the award did not exist then!). But no photo shots exist, as they do for the Panther at Cologne, so that's end of story!
The American tanks were usually advancing whilst the German tanks were usually defending in static positions giving them an advantage.
The Germans never defended without constant counterattacks, even if they would would cost them dearly.
And soon enough the Americans would anticipate this.
@@midtownmariner5250 ...by a massive air-strike by heavy bombers, with medium bombers close on their heels which will then be followed by fighter bombers, then the US ground forces will venture into an attack and boast "we stopped them and beat them back!". But that is still and totally, not the point.
@@JayJay-vs5nl What exactly is false? That the Americans and to a lesser extent, the British, would obliterate the ground over which they would advance, with massive air-strikes? Its a given for EVERY Allied operation, in the Normandy campaign and all battles up to VE day.
Example: Operation Cobra. 24th. July - 1,600 heavy bombers but ground attack postponed for next day. Next day, 25th. - 1st. wave: 600 fighter- bombers. 2nd. wave: 1,800 heavy bombers. 3rd. wave: 600 medium bombers. Read your history before you comment.
A bit of a myth if you researched as firstly the accuracy was terrible, it was said later all this actually did was provide brilliant cover for the defenders. @joegatt2306
The German tank being hit by the Pershing is a late model Panther not a King Tiger😊
Probably PzIV ausf.H or J. Both versions had schürtzen armored plates that changed the silouette of the tank and to an unexperienced eye it could look like a Tiger. Not to mention that Allied soldiers reported sighting of much more Tiger tanks than they were even produced during the war.
You mean Panzer 4 This incident has been dissected to death. Wasn't a Super Pershing either...just a normal Pershing.
Correct. This was Allied propaganda. There was never a Tiger Pershing battle.
But there was an official Nashorn vs Pershing. Guess who got destroyed. Give you a hint. It was not the Nashorn.
@@Dimythiosofcourse, KwK-43 was the most effective anti tank of the ww2
@@Dimythios I think the first Pershing was knocked out by a Tiger I. The name of that Pershin was Fireball.
Very interesting subject and excellent combat footage. Perhaps the greatest tragedy for the allies in western Europe was the delay in the US introducing the Super Pershing, and the British introducing the Centurion. Both tanks were first class, and easily on a par with the Germany heavy tanks. The 105mm gun on the Centurion, the L7 is one of the finest tank guns ever made- so accurate it was used by the first generation M1 Abrams in the 1980's. Had the allied armies possessed these tanks in Normandy, it would have provided them with much improved fighting/offensive power. The campaign would have been shorter, and less costly in allied tank crew lives. The German defence would have been broken earlier- no doubt about it. If only............
The Centurion didn't have that gun until over a decade later, on the Mark 7. Initially it had the 17-pounder, which was still pretty decent, but nowhere near the L7.
My grandfather was an original and not a replacement and made it all the way in 3rd AD until they told them to stop before Berlin..His Sherman was hit and everyone died but him...blood coming out of eyes,ears,mouth,nose everywhere...they had a nickname for him just for being alive....now the studious know everything about stats experts online give glowing reviews about shermans...to me it was a POS compared to the P51 and Garand...everyone got the best but the tankers.
The problem with the Pershing was logistics. The US had to move thousands of tanks across an ocean and they could move far more Shermans than Pershings and numbers counted more than the strength of individual units. The Sherman was more than adequate for the job and by '44 could deal with the vast majority of German tanks plus they were primarily used for supporting infantry. Just remember that most of the shortcomings you hear about the Sherman were myths, usually made up after the war.
@@namegoeshereorhere5020 Agreed. I actually think the Sherman was an excellent piece of kit- well engineered to permit easy maintenance and repair in the field.
@@GudrezBilly Thanks for that, didn't realise that was the case! :)
My favorite era for American tanks, the link between shermans and Pattons.
The only one capable against a Tiger would be Chuck Norris 😉
Preach brother,PREACH!!! lol
With his action pants on !!!
Would have been
@@kardondo you're right but Chuck Norris never looks at the past
American multiculturalism lovers
Pershing is a nice looking tank. Huge counterweight to the 90mm gun
I could never understand why we didn't develop a better tank in the first place. It was obvious early in that what we fielded was out armored and out gunned. We had the technical ability but didn't employ it. So many tankers died because of inferior equipment.
There were 2 key players with obscure names in the upper echelon of the Army that continuously and deliberately delayed the deployment of the Pershing.
