Video: Historically Accurate Panzer '46 - Heavy Tank M26 Pershing

The Americans were the first to get their next generation tank to the battlefield in 1945. How did it fare and what upgrades did they test out that could have been applied to the design had the war gone on for a little longer? Find out in my latest video.

A Medium Tank with a Heavy Burden

The heaviest American tank at the start of the Second World War was the Medium Tank M2. It looked like an anachronism compared to other tanks in the same class, and so it was quickly replaced by the Medium Tank M3. The M3 was also a temporary measure, and even having completed the Medium Tank M4 the American tank designers were not resting on their laurels. Work on the Sherman's successor began as the tank was just being put into production. The Medium Tank T26E1 was meant to replace the Sherman, but after a number of changes in its development cycle it entered production in a completely different weight class.

Origin of species

The concept of a new generation of tanks formed in May of 1942. The basic tank had a 76 mm gun and was lower than the M4, which allowed the designers to add more armour without exceeding the weight of its predecessor. The tank also used an automatic gearbox. The Ordnance Committee gave permission to build two prototypes indexed Medium Tank T20. 

The number of experimental tanks multiplied. Since it wasn't clear how well the idea of an automatic gearbox is going to work out, the army decided to play it safe and also build the Medium Tank T22 using components already tried and tested in the Sherman tank as well as the Medium Tank T23 with an electric transmission that showed itself well in the Heavy Tank T1E1. Each tank had three types of armament. The basic tank would get a 76 mm M1 gun, E1 variants were equipped with a 75 mm gun and an autoloader, E2 variants received the 3" M7 gun from the GMC M10. There was also an E3 variant. These tanks had the 76 mm gun but also a torsion bar suspension.

The Medium Tank T23 surpassed the Sherman in both armament and armour, but the army's appetites had grown beyond what it could offer.

A Sequel with Improvements

The American Heavy Tank T26E3 was standardized as the Heavy Tank M26 on March 29th, 1945. This stage was preceded by front line trials where the vehicle that the Americans spent so much time and effort building showed itself pretty well. Standardization was a green light for mass production. The end of the war limited the production volume to 2022 units, so the M26 never replaced the Medium Tank M4. It seemed that the end of production would herald in a new tank that had better armour and armament, but that was not the case. The first American post-war tank was the Medium Tank M46 or Patton, effectively a modernized M26.

A Questionable Finish

The American tank industry finished WW2 in a strange position. On one hand, the Americans achieved an impressive amount. Starting the war with a few hundred light tanks and a few dozen medium ones, the Americans quickly caught up and in some ways even overtook the leading tank building nations of the world. The Medium Tank M4 was one of the finest medium tanks in the world when it was built. The Americans also achieved great things in SPG development. However, the Americans were in a difficult position by the end of the war. The looming crisis was not so obvious in 1945, but if one digs a bit deeper then the situation in American tank building begins to seem a lot more dire.

Long-Awaited Success

The last two years of WW2 were difficult for American tank building. Their first few wartime tanks were quite modern and even surpassed those of leading tank building nations of the time, but a wave of failures followed, resulting in them falling behind. Mass production of the planned replacement of the Medium Tank M4 only began in November of 1944, and officially this was a heavy tank to boot. This article tells the tale of the M26 Pershing, a tank with a complex but ultimately successful history.

Just Add Armour

 The caleidoscope of various vehicles based on the Heavy Tank T26E3 shows how difficult the situation was with American heavy tanks. The T26E3 was really a medium tank, especially when it came to armour. Several variants were developed to make it into a true heavy, from installing more powerful armament to a thorough modernization that resulted in the Heavy Tank T32. The simplest variant was the Heavy Tank T26E5 where the designers decided to limit themselves to thickening the tank's armour.

Pershing on Steroids

The history of the American heavy tank building program during the years of WW2 is very messy. On one hand, there was a standardized Heavy Tank M6, which quickly became obsolete. On the other hand, a whole three heavy tanks were in development by the spring of 1945. The first, the Heavy Tank T28, had little resemblance to a tank. The second, the Heavy Tank T29, was the highest priority. Finally, the Heavy Tank T32, the development of which began later than all the rest, was built a year and a half earlier than the T29. Even though the tank was just an "overfed" M26 Pershing, it ended up as the best protected American classic heavy tank built in the 1940s.

