The M-26 would have made a big difference, and saved a lot of American lives.
I've heard that one of the people that kept it out of the war as log as it was (it was ready much earlier than it showed up) was General Patton. His feelings were that we needed "lots" of something. We could win with numbers, which we did. The M-26 doesn't lend itself as well to mass production and mass transportation. Not like the Sherman.
I think it is ironic that the man that kept it out of the war, had a later version names after him! i.e. M-46 Patton.

Such is the American way.

105 mm for t28 and t29???


i agree it has a good armor but its guns are underpowered

the t-28 at least deserves the "long tom" for its main armament

105mm was not underpowered at the time. The Germans where sporting the 88mm and HV 75mm.

well ya, but compared with 152s and 122s of the soviet tanks they were far underclass in terms of armament

plus soviet shells tend to have more projectile than propellant

Definatly the King Tiger, big bad and a whole lot of firepower. kinda slow though.

What we really needed was a combat version of the t-28. The one built was for offensive maneuvers against the siegfried line in germany. I bet american engineers could've built an awesome battle ready super heavy tank with a 130+mm cannon. This could've of spurred on a whole generation of super heavy tanks during the cold war. Imagine.

well tank building often comes from two sources, experience and expertise

in this case the unitedstates has only a bit of experience when it strated to mass produce tanks and it has alot of experitise

however compared with countries like the soviet union and germany in which mass expense of plains alloweed huge tank battles and experience. the united states definetly lacks tank capabilities, though throughout wqorld war 2 gathered experienced and produced good tanks, at a later date

Originally Posted by Urbanboy

well ya, but compared with 152s and 122s of the soviet tanks they were far underclass in terms of armament

plus soviet shells tend to have more projectile than propellant

At the expense of amount of rounds stored, the su 122/152, js 2/3 had very poor ammunition storage capability, another point is caliber of weapons.......the 88 L71 installed on king tiger tanks had a greater armor penatration than the russian 122mm carried on the js 2/3 series, just as the panthers 75 L70 was equal to the 90mm american gun carried by the m36, m26, the british 17lb'er was a very potent tank gun as well. Judging by the barrel lenght of that 105mm on those 2 american heavy tank/destroyer, it would be close to or equal to the jadgtigers 128mm, the most powerful tank/tank destroyer in terms of armor penetration.

DUDE, CHECK YOUR EVIDENCE SUPPORTING UR COMMENTS, 122MM A-19 HEAVY-GUN HAS MORE PENTRATION POWER THAN 88MM-L71

NOT REALLY ALOT OF SHELLS ARE NEEDED, SINCE THE ROLE OF TANK DESORYERS AND HEAVY TANKS ARE TO OPEN UP THE FRONT, LEAD AN HEAVY TANK ATTACK AND PUNCH THROUGH THE FORNTLINE, THIS TORN IN ENEMY LINES WILL ENABLE MEDIUM TANKS LIKE T-34-85S TO EXPLOIT THE OPENING

Admin edit: Please do not use ALL CAPS! Thanks

Originally Posted by Urbanboy

DUDE, CHECK YOUR EVIDENCE SUPPORTING UR COMMENTS, 122MM A-19 HEAVY-GUN HAS MORE PENTRATION POWER THAN 88MM-L71

NOT REALLY ALOT OF SHELLS ARE NEEDED, SINCE THE ROLE OF TANK DESORYERS AND HEAVY TANKS ARE TO OPEN UP THE FRONT, LEAD AN HEAVY TANK ATTACK AND PUNCH THROUGH THE FORNTLINE, THIS TORN IN ENEMY LINES WILL ENABLE MEDIUM TANKS LIKE T-34-85S TO EXPLOIT THE OPENING

Admin edit: Please do not use ALL CAPS! Thanks

Once again, the 88 L71 had better armor penetration than the D25 s/t 122mm series tank gun, even reducing the penetration 25% due to diffrent testing methods, it's within 1mm which proves my original point that the caliber of the weapon doesn't necessarily prove it is superior.


The main drawback of the JS 2 series tanks was in fact it's small magazine, and this is from a russian military history web site I might add.