Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

M26 Pershing

The M26 Pershing was an American heavy tank, later reclassified as a , developed during to counter advanced German armor with its 90 mm high-velocity main gun, thicker frontal armor up to 3.94 inches, and a combat weight of 46 tons. Named after General , it represented a significant upgrade over the in firepower and protection, powered by a 500 hp V-8 gasoline engine that enabled a top speed of 30 mph and a range of approximately 100 miles. Armed with a .50-caliber on the , a .30-caliber , and a bow , the M26 carried a crew of five and entered limited production in November 1944, with 2,212 units built by October 1945 at the Grand Blanc and Arsenals. Development of the M26 originated from the series in 1942, evolving through prototypes like the and to address the need for a heavier-armed vehicle capable of engaging and tanks effectively. The T26E3 model was standardized as the M26 in March 1945, with initial deployment to occurring in January 1945, though bureaucratic delays limited its arrival at the front until early March. In World War II combat, the first M26s saw action on March 7, 1945, during the at , where they engaged German and tanks with notable success in direct confrontations. Later in the campaign, elements of the 3d Armored Division's M26 task force advanced 90 miles northward on March 29, 1945, without casualties, but faced intense resistance from German armored forces near on March 30, contributing to the encirclement of the by April 1. Post-war, the M26 transitioned to the , arriving in theater on July 16, 1950, where it proved superior to North Korean T-34/85 tanks and self-propelled guns, destroying numerous enemy vehicles despite mechanical reliability issues in rugged terrain. Variants included the T26E4 with a super-velocity 90 mm gun and the assault tank fitted with a 105 mm , though the latter saw limited use before most M26s were upgraded to the by 1954. Approximately 2,200 M26s were ultimately produced, with around 800 converted to M46 standard, establishing it as the direct predecessor to Cold War-era American main battle tanks like the M47 and M48 series, influencing designs through the M60.

Development

Background and Early Concepts

The medium tank, while reliable and produced in large numbers, revealed significant limitations during the North African and campaigns of 1943-1944, particularly its vulnerability to and tanks. The Sherman's 75mm or upgraded 76mm guns often failed to penetrate the thick, sloped armor of these designs at combat ranges, while the Sherman's own armor could be defeated by the Panther's 75mm KwK 42 or the Tiger's 88mm KwK 36 from over 1,500 yards. Battlefield reports from the European Theater, including engagements in where Tigers destroyed Shermans at long range, underscored these deficiencies and highlighted the need for a tank with superior firepower and protection to counter the evolving threats of warfare. In late 1943, the U.S. Army Ground Forces (AGF), influenced by urgent dispatches from commanders like Lieutenant General , intensified efforts to develop a heavier-armed and better-armored to restore parity in tank-on-tank engagements. General , as head of the Armored Force and later commander in the European Theater of Operations, played a pivotal role by advocating for accelerated development and production, including a December 10, 1943, request for 250 units of an advanced prototype to address the ’s shortcomings. This push faced resistance from AGF chief Lieutenant General , who prioritized of lighter, more maneuverable tanks and questioned the tactical necessity of heavy antitank duels, but European reports ultimately swayed Ordnance Department priorities toward enhanced designs. Brigadier General Gladeon M. Barnes, Chief of the Ordnance Department's Research and Development Division, supported Devers by championing technical upgrades based on intelligence on German 88mm guns. The initial response came through the T20 series of experimental medium tanks, initiated in April 1942 as an interim upgrade to the Sherman, focusing on improved mobility, rear-engine layout, and armament testing rather than a complete redesign. Early T20 prototypes mounted the 76mm gun to provide incremental improvements in penetration, but by May 1943, escalating encounters with German heavy tanks prompted a critical shift to the more powerful 90mm gun, capable of defeating Panther and Tiger armor at extended ranges. This evolution reflected doctrinal adaptations toward a balanced medium tank that could engage enemy armor effectively without sacrificing too much speed. By early 1944, the Ordnance Department formalized requirements for what became the T26 heavy tank (later reclassified as medium for the M26 Pershing), specifying a 90mm main gun, sloped frontal armor (up to 4 inches at 46 degrees on the glacis), and overall protection emphasizing angled plates to deflect projectiles, drawing inspiration from observed German designs.