When Late is not Better than Never

The saying "fast enough is well enough" applies to a whole slew of armoured vehicles that arrived too late to take part in the war. One of them was the Heavy Tank T29, the next tank after the M6 to be built in any kind of series. This tank was supposed to be America's answer to the Tiger Ausf.B. The Americans got their King Tiger, but only two years after WWII ended. At that point the Heavy Tank T29 looked rather obsolete.

Pershing With A Long Hand

The opinion that America could win the war with tanks it already had in production was common at the start of 1944. This attitude backfired in the summer of 1944, when it turned out that even the M4A1(76)W with the 76 mm M1 gun was only a partial solution to fighting German tanks. American tanks were taking heavy losses from German Panthers on the battlefield. Another big surprise was the appearance of a new German tank in July of 1944, the Pz.Kpfw. Tiger Ausf. B, also known as the Tiger II. It turned out that no American tank gun was capable of penetrating it from the front. A search for a worthy opponent for these armoured monsters resulted in the creation of the T26E4 Super Pershing and some other variants of the Pershing with long-barreled cannons.

The Future of Tanks

"Theses of the report by the commander of the Armoured and Mechanized Forces in the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany, Marshal of the Armoured Forces Rotmistrov, titled "Tanks of the Soviet and Foreign Armies Presently, and the Potential of Their Development"

March 24th, 1947

Overall conclusions regarding the tanks of WWII and the potential of its development:

1. Due to the thickening of armour and gun calibers, light tanks are departing from the battlefield. The amount of medium and heavy tanks is increasing.

Pershing: Heavy by Necessity

The British Churchill tank was the only one supplied to the USSR by the Western Allies en masse. The US had bad luck with heavy tanks. Work on the Heavy Tank M6 hit a dead end. Nevertheless, heavy tanks did arrive in the American army by the end of the war. These were Heavy Tanks T26E3, standardized as M26 Pershing. However, the T26E3 was rather arbitrarily classified as heavy. In practice, this was a medium tank. Only its mass made it a heavy, and even then, it returned to medium after the war. This article is dedicated to the trials of the T26E3 in the USSR, during which it was compared to heavy tanks.

Last Request

"Report on the requests of imported armoured vehicles as a part of the 5th protocol

Super Bazooka: Improved Antitank Fist

During WWII, M1 and M9 "Bazooka" rocket launchers were considered good weapons, although their penetration was inadequate to reliably penetrate medium tanks, and nearly useless against their front armour. American engineers decided to solve this problem by increasing the caliber of the weapon. Work began in 1943, but mass production of the new RPG only got off the ground after the start of the war in Korea, where old bazookas proved ineffective against the T-34-85.

Tank Reliability in the Korean War

In a previous article, I took a look at how many vehicles managed to reach the battlefield, and how many broke on the way there. Let's take a look at similar figures from several other sources. "The Employment of Armor in Korea, Volume I" by ORO contains information on the reliability of T-34-85 and SU-76, based on knocked out enemy vehicles.

First, T-34-85s.

Only 2% tanks lost to mechanical failure! Even assuming that no tanks were abandoned due to cowardice, a lack of fuel, or some other other such cause, that is only 27.5% of all losses. An improvement over T-34 tanks in 1942, especially considering that the conditions these tanks operated in could, at best, be described as suboptimal.

In short, no spare parts, no tools, and maintenance instructions out of the window, certainly harsher conditions than Soviet tanks faced.

Now, SU-76es.

Even better, no vehicles lost to breakdowns and 22% abandonment. Sadly, I have no Soviet SU-76 or even T-70 figures to compare them to.

Not so bad, right? Let's see what the Americans achieved under the same conditions.

These are some pretty sad figures, over 70% lost due to non-enemy action. Much higher than Soviet tanks in the same theater, and the Americans had the advantage of training and engineering vehicles present.