Myth - There was No KingTigers in the area . They engaged an old Panzer lV.
While I do agree on the debate between allied tankers claiming Tiger kills when in fact it was a Panzer IV, the story would be much more different than a Tiger II. The Panzer IV can easily be mistaken as a Tiger, especially at long range and with the Paner IV variant that had additional armor, since their outline is similar from the front. Mistaking a King Tiger for a Panzer IV is highly unlikely and just sounds like copium to people who have high pride on german vehicles. The overall outline is different, and even with the later gunsights used by American tanks later in the war, It would be easy to distinct between a Tiger 1 and a King Tiger. the layout, shape of the hull, shape of the turret, sloped hull, you gotta take thee into consideration when identifying your target since it's necessary to load the right ammunition. "Mistaking" identification can mean the death of your crew. And it didn't only happen once.
False, there were King Tigers being transported by rail near Dessau
@@WaukWarrior360 False - There was No King Tigers in the Area - They engaged an old Panzer IV.
Its not Dessau .
The footage is mostly from "the tank duel in Cologne" and that was against a Panther at the Cathedral.
The Panther got knocked out because they didn't recognaise the Pershing.
Sorry.
It's fairly obvious that they used a lot of footage of M-26's taken at a lot of different places. This is common practice for most videos. At least they mostly really had pictures of M-26's. In a lot of videos about F4F's or F6F's - they all to often tend to use the pictures of the two interchangeably.
.
no shit? The reason why its speculated is because there is no video or picture evidence
The tank at the “Cathedral Duel” wasn’t a super Pershing, it was a regular M26
A tank is only as good as the crew operating it, this late in the war, the quality of German tank crews dropped to almost none existing. Had the Pershing tank come up against a battle hardened crew, the results would probably be a lot different. Hard to believe the first round from a Tiger, missed, unless the crew was poorly trained, as Tiger tanks had the best optics. Then he drove up in air over rubble, while in battle? Not very smart… 🤣
Due to bureaucratic bungling, the Pershing tank was not available until February 1945. The Army was promised 300 of them after D- Day. This tank had the same engine as the Easy-8,even though it was about 10 tons heavier. The transmission had some issues. The Panther of the same weight had a 650 hp engine and was much faster. Had we had a bigger v-8,-v-10,or v-12 engine, our tankers would have had possibly the best main battle tank in the world. We may have made it to the German/ Polish border.
The Army(units in europe) didn't want to M26, it was sent anyway.
Bro you Americans were in German soil since late 1944 and still couldn't capture Berlin Russians were in German soil 3 months later they conquered Berlin heck I could even go as far to the Allies were in Italy since 1943 but had to launch an invasion in France Russians were by far more battle hardened
@@JDDC-tq7qmstarts sentence with “bro” = dumb
@JDDC-tq7qm you do know that Russia was pushing them back since 1942 right?
@@cyn1103 you're dumb 😂
At least 2 of the Panther crew survived but were gunned down trying to escape the tank. Had the US Army not obstructed the development of the Pershing and delayed its deployment the war against Germany would have ended 6 months earlier.
It’s all good about the identification part of the story, the fact of the matter is the Germans were lucky these tanks didn’t come in big numbers in mid 1944 or the war may have ended sooner than it did. But for the average German soldier, this may have been a blessing.
The King tiger ( if in fact it was ) was obviously manned by an inexperienced crew.
Basic doctrine dictates that if in an ambush or camouflage position one never breaks cover unless it is necessary to retreat.
There is no ammunition underbelly on the tiger.... ammunition on the tiger 2 was stored in the back of the turret on the on very sides of the armored hull.
It has to be a panzer IV model with a 76, rest is war propaganda.
yes, but you have to take into account different circumstances and we also don't know the layout of the area around them. Could be the rear exit was blocked so they had no choice but to get out from the front. Afterall, tanks aren't the biggest threat to any other tank. It is the infantry. We don't know if allied infantry had pushed in so close while the Tiger was distracted by the pershing. Even in modern times, things don't go always as planned and you don't have time to follow the book. War is always expanding and adapting, going by the books all the time, while necessary, can get you killed. King Tiger crews are rarely "inexperienced" if not, not experienced, since most of them come from being promoted from previous tanks such as panzer Iv's or even tigers. You don't just give that kind of vehicle to an inexperienced crew.