Prototype Development

The development of the M26 Pershing originated with the prototype, initiated in April 1942 as part of a U.S. Army Ordnance Department effort to enhance the M4 Sherman's capabilities in response to emerging threats from heavier German armor. The T20 retained many Sherman components, including its engine, transmission, and , but featured a lower , rear-mounted drive train, and an initial 76 mm gun for improved . Early iterations like the T20E1 tested a GAA V-8 gasoline engine producing around 500 hp, while the T20E3 introduced with 12 dual road wheels per side to boost mobility and cross-country performance. These prototypes laid the groundwork for subsequent designs by prioritizing a balance of protection, speed, and armament over radical departures from proven technology. Building on the T20, the T23 prototype shifted toward more advanced features, approved for limited production of 250 units in June 1943 with the 76 mm gun retained initially. It incorporated an for smoother operation and a redesigned , though this drive system proved too heavy and complex, leading to its abandonment. A 90 mm gun variant was tested on the T23 but rejected for production due to integration challenges; however, this paved the way for heavier prototypes. The parallel series, also approved in June 1943 for 40 units, emphasized with twelve individually sprung roadwheels and adopted the Torqmatic in the T25E1 variant for better reliability, weighing approximately 39 tons. These designs iterated on armor thickness, with the T25 featuring a 3-inch (76 mm) plate, focusing on refining hull layout and automotive components without exceeding weight limits. The T26 prototypes represented the direct precursor to the standardized M26, with initial approval for 10 units in June 1943, later expanded to 250 by December, incorporating the 90 mm M3 gun for superior anti-tank performance. The T26E1 variant integrated the GAF V-8 gasoline engine delivering 500 hp, paired with the Torqmatic transmission and for enhanced and ride quality, while the hull weighed about 43.5 tons. Key technological choices included hydraulic traverse for rapid aiming (achieving 360° rotation in 17 seconds) and sloped frontal armor on the T26E3, with the upper at 102 mm thickness inclined at 46° for improved ballistic protection against contemporary threats. The T26E3, finalized as the M26 model in March 1945, featured a cast with welded seams to accommodate the thicker 4.5-inch (114 mm) front armor, though fabrication challenges arose in ensuring uniform welds on the complex curved surfaces to prevent structural weaknesses. Overall, these prototypes addressed doctrinal needs for a capable of engaging heavy opponents by evolving from lighter, Sherman-derived designs to a more robust platform through iterative testing at facilities like .

Testing and Refinements

The prototypes of the M26 Pershing underwent extensive evaluation at the in 1944 and 1945 to assess their performance prior to production approval. In May 1944, testing of the T26E1 revealed satisfactory overall characteristics but identified needs for improvements in turret basket design and ammunition . Mobility trials demonstrated a top speed of 30 mph, with a sustainable speed of 25 mph on level ground, and a road range of approximately 100 miles, though fuel economy was limited at 0.694 miles per gallon during mixed terrain runs totaling 274 miles. Armor protection was rigorously tested against German 88mm rounds, confirming the sloped 102mm frontal armor provided effective resistance comparable to contemporary threats like the . Penetration trials with the 90mm T33 AP-T round achieved defeats of glacis armor up to 1,100 yards, while the T30E16 HVAP-T variant penetrated King Tiger armor at 100 yards. These results validated the tank's defensive capabilities but prompted minor adjustments to enhance ballistic performance. Early transmission issues, particularly clutch slippage and failures under load, were addressed through refinements to the Torqmatic unit, selected in mid-1943 for the and series to avoid the complexities of the electric tested in earlier prototypes like the T23. The cross-drive improved reliability and delivery, enabling smoother power transfer in the 42-ton vehicle despite initial overheating concerns during extended trials. By late , these modifications ensured the met operational standards for . Comparative evaluations emphasized the Pershing's balanced design, with its 90mm gun providing superior firepower to the Soviet T-34-85's 85mm while maintaining a weight advantage over the British Centurion's early marks, at 42 tons versus their 50-plus tons. U.S. Army assessments noted the Pershing's as marginally inferior to the lighter T-34-85 but adequate for roles, outperforming the in penetration and protection during simulated engagements. Postwar evaluations in 1946, conducted amid shifting doctrinal priorities, confirmed the M26's suitability as a despite its initial heavy classification, leading to its redesignation in May 1946 to align with emerging needs for versatile, transportable armor. These reviews, including component stress tests, affirmed its foundational role in future developments like the without requiring major redesigns.

Production

Manufacturing Process

The M26 Pershing tank was primarily manufactured by the Division of at the Grand Blanc Tank Arsenal in and by the Chrysler Corporation at the Detroit Tank Arsenal in . Production commenced in November 1944 at the Fisher facility, with the first ten T26E3 prototypes (later standardized as M26) completed that month, followed by 30 more in December. The Detroit Tank Arsenal began assembly in March 1945, contributing to a ramp-up that reached 194 units that month. Assembly involved constructing the hull from a combination of rolled homogeneous steel plates and large sections, with the front and rear engine deck formed as single castings welded to the side plates for structural integrity. The , a homogeneous steel with a 69-inch ring diameter, integrated the 90 mm M3 main during final assembly, including mounting the gun, , and 70-round stowage. By October 1945, total production across both facilities reached 2,212 units, with the majority assembled on dedicated lines optimized for wartime output. Key supply chain elements included the Ford GAF liquid-cooled V8 gasoline engine, rated at 500 horsepower at 2,600 rpm, sourced from , to power the drivetrain. The tracks consisted of 23-inch-wide T80E1 or T81 double-pin chevron-pattern rubber blocks mounted on links, supplied by rubber manufacturers like to enhance mobility over varied terrain without excessive wear on the 24 road wheels per side. Quality control emphasized post-assembly testing, with each tank undergoing mobility trials, ballistic evaluations, and durability checks at the in and in to verify weld strength, suspension performance, and overall reliability before shipment. These measures ensured the vehicles met Ordnance Department standards for combat deployment, addressing issues like track tension and engine cooling identified in early runs.