American Tanks in the Korean War

I haven't come across any definitive report of on any tank in Korea, but pulling bits and pieces from various reports is enough to obtain some impression of how American armour performed.

The Sherman's deficiency in off-road conditions is no big secret, having been explored in the famous Swedish video. 

The inadequate HE shell of the 76 mm Sherman previously popped up in WWII era reports. When the only alternative was the 75 mm gun and tough enemy armour was plentiful, this was a drawback that could be begrudgingly accepted. However, in situations where enemy tanks were rare and powerful 90 mm guns were more common, it's hard not to be jealous. 

Speaking of anti-infantry weapons, bigger explosives weren't the only things that were needed.

The anti-tank capability of the Sherman is considered adequate.

While a 45 or a 76 mm gun would find the front armour of a Sherman a difficult target, the statement about the T-34-85 doesn't stand up during the famous Yugoslavian trials. When tested, the tanks appeared roughly matched, with the Sherman penetrating the T-34-85 from 900-1100 meters with armour piercing rounds, and the T-34-85 penetrating the Sherman from 1000-1100 meters. The tests also showed that the ZiS-3 could indeed penetrate the front of a Sherman, but only at a very close range (250 meters).

While the Sherman gets praise, the heavier tanks, not so much.

Yikes, 60% is not a good number. The phrasing of the evaluation of American tanks vs. the T-34-85 is interesting, as though the writer of the report had significantly more respect for the tanks he was fighting than the people in them, an opinion which appears in other reports as well.

T26 Variants

The development process of the Heavy Tank, M26 "General Pershing" resulted in a number of modifications that received their own designations.

T26

Aside from the ten T26E1 pilot vehicles, a T26 with an electric transmission was also built, and shipped to Fort Knox for trials. As of April 10th, 1945, it travelled 1200 miles, with 224 hours and 38 minutes of operation time. The electric transmission is described to have "stood up very well", not requiring excessive maintenance.

T26E2

In October of 1944, a wooden mock-up of the T26E1 with a 105 mm howitzer is completed. In January of 1945, the project is formally approved, at which point the vehicle is renamed T26E2.

T26E4

A 90 mm gun with improved ballistic performance, designated T15, was ordered, with 100 units recommended for procurement on December 21st, 1944. The gun was originally designed for one-piece ammunition, but it was uncomfortably long. A variant of the gun with two-piece ammunition was also developed, designated T15E2. A pilot vehicle was sent to Aberdeen for a test firing, and shipped overseas afterwards. Tanks carrying the T15E2 were designated T26E4 on March 1st, 1945, and 1000 such vehicles were authorized in lieu of M26 tanks. Characteristics of the vehicle were expected to remain the same, except for an increased in mass of 3500 pounds. Drawings for the production model and a second pilot vehicle were nearly complete on April 10th, 1945, with the first such vehicle scheduled for completion on May 15th, 1945.

A replacement of the T15E2 90 mm gun was ordered by Major General G.M. Barnes to obtain a more desirable balance condition and use one-piece ammunition. The gun was mounted further forward in the turret to free up space in the fighting compartment, requiring the use of an equilibrator system to correct the 80,000 pound imbalance. Approximately 40 of the new rounds would fit into a T26E4 tank with a redesigned ammo rack. A pilot vehicle was scheduled for completion on October 1st, 1945. 

T26E5

The success of the M4A3E2 "Jumbo" Sherman led to research into an equivalent modification of the T26 tank. This modification had the effective armour of 8 inches in the front, as well as a new equilibrator, to offset the heavier gun mantlet. The vehicle's weight was estimated to be 97,000, but the tracks were widened with 5 inch wide connectors, making the vehicle's ground pressure 11.5 psi. The width of the tank with these tracks was 143 inches, 124 inches for railroad transport. The recommendation to perform this modification of the T26E3 and name it T26E5 was submitted on January 18th, 1945, and approved on February 8th. On March 29th, 1945, it was recommended that the thickness of the front armour be increased further, and 27 of these tanks be produced. The new T26E5 would have:

• A 6 inch thick UFP positioned at 46.5 degrees
• A 4 inch thick LFP positioned at 54 degrees
• An 11 inch thick unsloped gun mantlet
• Increased equilibrator capacity
• Increased thickness of the front turret ring splash guard
• Decreased width of the rear portion of the hull escape hatch doors to eliminate a turret weak spot

The weight of the vehicle increased to 107,000 pounds, and ground pressure grew to 12.1 psi. The vehicle was thought to be capable of speeds that could seriously damage the two front bogies on rough terrain, and modifications to the shock absorbers, torsion bars, and wheel bearings were designed, just in case. However, these changes did not make it to the production line, as it was decided to perform them on an individual basis. 

These changes made the tank unwieldy. The only bridge capable of carrying it would be the M4 Floating Bridge, at a current speed of less than 5 miles per hour. The bridge, only 148 inches wide, could not safely accommodate a T26E5 when extended track connectors were uses. A T26E5 was built and delivered to the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in July of 1945. 

Planned modifications 

In 1946, the design was scheduled to be upgraded to use a new 105 mm gun (not a howitzer), with a new transmission, a 750 hp Ford 12-cylinder engine, and a longer chassis. It is planned that the production of this new tank will be possible without significant changes to the T26 production process.

A 155 mm gun was also planned, capable of penetrating a 6 inch armour plate at 2000 yards, but also capable of firing a 95-lb HE shell, as well as a gun "of greater power and velocity than the 105-mm. gun... [with] muzzle velocity of about 3,500 feet per second normal and 4,800 feet per second with the tungsten carbide projectile". The T26 has been sufficiently future-proofed, according to the author. "These development programs will provide the American Army again in 1945 with the most powerful and best tank on the battlefield, and should the war continue, will provide our troops with a still more powerful tank in 1946."

History of the Pershing: T20 to M26

I've posted about American T20 series tanks before, but not in significant detail. This article will go into much more detail about the T20 tank and its descendants that ultimately resulted in the M26 Pershing tank. Since the supplier of these documents did not wish for them to be reproduced fully, this article series will only contain photographs from the scanned documents.

While the Ordnance Department was working on Sherman tanks armed with a 76 mm gun and a 105 mm howitzer, another project was underway to produce an entirely new medium tank. The new tank would have the same engine, transmission, and suspension as the Sherman, but a lower silhouette and a turret mounting a 76 mm gun. The next step in the project would be an upgrade to a 90 mm gun and use an improved electric transmission. In parallel, a heavier design that also mounted the 90 mm gun was being developed. This project, approved on May 25th, 1942, resulted in the T20, T23, T25, and T26 tanks.

The Army did not appreciate the results of the program. 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 M10 tank destroyer with a 90 mm gun). The Commanding General of the Army Service Forces declined this recommendation on October 4th. A T23 with a 90 mm gun was built and shown to various high ranking officers, but the army was "not in favour of the 90-mm gun" as there was never a specific request for this gun, nor did it fit into the 30-ton weight limit. 250 T23 tanks armed with 76 mm guns, as well as 40 T25s and 10 T26es were approved on June 3rd, 1943. Development of these tanks progressed well enough for 500 additional units of each type to be requested in September, but the Director of the Requirements Division advised that "the proposal to build these additional quantities was not favourably considered at this time". However, when the Ordnance Department repeated the request in December of 1943, they were given permission to produce 250 additional T26 tanks (260 in total).

The electric transmission was deemed too heavy during the design process, and replaced with a Torqmatic in the two heavier designs, resulting in the T25E1 and T26E1 tanks.

