No-Name Ridge - M26 Pershings Break the Invincible Soviet T-34
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 окт 2024
- After months of barely resisting the North Korean assaults, US forces in Pusan, the last South Korean bastion during the early phase of the Korean War, were ready to attempt their first counterattack.
The US forces were untrained and limited in numbers. Still, recent reinforcements had allowed them to move to an offensive position. More importantly, they received four M-26 Pershing Tanks, and the armored vehicles gave them the courage to face the Soviet T-34 tanks that the North Koreans were using.
The Soviet T-34 had been a significant issue for US and South Korean troops at the outset of the war, as the American M-24s had been systematically blown to pieces by the T-34's powerful 85-millimeter guns.
The American forces now prepared to take "No-Name Ridge" and strategically placed three out of their four tanks in the middle of the narrow road. If the tanks were destroyed by the T-34s as quickly as their predecessors, at least their burning husks would provide an obstacle for the Soviet tanks.
The battle started some distance ahead of the curve where the American tanks sat. US forces clashed with North Korean ones, and soon the colossal Soviet tanks were deployed to disperse the rebellious attack.
The Americans then started to retreat, hoping to lead the four Soviet vehicles into a surprise attack, as the North Korean troops could not see around the curve, and they were not expecting the American M-26s.
A tank battle of epic proportions that would shape the war's course then ensued, as the Soviets advanced along the curve to suddenly be confronted by three American tanks they had never seen before.
As they fired on each other for the first time, one tank would prove to be much superior to the other…
As images and footage of actual events are not always available, Dark Docs sometimes utilizes similar historical images and footage for dramatic effect. I do my best to keep it as visually accurate as possible. All content on Dark Docs is researched, produced, and presented in historical context for educational purposes. We are history enthusiasts and are not always experts in some areas, so please don't hesitate to reach out to us with corrections, additional information, or new ideas. -
The Pershing was designed to take on Tigers and Panthers, so taking on a T-34 was within its specs.
And taking on Panthers and Tigers, it did. Look for a video on RUclips by the title of "Battle for Cologne". Some relatively great raw footage of the Pershing taking on a Panther.
@@paulwalker1617 yup so once they found these bad boys in that warehouse, those T-34s were toast.
@@paulwalker1617 And the Tiger had no problem taking on the Pershing.
@@daveriddell3704 ya, that's typically what happens when 88mm flak cannon goes up against ww2 Era tanks
@@hkiller57 Wasn't the Pershing's 90mm gun based on an AA gun as well?
Anyone who has served in the military understands how the army could misplace and then forget about four heavy tanks.
There’s dumb, and then there’s army dumb.
Yeah, 20 years in the military...and I did a few financial responsibility investigations (FLIPL's) on people that "lost" M1 Tanks and other large vehicles......as inexplicable as it seems..."stupidity" sums it up.
And no, I was not "understanding".
@LibtardsStillCant SilenceMe20 So much "fun". ;-)
"Army Intelligence" is an oxymoron?
Absolutely
The "T" in T24 designates prototypes. The M24 Chafee was the final production version.
Thanks! This was bugging me.
That's what I thought, when you look up T24 it certainly does not go to the chafee.
Given the poor choice of video clips, and bad basic information, this entire video is somewhat questionable.
@@Combatpzman Completely agree. I expected more from this channel.
@@helbent4 Me too
Ah come on man. T-34 was not made to be "invinsible." It's a medium tank with 40 mm of frontal and side armor, but Pershing is a beast compared to T-34. It was made to go toe to toe with King Tigers.
Not Tiger IIs, just Tigers I and Panthers in general
In War thunder, the Pershing is useless.
@@Therovingpatrol T26E5, practically the same thing but with stupid thicc frontal armor and cheaper repair cost
@@darnit1944 Funny how the most effective vehicle for America at 6.7 is the only one with a cheap rep cost lol
@@Therovingpatrol so is the T34 lmao
My dad was at that engagement, he recounted to me how good he felt watching the T-34 being cracked like eggs under the 90mm guns.
First, the US didn't have any "T24's" they had M24 Chaffee's. Second, the US also had Sherman EZ8's to complement the M24's, which were more than a match for the T34/85. Third, what's with all the irrelevant footage?
I thought I was the only one messed up with the images of M4's, pnzr 3 and 4's I think I even saw some soviet light tanks from the 30's mixed in there....
@@jameswomack121 at one point we got to briefly enjoy some footage of a Panther tank even. I was like we had Panthers?
@@1pcfred XD I am dying, Jesus!!
Did he like re-use video or can't afford proper stock footage?
@@1pcfred That footage with Panther tank was from Cologne where a M26 took the Panther out after the Panther had taken out a M4 Sherman.
But as for the other WWII footage that had Panzer III’s and Panzer IV’s, I was beginning to think that they were not talking about Korea at all.
44,000 T34s were destroyed during WW2 (110,000 made) so calling them invincible is a huge overstatement. The T34-85 was overmatched by the M26.
So far during the korean war, the T34s had been invulnerable more or less.
And to be fair, none or very few of the common South Korean, US or UN troops in Korea at that time would've ever seen a T34 before the war, heard how many there had been or how many had been destroyed.
"Invincible" always is a huge overstatement about anything. In time, all are vanquished. The number of T34 tanks destroyed during the II WW speak about many things, not only tanks, but also the crew training, tactical mistakes, etc. Also, do not forget that the main weight of this war against Germany, was carried by the USSR.And in land operations, for more years than the resto of the allies.
Most tanks in WWII (on all sides) were destroyed by heavy artillery barrages or aircraft bombing them. Modern tanks can’t even stand up to that.
@@herrero4270 hmm, no the USSR did not carry the main weight of the war against Germany. They didn’t enter WW2 until June of 1942 after Germany invaded. Up until that time, they were dividing up Eastern Europe with the Germans. The USSR was not the heroes in WW2, they were as bad as Germany was, if not worse. The rest of the Allies were ok with Russia getting slaughtered, knowing damn well that Russia couldn’t be trusted. Of course England proved that they couldn’t be trusted after the war either, just ask Poland. Russia would have been destroyed if they didn’t get war supplies from the US, and they definitely wouldn’t have been able to defeat Germany on it’s own. The rest of the Allies should have listened to Patton and attacked the USSR while we had the forces there. Given the resources of the US, and the rest of the European countries, Russia would have been easily defeated. A couple A bombs dropped on Moscow and Stalingrad would have done the trick.
@@ericcrabtree6245 That's true.
All this additional footage of German tanks and StuGs with some Russian light tanks and early T-34/76s. I was wondering when they were going to show Japanese kamikazes attacking aircraft carriers. Usually the 85mm T-34 shell would bounce off the front of the Pershing but one struck the towing hook that acted like a shot trap and it penetrated the M-26.
I would have thrown in a Roman trireme from Bun Hur.
@@thundershirt1 And throw in a knight horse charge.
Yes that was bad
Probably one of the worst yet for footage.
Wait until the Cylons provide support.