Production Delays and Challenges

The production of the M26 Pershing tank faced significant delays primarily due to the U.S. Army's prioritization of the , which was favored for its reliability, ease of , and alignment with doctrinal emphasis on support and mobility over heavy armor. In 1944, (AGF), led by Lieutenant General , expressed strong skepticism toward heavier tank designs like the series, arguing that they complicated logistics, strained bridge capacities, and diverted resources from proven lighter vehicles; this opposition limited initial funding and contracts, resulting in only limited pilot production until late 1944. Technical challenges further exacerbated these delays, including engine overheating from the underpowered 500-horsepower Ford GAF V8, which struggled with the tank's 46-ton weight, and frequent transmission failures in early T26E1 prototypes using a complex system. These issues, identified during rushed testing in 1944, required mid-1945 modifications such as improved cooling and a more robust , but they slowed the to full-scale at facilities like the Fisher Tank Arsenal. Political debates within the War Department compounded the problems, as the tank's classification oscillated between medium and heavy—reclassified as heavy in June 1944 due to weight increases—sparking arguments over amid competing demands from the and Pacific theaters, where Pacific priorities often pulled materials away from heavy armor projects. These hurdles limited wartime output, with initial plans for 1,000 units in 1944 scaled back; by the end of the war in on May 8, 1945 (VE Day), only about 200 M26s had been shipped to the front lines out of 436 produced by March 1945, minimizing its impact on combat operations. Overall production reached 2,212 tanks by October 1945, creating a postwar surplus as manufacturing continued briefly under contracts at and Tank Arsenals, but the delays ensured the Pershing arrived too late to influence the European campaign significantly.

Postwar Production and Upgrades

Following the end of , production of the M26 Pershing and its variants shifted focus from wartime expansion to targeted upgrades and limited manufacturing to bolster stockpiles in anticipation of potential conflicts, including the emerging tensions on the Peninsula. While primary assembly lines at facilities like the Fisher Tank Arsenal and Detroit Tank Arsenal wound down by late , with a total of approximately 2,200 T26E3 models (standardized as M26) completed between November 1944 and October , additional experimental and modified units were built through mid-, contributing to an overall series total nearing 2,500 when including prototypes and variants. These postwar efforts emphasized enhancements for firepower and reliability rather than mass output, as the U.S. Army reclassified the M26 from heavy to to align with evolving doctrinal needs. One notable upgrade was the T26E4, commonly known as the Super Pershing, which featured a high-velocity 90mm T15E1 gun designed for improved penetration against heavy armor, along with additional armor plates—sourced from captured German tanks—bringing frontal protection up to 114mm in key areas. Twenty-five examples of the T26E4 were manufactured starting in early , with an improved gun mounting that eliminated the need for earlier stabilizer springs; two of these were expedited to in the final months of the war for combat evaluation, where they demonstrated effectiveness against German armor before the conflict's conclusion. Further experimentation included the T26E5, an up-armored variant of the T26E3 equipped with the more powerful 105mm T5E1 gun and enhanced fire control systems for better accuracy at range, though only 27 units were produced between June and July 1945 at the Tank Arsenal, and none entered widespread service due to the war's end and shifting priorities. These prototypes highlighted ongoing efforts to address limitations in armament and protection but were not pursued for mass production. As part of the transition to the in the late 1940s, approximately 800 existing M26 Pershings underwent significant rebuilds, incorporating the AV-1790-5 engine for improved power output and reliability, along with the addition of optical rangefinders to modernize fire control as an interim measure before fuller redesigns. These conversions, primarily at the Detroit Arsenal from 1948 to 1950, extended the platform's viability for deployments without requiring entirely new production lines.