The first T26E1 was completed by Fisher Tank Division, and arrived at Aberdeen on March 6th, 1944. A demonstration was held on March 30th, with the Secretary of War, Chief of Staff, and other high ranking military members present. The demonstration was impressive enough that "this new tank, which is superior to all known tanks" was approved for large scale production. At this point, the tank is described as having "...three speed Torqmatic transmission to increase the mobility of the vehicle and decrease driver fatigue, and a torsion bar suspension and 24-in. center-guide track to increase maneuverability and dependability in the field. The tracks were driven by the rear sprocket. Power was supplied by a 500-hp Ford GAF engine. Thicker armour was used for added protection, thicknesses of up to 4 1/2 in. on the turret front being used. One of the outstanding features of the vehicle was the use of the 90-mm Gun M3, which fired a 24-pound projectile capable of piercing a 4-in. armor plate at 2,000 yards."

Another demonstration was held in April of 1944, showing the T25E1 and T26E1 to the Secretary of War, Undersecretary of War, and Generals Marshall, McNair, McNarney, Porter, Weldron, Clay, Maxwell, Somervell, and Styer.

The tanks continued trials at Aberdeen until May 21st, 1944, racking up 1593 miles on the first pilot vehicle and 569 on the second. The overall design of the vehicle was considered sound, and the transmission, suspension, and gun were satisfactory. However, there were problems with cooling the engine and differential, oil leaks, repeated failure of the connection between the engine and flywheel, and the ammunition rack was deemed unsatisfactory. The vehicle was also found to be very wide. It was only possible to use the 60-ton Bailey bridge (among many others, the photograph of crossing a Bailey bridge is missing from the document) if the curb was removed, or protected with timber. Aberdeen gave the recommendation to put the tank into production, provided that the aforementioned defects were corrected.

T26E1 crossing the Trestle Bridge. A scribble across the medium classification indicates that this photo was archived not long before the classification changed.

Efforts to correct the defects were made from May 22nd to September 10th, by which point the first vehicle accumulated 4025 miles and the second 1805 miles. A new Ford V-8 engine operated satisfactorily for 1500 miles. Among many modifications made to the vehicle was a mount for a crane capable of carrying the tank's power train.

 On June 29th, 1944, the designation of the vehicle changed again, this time from "Medium Tank, T26E1" to "Heavy Tank, T26E1". The tank is described as "It has a weight of 43 tons, a maximum of 4" of armor giving 6.9" basis for frontal plates, and 24" tracks. Except for weight, thickness, and track width, it resembles the medium tank, T25E1".

2750 T26E1 heavy tanks were ordered, and 3188 T26E1 tanks armed with a 105 mm howitzer (later designated T26E2), despite the fighting compartment of the latter not having been designed yet. At this point, 122 T23 tanks have been made (including a prototype made in November of 1943), with the remaining 128 tanks due by October of 1944, 40 T25E1 tanks have already been manufactured, and 6053 T26 tanks are required for 1944 and 1945. 10 T26E1 tanks with 90 mm guns have been produced up to this point, with 105 more to come before the end of the year. The remainder of required T26E1 tanks armed with 90 mm guns and all T26E1 tanks armed with 105 mm howitzers will be produced in 1945.

Development of a tungsten carbide HVAP shell for the 90 mm gun began in July 1944, with the objective of penetrating a 6 inch plate at a 30 degree angle at 2000 yards.

The development of a T25E1 and T26E1 armed with a 75 and a 76 mm gun was ordered by the Commanding General, Army Ground Forces, on July 15th, 1944, but the Ordnance Department requested a low priority for this development, citing that "the 75-mm gun is now furnished in quantity in the Light Tank M24, the medium tanks of the M4 series, and the Assault Tank M4A3E2. The 76-mm gun is now being produced in quantity on the medium tanks of the M4 series."

The 10 finished T26E1s weren't sitting around gathering dust. As of November 10th, 1944, they went through approximately 20000 miles of testing, resulting in more changes to the design, such as a 23 inch track. Research continued into improving the cooling, braking, and ballistic performance of the vehicle.

In December of 1944, the tank was considered "far superior to any tank of equal speed or weight" by the Ordnance Committee. At this point, the improved tank was renamed T26E3, to avoid confusion with the ten pilot vehicles. Twenty tanks were shipped to Europe on February 7th, 1945, on the "Heavy Tank Mission", accompanied by Major General G.M. Barnes of the Ordnance Department. Ten tanks entered action on February 23rd, 1945, with the Third Armoured Division. A few days later, the other ten went into battle with the Ninth Armoured. 

