T26E4 Super Pershing Icon set 1.0

[oragus]

Can you find any other pictures or drawings of the T35 flame Pershing then? That is the only picture I have found of that thing.

[MarkSheppard]

Here's the information on it from one such document:

T35
The M4 series tanks, upon which the flame Thrower Tank, T33 was based, went out of production immediately after the termination of the War, and the Heavy Tank M26 was planned for future production.

At a meeting of the New Developments Division, General Staff, in July 1945, the entire program of the requirements for a flame thrower tank was discussed. It was recommended that a new design based on the Heavy Tank, M26, be developed using existing components and providing 300 gallons of flame thrower fuel and the 90 mm gun with reduced ammunition.

Because of the General Staff recommendation and the status of the
M4 series tanks, the Subcommittee on Automotive Equipment through the
Ordnance Technical Committee and Chemical Warfare Service recommended
by OCM 29326, dated 11 October 1945, the development and manufacture
of one pilot vehicle, "Tank, Flame Thrower, T35". The military characteristics for the vehicle proposed by the OCM as a guide for personnel engaged in the development project were:

....

(4) Armament
(a) A turret with full 360 degree traverse to mount the following:
(1) A 90 mm gun.
(2) A large flame gun with range up to 150 yards.
(3) A small anti-personnel, periscope mounted flame gun with independent 220 degree traverse.
(4) One co-axial. cal. .30 machine gun
(b) One Cal. .30 bow machine gun.
(c) One Cal. .50 AA gun.

(5) Ammunition
(a) Three-hundred gallons of main and auxiliary flame gun fuel.
(b) From 20 to 30 rounds of 90 mm ammunition.
(6) Armor: Equivalent to Heavy Tank, M26.
(7) Additional Equipment: Power take-off (at least 100 horse power) for pump to provide pressure to throw flame thrower fuel.

The project (KG 575) as set up was to be carried out in close cooperation with personnel from the Chemical Warfare Service who were also investigating the adaptation of the Heavy Tank, M26, to flame thrower equipment.

Preliminary layouts and studies were started by the Development Division, Detroit Arsenal in March 1946. Consideration was given to use a cast armor blister in the left front corner of the turret to house the flame gun. Also under investigation was the possibility of using on armored, exterior, jetisonable flame gun fuel tank, a V-12 engine, and different methods of flame gun installation.

In September 1946, information was received by the Development Division at the Detroit Arsenal, from the Chemical Warfare Service, stating that Army Ground Forces Board No 2, had made the following recommendations to aid in the development of the vehicle:

(1) The 90 mm gun could be replaced by a high velocity 76 mm gun.

(2) The number of rounds of ammunition stowed in the vehicle need not exceed twenty.

(3) Consideration be given to elimination of the assistant driver's seat and using the space gained for stowage of additional fuel.

At the present, December 1946, the vehicle is still in the
process of study and design. As yet, work has not been started on
either a mock-up or pilot vehicle.

You can see that the photo shown earlier is from the early 1945 phase, due to this phrase in the text above:

Consideration was given to use a cast armor blister in the left front corner of the turret to house the flame gun.

[oragus]

The wooden mock up is on the right side instead of the left. "If" I were to create it, which side would I put the "cast armor pod" on, where would I put the "jettisonable armored fuel tank"? Back of turret, back deck, or rear of the hull with a relocated exhaust port? A lot of what ifs.

[MarkSheppard]

I recently found a booklet on flame weapons issued 2 June 1945 that shed some light on the Flamethrowing Pershing and why it had so many options considered -- internal gun, external pack; trailer, etc.

No Satisfactory Method To Mount in Heavy Tank

Mounting a flamethrower in the T26 and other heavy tank models presents apparently insuperable obstacles, at least at this time. The heavy armor and crowded condition of the fighting compartment apparently bars installation of a flamethrower fuel and compression system large enough to be effective. Research is continuing.

Pumped - Fuel Flamethrower Considered

Standardization of Napalm, which can be pumped successfully, has turned some attention back to the pumped-fuel idea. Use of pumps, rather than pressure vessels, to propel the fuel will mean a saving in space, since the pump can be designed to fit more crowded and irregularly-shaped than spherical pressure vessels. Research is under way on this.

So it appears to me (speculation) that all US flame tanks used pressurized gasses such as nitrogen or carbon dioxide to propel napalm/gasoline out of the flame gun nozzles.

Providing the pressurant needed spherical pressurizant tanks; which could be accommodated in the Sherman easily, thanks to the Sherman having sponsons to shove things into to get them out of the way so that the spheres could be accomodated. The more modern Pershing and the other heavy tanks (T29/T30) were built around "space engineering" concepts which abolished the sponsons; so putting flamethrowers in them with a useable amount of fuel required development of a pump-fed system.

[oragus]

Interesting for sure, so with speculation, the operable Pershing Flame tank would be very similar to the standard Pershing. Just like the M48 Flame tank, the M67. So in theory, a shortened main gun barrel or flame thrower in place of the bow machine gun should do the trick for an icon. Thoughts on that?