CORRECTION: Not T24, its M24. And the M26 Was a medium tank, Not heavy. That designation was only given to later models which had much more armor. The experimental Super Pershings were also heavy tanks, but were only used in Europe, not Korea.
So, just because something is classified as a medium tank, doesn't really make it a medium tank. The M26 in weight class its more like a heavy because it was so heavy like a tiger 1s or panther. And panthers were classified as Medium tanks, but we're on par with tiger 1s
Now I'm ALL confused. I wish Dark Docs would re-voice in the video with the Correct designations. It's kind of a big deal.
I seriously thought I was going crazy hearing T24.
He has gotten confused the prototype was called the T24, which is confusing as there was also a soviet light tank called T24. By the Korean war it was known as the M24 Chaffee he has really stuffed this up a bit. I think its an editing error as he says M24 later. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-24_tank
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M24_Chaffee
@@ridethecurve55 Haven't finished the video yet, but:
0:35 Dark Docs says M24 (when at the time it was designated M24)
3:20 referring to development of T34 and Chaffee (in development the Chaffee was the Light Tank T24), although, maybe 30-60 seconds before Dark Docs does refer to the T24 as an operational tank.
You'd be surprised how well the 76 Sherman tanks did, they're not to be dismissed, they did huge amounts of offensive and defensive actions...
It was not well known, the 76mm armed Shermans were in fact, capable of defeating the T-34-85 with HVAP ammunition.
@@AngryMarine-il6ej i mean the 76 could front pen tiger 1's so t34s would be a thing
After Action reports indicate the 76mm Shermans had a kill to death ratio of 2:1 over the T34-85. The Pershings were much higher.
The M4A3E8 'Easy Eight" Shermans with their 76mm guns did pretty well against communist T34-85s, even though the two designs were fairly even on paper. This was chiefly because of the quality and experience of the American crews, many of whom had combat experience together from the Second World War, or at least who had extensively training together. The Shermans did well in more mountainous terrain, up high, where the heavier and large Pershings did not fare as well as they did at lower altitude with terrain better-suited to tanks.
The undisputed champ, though, for climbing tough terrain, were British-CW Centurions. Astonished onlookers could not believe how they got their tanks up the steep grades to the tops of hills and mountains where they could then provide fire support for U.S. & UN forces. That's a story someone ought to tell...
The Korean conflict, like Vietnam later, was not per se a tanker's war. The terrain in Korea was too difficult and unsuitable for that. But in the limited number of tank-versus-tank engagements in which they fought, U.S. Army and USMC tankers gave good account of themselves.
Yes, the Fireflies.
I just love the look of an unskirted Pershing.
Jeez, keep it clean. This is a family operation.
Giggity
One of the best looking tanks in my
Opinion
@@jaex9617 ROFLMAO 🤣
GAY BTCH !
I noticed that most of the tanks in this video were destroyed german tanks from WW2
Yeah they do this a lot. Almost like using it as just stock footage.
Every dark docs video explains that in the description
..... was hoping for a couple clips of WWI era tanks to roll by . . . . an occasional Trojan horse wouldn't hurt . . . just for laughs!
I was saying the same thing and most of the t-34s weren’t t-34-85s.
Give it a rest, folks. How much war video can there be to choose from? I don’t find this to be a distraction at all. It’s the narrative that most interests me.
Too many glaring innacuracies in the segment talking the "t24" (m24) alone, the m24 was first designed and made during 1943 to deal with the increasing inadequacies of the m3 and m5 stuarts, and were first deployed in 1944-1945. The T34 was first deployed in 1940. Second the depiction of shermans, especially the 76mm variant as grossly infeiror to the t-34 is a joke, both tanks were relatively on equal ground, especially given the upgrades both tanks received later in the war.
Tl Dr: While I normally love your channel this video was the weakest video of the bunch and did zero justice to the topic at hand, and this is ignoring the unrelated ww2 footage and footage of t-34 variants that never saw combat.
Lately most videos have alot of inaccuracies
Every video he makes has errors. That’s why I have unsubbed from his other channels. Probably soon this one as well.
This.
@Syros check out lazerpigs t34 sucks video.
It is great
Of all the military history pedantry you find on the internet, there’s something about tank nerds that is just completely insufferable. You really should start prefacing your replies with “ACKSCHUALLY GUYZ…..”
Not the T24 but M24. This was a light tank compared to the T-34/85 medium tank. The M24 Chaffee was a late war replacement for the M5 Stuart during World War II. The T34 was originally equipped with a 76mm gun early in the war, later upgraded with an 85mm gun. However, the M26 Pershing was designed to take on the Tiger and Panther equipped with a high velocity 90mm gun.
the Sherman still had a positive kill ratio against the t-34 in the war . its something that in ww2 the Pershing was late and only saw limited combat its sad but 7 years later in Korea we still hadn't phased out the Sherman the for Pershing even , much yet the m47,8 yet . in those years we really slacked off on modernizing and just relied on having nukes where the soviets didnt yet.
Lmao ratio
Yeah, in the 50’s, most defense spending was going towards the newly formed Air Force. Many people higher up believed that ground warfare was obsolete.
@@Front-Toward-Enemy we did have to rush the f-86 saber in to fight the superior mig 15 because using the ww2 p/f-80 and the f84 was not going well even after trying for while
The Shermans remaining in service by Korea were largely M4A3E8s '"Easy Eights" - the improved version of the M4 with 23-inch wide tracks, an improved suspension, and other upgrades. Their 76mm guns were comparable to those of the T34-85, especially when firing HVAP tungsten-cored ammunition, which was in good supply by that time. The 90mm main gun of the M-26/M-46 series tanks, was more than adequate to deal with the North Korean tanks. The Sherman was favored higher up in the more-rugged regions, due to its lower all-up weight and more-favorable power-to-weight ratio. The Pershing, however, was preferred lower down where the tank country was better, and its firepower advantage could be best-utilized.
Korea was not, as a rule, a tanker's war, mostly due to the rugged terrain of the Korean peninsula. However, U.S. & UN forces tanks played a role, not just fighting other armored vehicles, but in providing fire-support, both direct and indirect.
You're correct, though: After the victory in WWII, virtually no one in wider American society wanted to think about war or the military for a while. President Truman's defense secretary, Louis Johnson, bragged that he would not only cut the fat out of the military, he'd cut into muscle, too, if necessary - and he did. It is very tough to remain ready for an unexpected conflict - and no conflict was less-expected by the U.S. government than the Korean War - if your budget is cut by 75% or more. And it isn't only equipment which needs upgrading and replacement; training is also expensive, as are simply keeping adequate numbers on personnel rosters and in uniform.
Most divisions of the Army and Marine Corps were skeleton-like in comparison to how large they were during WWII. Being so under-strength, they were not capable of doing what policy-makers and the brass at the Pentagon thought they should be able to do. That's why it was such a struggle in the early days of that war. The Marine Corps had to mobilize their entire reserves just to fill out one division, the First Mar-Div (1st Marine Division), and pilfer the 2nd Marine Division as well. The army was no better off.