The Heavy Tank, T26E3, nicknamed "General Pershing", was standardized as the Heavy Tank, M26 on March 29th, 1945.

Cross-section diagram of Heavy Tank M26 showing interior arrangement.

Lever Forces

Driving a tank is not like driving a car. In order to turn, you do not simply turn a wheel, but must wrestle with levers controlling an engine with many hundreds of horsepowers, dragging a beast that weighs tens of tons. That is not an easy task. CAMD RF 38-11355-2884 (from litl-bro's repository) covers the forces involved in driving a T-34-85 and an IS-3.

The span the levers travel was divided into 6 equal parts. Forces for the first 5 include only the force to move the lever, but forces for the last part include the force to bring the friction clutch into action and stop the tank completely.

The first vehicle that is tested is a T-34-85 #381105 from factory #112 (Krasonye Sormovo). This tank travelled 1010 km before this test. 

Lever position	Force in kg		Difference in kg
	Right lever	Left lever
1	21.5	24.0	2.5
2	26.0	30.0	4.0
3	28.5	33.0	4.5
4	34.0	37.0	3.0
5	33.0	37.0	4.0
6	29.0	34.0	5.0

Now, for turning the tank in place.

Gear	Force in kg		Difference in kg	Turn radius
	Right lever	Left lever
1	37	34	3	In place (180 degrees)
2	40	38	2	Same
3	40	39	1	8 meters (extrapolated from 90 degree turn)

Next is another T-34-85, #872024, from factory #174 (Voroshilov factory). This tank travelled 1002 km before these trials.

Lever position	Force in kg		Difference in kg
	Right lever	Left lever
1	26.0	24.5	1.5
2	29.0	30.0	1.0
3	33.0	32.0	1.0
4	37.0	37.0	0
5	37.0	37.0	0
6	35.0	35.0	0

Gear	Force in kg		Difference in kg	Turn radius
	Right lever	Left lever
1	42	39	3	In place (180 degrees)
2	46	44	2	Same
3	46	45	1	8 meters (extrapolated from 90 degree turn)

Next is a T-34-85 #664479 from factory #183 (HPZ). The tank was basically new, just out of factory trials, and travelled 100 km. 

Lever position	Force in kg		Difference in kg
	Right lever	Left lever
1	23.0	23.5	0.5
2	28.5	27.0	1.5
3	30.0	29.0	1.0
4	35.0	35.5	0.5
5	37.5	37.0	0.5
6	36.0	34.5	1.5

Gear	Force in kg		Difference in kg	Turn radius
	Right lever	Left lever
1	38	36	2	In place (180 degrees)
2	44	41	3	Same
3	44.5	44	1.5	8 meters (extrapolated from 90 degree turn)

As you can see, the new tank does a little bit better. 

Now, for the IS-3. The tank travelled 500 km before trials. The lever range was split into only three sections:

1. From the initial position to first position (the planetary mechanism friction clutch is off, the small brake belt is taut).
2. First position to second (brake belt of the stopper drum is taut).
3. Brake belt of the stopper is at maximum tautness. 

Lever position	Force in kg		Difference in kg
	Right lever	Left lever
1	32	30	2
2	16	16	0
3	30.0	30	0

The IS-3 is heavier, but more modern. As a result, driving it does not take more force than driving a T-34, and sometimes, much less force.

Lever position	Force in kg		Difference in kg
	Right lever	Left lever
1	23.0	23.5	0.5
2	28.5	27.0	1.5
3	30.0	29.0	1.0
4	35.0	35.5	0.5
5	37.5	37.0	0.5
6	36.0	34.5	1.5

Now, for turning around:

Gear	Forces to move the lever from the initial position to the first (smooth turn)		Turn radius in meters	Forces to move the lever from the first position to the full position (turn in place)
	Right lever	Left lever		Right lever	Left lever
1	30	29	14	25	25
2	29	27	14	22-35	22-35
3	28	28	15	20-40	20-40
4	26	26	15	18-40	18-40
5	24	24	Maneuver not performed
6	20	23
7	16	20

CAMD RF 38-11355-2890 contains similar measurements for a much larger set of tanks. The conditions for turning around are different: instead of a half-turn or a quarter-turn, tanks made multiple turns. The first turn did not count, and only the subsequent turns (where the mud that was removed by the first turn did not affect the trial) were recorded.