Design Characteristics

Armament and Fire Control

The primary armament of the M26 Pershing was the 90 mm M3 gun, mounted in the M67 turret mount and capable of 360-degree traverse via manual and hydraulic controls. This high-velocity weapon fired a variety of types, including armor-piercing capped ballistic cap (APCBC) M82 rounds for general anti-armor use, hyper-velocity armor-piercing (HVAP) T30E16 rounds with cores for enhanced penetration against heavy armor, and high-explosive (HE) rounds for and soft targets. The gun achieved a of approximately 2,600 ft/s with standard AP rounds, enabling the HVAP T30E16 to penetrate up to 221 mm of homogeneous armor at 1,000 yards under optimal conditions. The M3 gun weighed 2,450 lb and featured a hydraulic system that absorbed the firing forces, allowing for stable operation during movement. Ammunition storage for the main gun was limited to 70 rounds, distributed across the and racks to balance readiness and safety, with 10 rounds typically kept ready in the for immediate use. The practical was 6-8 rounds per minute, constrained by the loader's manual handling of the heavy projectiles, each weighing around 24 lb for types. This configuration provided the Pershing with offensive firepower superior to earlier U.S. medium tanks like the , particularly against late-war German armor. Fire control relied on the M10 periscope sight for the gunner, integrated with the M71 offering 12x for precise targeting at extended ranges, complemented by an auxiliary for . Secondary armament consisted of a .50 M2HB pintle-mounted for antiaircraft defense, a .30 M1919A4 , and a .30 M1919A4 mounted in the bow for close-range suppression. These weapons carried 5,000 rounds of .30 and 550 rounds of .50 , enhancing the tank's versatility in operations.

Armor Protection and Mobility

The M26 Pershing's armor layout emphasized frontal protection through a cast hull design, featuring an upper plate of 102 mm thickness sloped at 46 degrees and a lower frontal hull of 76 mm. The cast turret provided 102 mm of frontal armor and 76 mm on the sides, with the measuring 115 mm, offering effective resistance to 75 mm anti-tank rounds at ranges beyond 500 meters. Side armor measured 51 mm on the upper hull and 38 mm on the lower sections, while the rear hull was 51 mm thick. This configuration represented a significant improvement over predecessors like the , prioritizing deflection and absorption of impacts from contemporary German and Japanese weaponry. Mobility was facilitated by a system supporting six dual road wheels per side, paired with 24-inch-wide T81 tracks that distributed weight effectively. The resulting ground pressure of 12.5 psi allowed reliable performance across varied terrain, achieving a sustained road speed of 25 mph (up to 30 mph maximum) and approximately 10 mph cross-country. Powered by a 500 Ford GAF V8 gasoline engine, the 46-ton vehicle attained a of 10.9 /ton, enabling it to depths up to 48 inches and climb vertical obstacles of 46 inches. However, the roof armor, at just 25 mm, proved vulnerable to airbursts and top-attack munitions, while the overall weight constrained strategic and bridge-crossing capabilities relative to lighter designs like the 30-ton .

Crew and Internal Layout

The M26 Pershing was manned by a crew of five personnel: the commander, , and loader positioned within the , along with the driver and assistant driver/ located in the forward . The commander's station was situated in the right rear of the , featuring a with multiple vision blocks providing all-around observation capability for . The occupied the right front position, equipped with an M10 sight for primary aiming and an auxiliary M71 for precision targeting. In the left side of the , the loader managed handling through a dedicated hatch that also served as an , facilitating access to stored rounds. Ammunition for the 90 mm main gun was arranged in racks within the sponsons and the interior, accommodating a total of 70 rounds with approximately 10 in ready-use positions near the loader for quick access during engagements. The assistant driver, positioned in the 's right front, operated the bow and the vehicle's primary communication system, the SCR-508 radio set, which enabled voice and communication at level over short to medium ranges. Ventilation for the crew compartment relied on engine-driven fans, with early production models providing 400 cubic feet per minute of airflow to mitigate fumes and heat, later upgraded to 1,000 cubic feet per minute in subsequent variants for improved . The internal layout emphasized functional but presented ergonomic challenges due to the compact spaces, particularly in the loader's area, where limited room constrained movement during sustained operations. The compartments were enclosed by the vehicle's armored structure, contributing to overall while maintaining operational points.

Combat History

World War II Deployment

The M26 Pershing saw its initial deployment to the European theater in , when 20 tanks arrived at the , , and were assigned to the U.S. First Army, split evenly between the 3rd and 9th Armored Divisions. After brief training near Aachen, , the 3rd Armored Division's Pershings entered combat for the first time on February 26, 1945, during the assault on the Roer River defenses along the Belgian- border. In this engagement, one Pershing from the 3rd Armored Division, commanded by Nick Mashlonik, destroyed four armored vehicles, including Panthers, using its 90mm at ranges up to 1,000 yards, demonstrating superior firepower over earlier U.S. tanks. However, the debut was not without cost; Pershing No. 38, nicknamed "," was knocked out by a , resulting in two crew fatalities. As Allied forces advanced into , Pershings provided critical support in late-war operations, including fire support during the capture of the at on March 7, 1945. A notable engagement occurred in on March 6, 1945, where a Pershing from Company E, 32nd Armored , 3rd Armored , commanded by Robert Earley with gunner Clarence Smoyer, destroyed a near the city's in a filmed . The Pershing fired three 90mm rounds, penetrating the Panther's armor and igniting its ammunition, while supporting Shermans suffered losses, including one tank knocked out and three crew members killed. Overall, across European operations, Pershings claimed at least six German tanks destroyed—including four Tigers, one , and one Panzer IV—with only four Pershings lost to enemy action or mechanical failure by war's end. In the Pacific theater, 12 M26 Pershings were shipped from the to Okinawa on May 31, 1945, arriving on July 21 and fully unloaded by August 4, too late for the main phase of the , which concluded on June 22. Although no major combat occurred, the tanks were integrated into U.S. forces for potential use against remaining fortifications, but their heavy weight and the island's rugged, muddy limited mobility and operational effectiveness during mop-up operations. Approximately 10 units were prepared for service in this environment before the war's end shifted priorities to duties. Two experimental T26E4 "Super Pershing" variants, up-gunned with a high-velocity 90mm T15E1, were fielded with the 3rd Armored Division in March 1945 to test enhanced anti-tank capabilities. One Super Pershing saw action near the Weser River on April 4, destroying an unidentified armored vehicle at 1,400 meters, and later in on April 21, where it defeated a King Tiger in a brief exchange by penetrating its lower hull plate, causing an ammunition cook-off. However, logistical issues, including misrouted ammunition shipments, hampered operations; one Super Pershing was damaged by near due to misidentification in poor visibility, though it was repaired and returned to service.