@_spooT It was a Panzer IV. It has been established multiple times. Seriously? A long 88 missing twice and non penning the 100mm on a Pershing? A Tiger tank commander exposing the lower plate completely and even then the 90mm completely destoryed it with a transmission shot? Just doesn't make sense, does it? I think the whole thing might've been bullshit war propaganda. A tiger II laying in ambush with the most potent gun in the entire war somehow missed and then non-penned a pershing... very believable. The Tiger II doesn't even have ammo storage on the tank floor? How did it strike ammo?
The Tiger II isnt meant to hide especially against Allied tanks.
@@clydepatrick27 that's actually a flawed logic. Life isn't a game. No matter how well-armored or powerful your tank is, it can be destroyed. Especially with a foolish logic such as this. You get yourself and your crew killed before the battle even started. Such logic is only your thinking, there is not even an official document that says such foolishness lmao
This is the first time I’ve heard of this. And by saying that there is a lack of sources to back it up except for that one excerpt from a book this is highly suspect.
I only know of the Pershing & Panther duel near the Köln Cathedral. Lots of documentaries for that action and it is widely covered on YT with actual videos of the action.
It was not King Tiger...the German tank was identified later as a Panzer
The King Tiger IS a "Panzer". Did you mean Panther?
@@alanrobinson2901 yea, all German tanks were called panzers rather than the secrete name WW1 British experimental armored, tracked battlefield vehicles were called to describe mobile "water tanks" which stuck, all Allied armored fully tracked fighting vehicles became known as Tanks. The British gave names to American Tanks which were sent to them in Africa in WW2, known to Americans by their letter-number designations such as M3, M5's M4's, calling them Lee' Grant, Stuart, Sherman. Yes, I, too, believe he meant Panther. But I just wanted to note the difference in what the Germans called their Panzers. I do believe that by mid war in Europe when tank destroyers and newer tanks came online, the Americans picked up the British way of naming American tanks so you had the M18 tank destroyer with the 76mm gun the Hellcat, the new light tank to replace the M5 Stuart became the Chaffee, the up gunned "Archllies" M10 being armed with a 90m gun became the Jackson, and then came the Pershing named after the very efficient and ultra effective American general from Prewar general Black Jack Pershing..
Wrong it was a Konings Tiger
@@blrenx No.
@@JoeBlow-fp5ng There were 3 variants of these heavy tigers . Konings Tiger. Royal tiger and king tigers . King Tigers were deployed on the western front. Royal Tiger North western and north eastern. King Tiger on the mid to southern and eastern front. They came out late 44 early 45 ..in numbers. As far as knowing what Tiger units were deployed where, There is no way of knowing. In 1945 Germany kept few records due to the fact of no time or resources for keeping records ..
It's just a tall tail to by tankers. Everything was a Tiger Tank, the Germans kept pretty good record of where they had tanks.
The Tiger IIs had many problems with reliability as well so this also meant the likelihood of seeing them on the battlefield was vastly reduced.
Here is the thing: It is very unlikely the Wermacht wouldn't have had a tank in Dessau
defending it.
the war in europe was in its late stages.. mark feltons channels explained that the wermacht did not have any tiger 1, much less a king tiger.. he believes the tank in dessau is just a PZ 4..
@@userjlj Believes does not necessarily translate to actuality. But duly noted. While I have a lot of respect for
Felton, historians can be incorrect.
There were also Tiger 2s in transport near Dessau
why are you doing voiceovers using another chanels videos and content ?
Absolutely wonderful footage used for the video. I love the Super Pershing.
Thank you very much!
Except I don't think there is one live shot of a Super Pershing tank. One can tell them by the large (shielded) spring above the barrel.
The only Pershing taken out by German armor was a shot from a Nashorn was near the town of Niehl, Germany, March 6 1945. Mark Felton has a 6 min video.
At the battle for Elsdorf (27th. February 1945) a Tiger I (turret No. 201) first blew up an M4A? then slammed three consecutive hits, (without reply) on the Pershing, nicknamed 'Fireball' knocking it out, crew bailed out and abandoned their tank.
@@joegatt2306 Mark Felton also did a video on that battle
Its a well documented fact that there were King Tigers in transport near Dessau when the duel took place. Its just a matter of whether any of them were offloaded from the railcars or not.
Of course the American industri had the, huge ability to produce tanks as good as the best and largest German tanks (It was the former, Danish born GM Director, William S. Knudsen, who became asked by the President to be head of the new and effective American war production, and made it function!). But those would be extremely costly to produce, when the smaller and less expensive versions did their job well enough for most of the needs. The Germans constantly made improvements on their tanks, which in the end became a hindrance for their being kept functioning, as it was hard to find the spares in the still less well functioning industri, being stretched to the limit and producing parts all over Germany in all, strange kinds of places. And they had problems making parts fit when being produced far from each other.