The Army and Marines were so short of tanks, that they were cannibalizing Veteran's Day and Memorial Day displays in towns across the country for their armored vehicles and tanks, to get them back into service. That's how badly the invasion of South Korea in June, 1950, caught the military and political establishment with their collective pants down. The U.S. advisory command then in South Korea was pathetically ill-equipped and under-staffed to fight a war, and really only served as a trip-wire force. And because the U.S. had denied them tanks, artillery and other heavy weapons, the South Korean army was not much better off. Whereas the North Korean Army had been generously supplied with captured Japanese weapons and equipment as well as some sourced from the USSR.
It was totally FUBAR, in other words....
The Sherman tank had to be withdrawn in Korea , later to be re deployed when the threat of the North Korean armour had been written down.
The Pershing should have been introduced as fast as possible in WW2. Instead , priority was given to the obsolescent Sherman tank. This resulted in a huge over production of Sherman tanks , leaving the USA holding thousands of unused Shermans at the wars end. This huge waste of industrial effort and cost ,acted, in turn , to discourage investment in to new tank development . After all, why buy new tanks when there are thousands of unused tanks already sitting in vehicle parks ?
This was why the US entered the Korean War still equipped with the Sherman tank and why the Pershing remained under developed. The Sherman tank truly was a disaster in every sense of the word !
M4A3 76mm Sherman's had absolutely no problem dealing with T-34 tanks. During WWII the Russians preferred the M4A1 76mm Sherman's with Wet Storage over their T-34 because they were more survivable when it was hit compared to the T-34 which normally exploded just like the newer Russian tanks do today. They liked it so much an entire Russian Guard Corps was equipped with the M4A1 76mm Shermans. A Pershing was overkill when it came to T-34 tanks.
Russians just get a rough ride when it comes to force multipliers. Seems like half of them are designed to kill the crews. Ships, subs, tanks, arty, helos, planes you name it.
The Red Army never had a single M4A1 Sherman. That's the cast-hull, radial engine variant. All of their Shermans were M4A2s, which had welded hulls and diesel engines.
That said, no, they did not prefer the M4 and did not equip entire Guards Corps with them in preference to T-34s. They used the two tanks in exactly the same way. Guards units were equipped with whatever tanks happened to be available at the time they were needed.
I appreciate your videos and the hard work that you put into them but I do have one criticism. You had a ton of WWII footage in there and a lot of german tanks. I saw a panther fighting in france against a pershing, some stugs, wrecks of panzer IIIs and panzer IVs. Also soviet infantry. the proper footage must be harder to come by but it did throw me out of the video a bit.
Well don't hold your breath waiting for a reply or for any changes. They don't read comments and and care.
All the channels this guy does are riddled with errors. He would be more accurate if he just read from Wikipedia, but he changes things to make them sound more impressive.
@@SteveF1967 yeah. Im going to un sub from the content. Its painful when you know the subject fairly well and you can point out several errors.
He did say in the description that the footages are not accurate and he would try his best
He uses what is freely available.
In the book, : An American Tank Gunner, when an American tank crew gets one of the new Pershings, the gunner is impressed with the Pershing's gun glass targeting optic being many times more powerful than his previous Sherman one. I doubt the T-34/85's where anywhere near as good, much less crew ergonomics that made for better teamwork and coordination. That's why the in WW2 Germans tanks with 88's mated with the best optics in the world, they could nail enemy tanks at over a thousand yards.
Many times more powerful? How so? They had some magnification increase with subvariants of the M70 scope iirc. But not by much. Quality in some Shermans scopes lacked if it was early or mid production, but that's about it.
The M4 Sherman interior was much more crew friendly compared to the T-34
@ Exit Only - You're absolutely right. In those days before laser sights and other such high-tech, a high-quality optical sight was a potent force-multiplier. The book by Adam Makos "Spearhead," whose protagonist is tank gunner Cpl. Clarence Smoyer, mentions how impressed he and his crew-mates were with the new M-26 in comparison to their Sherman. Smoyer relates being part of a gunnery demonstration for Division commanding officer, General Maurice Rose, and how he was asked to hit a target more than 1,100 yards away, a chimney on an abandoned house. His sights and gunnery were good enough that he obliterated it with his first shot. Germany, then as now, had one of the finest optics industries in the world, and German panzertruppen therefore had considerable advantage in the high-quality of their optical gun-sights.
The "invincible" T34 is one of the funniest sentences I've read this week. Interesting aside, my granddad captured a T34 in Korea by blowing up the bridge it was crossing. He said only a small person could get in one. Very cramped.
What did he use?
I don't know what current doctrine is, but in the old days, the Red Army set height and weight cutoffs for tank crew trainees. They couldn't be too tall or too bulky to qualify. They wanted compact, smaller men due to the confined conditions.
I am sure the crews in the 45,000 destroyed T-34's on the Eastern Front in WW2 would disagree with the invincible claim lol.
Never before heard of Korea described as, "jungle," but ok...
There’s a strip along the southern edge that is a CFA climate zone. Humid subtropical so you could call it a jungle I guess.
That's gonna come as a surprise to the guys who froze their butts off over there at places like "Frozen Chosen" and the like. Maybe someone got Vietnam confused with Korea....
@@GeorgiaBoy1961 That's North Korea near the Yalu in the mountains during on of the coldest winters in years. This is hundreds of miles south during the summer.
Who else randomly came across this channel one day an now can't stop watching his videos!
me
Love it
All of us found it randomly
True
I'd recommend against it, unless you're just watching for the laughs. His videos are riddled with inaccuracies especially the combat footage, a lot of it being German, from WW2, about 8-10 years before the Korean war started
As an old M-60A1 tanker, I enjoyed this history. Thanks!
What where you gunner,driver,loader,commander or radio operator
[T.R.S Documents] I... don’t know probably to ask a few questions about the position
@@warragulbogan M60 series tanks had no “radio operator.” The crew of four included Driver, Gunner, Loader, and Commander. The last tank with a five man crew in US inventory was the M47. And from what I’ve read, most units just filled that spot with fuel or ammunition anyway.
19E myself. "Best job I ever had"
TC/platoon leader.
The Pershings in storage in Japan were missing their cooling fan belts (so I read) and there was delay in getting the parts from the States. So, placed in action, they could only run short distances to prevent overheating. The Army even pressed into service a display Pershing at the Fort Knox entrance for emergency duty in Korea.
Could of tied a make shift belt on it to turn the pump
There's still a Pershing outside Knox, as of the last time I saw it 20 odd years ago.
The Pershing was only briefly listed as a heavy tank. Thereafter it was declared a medium tank.
I must admit the whole Panzer 4 & Stug reunion with Waffen SS troops driving passed me by when I first studied the Korean War. Hell of a drive from Munich.
"T-34s aura of invulnerability". Dude, what have you been smoking? T-34 was fast and easy to maintain, but NEVER invulnerable.
I bet is was a glorious day for those American and South Korean troops to be able to stand off and obliterate those North Korean T34 tanks! Those boys made sure there was no recovering the T34s for repairs LOL!