Korean War Service

The M26 Pershing saw its first combat deployment in with the U.S. Eighth Army in July 1950, when three tanks arrived at Pusan on 16 July as the initial medium to reach the theater. By late August 1950, additional M26s had joined units such as the 70th, 72nd, and 73rd Tank Battalions, along with the 1st Marine Tank Battalion, contributing to a rough parity of M26s and M4A3 Shermans within the Pusan Perimeter defenses—approximately 250 M26s overall by the end of the year. These early arrivals provided critical firepower against North Korean T-34-85s. During the Pusan Perimeter defense in August 1950, M26s proved highly effective in key battles, destroying multiple enemy tanks while supporting infantry holds. At Obong-ni Ridge on 17 August, three M26s from the 73rd Tank Battalion knocked out three T-34-85s at close range, leveraging the 90mm gun's superior penetration over the T-34's 85mm armament. In the Bowling Alley engagement near Taegu from 21-22 August, six M26s interdicted advancing North Korean forces, destroying seven T-34-85s and three SU-76 self-propelled guns without losses, holding the line for five hours through accurate fire at 125 yards. The Inchon landing on 15 September further highlighted their utility, with a platoon of nine M26s from the 1st Tank Battalion landing on Wolmi-do and later destroying three T-34-85s east of Inchon, aiding the amphibious assault's momentum. In the push to Seoul during September 1950, M26s supported the 1st Marine Division's urban fighting, overcoming ambushes and destroying four enemy tanks plus two SU-76s after one Pershing hit a ; their 90mm guns outranged Soviet-supplied 85mm weapons, enabling breakthroughs in . By early 1951, amid Chinese intervention, M26s participated in counteroffensives around , including in February and the March advance to Munsan-ni, where Task Force Growdon's M26s from the 6th Medium Tank Battalion provided despite minefields, recapturing positions with minimal opposition but four tanks disabled by mines. Overall, the M26 achieved an estimated kill ratio of approximately 6:1 against North Korean and tanks in direct engagements, claiming 38 enemy vehicles destroyed for six Pershings lost to tank fire, though total M26 losses exceeded 200 from all causes including abandonment during retreats and mechanical failures. These heavy attrition rates, compounded by the tank's underpowered engine, prompted upgrades to the variant starting in 1951 to improve reliability and speed. Logistical challenges severely hampered M26 operations, particularly spare parts shortages that led to widespread cannibalization for fan belts and tracks, as many tanks were pre-war surplus with worn components. In the harsh 1950-1951 winters, cold weather exacerbated issues with frozen fan belts, dead batteries, and engine failures, reducing operational readiness and forcing reliance on to avoid overheating from defective Japanese-made belts. Fuel consumption also spiked, with idling engines using 20 gallons per hour in sub-zero conditions, straining supply lines during retreats like Unsan in November 1950.

Other Conflicts and Evaluations

Israel acquired a small number of M26 Pershing tanks in the early , following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, primarily for border defense roles rather than frontline combat. These vehicles were modified with French optics to improve targeting accuracy, enhancing their utility in static defensive positions along vulnerable frontiers. In the early , evaluations, including comparative trials against captured Soviet JS-3 heavy tanks, highlighted the M26's vulnerabilities to the 122 mm D-25T gun, which could penetrate the Pershing's frontal armor at combat ranges of up to 1,000 meters. These tests, conducted at facilities like , underscored the need for improved protection and firepower, contributing to the decision to phase out the M26 from active service by 1952 in favor of upgraded designs like the M46 and . Surplus M26 Pershings were exported to allies such as and in the 1950s, where they served in training roles and exercises to familiarize crews with operations ahead of transitions to newer models like the M47. In , units from the 132nd Armored Division "Ariete" utilized the tanks for maneuvers until the mid-1960s, while employed a limited number primarily for doctrinal instruction within frameworks. These postwar applications emphasized the M26's role in building allied armored capabilities amid tensions.