The basic strategy was if an Allied Sherman or better yet, Infantry sited a German Tiger tank, they were under orders to call in Heavy Artillery to fire and destroy it. What should also be mentioned is that the Germans produced 10,000 StuG III which destroyed some 20,000 Allied tanks, way, way more than what the Tigers destroyed and much cheaper to produce as well
Exactly. The StuG III was a very effective tank.
Tigers had a much higher kill ratio than Stugs and much lower loss ratio.
Kinda depends on the situation.
US forces encountered almost zero Tiger Is in the western front. They were usually misidentified Panthers and Pzkw IVs
@@TheFibtasticit's pretty easy to misidentify tanks, even only a few hundred meters away. Add that to the fact that many German AFVs had similar profiles, and operated from camouflaged positions when on the defensive and you have the Tiger problem. Even worse is when on the offensive, the tanks were on the move, as rapid deployment and heavy use of strategic bombing and artillery in junction with armor and grenadiers was par for the course. In short: when defending you couldn't see the Panzers because of the range they could inflict damage and superb camouflage, and on the offensive they were encircling you and blowing you up. Adversaries didn't really have alot of time for silhouette identification.
The tank at Koln was a Panther, not a King Tiger.
Why would a engaged Tiger II go out of it's ambush position and expose front lower plate?
Most king tiger crews are ill-trained and overconfident by 1945. 2 weeks wasn't enough for Tiger II crews to fully understand operating the tank.
@@shadowtrooper262King Tigers were very seldom given to green tank crews, too few were existent. You can be sure that Tiger crews were the better trained and experienced ones even in the last months of the war. It happened though with Panther and PIVs to man them with poorly trained crews.
@wanderschlosser1857 Regardless, they were also arrogant and could have mistaken the M26 for an M18
True it's a panther, still a spectacle to behold.
The duel happened in the city of Colon and the German tank was a Panther. The Panther first killed a Sherman then was hit by the Pershing and destroyed.
There are videos on CZcams about the tank battle
I didnt see a king Tiger with its turret blown off! Just a load of often seen clips put together..
this has nothing to do with Dessau,its the Cologne tank duel. You should not be posting such incredibly wrong info.
Thanks for this my Dad was deafened by a Tiger 2 tank in WW2.. he survived the Tiger 2 didn't!
0:50 What is up with the utiliy poles back in the day
The tank shown being engaged is a Panther. The King Tiger and pershing never once met in combat. Besides the Panther duel at Cologne cathedral shown above, the pershing did twice more become engaged in two other fights with German AFVs, losing both. The first was against a Tiger 1, the Tiger put a round through the Pershings gun mantlet knocking it out straight away. The second time, a pershing was hit by a Nashorn tank destroyer in an ambush.
history written by the winner
That’s what a liberal communist would say!
Interesting story with erroneous footage. The footage shown was a battle that occurred in Cologne where a Pershing knocked out a Panther tank and the first American tank-on-tank duel footage captured on film. Very likely the Dessau fight was against another Panther.
one of them was destroyed lately by a nashorn's kwk43 l71 ? underbelly (known photo , pershing 1 nor the super)
Dude that tank was not a King Tiger but it was a Panther tank.
The Panther tank destroyed a M4 Sherman on a different street while the Pershing pushed to flank the Panther from a different street,
The reason why the Pershing destroyed the Panther first it was because the crew in the Panther tank hesitate and thought the Pershing was a german tank, because
they never seen any kind of that tank before.
That is a different one
You mess up the Cologne tank duel (Panther vs Pershing) of March 6th 1945 with this one - Tiger 2 vs Pershing, date 21st April 1945, location Dessau (roughly 300 miles/500 km east of Cologne).
This footage is from the city of Cologne, not Dessau.
No Tiger or Tiger II are in this area at this time (Bundesarchiv). Mark Felton confirm that.
Mark Felton is a joke, although I have no doubt that there wasn't any Tiger's in the area using him as a source for information is hardly credible, half of his claims he makes in his videos are easily proven false with just the simplest fact checking.
People like him who make videos under the auspice of educating people with historical facts should be ashamed of themselves for putting mostly nonsense and myths in their videos designed to do nothing but appeal to a particular fan base for the sake of clicks.
