Suggestion: M26 Pershing heavy tank for the U.S.

Since the rare Sherman M4A3E2 “Jumbo” is going to be included, would the team consider eventually including the M26 Pershing?
Pleeeeasse?? :laughing: Even if you don’t have the time to do it now, could it be added to the list of things-to-do-eventually?
310 were used in Europe, which is more than the total number of Jumbos even produced (254).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M26_Pershing
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/usa/tanks-heavy/m26.asp (lots of info here)

It did make a number of kills (including Tigers) during WWII.

With its 90mm gun and thicker frontal armor, it would give the U.S. a fighting chance to compete in tank duels
with the Tigers I & II and the Panther. It would have to be expensive with a slow production rate though,
to reflect the limited amount that were actually fielded in WWII. Plus it was apparently not the fastest tank, so it
wouldn’t be like giving the U.S. some kind of superweapon.

[size=150]1945 USA M26 Heavy Tank Pershing

Armament: 1 - 90mm gun
1 - 0.3" coaxial MG
1 - 0.3" hull mounted MG
1 - 0.5" AA MG
Engine: Ford GAF, V-8 gas, 500 hp
Speed: 30 mph
Range: 92 miles
Crew: 5
Weight: 42 tons
Entered service in 1945. Saw service in Korea in the
1950’s. Ancestor of the Patton and a long line of
post-war tanks up to the M-60. With a 90 mm gun.
it could meet the Tiger and Panther on equal terms.
With the long barreled gun, heavy armor and Ford V-8
engine, this was the best American tank of WWII.
The most significant deficiency noted was the poor
power-to-weight ratio due to the Ford engine. Although
adequate for the 35 ton Sherman, it caused the M-26 to
be grossly underpowered.[/size]
(taken from M26 Pershing)

Well since i joind this team the game was called Spring 1944 and today wow its calld Spring 1944 too.
^^
If im right and if i remember well, someone said the Pershing came to late for the allies, same like this crusader tank which never faced a german tank. just my mind… cuz i want the battleship bismarck xD

Two months too late :slight_smile:

Dang. Forgot about the name. Well maybe if the name ever changes to Spring: WWII then…
:no4:

If that happened units like the Pershing could be added and the side selection expanded to allow players to pick between different time periods, like Germany '40, Russia '43, U.S. '45. Things could vary between time periods, like Germany having supply issues during the later part of the war etc.

Of course it’s all up to the devs. But my 2 cents is that Spring: WWII would be a much more memorable name than Spring: 1944. :smiley:

We’re the first google result for “1944 rts.” and “spring 1944”

I don’t think we’ll be changing the name any time soon. Thanks though.

wow my German wiki article about Spring 1944 is on second place ^^ (google search --> “Spring 1944”) (unfinished)

Well, even if the name ‘Spring 1944’ stays, that does not mean you have to be extremely rigid on what to include. For instance, we might consider variants of the game based on 1939, 1940 etc up to 1945 equipment.

If a tank from 1939 happen to coexist together with a tank belonging to year 1945 on the battlefield, that would not necessarily ruin the game for me. But that’s just me, other people might have other preferences when it comes to what parts of realism it is that is essential and not.

Mod option to set the year in the battle, and en/disable units based on this setting :slight_smile:

Would be a hell to balance though. OTOH I think it would be very cool if Canseco(?) could pull of a Spring: 1940 mod of Spring: 1944, in particular if it actually plays reasonably similar to be easy to pick up and is sufficiently different to be worth playing instead of Spring: 1944 sometimes.

i personally dont think it make sense just for one faction maybe mods alla Battlefield

ex. Spring 1944 Special Weapons xD

:smiley: (makes a merry dance of enthusiasm)

Oh, and combine that with a sensible FPS mode (and perhaps network code that makes FPS even smoother…)

Ok. I’ll stop now. I won’t go down that soooo tempting path…

(Back to topic… Yes, Pershing looks cool. It really looks like the ‘default archetype of a tank’ to me, if such an archetype ever existed).

I always felt that way about Chieftain;

looks like a tank…

1944 was always just a guide, not a definitive date where everything had to happen. There are plenty of units in S:44 that weren’t even in service in 1944, but rather 1943, etc.

I like the Pershing, my favorite US tank (of the war).

A design decision was made awhile ago between the Jumbo and the Pershing. We wanted to give the US something a bit extra and special. Either the super-armored Sherman assault tank or the heavy Pershing tank. In the end we went with the Jumbo because it was more “conforming” to the US being all about Shermans, Shermans, Shermans, and having that disadvantage in tanks against Germany and having to deal with it through either outnumbering them (10 Shermans vs 1 Tiger II) or aircraft (the ground-attack Mustang being the US’ primary tool for killing heavy enemy tanks). However I’d rather see the M36 Jackson tank destroyer (which uses the same 90mm gun) as a more “limited” application of that large-caliber weaponry before the Pershing. Jacksons WERE used quite a bit. I think we even have the model lying around somewhere.

+1. In fact, my crazy idea would be to remove the M4A3(76) and put in the M36 and M18. This would emphasize the US tank destroyer doctrine. Plus I think the 80 kph M18 would be fun to use.

Spiked, the debate was jackson vs jumbo. we went for jumbo for ‘sherman sherman sherman’ and so US wasn’t oddly good at AT.

Well just to say it:

The Pershing was basicly ready in October 1944 BUT the ammo for the 90mm was shipped in the pacific lol so maybe we should think about to include it i mean… it would be something equal against the tiger I but not better then the King Tiger or Jagdpanther/tiger.

I read that on the German wiki.

“Im Februar 1945 wurden die ersten zehn Pershings bei der 3. Armored Division unter General Maurice Rose erstmals eingesetzt. Eigentlich sollte er bereits im Oktober 1944 zum Einsatz kommen, doch durch einen unglücklichen Zufall wurden zwar die zwölf Panzer nach Frankreich eingeschifft, die benötigte 90-mm-Munition wurde jedoch in Richtung Pazifik verschickt”

Translated with google:

“In February 1945 the first ten Pershing at the 3rd Armored Division under General Maurice Rose first used. He should already be used in October 1944, but by an unfortunate accident while the twelve tanks were shipped to France, the required 90-mm ammunition, but was sent out towards the Pacific”

Sure but… on that yellow sign it says “MEDIUM TANK”. The rest is too small to read.

Pershing wasnt 1944 ,but M36 was at 1944 .

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M36_tank_destroyer

Maybe only with the heavy upgrade(tankyard) since it had 108mm front armour.