"When we hit one of the T-34s, its turret immediately came off": on the battles of American and Soviet tanks in Korea

Tank "Pershing"

The first major military confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union can be considered the war on the Korean Peninsula. The Soviet Union supported the idea of ​​turning the peninsula into the territory of victorious socialism, and then communism, and Washington had its own plans in this regard, which did not correspond to the Soviet ones. As a result, the two superpowers converged on the Korean battlefields. Not only in the fields of land, but also in the air. Moreover, both directly and indirectly - through the Korean military.

One of the components of fighting in Korea is fighting tank... It so happened that in Korea many tank legends of the Second World War met. For example, we can note the confrontation between the Soviet T-34 and American tanks "Pershing".

At the first stage of the military campaign, the Soviet "thirty-four" dominated Korea. They easily destroyed the American light tanks M24 Chaffee that were put up against them. The lack of forces and means of the South Korean army dictated Washington the need to more actively intervene in developing events. It was decided to transfer weapons and military equipment to the peninsula that could withstand the army of the North with Soviet-made tanks in its arsenal.

The Alexnott channel presents a story about the battles of American tanks, including the M26 Pershing, with Soviet T-34-85 tanks during the Korean War. In the material, the author relies on the narrative of American combatants, including Robert Dylan, who was part of the crew of one of the Pershing.

From the narrative:

The projectile speed of the Pershing tank reached 1,5 km / s. And when we hit one of the T-34s, its turret instantly came off.

Comments

[Gardamir]

In the material, the author relies on the narrative of American combatants,

Why not rely on the opinion of our side in Russia. It's like a continuation of the morning theme "Where does betrayal begin?"

[kig]

German Tiger and its characteristics, armor and cannon, remember? Very similar to Pershing. The results of his encounters with the T-34 were the same. Will you also call it a betrayal?

[ism_ek]

Well, you know ... When the author writes about the initial projectile velocity of the American cannon 1,5 km / s ... Well, this is a complete lie.
Americans measure footage. Written by the author is not the words of a tanker. An American tanker could not say so. TE The author is a liar, or down who does not know how to translate feet into kilometers.
The fact that the T-34s were ambushed is not the fault of the tank builders.

[YOUR]

TTX gun M3 - https://topwar.ru/116486-amerikanskoe-90-mm-tankovoe-orudie-m3.html
from a distance of almost a kilometer pierced the Tiger's frontal armor.
What can I argue, war is war. We are them, they are us.

[ism_ek]

One more ........ Well, where in the link you give is written

from a distance of almost a kilometer pierced the Tiger's frontal armor.

Did you accidentally confuse the Tiger with the Panther? The animals are similar, but the tanks are completely different.
Do not forget that the shells are different for different types of armor. The Tiger has one armor, the Panther has another, the T-34 has a third
Armor penetration is defined differently in different countries. Direct comparisons are not relevant here. The game "tanks" and real life are completely different things.

[YOUR]

If you bothered to read the material the link to which I made, looked at the performance characteristics of the Tiger, then such questions were not asked. Those few descriptions of Pershing's battles with the Tigers were considered one thing.
From a distance of about one kilometer, the M3 cannon, created on the basis of an anti-aircraft gun, penetrates 117 mm armor, the Tiger's frontal armor - 100 mm.
The game "tanks" and real life are completely different things.

[YOUR]

I will add, if only the HF had read the material, they would have learned that the penetration tests were carried out with a blunt-headed armor-piercing projectile, the armor was installed at an angle of 60 degrees.
A sub-caliber projectile will obviously have more armor penetration.

[zenion]

Some retrained scientists confuse German heavy tanks and Soviet medium tanks. But they never put up the German heavy against the Soviet heavy.

[-Dmitry-]

TTX gun M3 - https://topwar.ru/116486-amerikanskoe-90-mm-tankovoe-orudie-m3.html
from a distance of almost a kilometer pierced the Tiger's frontal armor.
What can I argue, war is war. We are them, they are us.

The 85mm T-34-85 cannon penetrated the NLD and VLD Tigers also from 1000 m. So what?

[YOUR]

You would have decided what you are trying to prove, and then pouring from empty to empty.