Variants and Operators

Major Variants

The T26E3 served as the standard production model of the Pershing series, standardized as the M26 in March 1945 and equipped with the 90mm M3 main gun and Ford GAF engine. This variant featured torsion bar suspension and a torqmatic transmission, with approximately 1,436 units produced by the end of World War II, primarily at the Fisher Tank Arsenal. Total production across the M26 line reached over 2,200 vehicles before postwar cancellations. The T26E4, known as the Super Pershing, was a limited-production upgrade developed to enhance firepower against heavy German armor like the . It incorporated the T15E1 high-velocity 90mm gun with a and additional armor plating, increasing weight by about 5 tons while maintaining the base and five-man crew. Only two prototypes were initially modified—one sent to for combat testing in 1945—and production was authorized for 25 units in March 1945, with all completed by V-E Day. The M26E1 was a postwar variant of the standard M26, fitted with the T54 90 mm gun for improved anti-armor performance. Only a limited number were produced as the U.S. Army shifted toward newer designs like the . The T26E5 was an experimental assault tank variant with increased armor thickness up to 279 mm on the front and a 105 mm T5E2 , though only 27 units were built in for testing. The M26E2 was a major postwar upgrade of the M26, replacing the Ford GAF engine with the AV-1790-1 (740 hp) and cross-drive transmission, redesignated as the with around 800 conversions completed by 1951. Experimental efforts included the T26E1 prototype, the initial pilot built in , which featured a 102 mm plate after testing due to concerns and weight exceeding 50 tons. The T26E2, basis for the assault tank, was fitted with a 105 mm T5E1 and produced in limited numbers of about 25 units in , but saw no combat.

Primary Operators and Usage

The served as the primary operator of the M26 Pershing tank, producing a total of 2,212 units between January and October for deployment in armored divisions. These tanks were utilized in breakthrough roles, integrating with infantry in tactics to support advances and counter enemy armor during late operations and the . Starting in 1949, many M26s were upgraded to the with improved engine and transmission, and the M46 remained in service until the mid-1950s when replaced by the due to mechanical reliability issues and evolving doctrinal needs. France received a small number of M26 Pershing tanks through postwar U.S. aid programs in the early , incorporating them into its armored forces and keeping them in service until the mid-. Small numbers of M26 Pershings were also supplied to under postwar aid programs for training and evaluation purposes. Post-occupation evaluations occurred in , but no operational use.

Legacy and Influence

Doctrinal Impact

The introduction of the M26 Pershing represented a pivotal doctrinal shift in the U.S. Army from prioritizing light and medium tanks for infantry support to emphasizing balanced firepower and armor capable of direct tank-versus-tank engagements. This evolution addressed vulnerabilities exposed against German heavy tanks in World War II, validating the 90mm gun as the new standard for anti-armor capability and directly influencing the design of postwar successors like the M47 and M48 Patton tanks, which retained and refined this armament for enhanced penetration and versatility. The Korean War amplified these lessons, where the M26 excelled in countering North Korean T-34/85 tanks but revealed limitations in fire control systems and mechanical reliability in rugged terrain. Postwar exports of the M26 to NATO allies contributed to early Cold War standardization by promoting a shared emphasis on anti-tank roles over traditional infantry support, aligning allied doctrines with U.S. advancements in heavy firepower. By the mid-1950s, the M26's obsolescence—stemming from mechanical unreliability—drove its phase-out from active service, with many upgraded to M46 standard, accelerating the U.S. Army's transition to unified concepts exemplified by the M48, which combined medium weight with heavy armament and protection.