The M26 saw service in the Korean War. When the war began in June 1950, the four U.S. infantry divisions on occupation duty in Japan had no medium tanks at all, having only one active tank company each of Chaffee tanks The 1st Marine Division at Camp Pendleton California had all M4A3 howitzer tanks, which were replaced with M26s just days before boarding ships for Korea. A total of 309 M26 Pershings were rushed to Korea in 1950. the automotive deficiencies of the M26 in the mountainous Korean terrain became more of a liability, and so all M26s were withdrawn from Korea during 1951 and replaced with M4A3 Shermans and M46 Pattons
M46 is just a revised m26 rerun of the m26
@@warragulbogan Heavily revised. Just about every fault on the M26 was corrected on the M46.
ostiariusalpha interesting
@@warragulbogan The M46 is the M26 with improved power train and other evolutionary improvements.
It's important to consider the evolutionary development of the M26, which was never designed to be an heavy tank but started off as the T20 prototype intended as a replacement for the M4 with a 76mm gun and lower profile. It's original design weight was intended to be the same as the M4 and it's turret ring was designed to be interchangable. However, the M4 was so successful initially the there was no appetite for a second medium tank, and many in the army disliked the logistics of a heavy tank. The M26 was rushed to production as a heavy tank after the battle of the bulge, with a 90mm gun and heavier armor and as a result was badly overweight for its suspension, transmission and engine. (This is similar to the situation with the Panther, where it's front plate was thickened to 80mm at the last moment, resulting in a tank that was also grossly overweight compared to the design of its other components.)
The M46 was the tank as it should have been were it not rushed into production as a stop gap.
M26 PERSHING WAS USED IN WW2 DONT FORGET THAT
The fact the T34"s handled Korea's rough terrain is a testament to their American designed Christie suspension, which the U.S. Army passed on pre WW2. I'm currently reading "Spearhead," about the 1st 3rd Armored Div. Pershings going up against the German tanks. Very interesting and would recommend to you guys.
The Christie suspension was not that good. Tanks that had it suffered from many mechanical issues, as well as being unbearably cramped. The Americans were actually interested in it, but Christie was an asshole and that made it hard to work with him. They rejected it on those terms.
@@brennanleadbetter9708 It was the best thing available in the 1930s, but you are quite correct that it severely limited internal space. The big coil springs took up a lot of hull width. I would not say the tanks using the suspension were unreliable though. The T-34 had a pretty good reliability record, as did the Cromwell. The Crusader didn't, but it was the shitty engine, not the suspension, that caused problems.
And you are quite right about the reasons the US Army told J Walter Christie to take a hike.
Awesome book
My neighbor passed away. He was a corporal in the Army station in Korea from the start of the war till 1952. He swore he walked from Seoul to Busan and back again.
I had three great uncles who fought in the Korean War,two in the Army and one in the Marine Corps.
They weren’t using T-34s they were using the up-gunned T-34-85s which have a different turret from the regular one.
Also I think he meant M24 not T24.
He does say that they are the 85mm guns later on but I agree he should have specified
yes much more powerful than the original t 34
For sure, initially the 75mm 👍 and M24 Chaffee not T24, glad I'm not the only one double checking their hearing 😬
Thank you for doing this. I've always believe that the T26 Pershing was a much better tank than given credit for. (note... I'm not American so no bias here). Good to see the Pershing finally given its due.
M26 Pershing; He misspoke in the narration...
The M26s Pershing were all quickly withdrawn from Korea and replaced by the M46s and M46A1s before 1951 ended. The tough Korean terrain exposed the M26's shortcomings.
Even as an American myself, I'd love to see someone explore the British-built Centurions in Korea. From what I've read, they often blasted the sh*t out of T-34s. Truly incredible tanks.
@@jasonrowe3847 I was going to mention that. It kinda threw me off the first couple times he said T24.
@@thunderbird1921 check out what you can find on the indo pak war. Centurions defeated m48 Pattons.
I know well this story but thanks for freshening my memory! It is good to remember that the crews manning the M24 became very skittish after being brushed aside by the North Korean T-34/85 hardly giving much needed support, the other big issue is that the American forces, aside being green, many of them were cooks, helpers and whatever and badly trained as well, finally the initial U.S. forces deploying to Korea were armed solely with the M92.36-in. launcher and old stockpiled World War II inventories of M6A3 rocket ammunition that immediately proved useless against the North Korean tanks. It was only when the M20 was airlifted to Korea the situation was finally addressed. That said during the encounter with the T-34/85 it must said that the gun of the M26 was so powerful that after penetrated the front armour it had exited through the rear engine and the transmission finally hitting a hill some yards away. Despite many issues with this tank finally gave the much needed confidence to the crews, the rest is history. Hope I didn't bore you people..
.
So much confidence in the Pershing most tank crews wanted Shermans and the Pershing was completely withdrawn quickly and replaced across the board with shermans and some m46s? Yes they knew what tank worked and which one didn't.
@@chadjustice8560 yes the crew knew the good and bad points of those tanks but when the fighting was really tough ithe M26 was definitely better to slug it out against the T-34/85 despite its lousy and sluggish performance but the late Shermans was much preferable because it had better performance, good offroad capability, had the similar engines, and was very reliable! It was the same issue during the final month of war in Germany.....
The T34, for all its good points, was actually the most knocked out tank of WW2
Yeah because the T34 kinda sucked in reality
It's standard Russian war doctrine, win by numbers
Well, that's because 80% of the german army was fighting the red army for the entire war. You do that, you are going to take heavy losses even if your training and leadership *doesn't* suck.
In fact 78% of all T-34s produced during the war were destroyed imo.And tankies call Sherman a death trap.
M26 Pershing beating the Soviet T-34, what an amazing achievement!
Not a surprise, even the Sherman kicked it’s ass.
T24 was a Russian tank, M24 was American light tank. Loads of footage of German tanks as well 😂
Nothing blows the mood more quickly than calling a M24 Chaffee a T24 failed Russian Medium Tank with a 45MM Main Gun.
Ive been noticing alot more simple mistakes like this. It honestly sucks
Generic movie material....
At 3:05 I thought I was about to hear that the ROK were supplied with Panzer 3s due to the footage.
@@SteveJB the dreaded t3 medium tank 😂
I love battle stories.
More of Korea would be really cool. There's not enough attention given to the conflict
If only the 'UN' forces had chased with those tanks all the way to the borders of China and Russia! Oh, wait...
If you like Korean war stories I highly recommend the book “The Last Stand of Fox Company” basically one company of marines defended a hill from 2 Chinese divisions for multiple days during the larger battle of Chosin Reservoir
My Father served in B29 and B50 Bombers out of SPOKANE , Wa. And fought out of JAPAN against China and N. Korea. Bridges would be bombed out...and again built. The MIG was a terrible threat as the guns on the B29 were too slow to track them. My father said the runs were hours of boredom and minutes of ...neve wracking conflict...when over the targets.