People watch videos about historical events because they want to learn about them, stuffing them full of myths just for the sake of getting clicks is disgusting, anyone who presents themselves and their videos as historical facts has a moral obligation to make sure their information is correct and should put accuracy above popularity and how many clicks they can get from them.
He's not a historian he's an entertainer.
Does the Super Pershing look a lot like the earliest Patton tanks? The ones used in Korea for example?
Of course it does, the Patton's lineage was the Pershing.
M46? Yeah they look almost the same
I suspect the 18 year old gunner in the M26 knew exactly what he killed. The US didn’t just put a rookie tank crew in it’s new super weapon so I suspect what was destroyed was exactly what that US tank crew said it was , plus it was also confirmed in an M4 Sherman’s gunner’s diary that participated in this very tank battle.
... its* new weapon (it's = it is)
check your intel it was a panther mk5 75 hv ...it burned for 2 days,,,,,,,it knocked out 2 m4 shermans
Only three days before the 3rd Armored Division's final combat action of WWII, a Super Pershing of the 33rd Armored Regiment met and defeated the most powerful and most heavily armored German tank of the war - the legendary 77-ton King Tiger, also known as the Tiger II or Tiger Royal.
77 imperial short tons, to be exact, equals 69 metric tons. The official designation was (Panzerkampfwagen VII) Tiger II. "King Tiger" was only a nickname given by British troops.
Would need to know the year of manufacture of the German tank as late war steel was of non properly hardened steel .
In all fairness, a majority of Americans had only seen these tanks in films and whatnot but hadn't actually experienced fighting them in person until Bastogne.
Additionally, it was better to "overestimate" than "underestimate" a threat.
I'd rather somebody alert people of a Tiger tank over the radio and have the tank turn out to be a Panzer IV. (Cause that will really draw more preparation to fight the threat)
Then have somebody alert people of a Panzer IV over the radio and have it end up being a Tiger.
... I'd rather have* somebody alert people (...) than* ...
One rare Persing was knocked out by even rarer Nashorn.
Records were in a mess at that point, so it was possible that a Konigstiger could have been there, but the fact is, that long barreled 90mm was quite capable of killing a King Tiger from 3km.
Where is evidence
@@typehyuga607
The same place as the evidence that King Tigers were indestructible.
From what I remember reading the Tiger II vs Pershing never happened. It was a propaganda ploy by the US stating how superior their tanks are in comparision. What is fact that the Known Pershing Destroyed in action was done by a German Nashorn Tank destroyer , which caused the Pershing to catch on fire.
Which fired first? That is your winner.
I know this sounds like copium but due to the poor logistics of the German forces by 1945, reports of no king tigers at Dessau may be official information not always accurate.
We have very complete records of the activities of the German Heavy tank battalions and the low numbers of Tiger IIs makes it fairly easy to keep track of the fate of each individual vehicle - when the experts say there were no Tiger IIs at Dessau, we can be very confident they are correct. Never say never, but tank the Super Pershing engaged at Dessau was almost certainly NOT a Tiger II and clinging to the idea that "it might have been a lone straggler" is the very definition of copium.
It's not like there isn't precedent for this - there were no Tiger IIs at St Vith for that M8 Greyhound to knock out either. The US army was really BAD at accurately identifying tanks in the field (which is admittedly a difficult thing to do at the best of times) and tentative identifications of heavy tanks quickly ballooned into fisherman's tales that with the benefit hindsight and through the synthesis of Allied and German records we know couldn't possibly have happened.
This is not to say that Tiger IIs were not encountered and that they were not destroyed, but all those instances are backed up by the records of both sides. If nothing else, ask yourself this - why did no one ever identify and record a Tiger II wreck that corresponds with this supposed Dessau encounter after the event? The Germans were in no position to recover a knocked out Tiger IIs in the last days of the war and the Americans would certainly have wanted to study the wreck for information about the performance of their latest tank cannon. Yet there is no evidence of a Tiger II wreck anywhere near the place the Super Pershing was supposed to have knocked one out.
While I actually agree with you on all your points, one thing I've found as being part of different history groups is that there are always times where the 'experts' say "wow...I never knew that happened!"
@@CastleGraphics It is certainly possible that new evidence will come to light - but in the here and now there is literally no physical or documentary evidence that this incident ever happened. It's really just a military urban myth.
It didn't happen. Not a single picture. It would have been the focus of much pictorial activity.
The regular Pershing v Tiger I at Elsdorf was confirmed by photographs.