Comparisons with Contemporaries

The M26 Pershing demonstrated notable advantages over the German in frontal armor configuration and long-range engagement capability. Its upper plate, 102 mm thick sloped at 46 degrees (providing approximately 150 mm effective thickness against perpendicular hits), offered comparable protection to the 's 80 mm frontal armor sloped at 55 degrees (~140 mm effective). The Pershing's 90 mm M3 gun, firing armor-piercing rounds, could reliably defeat the 's frontal armor at distances up to 1,500 meters, offering a critical edge in defensive positions during late-war engagements. profiles were comparable, with both tanks achieving road speeds of approximately 45 km/h and similar power-to-weight ratios around 13-14 hp/ton, though the 's interleaved road wheels granted marginally better cross-country traction in varied terrain. Against the Soviet T-34-85, the Pershing excelled in fire control and terrain adaptability, particularly through its -10 degree gun depression, which allowed effective hull-down firing from ridges—twice the -5 degrees of the T-34-85's ZiS-S-53 gun. American optics, including the M71 with 3x to 6x , provided superior and accuracy over the T-34-85's basic TMFD-7 periscopic sight, enabling first-shot hits at longer ranges in ambushes. However, the T-34-85's design simplicity facilitated , with over 22,000 units built during compared to fewer than 2,200 Pershings, allowing Soviet forces to field numerically superior armored formations despite the Pershing's qualitative superiority in gunnery. The British Mk 3 offered a close peer in armament, with its (83.4 mm) gun delivering penetration comparable to the Pershing's 90 mm M3—both capable of defeating 150 mm of armor at 1,000 meters using APDS rounds—making them evenly matched against contemporary threats. Yet the Pershing's higher , measuring 2.98 meters to the roof, compromised and hull-down profiles relative to the Centurion's 2.92-meter , increasing vulnerability in roles. This disparity, combined with the Pershing's 42 short tons (38 t) weight versus the Centurion's approximately 40 tons, highlighted trade-offs in low-observable operations, though both tanks shared reliable GAA-derived engines for sustained mobility. In broader context, the Pershing's 90 mm armament provided a decisive upgrade over the M4 's 76 mm gun, penetrating T-34-85 frontal armor at 2,000 meters where the required closer ranges, though its 42 short tons (38 t) mass imposed logistical penalties compared to the lighter 33-ton in Korea's rugged terrain. During the , U.S. Army assessments recorded the M26 achieving favorable kill ratios against T-34-85s in major engagements like the Battle of the Bowling Alley, underscoring its effectiveness despite production limitations.