The following tanks underwent trials:

• T26E3 (Pershing), having travelled 1030 km
• M4A2(76) (Sherman), 4000 km
• M24 (Chaffee), 1200 km
• Jagdtiger, 260 km (this specific one)
• Panther, 648 km
• Tiger H, 900 km
• Comet, 1100 km
• T-34-85, 1010 km
• T-44, 570 km

First, the tanks that can neutral steer:

Name	Right lever forces	Left lever forces	Difference	Note
Panther	5	5	0	Tank turned easily
Jagdtiger	5	5	0	SPG turned easily
Comet	20	21	1	Tank turned after three attempts

Then all of them in first gear.

Name	Radius (meters)	Right lever force	Left lever force	Difference
T26E3	9.5	35	34	1
M4A2(76)	10	30	30	0
M24	7	12	11	1
Panther	6	6	6	0
Jagdtiger	7	4.5	4.5	0
Comet	3	16	18	2
T-34-85	In place	32	34	2
T-44	In place	13	12	1
IS-3	In place	41	39	2
Tiger H	6	13	14	1

The next table's turns were also done in first gear, but for a radius of 10 meters (the worst radius in the previous table).

Name	Right lever force	Left lever force	Difference
T26E3	34	32	2
M4A2(76)	30	30	0
M24	13	14	1
Panther	5	5	0
Jagdtiger	5	5	0
Comet	14	15	1
T-34-85	30	30	0
T-44	11	10	1
IS-3	32	32	0
Tiger H	10	12	2

Let's try a slightly easier task, turning in first gear with a 15 meter radius.

Name	Right lever force	Left lever force	Difference
T26E3	22	25	2
M4A2(76)	22	23	1
M24	9	9	0
Panther	5	5	0
Jagdtiger	5	5	0
Comet	12	12	0
T-34-85	27	29	2
T-44	10	10	0
IS-3	30	31	1
Tiger H	10	12	2

Minimum radius again, this time in second gear:

Name	Right lever force	Left lever force	Difference
T26E3	37	39	2
M4A2(76)	34	35	1
M24	16	17	1
Panther	12	15	3
Jagdtiger	5	5	0
Comet	19	21	2
T-34-85	35	36	1
T-44	11	12	1
IS-3	32	33	1

"Conclusions

1. The most effort is required to turn the IS-3 (30-41 kg), T26E3 (23-39 kg), T-34-85 (27-36 kg) and M4A2-76 (22-35 kg).
2. The least effort is required to turn German tanks T-V (5-15 kg), T-VI (10-14 kg), English "Comet I" tank (12-20 kg), German Jagdtiger SPG (5-14 kg) and domestic T-44 tank (10-13 kg).
   The T-V, T-VI, Jagdtiger, and Comet require little effort due to a hydraulic servo and a special turning mechanism design (planetary mechanisms with additional power input from the engine).
   The T-44 requires little effort due to altered input levers and a servo spring.
3. The M4A2-76 requires less effort than the T26E3, despite similar design. This is due to the tank's smaller size and longer lever lengths.
4. The T-V, T-VI, Jagdtiger and Comet tanks can turn in place when the gearbox is set to the neutral gear due to a special planetary turning mechanism with additional power input from the engine. 
5. Turning domestic T-34-85 and IS-3 tanks, as well as American T-26 and M4A2-76 tanks requires great effort, and tires out drivers during long marches."

For those of you that think 35-40 kg is high, the effort required to turn a Pz38(t) reached 60 kilograms, according to Aleksei Kalinin's Panzerkampfwagen 38(t), Tactical Press, Moscow, 2013, page 125.