information
The Heavy Tank T26E3 with registration number 30119961 was delivered to the USSR for study. It was a production vehicle, but Soviet experts designated it as experimental. During the study, NIBT Polygon specialists suggested that the T26E3 is close to the GMC T70 in the design of its main components. This assumption was partly correct, especially with regard to the design of the chassis. The fact is that it was on the GMC T70 that the Americans tested the torsion bar suspension design, which was later used on a number of American tanks and self-propelled guns based on them. On the T26E3, this similarity was no longer so obvious, which cannot be said about the T20E3 and T23E3, which used the same tracks, rollers and drive wheels as the GMC T70. The similarity was explained simply: the design of all of the listed vehicles was carried out at the Tank-automotive Center, located in Detroit. The hull design caused mixed feelings among Soviet engineers. This is largely due to the fact that the tank was positioned as heavy. The hull design itself, which used large rolled and cast elements together, aroused interest. Its advantages included large hatches in the engine compartment, which provided easy access to the units, as well as internal partitions, which increased the rigidity of the hull. The main drawback of the hull was the thickness of the armor, which was 101.6 mm in the frontal part. For a heavy tank in 1945, this was clearly not enough, and the protection of the new Soviet medium tanks, which were being tested at that moment, was already higher. The protruding fan casing between the hatches of the driver and his assistant was also called a minus. The design of fastening the final drives, which protruded beyond the dimensions of the hull, was considered unsuccessful. There was a high risk of damaging them from mines or when overcoming obstacles. One of the few complaints about the gunner’s position was the sights. The fact is that they were marked with a scale only for armor-piercing shells. It turned out to be inconvenient to shoot high-explosive fragmentation shells from a cannon, as well as fire from a machine gun using these sights. There were also complaints about the low optical magnification. The loader’s position was generally considered to be well designed, but not without its shortcomings. Shell stacks located on the floor forced the loader to perform additional movements, and this somewhat reduced the gun’s rate of fire.
It was assumed that the tank would undergo a standard test cycle, along forest roads that were fairly broken. This significantly affected the average speed, which was 18.9 km/h. It was considered good, since in more gentle road conditions the speed would have been clearly higher. The reference point was the average speed of other tanks, which were tested on the same forest roads around the same time. We are talking primarily about the IS-3 heavy tank and the T-44 medium tank. For the IS-3, the average net speed under these conditions was 14.6 km/h, and the technical speed was 11.1 km/h. For the T-44, the same figures were 17.5 and 15.5 km/h, respectively. A comparison was also made with the American M4A4 medium tank, for which the similar figures were 16.5 and 14.8 km/h, and with the German Pz.Kpfw.Panther medium tank, which in terms of characteristics is the closest analogue of the T26E3. For the German tank, similar figures were 15.8 and 11.4 km/h.
Testers called the presence of a torque converter a big advantage of the American tank. Thanks to him, there was a high throttle response of the car, which was especially noticeable on forest roads. The tank quickly picked up speed. A high smooth ride was also noted, which was ensured by a torsion bar suspension with telescopic shock absorbers. The suspension literally swallowed small bumps, due to which the average speed increased. The car accelerated to 30 km/h along a country road in 15 seconds, having covered 68 meters.
The price for using the torque converter was record fuel consumption for tanks of this weight category. Per 100 kilometers, the T26E3 consumed 585 liters of gasoline. For comparison, the IS-3 under the same conditions consumed 373 liters, and the T-44 378 liters. We must, however, take into account the fact that the IS-3 and T-44 had diesel engines. Equipped with gasoline engines, the M4A4 and Pz.Kpfw.Panther consumed 503 and 595 liters, respectively, at the same distance. Testers attributed the record fuel consumption of the T26E3 to the low efficiency of the torque converter, as well as to the fact that the engine operated at constant speeds corresponding to maximum power.
It turned out that the tank successfully overcomes slopes of 31–32 degrees, as indicated in its instructions. The data indicated by the Americans for the maximum angle of descent - 31 degrees - also corresponded to reality. The tank also overcame a slope of 35 degrees. Towing the IS-2 heavy tank with an American tank did not cause any problems, although fuel consumption increased to 160 liters per hour.
During testing, the tank demonstrated high reliability.
During shooting on the move, it was possible to achieve 40–50% hits when moving at a speed of 12–13 km/h, and 10–20% when moving at a speed of 24–26 km/h. Unlike the M4A2(76)W, the tank did not have a gyroscopic gun stabilizer, which greatly affected the firing results. Tests on the stability of the hull during firing gave quite satisfactory results.
The results of testing the gun for penetration were also very controversial. When firing, two types of armor-piercing projectiles were used: the sharp-headed M77 without an armor-piercing tip and the sharp-headed M82 with an armor-piercing and ballistic tip. For shooting, separate plates of the German heavy tank Pz.Kpfw.Tiger Ausf.E were used, installed at different angles. Based on the test results, it turned out that the M77 projectile penetrates an 82 mm thick plate at an inclination angle of 50 degrees at a distance of 1300 m. In general, this result was found to be similar to the data of the German 88-mm KwK 36 cannon. The results are good, but the fact is that on German tanks, especially heavy ones, had much more powerful guns. Also, the American gun turned out to be slightly better than the 85 mm Soviet S-53 gun, but was worse than the 100 mm D-10 gun.
The not entirely deserved status of a heavy tank and the extremely ambiguous test results in this regard became the reason for a rather harsh verdict. While recognizing a number of positive qualities of the T26E3, testers considered the T26E3 to not meet modern requirements. But in fact, the T26E3 was not a heavy tank, but a medium one. And the conclusion of Soviet experts that this was an experienced tank turned out to be a big mistake. The Heavy Tank T26E3 fought quite successfully in the last months of World War II. At the same time, the verdict about the weakness of his armor based on the results of the battles was confirmed.
5 years later, the M26 Pershing, already in the status of a medium tank, fought in Korea. There his opponents turned out to be T-34-85, which he was significantly superior to. Be that as it may, testers should not be accused of underestimating the American tank. Formally, it was listed as heavy, which is why Soviet experts compared it with German heavy tanks, as well as with the IS-3. The tank tested in the USSR did not survive to this day: at the end of the tests, it went to Leningrad, from where it never returned.