@lyndoncmp5751 yeah, we would’ve had at least some information if it actually happened. But there is none.
The facts of this video are quite convoluted. It's supposed to be the Battle of Cologne where Clarence Smoyers Pershing knocked out a Mid Production Panther with three point blank shots.
If it was a panzer 4 wouldn't the HE shell have knocked it out at that close of range? Especially with that new High velocity 90mm ammo
The delay in getting the M-26 into service falls squarely with General Lesley NcNair, Chief Army Ground Forces, that did not want it. The Super Pershing was not a success and the 90mm T15E1 gun was not adopted. The turret of the M-26 was too small to house it safely and APCR ammunition was known for its very poor accuracy, usually less than 1,000 meters.
Watch out the homers will come after you. They still think the Sherman was the greatest tank of all times. even though you had to lose one or two to get the Tiger. Oh and they will say there were no Tigers on the western front. And they will say all the brave men that thought the Sherman was crap that actually were in them are liars and cowards. So get ready for it.
The McNair thing has been pretty well debunked but still gets repeated.
@@TheBockenator Debunked by who? Also very strange that doctrine was reversed after his death in 1944?
@@TheBockenator The 'McNair thing', the doctrine and policy for TD v Tanks is very well documented in WW2 training manuals. There are statements from Patton and Devers complaining about doctrine. Which led to McNair being killed in Normandy on a fact finding mission. So who is debunking what? and were is the evidence? Or just American fan-boys blowing it out their ass!
@@billballbuster7186Mark Calhoun and Nicholas Moran “TheChieftain” have done a lot of recent work on this. Calhoun says there were a number of myths around McNair’s record and there really hasn’t been a proper study of him. Moran generally backs up Calhoun’s argument-he’s all over CZcams.
And that’s not to absolve McNair of all blame but there was plenty to go around.
The REAL heroes are those that knew the tank they were in was pathetic. That applies to any country in WW2.
This narration is WRONG. The footage shown here was between a PANTHER and a Pershing, not a TIGER. This footage was edited to not show the Panther as it was.
The stupidity behind this whole tank development story ,regarding the M 26 Pershing,was that the U.S War Board idiots were advised that the tank was requested to have 6 .00 " of frontal armor which was required to stop the 88.
But the idiot head of the war board changed the design to be 4 ".00 thick and that's why ,when they got the tank the Europe, they had captured German workers help the U.S. Army repair depot add two additional inches of armor jury rigged onto the tank.
I read the book.
Interestingly, the T26E3 with the T33 AP and HVAP rounds it entered service with could face any German tank other than the King Tiger on equal or slightly better terms. There were very few King Tigers, and even fewer on the Western front. King Tigers suffered reliably issues and were difficult to impossible to repair at the front. They often could not be recovered and were destroyed in place if they broke down or were disabled.
Both the British and American armies developed uber tanks that could fight King Tigers, and did not place them in service. It made little sense to try and field such monsters which offered no advantage over tanks like Centurion or T26E3 other than in a straight up frontal engagement with a tank they would likely never actuality see.
The standard Pershing was the tank the U.S. army actually needed, a potential battle winner. It performed well when fielded. The main criticism of T26E3 is that there weren't more of them and sooner.
Some of your footage is Cologne, Pershing v Panther
This is the engagement with the Panther by the cathedral in Cologne, friggen ridiculous! A Pershing never went up against a King Tiger.....it went up against a Nashorn and got punched in the face very hard
No, it's not the same engagement it's a different one, and no it wasn't a Tiger but that doesn't make it the same engagement that happened in Cologne, in case you missed the part in the video the engagement here doesn't have any photographic evidence, as you know there's a film of the engagement in Cologne.
So no, not the same one.
Panther vs Pershing: Cologne, March 6th 1945. Tiger 2 vs Pershing (this one): Dessau, April 21st 1945. Two recorded and completely different incidents. And the Nashorn killing a Pershing is yet another, 3rd incident that happened on the same day as the Panther-Pershing encounter.
You’re comparing technology between a country that has been in full retreat for 18 months to a country with tremendous industrial might.
Sounds like Hollywood....
Germany's KD ratio was unmatched tho
Producing 20,000 moderate tanks usually wins a war.
Usa was produced 300k air plane all about resources
You ever ask yourself why almost all military related CZcams videos have computerized voices as narrator?