@@ridethecurve55 This would be impossible, since Americans lost this war.
@Herrero Had American lost the Korean War, S. Korea doesn't exist now. S Korea has very much existing now with as much flourishing as one can be. If not for the sneaky Chinese communists invasion, there might be no rogue terrorist nation like N Korea, and the world must be much more peaceful now.
I was fortunate to work with Paul Vozakis who was a tanker, drove shermans mostly. He re-upped in the AF as a f86 mechanic then he re-upped again to maintain ICBMs for SAC. He had some stories!
This is another example of education that we never had before,and we thank you.
The T-34 was FAR from invincible, and US forces in the Korean War put an exclamation point on the T-34's vulnerabilities.
Those vulnerabilities were known since WW2
The T-34 was a late 1930's design. It was very sound fundamentally and was upgraded to the T-34/85 in 1944 in response to the German Tigers and Panthers. The T-34/85 achieved rough parity with the newer German Panzers and its far greater numbers ensured Soviet tank superiority in the latter stages of the war. The M-26, on the other hand, was a newer design, dating from 1943 which was intended to overmatch the Tigers/Panthers. Development and production delays kept it from seeing widespread service in WW II. However, by any measure it was a superior battle tank to the T-34/85.
It didn’t achieve parity by any means but at least it close range it could penetrate Tiger I’s frontal armor and Panther’s turret cheeks.
@@AFT_05G - "Parity" can mean different things in different contexts. Given that the T-26/M-26 was used so late in the war and in such small numbers, it is difficult to form a complete - let alone accurate - picture of what its strengths and weaknesses were, and how good of a design it was. There was plenty of anecdotal evidence of one thing or another, but the bottom line is that a couple of months of combat by a small test batch of tanks at the tail end of the war isn't going to be conclusive one way or another.
Which is why many armored warfare historians also look at its performance in the Korean War as a way of fleshing out their analyses.
Let's just say that the M-26 gave formerly over-matched and outgunned American tank crews better odds against the best German armor and a fighting chance of prevailing without taking disproportionate losses. The critics will say that German tanks and TDs knocked out a number of M-26s, but consider that if the tables had been turned and the M-26s were on the defensive, they would have taken heavy losses of enemy armored fighting vehicles as well if the Germans had been attacking.
Yes, because a tank from the end of WW2 with a gun meant to kill King Tigers should have such a hard time killing a gun and turret from 1943 on a tank from 1934. The T-34 served Russia remarkably well, it was a great tank, but it doesn't stand up for a second against Pershing because Pershing wasn't even a concept when the T-34 first saw combat
Absolutely right.
The T34 was never invincible hahaha the Germans dusted these things in droves!!
That's it! Thx!
The trouble was there were always droves of T34s to dust.
@@1pcfred WWII was won in the FACTORIES, American outproduced everyone, COMBINED, so we even gave the Soviets almost 5,000 tanks, most of them M4 Shermans with the GM 6-71 diesel engines. The Soviet "tankists" nicknamed their Sherman mounts the "EmCha" (a transliteration of 'M4' into the look-alike Cyrillic characters), and issued them to their GUARDS tank divisions, much to Stalin's chagrin. The T-34 was produced in huge numbers, a lot by taking short cuts which neither the Americans nor the Germans would have accepted, but this meant that despite the huge losses in vehicle and CREW (about 85% of Soviet "tankists" perished when their mounts were hit), they could replace them.
The Germans, being bombed and running out of everything, including men, could not, and towards the war, even their vaunted Panther and Tiger tanks suffered breakdowns due to having to rely on "Ersatz" materials, including their ARMOR. It wasn't unheard of to see a King Tiger shrug off hit after hit, only to find it later, abandoned, with huge CRACKS in the armor, as the alloys the German metallurgists had to use to substitute for what they'd previously used with nickel and manganese mined out of the "Nikipol" region of the eastern Ukraine didn't work out. Hitler recognized this and hence, against otherwise sound military principle, he insisted that Army Group South hang on to the Nikopol region as long as it could, while as much nickel ore could be mined as possible. Hitler told his incredulous generals, including FM Von Manstein, "we lose Nikipol, and we lose the war!".
@@selfdo gave? We didn't give anyone squat. We got stiffed but that doesn't mean we didn't ask for compensation for all we produced. The Axis lost because they fought a war they didn't want. The conquer the world myth simply wasn't true. That was Allied propaganda. Germany was only interested in part of Russia and Japan was only interested in China. They ended up other places because of what the Allies did. That over extended them. Skoda made most of Germany's armor. So they were Czech metallurgists.
@@1pcfred Ehh...we did get some critical metals and minerals from Russia, but what we sent to them, and far more than just 5,000 M4 Shermans, enabled Soviet industry to focus on what they needed for their war effort. The financial mechanism was called LEND-LEASE, but it was still tantamount to a giveaway, as IDK how it was ever expected these enormous debts would begin to be collected upon.
Of course, being "stiffed" on war debts was probably still a lot better outcome than having to send more American boys to fight in place of Russian boys. I'm dubious that if the Soviet Union had quit the war that we and/or the UK would have continued fighting the Germans.
Agree that the "today Germany, tomorrow the World" was more propaganda than reality.
It was stated that the 5th Marine Division was in this battle, they had been deactivated in 1945. I believe you meant to say the 5th Marine Regiment.
You guys REALLY need to work on you background videos. Not germane. WW2 stuff, Waffen Heer tanks, Shermans, panther in Kologne, come on!
This is a frequent criticism of these videos. Whoever does their video archiving either doesn't have subject-matter knowledge or doesn't care. As much as I love the narrator (he's blind, by the way), the incoherent video is pretty irritating.
Not sure if any either of you ever read the description of each dark docs video
The end of each video tells the exact same thing
Comparing the 90mm on the Pershing to anything the t34 ever had is a joke. The 90mm apcr round could go all the way through a panther and then go 14 feet or something into the ground behind it.
The Pershing also had 76mm of frontal hull armour angled at an ungodly degree. Mated with an almost impenetrable turret, unless you use a Soviet 122mm
German long 88 could easily pen the hull .
Who the hell would ever call T-34s "invincible" lmao
Commieboos would
Getting those new (old tanks) & scoring that initial victory must have been an immeasurable moral booster!!!
Thank you for remembering these brave men.
The sad part is the video portion rarely matches the subject.
Side by side, an early World War two T-34 and M4 Sherman are remarkably similar in protection and performance. If anything, the US vehicle has a slight advantage with its better turret layout. However, the way the war went down there was a bit of divergence. The US could make serial improvements to their tank and would add things like wet ammo storage, improved suspensions, and even gun stabilizers on some models. Meanwhile Russia focused on how to reduce the price and production time as much as possible - meaning complexity went down compared the M4. Technically the turret of the T-34/85 was actually meant for the follow-on T-44, but it was quicker to just slap it on existing hulls. This later model would be a bit closer to a Sherman Firefly or 76mm.
Meanwhile, the M26 was basically an American tiger - right down to using an inadequate engine and suspension for a scaled-up vehicle.