References

  1. [1]
    M26 Pershing - GlobalSecurity.org
    Jan 7, 2021 · It was the ancestor of the Patton and a long line of post-war tanks up to the M-60. Predecessor of the M48, the M47 is a descendent of the M26 ...
  2. [2]
    [PDF] The M26 Pershing: America's Forgotten Tank - Scholars Crossing
    May 11, 2018 · The second chapter focuses strictly to the M26's combat experience in the Second World. War, relying heavily upon several of the United States ...
  3. [3]
    [PDF] THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE M26 PERSHING TANK IN WORLD ...
    The T20 series project to design an improved American tank was initiated early in. World War II, but several factors combined to delay its final product. U.S. ...
  4. [4]
    History of the Pershing: T20 to M26 - Tank Archives
    Aug 14, 2014 · On September 13th, 1943, the Chief of Ordnance recommended that 500 T23 tanks be produced, 500 T25 tanks, 500 T26 tanks, and 500 T71 GMCs (an ...Missing: US | Show results with:US
  5. [5]
    [PDF] Restoration of M26 Pershing tank 'Ike'
    Aug 4, 2024 · Ford GAF; 8-cylinder, gasoline;. Displacement: 1,100 cu in. Power output: 450–500 hp at 2,600 rpm ... hydraulic options for traverse. At a ...
  6. [6]
    Medium Tank M26 Pershing - AFV Database
    Aug 27, 2024 · The M26 Pershing, first accepted in Nov 1944, had a 5-man crew, a 90mm gun, a combat weight of 92,355lbs, and a 109.4" height.
  7. [7]
    M26 Pershing: Why America's Heavy Tank Arrived Too Late for WWII
    Feb 17, 2021 · The M26 Pershing arrived too late for WWII due to delayed production, opposition, and only 20 experimental models in action, having no major ...
  8. [8]
    Long-Awaited Success - Tank Archives
    Jun 28, 2021 · Modernized tanks received the index Medium Tank M26A1. No longer a heavy: the tank was renamed Medium Tank M26 in 1946. These tanks were used ...
  9. [9]
    M26 Pershing Tank in World War II - ThoughtCo
    May 2, 2019 · The M26 Pershing was a heavy tank developed for the US Army during World War II. Conceived as a replacement for the iconic M4 Sherman.Missing: specifications | Show results with:specifications
  10. [10]
    M26 Pershing Tank Production and Serial Numbers
    ### Summary of M26 Pershing and Variants Production
  11. [11]
    M26 and M46 Tanks of the American Auto Industry
    This page will exhibit photos of the known M26/M46s built by both Chrysler and Fisher Body, and those that cannot be identified. Surviving Fisher Body and ...Missing: process | Show results with:process
  12. [12]
    [PDF] Ammo for 90mm Gun M3 - Bulletpicker
    The muzzle velocity of this round is 9,800 f/s. The armor piercing cap makes this projectile especially efficient against thick face hardened armor plate. The ...
  13. [13]
    M26 Pershing Heavy Tank / Medium Tank - Military Factory
    The M26 Pershing was developed to counter the Panzer scourge in World War 2 but arrived too late in the war to be of much tactical use.
  14. [14]
    M26 Pershing - Wardrawings
    1: turret - 2: turret roof - 3: bow, coaxial - 4: turret inside ... Ford GAF. Type & Displacement. V8, 18.0 liters. Horsepower (maximum). 450-500 hp at 2600 rpm.<|separator|>
  15. [15]
    M26 Pershing - OnWar.com
    Radio Equipment, SCR508/528. FIREPOWER. Primary Armament, 90mm Gun M3 (T7), Ammunition Carried, 70. Traverse (degrees), 360°, Elevation (degrees), -10° to +20 ...
  16. [16]
    Clash of Heavy Tanks at Cologne - Warfare History Network
    A convoy of Pershing tanks moves through a blasted German village on their way to the front on March 30, 1945. Only four days earlier these tanks were unloaded ...
  17. [17]
    Medium Tank T26E4 “Super Pershing”
    Dec 8, 2016 · Medium Tank T26E4 “Super Pershing” ; Range, 160 km (100 mi) ; Armament, T15E1 or T15E2 90 mm tank gun (2.95 in) Browning .50 cal M2HB (12.7 mm)
  18. [18]
    Super Pershing vs. King Tiger - Dessau - 3rd Armored Division
    The Super Pershing (aka T26E4-1) was equipped with a new long-barreled T15E1 90mm gun that was designed to out-perform the German high-velocity 88mm on the King ...
  19. [19]
    [PDF] South to the Naktong, North to the Yalu - GovInfo
    This volume covers U.S. Army action in Korea from the outbreak of war to the full-scale intervention of the Chinese Communists. It is the first of five volumes ...
  20. [20]
    T-34-85 vs M26 Pershing: Korea 1950 - Steven J. Zaloga - Google ...
    Using war time documents just revealed at the time, Steven Zaloga sheds light on the crucial tank battles of the Korean War ... M26 Pershing took the fight to ...
  21. [21]
    [PDF] Ebb and Flow: November 1950–July 1951 - GovInfo
    Sep 8, 1988 · This book describes military operations during the Korean War from late November 1950 to early July 1951, a period in which battle lines did.
  22. [22]
    [PDF] how did a lack of strategic and operational vision - DTIC
    Regimental Combat Team from Okinawa, a Regimental Combat Team from Hawaii, and ... In addition to these Sherman tanks, three M26 Pershing tanks that had been ...
  23. [23]
    Tanks of the Early IDF Volume 3 | Armorama™
    ... M26 'Pershing' with its 90 mm cannon. Of course, there was an attempt to mate the new turret and gun with the Sherman, but that was unsuccessful. The next ...
  24. [24]
    [PDF] US Battle Tanks 1946–2025
    The Red Army had first paraded its new IS-3 heavy ... in 1950, the US Army in ... At this time, the Army's principal tanks were the M26 Pershing and the.
  25. [25]
    [PDF] Surviving M26 Pershing Heavy Tanks - The Shadock's website
    Aug 8, 2023 · M26 Pershing – Italian 132nd Armored Brigade Ariete barracks, Pordenone (Italy) ... M26 Pershing – World War II Military Vehicle Federation Museum ...
  26. [26]
    [PDF] Forging the Shield: The U.S. Army in the Cold War, 1951-1962
    Jul 16, 2025 · ... M26 tank near Hanau, October 1951 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47. V ... specifications, construct and operate the pipeline, and. 96 HQ ...
  27. [27]
    Medium Tank M45 (T26E2)
    Jun 6, 2019 · The T26 started out as a Medium Tank, was reclassified as a Heavy Tank in 1944, and was then returned to Medium Tank status in 1945. Other than ...
  28. [28]
    M26 Pershing - Patton-Mania
    Of the 200 tanks issued to units, only twenty actually saw action. A few ... M26 were exported to Italy and France in comparatively small numbers only.
  29. [29]
    [PDF] Reasons to Improve: The Evolution of the U.S. Tank from 1945-1991
    The Korean War. The Korean War highlighted the strengths and deficiencies of the M26 and created an opportunity to improve the tank. The United States ...
  30. [30]
    The Korean War's Land Battle Legacy | Defense Media Network
    May 28, 2014 · The eventual arrival of both M26 Pershing and M46 Patton medium tanks helped to shift the armor balance in favor of U.S. forces while ...
  31. [31]
    The Pershing Tank, Part One - Avalanche Press
    Yet the M26 Pershing was an influential tank in the story of U.S. tank designs. Its story is also interesting pitting different way to see a tank against ...
  32. [32]
    [PDF] The History of Tank Development in the United States
    Apr 1, 2010 · ... M26 Pershing Heavy Tank was put into service. ... During the 1950s, the United States and the Soviets began researching antitank guided missiles.Missing: obsolescence | Show results with:obsolescence
  33. [33]
    [PDF] Field Expedient Armor Modifications to US Army Armored Vehicles
    Jun 16, 2006 · M26 medium tanks carried 4.53 inches of armor on the gun mantlet, 2.99 inches of armor on the turret sides and lower portion of the front hull ...
  34. [34]
    Pershing vs Sherman in Korea - The Dupuy Institute Forum
    Aug 6, 2001 · The sherman did have a bit larger number of permant losses compared to the M26 but very close. Roughly M4 23%, M24 21%, M26 19%, M46 23%.