Because they're trying to make money and don't want to invest time/effort. I've just now blocked this channel
I feel like ai made this whole thing
When the awful - but big budget war movie "The Battle of the Bulge" came out in the early 1960s, Spanish army M-47 Pattons used in the movie for the German forces were described in press releases and interviews by the folms Directors and producers as "real King Tigers" restored from scrap yards just for the film.....until Eisenhower himself spoke from retirement no one contradicted them on this and other historical falsities in the movie.
And, i'm reading a lot, and the only one pershing to arrive in time was the T26E3, not the E4..maybe Zaloga know more than ANY other writer..
The M26 wasn't planned to be made. In 1943 the American Press had the public worked up about the big German tanks destroying the Shermans because Congress was too cheap to fund the production of a heavy tank that could kill the Big Cats. That made Congress concerned about being re-elected in the 1944 Fall Elections so they ordered the War Department to get some in combat before the elections. The WD had to since all of their funding was provided by Congress. The WD told Ordnance to get on that ASAP so their engineers modified their T25 into the T26 by December. The Army "approved it" so was ordered into production in February of '45 at the Fisher Body Plant. Fisher worked on other projects while waiting on machinery and parts to assemble. They rebuilt M10's into M36 TD's and designed then built the M4 Jumbos. Fisher was ready to start assembling the M26 by September but didn't have any parts yet from the suppliers. They had delays obtaining the machinery and strategic materials that were needed so didn't start sending those in until after the Fall elections. Congress then ordered the first 20 made to be sent to Europe ASAP. Those arrived without trained crews, mechanics and replacement parts so the Army refused to use them for one month until ordered to by Eisenhower. Ordnance had two Super Pershings made with one being sent to Europe for testing. Nobody wanted to use it so Ordnance allowed Belton Cooper to add armor plate to the tank since he was complaining about the M26s poor armor. They made him stop after adding 5 tons of armor plate out of fear that adding more would ruin the transmission before it could get out of the Ordnance Repair Depot. It moved at a crawl so was assigned to gaurd the flank of a faster advancing unit. It did shoot at targets 1800 yards away that resembled tanks yet none were found when the GIs reached those areas. It was knocked out by a Panzer 4 that put a round thru the side of the hull. It was last seen at a vehicle dump waiting to be cut up for scrap.
It is false, the super pershing never faced any real tiger.
the royal tigers were nowhere near that position, they were clearly many miles away, what destroyed that super pershing was a panther tank
Pershing with his gun was s good tank ,but only like gun. The armor was far away vs Tiger or King Tiger.
“73 calibers long”??? Lovin’ the robotic narrator…..
Yet, it's totally correct. The caliber is 90 mm, 73 times that equal 6570 mm or 6.57 meters (21 feet 7 inches) or about the same length as the 120mm 55L gun of the latest Leopard 2 version.
Yet, it's totally correct. L73 means the gun is 73 times as long as its caliber. 73 times 90 equals 6570 mm = 6.57 meters = 21 feet 7 inches. That's about the same length as the 120 mm L55 cannon of the latest Leopard 2 version.
This is footage of a Panther being destroyed and not a King Tiger.
"It was highly likely that the entire crew was killed!"... DUH!!! No shit!
Footage shows a panther. I doubt the pershing would have stood much chance against a king tiger.
Disagree.
The tank that sees the other tank first usually has the best chance.
That 90mm on the Pershing is no pea shooter.
330 mm of pen? Not even their APCR shell could pen that much, and i dont remember well but none of its shells could reach 300 even, and AP would be little over 220 (dont remember the exact number)
It is unbelevible to see this footatge beacause i live in Dessau.
... unbelievable* to see this footage* because* ... - pay attention when typing and spell-check before posting.
Oh my God. The battle between the two tanks in my home town of #Dessau.
FUN FACT:
To make the Super Pershing,.....the American crews took disabled Panthers and cut off their front 80mm glacis and welded that around the turret .
Nonsense.
More like fairytale than fact.
@@dukecraig2402 The uparmored Super Pershing in Germany, with the improvised additional armor - Credits: Photographer unknown
As such, Lt. Cooper chose a crude, but effective method of up-armoring the tank. Engineers salvaged an 80 mm (3.15 in) CHF (Cemented Hard Face) frontal plate from a destroyed Panther and welded it straight on to the mantlet. Holes were cut on the left and right of the gun so the gun sight and coaxial .30 cal machine gun could still be used. Additional, overlapping plates were also welded to the forward hull of the tank, creating a crude spaced armor. Later on, more armor, in the form of “ears”, was also attached to the mantlet plate. A large counterweight was also added to the rear of the turret bustle.
you think i made it up bro?