What the Israeli military did to the Sherman makes the British Firefly modification look like a botched surgery.
@@chuck.reichert83 Perhaps, but that came quite a bit later than the Korean war. They also tended to leave the armor as is. Like with the T-34/85, they figured dead targets don't shoot - so weak armor is less important.
@@MrChainsawAardvark So far as I know, ALL M4's had the main gun stabilizer, but many early crews didn't trust it. Those who did swore by it, those who didn't swore at it.
The M4 was the better mount of the two in many regards, but as always, crew training and who saw who first, and who got the first hit matter just as much, if not more.
@@Jamesbrown-xi5ih I've also heard the reports about the M4's stabilizer. They seem to vary from "good enough to track target while moving slowly" to "just stop the bouncing quicker on stopping". The fact that it supposedly was a maintaince headache and often improperly calibrated has come up as well. Of course, the US had more time to train crews, in safer environments.
In the end, the thing that makes or breaks the reputation of these vehicles is the weapons the Germans had. If they had faced the M4 in 1941 or 42, it would have had a rep as an armored monster compared to the 37mm and 50mm guns mostly in service. By the time the Sherman was in France the next generation of guns was available.
While you're correct that the T-34/85's turret was used on the T-44, which was a brand new chassis design (it did use the same engine, and road wheels, but incorporated a torsion-bar suspension like the German tanks), the turret itself had been intended for the T-43 medium, which was to use the same F-34 76mm gun. It was also to be fitted to the KV chassis with the 85 mm gun, to create the KV-85 tank. The Soviets had experiment with heavier, more thickly armored versions of both vehicles to withstand the increased firepower of the German tanks, but it was realized that an increase in firepower rather than protection was the key to battlefield success. Also, given that conversion to T-43 production would shut down tank deliveries to the front for too long an interval, the T-34 chassis had to be kept going. Hence the solution to marry the turret and gun that would have gone on the KV to instead be fitted to the T-34; and do further work to upgrade the KV into the JS series, with a more powerful gun designed not so much for anti-tank work but to blast fortifications and support the infantry.
It's crazy when you see these historical tanks win battles in wars they were never planned to be in.
You failed to mention that the first M-26 tanks sent to Korea came from the Japan arsenal from the end of WWII. They were short reliable fan belts! We sent tanks without sufficient spare parts. The Pershing's we're eventually wiped out while retreating because the engines were overheating. Forgot to mention that????
“…even if they can’t stop them they can at least block them with their burning husks”
Tankers- “Oh yeah greaaat, at least there’s that…”
Yeah, there’s a battle prep speech no tanker wants to hear ever.
while I appreciate and enjoy your video, I dislike seeing images of German tanks instead of M24 Chafees throughout this video. It's a pet peeve of mine, using the wrong footage, but I've seen much worse historical mistakes elsewhere.
Honestly if he can't find videos of the content he could use pictures of these events as well. In fact that would be better than unassociated combat footage. He could just go to the national archives and look for more pictures and videos. It's really not hard.
Most people can’t tell the difference, but it’s kind of lazy. It’s hard to take anything seriously if they keep getting the basics wrong.
I love your videos, and your style. Please correct & note mistakes in pinned posts, or in the video with subtitles, to avoid confusion. Also, why so many channels? Seems like overkill...
They can't even make one video without miss information. Just because your production quality is amazing doesn't mean you can use Wikipedia level of information.
don't insult Wikipedia!
Rarely is narration content and delivery found with such clarity. Thankyou
Aside from using footage from World War II, the documentary misidentified the M24 Chaffee as a 'T24' in the early part of the film but corrects itself later. It still is a riveting documentary.
It's easy to forget that the T-34 was *riddled* with problems compared to many tanks. It was cramped, hard to drive, far less survivable, and overall just... an okay design... there's a reason the M4 Sherman fought in literally *all* theaters of World War 2, but not the T-34 which the Soviets produced in mass.
It's also easy to forget that every tank is riddled with problems and the T-34 & M4 were pretty much equivalent.
The T-34 wasn't that particularly good of a tank at all. It just had a good gun and armor that an American light tank (M24 Chaffee) couldn't penetrate. The Sherman EZ8 was able to take out the T-34 without much trouble. The M26 Pershing was a heavy tank designed to go up against Tiger 2s and Panther tanks. The T-34/85 was by no means "invincible".
True, the T-34/85 wasn't the equal in any head-to-head tank slugfest against a Pershing. But it suited best the requirements of the DPRK; it's not as if anyone with a better vehicle was going to SELL them one, and the first years of North Korea under Kim Il-Sung weren't exactly prosperous.
Besides, the Pershing and its successor, the M46 Patton, which also appeared by 1952 in limited service (same basic vehicle, new, more powerful and reliable powerpack, but drank even MORE gasoline than the Ford GAF V8) were not exactly SUITED for the very hilly Korean terrain. Both experienced more breakdowns due to getting stuck or overtaxing the powertrain, especially during the hot summer, than did the Shermans. By then, most of the North Korean armor was gone, and the Chinese brought relatively few tanks with them, so tank-vs-tank combat was virtually unheard of after the 1950 battles along the Naktong river. Most of the UN tanks, the British Comets and Centurions included, were used as self-propelled artillery. There are numerous pictures of tanks in prepared firing positions, angled to account for the relatively limited vertical traverse of the gun, to fire over "them thar hills".
It was a very good tank by WW2 standards.
In 1941 it was easily the best tank in the world. In 1945, the T-34-85 was still a competitive tank, on par with the Panzer IV and M4.
M4s could win pretty much every tank-v-tank engagement because they were essentially equal hardware-wise, and had vastly better-trained crews.
Calling the T34 invincible is a joke.
45,000 lost in WW2.
Slight correction Mr. narrator: there are no jungles in the Korean peninsula. As for the documentary itself, it was brilliant bit of work.
Its supposed to be some sort of achievement that the M26, a tank designed with a huge budget from the ground-up to fight Panthers and Tigers, can defeat the T-34, a modernization of a mass-produced stopgap tank that, in its first iteration, entered service half a decade before the Pershing?
"T-24"...
It's a M24....
M26 actually.
The Centurion was the best tank of that conflict.
How so? It had an archaic 1930s suspension design. It was very difficult to drive. It had good armor and a good gun, but I am not seeing how it was any better than an M46.
@@executivedirector7467well at least it could fire on the move,with its gyro gun
It had a better more reliable engine
@@stewartbrown8115 I'd like to see some evidence that centurion of Korean-war vintage could fire effectively on the move.
The US M4 and even the M3 light tank had gyrostabilized guns. They could not fire accurately on the move; what they could do is lay the gun a lot faster once they stopped.
The early Cents were widely known to NOT have enough horsepower.
In the 1960s-70s when armies began doing things like adding modern US diesel engines, modern transmissions and 105mm guns, that's when the Cent became a really great tank.
it seems to me that the real strength of the Cent was that the basic design was sound, so it could take pretty massive upgrades and remain viable. So yes, a very good tank.