@@dukecraig2402 nonsense he says, ...despite not having clue himself.
@@jimmiematho8082
Yea, I have far more than a clue, aside from having been on armored vehicles in the Army I also used to be a steel fitter that worked at one point fabricating heavy weldments, anyone who believes that people in the field cut through 80mm thick steel by hand with a torch obviously knows absolutely nothing about working with steel, nobody is steady enough and can move at the extremely slow and precise speeds required to cut steel that thick by hand, no human can do it, it requires track torches, they run on little tracks and the torch head is mounted on a little electric driven buggy on the track with an adjustable speed that can travel so slow at it's lowest settings you can barely see it move, scrap yards that cut up armored vehicles for scrap do it with thermobolic lance's which cut very imprecise 3 inch wide swaths out that's hardly the kind of cutting work that's required to do what you're talking about, then there's the fact that contours would never match and the fact that without building up an 80mm weld fillet all the way around would result in something that even the smallest caliber round hitting it would cause the piece to break off.
Go tell your daydream fairytale stories somewhere else because the grown up's know better than to believe a bunch of malarkey like that, only someone whose never worked with steel, understands it's properties and never touched an armored vehicle in their life would think up a bunch of malarkey like that.
@@dukecraig2402 hahahahahaha, you're so stunned....must still have PTSD, shellshocked, it's common knowledge thats where the added 80mmm plates came from , you stunned Kuuunnnttt!
No King Tiger was lost at that battle. USA tank crews never fought against Tigers. A panther can look like a tiger at a distance..
Why it most likely did not happen it shows the valor of tank crews in ww2...what?
Nice fictional story. Nearest German operated King Tiger was miles away
The only thing that king tiger was defeated its the mechanical problems not from pershing.
But in fact, ANY Köningstiger was penetrate at the frontal plate
Research indicates that there weren't any KT there, it's likely a panther or sowmthing else
CHUCK NORRIS ? Could n't fight his way out of a paper bag .
The Tiger tank was probably crewed by a novice crew.
What a joke.
What King Tiger,Where and when .??!!!!
This is stranger than fiction,because never happened.
Mark Felton already did this like 2yrs ago. And much better. Hack
No the Pershing was not designed as a replacement for the Sherman.
much of this footage is from Colone NOT Dessau
Yea, as they mentioned there's not even pictures of what happened in Dessau, so I guess for the sake of not having a blank screen for 5 minutes they just used the Cologne footage during the narrative.
The truth is probably 90% of WW2 footage shown during videos aren't really from the actual engagement they're talking about.
WW1 is even worse, the vast majority of film footage that for years was believed to be actual combat footage of WW1 over the year's has been proven to be staged events that took place either between the large scale operations or most commonly immediately after the war was over while they still had all the personnel and equipment on site on the land that'd been so tore up by the battles, they realized that down the road staging something like that would have been too difficult.
It's easy to understand why there is hardly any real combat footage from WW1, when you consider that back then a motion picture camera was about the size of a modern compact car and they had to be set up on a tripod I don't think I'd want to be the guy sticking up above everyone else turning a crank on the side of something that most people had never seen in their lives and would easily believe that what they were looking at was a new weapon being put to use by their enemy, I don't think too many people would have lined up to do that, and the few that did probably didn't last too long, neither would have the cameras, without having a large sign with flashing lights and "I am not a weapon please don't shoot at me" written in 50 different languages I don't think being a combat cameraman in WW1 would have been a very good idea.
Saya heran kenapa pasukan sekutu kesulitan mengenali tank jerman. Yang cukup parah pernah beberapa tank jerman sempat dibiarkan melewati garis pertahanan sekutu sebelum akhirnya ditangkap. Lihat saja roda rantainya sangat beda dengan tank sekutu maupun soviet dan pershing bagian dekat kubah meriamnya mirip panther
What damage to a king tiger could the pershing do. what kind of damage could the King Tiger do to the Pershing....
Not a single King Tiger was destroyed by the Allies and the Soviet Union .a few basic tigers were destroyed
At 6:13 that is PANZER 4 not a Tiger also PANZER means tank in German. You at least did not try and say the classic tank battle was not a Pershing against a King Tiger but was correct that it was Panther tank.
The 90mm was nothing like the 88 tf you on?
The Russians started naming their tanks after famous cosmonauts because every timeaT72 80 90 gets hit the crews become cosmonauts