@@executivedirector7467 the centurion throughout its british service from the Mk1 to the Mk13 had the Rolls Royce Meteor Mk4B
Which produced 610 BHP
It was only later in service that the Israel put a more modern engine & transmission in it
@@executivedirector7467 Post-war, British and then Soviet tank designers developed improved gun stabilizers. In 1948, the British Centurion Mk. 3 featured the first two-plane stabilization system in a production tank, whil
Wow the amount of footage that is incorrect is ENORMOUS I mean not even close! Panthers and German MKIV's in Korea? I think not!
It was the war to end all wars, I'm telling ya!
I like to watch these videos as I’m falling asleep. His voice and the monotone delivery soothe me like counting sheep
T-34's were never invulnerable. M-24's were never designed to fight armor, they were recon vehicles. The Pershing wiped the floor with them.
M4 Sherman medium tanks as "T-24" (M-24 Chaffee) light tanks, German Stugs, Panzer MK II, III, IV and Panthers (V), T-34/75 for T-34/85s... I appreciate the storytelling but in this instance the selected footage and incorrect vehicle info really does a disservice to the history being told. I usually really like your content but this one struggled.
Its Stupid!!!
"collossal" Soviet tanks were 26-27 ton medium tanks. M-26 was 47 tons.
The U.S. kept South Korea deliberately weak to dissuade authoritarian leader from invading the North.
Nice brief video of Pk IVs.
The T 34-78 frontal gracis plate was not 2 inches thick It was 47mm, 1.85". The sides and rear were, of course, significantly thinner.
Yeah. I know its kind of a side issue but the notion that peaceful innocent little south Korea got invaded unprovoked by big bad North Korea is pretty silly.
@@executivedirector7467 Problems with reality much?
@@thomaslinton5765 Nope, none at all. You?
@@executivedirector7467 I had an uncle killed there as part of Task Force Smith, which motivated me to study, and eventually teach military history. There had been a guuerilla war raging for over two years in the South, a war the South was winning, although the Northern ruler, Kim, thought it had weakened the South. The forces of the South Korean dictator had only a few batteries of light artillery, and no anti-tank guns, no tanks, no useful number of anti-tank mines, and no airforce worth the name, lacking any fighters or bombers. It did hve ten understrength, poorly trained, poorly armed, and poorly supplied foot infantry diviions, including the over-sized Capital Guard . The North had ten infantry divisions, including three veteran PLA divisions that had merely changed their uniforms., over 250 tanks, most in an armored division, and over 300 aircraft. Suggesting that every history written in the West is all wrong about the identity oif the agresor and the balance of forces ibased on you unsupprted statement, is absurd. IF Rhee had had the forces, he might have attacked first. He did not and, thus, did not. I invite anyone with any doubt to resrearch the topic.
@@thomaslinton5765 You're arguing against a bunch of thing I have not claimed. Enjoy the argument.
It always amazes me that our intelligence agencies never see the threat. While at the same time for political reasons than they always see the threat.
@ flycatcher - The scandal that erupted in the wake of the surprise Blitzkrieg-style attack by the Imun Gun, the North Korea Army, into South Korea 25 June, 1950, was huge. Almost as bad as Pearl Harbor, in fact. The late great WEB Griffin did a terrific job weaving the history of that time into his "Corps" series of novels, two of which are set during the Korean conflict. Secretary of State Dean Acheson, in a press conference/talk to the National Press Club in early 1950, had in the months previous to the invasion, given a speech including information about which Pacific/Far-East allies lay within our defensive perimeter, i.e., those we would use force to defend, and those which did not. Acheson's blunder led the communists, including Stalin, to believe that we would not object to their unifying the peninsula under their control. It did not help matters that the U.S. government installed South Korean President Syngman Rhee to govern the country post-war, but then refused to arm and equip his military sufficiently for the new nation to defend itself.
The then-new Central Intelligence Agency, or CIA, was caught flat-footed like everyone else. Sound familiar?It ought to, because their track-record over time in regard to such unexpected events has not been good at all. In fairness to the Langley crowd, so were the service-affiliated intelligence departments as well. Even the great General MacArthur, "Viceroy of Japan," and great hero of WWII, was caught off-guard. His intelligence officer, General Charles Willoughby, had not predicted the invasion so his boss did not see it coming.
The atomic bomb changed everyone's thinking pretty radically. Don't forget that between 1945 and 1950 there were a lot of air officers basically arguing that the army and navy were completely obsolete, and that all we needed was a few bombers.
@@executivedirector7467 These same individuals also said machine guns were not necessary on jet fighters. Vietnam proved them wrong.
@@flycatchful True
The government seems to be the only organization where when it under-performs, it gets a budget increase anyway.
Light tank < medium tank < heavy tank. It was interesting how the Pershing was described in the vehicle. I think it was developed after the T-34 so they probably had comparable technology. The video made it sound like the Pershing was a much older design than the T-34.
In WWII, the average T-34s lasted as long as a full tank of gas. Like the Sherman’s, they were built in the thousands.
The 3.5 inch rocket launcher (2nd gen Bazooka) could easily penetrate the T34. It was still in use during the Vietnam War with the Marine Corps.
It was an almost direct copy of the German "Panzerschrek" ("Tank Terror"), which had come in 88 mm (3.54 inch) calibre. We even had German POWs sent to US Army training schools in the states, after V-E day, to instruct our soldiers in use of their "bazooka" (named after an American comedian).
I wish the Pershing had more time in combat in WW2.
They should have been available on D-Day
Me too. I saw a video where it destroyed a tiger tank
It was not a good tank overall. The issues it had in WWII were still not worked out by Korea, and ultimately, it was less favored than the M4 in two wars, ultimately being withdrawn in favor of more Shermans and their replacement, the Patton.
@@Jamesbrown-xi5ih I know it was significantly underpowered. I guess they didn't have time to develop a new engine for it with enough power. But it had the firepower and armor protection that the army could have used in the run into Germany after D-day. A lot of Sherman crews that got killed wouldn't have if they had the Pershing.
It's been said that Gen Patton didn't even want them.
The Krauts wiped out T34's by the tens of thousands during WWII, in the early stages of the war their main weapons against the T34 were 50mm anti tank guns, Mk III tanks with 50mm cannons, Stug III's with a short barrel 75mm and early Mk IV's with the short barrel 75mm. They managed and were tearing the Soviets a new ass up until 1942/43 when supply issues depleted their offensive ability.
Don’t forget the how the legendary tiger could just rip the t34 to pieces in one shot, but you have to give the Soviet tanker credit for fighting with a poorly made tank. And I mean poorly as in it was only expected to fight once
These DPRK T-34/85s were far better armed and armored than the T-34/76 tanks the "Krauts" indeed wiped out in 1941-1943. The Mark III did indeed have a punier 5 cm gun (L42), but some got a longer caliber (L60) weapon which had much better anti-armor performance. The "StuG", once it got the KwK 40, rolled up more tank kills than any other German AFV, estimated at 11,000! Being low-slung, it did very well in the tank destroyer role. It also helped that the Germans put more effort into TRAINING, and their vehicles were better laid out to fight in.
Didn't the Pz 3 with a 50 mm gun take out 10s of 1000s of T-34s. M26s were vastly superior to Pz 3s.
The video used several shots of tanks parked on embankments to help elevate their guns. They were being used as indirect fire artillery which is not a good use of tanks but desperate times call for desperate measures.
It was a very common practice in WW2 and Korea.
The main differences here were not in the mm of both weapons but in the length of the barrel. To go through armot you need velocity, longer barrel = faster round. The other main difference lies in the names. One is cannon the other is a gun, guns have higher velocity.
The "invincible" T34
Ah yes.
The Tank that was fucked in the thousands by german Panzer 3's when Barbarossa started...
Actually the Panzer III encountered mainly T-26 and BT tanks at the start of Barbarossa and had trouble with the T-34 and KV tanks until the Panzer III was upgunned commencing March 1943. That prompted the Soviets to upgun to create the T-34-85 which was the variant used by North Korea and China. You are correct to question the use of "invincible" though particularly by the time of the Korean War. It was an 18 year old design up against an 8 year old design where armour technology had advanced substantially in the interim. By the time of the Korean War the Soviet doctrine was to use them in mass formations trading off quantity for quality.
@@grahambaker6664 no. The germans encountered T34 even at the start of Barbarossa. The soviets lost 2000 t34 in the first day of the operation.
Yeah Dark Docs' research leaves a lot to be desired.
I love the content, but as a history nerd, every time you put random tanks on the screen while you are talking about totally different vehicles, a piece of me dies. I saw assorted German panzer, Sherman’s, Stewarts, and I’m pretty sure there was even a KV1 in there for a split second. Please fix this! It’s ruining your channel for me.
Ah yes a M26 destroying a T-34,most impressive achievement ever made in armored warfare!
Thank you for this video of "The Forgotten War " .
The T34 wasn't so invincible, but it was really (logically) superior to the light M24s, never intended to go toe to toe with enemy's heavies. The sad reality was that the US had criminally neglected their land forces, thinking that the A bomb could've resolved EVERYTHING. Naturally this tought was totally wrong, but if you think of the damage done by guys such as secretary to defense Johnson, a lot of your soldiers died because land forces were neglected.
Well M4s broke the T34s in every single engagement they had too, in fact several M24s claimed T34s though not reliably, those had more to do with the poor quality armor of the T34s spalling on the inside.
Sherman was just an unsuccessful unergonomic box on narrow tracks with thin armour and the two main variants of armament, namely the 75mm and 76mm cannons had poor performance the moment they appeared.
@@matovicmmilan Wait what, the M4A2 (and the other US variants) had more effective armour then the T-34, the T-34 had basically no armour and was regularly taken out by the German 50mm Kwk (stats from the People's Commissariat for Tank Industry found that in 1942, 54.3% of all T-34 losses were to the German 50mm Kwk), it wasn't until the T-34-85 that it got similar effective armour then the M4A2 and M4A3. The 76mm on the T-34 would struggle to even pen the Sherman frontally until it was within 500m (the average combat range for US tanks was 800-900m) and had about the same fire power as the Sherman 75mm.
The T-34 76mm using APCR could pen 92mm at 500m, whereas the Sherman 75 could pen 88mm at 500m with APCBC. The T-34's 85mm was worse then the Sherman 76mm from testing done, the T-34 85mm could pen 4.1 inches of RHA, whereas the US 76mm could pen 4.9 inches of RHA at the same range, this doesn't even account for the HVAP round the 76mm gun had access to.
Also you must be meaning another word then unergonomic, its pretty well known that Russian tank crews that got to use Sherman's saw it as a luxury due to how spacious and 'comfortable' it was, the T-34 on the other hand is also quite well known as being unergonomic as it was extremely cramped for space.
@@matovicmmilan *t34
The M4A3E8 Shermans indeed "pasted" the DPRK T-34/85s in Korea, especially in the August/September 1950 battles along the Naktong river. But the outcome can be more traced to factors outside the respective technical merits of each vehicle. Such things as air support, logistics, leadership, training, and doctrine heavily favored the American tankers. I'm sure a Soviet Guards tank army, led by officers and NCOs with combat experience in the "Great Patriotic War", would have been much harder to beat.
@@selfdo that’s extremely doubtful as those were never an equal to the war hardened Americans.
Thanks for all the WW2 footage when describing the Korean war! There's nothing like "authenticity" when creating useless content like this!
The T-34 was underarmored before the end of WW2 (Panzer IVs with the longer guns could kill one easily enough to say nothing of the Tiger, Panther, etc, or even the Sherman with the longer guns)- upgunning it helped immensely but it still had relatively thin armor for the time and its role (its true strength being the sheer number the Soviets could throw at an enemy)..the M24 was designed purely as a scout vehicle and never meant to clash with heavy medium or heavy tanks so its no surprise that they were torn up.
The T-34 and Panzer IV could easily knock each other out. Who won the engagement was mostly down to crew training, tactics and luck.
In addition to what everyone else has said the US Army & Marine Corps in 1950 was essentially the cream of the crop of professional soldiers who stayed on after the military was drastically cut back after the war, mostly veterans in 1950 with extensive experience, especially the marines who had fought for every inch all over the pacific.
The same cannot be said of the North Koreans who had essentially been given all their arms and equipment by the Soviets and steamrolled the broken remnants of imperial Japan in Korea.
I'm glad you decided to slow down your speech. Makes it much more easier on the ear. Keep up the great content.
For those that are criticizeing the content creators, if one does not know that the alternative make of the Korean War is called 'The Forgotten War'. It was referred to that because of the lack of Media coverage and the camera technology which was around at the time. Therefore it is rare and the film permission to use would cost a lot of money. I commend thus content creator fir doing the best with what they have to work with.
There were a total of FOUR M26 Pershing tanks in theater, and only THREE of those were involved in the first front engagement with the T-34 tanks. So, at 9:36, the narrator mistakenly states that all EIGHT tanks were engulfed by fire from refueling spills.
I was waiting for this tank battle. Finally!
I'm looking forward to the footage of thousands of Zulus using human wave tactics against the four M26's and General Custer making his last stand against the North Koreans.
"Old Pershings?" The T-34 had an operational history that was four years older than the M-26 Pershing. Even the T-34/85 saw battlefield service two years earlier than the Pershing.
How many wrong pictures of tanks can you show while relating accurate and interesting military history?
It has always amazed me that the Germans, after seeing the 2.36" bazooka, manufactured an 88 mm version in just a few months, while the US was still using the 2.36" five years later.
I enjoy all of this guy's channels. I overlook some of the glaring errors, like the video of many tanks not involved in this theater, because the stories are interesting. I don't rush into the comments section to score "that's not right" points.
Now I've seen Pershing footage for Chaffees, and Chaffees for Pershings. Still enjoying this- the drama quotient is high and I'd never heard of this engagement before.