[Rt-xnumx]

Quote: YOUR

war is war. We are them, they are us.

Us? So it seems that Soviet tankers did not fight in Korea.

[Alexander Kalashnikov]

Amendment. The M3 projectile MUST have penetrated the frontal Tiger from a kilometer. But he did not break through, because such cases (excluding shooting at the range) were not even recorded by the ami themselves.
It is not surprising if we remember that the first 10 Pershing vehicles arrived in Europe only in February 1945, and the first battle took place on 25 February. And on February 28, one of the "Pershing" was shot down, having received a shell from the very "Tiger" in the forehead. And this fact is recognized by you. True, they, essno, claim that the damaged Pershing was later repaired ...
However, having studied these photos (https://www.vn-parabellum.com/battles/elsdorf.html) I personally VERY strongly doubt this.
And further. If tank wasps are to be believed, the M26 Pershing is a great tank with a great gun. Well, just some kind of miracle. On tracks.
But then a ridiculous question arises: why did they stop producing this "splendor" in October 1945, and in 1953, following the results of the Korean War, were they completely removed from service? And why did you, the merchants from God, not even try to snatch the "great" M26 into one of their "sixes"?
Well, extreme. According to Tang data, 309 "Pershing" were received in Korea in the war goals, which during the hostilities destroyed as many as 29 North Korean T-34-85s, while the mentioned wretched crafts of the Russians managed (with great difficulty, essno) to knock out only 6 "Pershing". ! Great victory for the Tang tank industry!
But you yourself admit that from July 1950 to January 21, 1951, 252 Pershing tanks were involved in the "UN forces", of which 156 tanks were disabled, including 50 tanks - destroyed irrevocably or captured by the enemy. and from January 21 to October 6, 1951, 170 M26 tanks were disabled. We are modestly silent about irrecoverable losses during this period. As well as the losses of the M26 in the subsequent period - until the end of the war. That, on the one hand, is connected with the "modesty" characteristic of us, and on the other hand, with the fact that by the end of 1951, all the Pershing in Korea were replaced by the Shermans and Pattons. All "Pershing" that survived by that time: 309 - 156 - 170 = 83.
And, of course, all the "disabled" Pershing tanks suffered from anything, but not from the fire of the T-34-85 tanks. The implication is that the "communist fanatics" Kim and Mao knocked them out with slingshots.

[Undecim]

Well, you know ... When the author writes about the initial projectile velocity of the American cannon 1,5 km / s ... Well, this is a complete lie.
Americans measure footage.
Lies, but not complete. By 30%.

Armor-piercing shell T30E16 HVAP for the 90 mm M3 cannon of the M26 Pershing tank. The initial speed is 1018 m / s (3340 ft / s).

[Alexander Kalashnikov]

Where does such an interesting figure come from?
Let me remind you: 90-mm anti-aircraft guns M2 mod. 1942 supplied to the USSR under Lend-Lease. In this connection, there are SOVIET documents, in which in black and white, in Russian it is indicated: the initial speed of a full-bodied projectile weighing 11 kg is 823 meters per second, which corresponds to 2700 feet per second.
By the way: these are the same figures that Wikipedia gives, both in the Russian and in the English version.
And also, if you didn't know. The initial velocity of a STANDARD corpulent projectile (most often BS or OFS), as well as its weight, is one of the main characteristics of any artillery piece. But the initial velocities of SPECIAL shells - lighter (like BPS) or heavier (like certain types of OFS) are PARTICULARS associated not so much with the performance characteristics of the gun, but with the performance characteristics of this particular projectile.
The simplest example. All reference books (Soviet and non-Soviet) indicate that the muzzle velocity of the Soviet 45-mm cannon mod. 1942 (M-42) - 870 m / s. This implies that we are talking about a kind of averaged corpulent projectile weighing 1,43 kg. (for example 53-B-240)
But at the same time, even the first-year cadets-artillerymen are well aware that when using a heavier projectile (for example, 53-O-240 weighing 2,4 kg), the initial speed will be LOWER (about 760 m / s), and when using a lighter projectile (for example 53-BR-240P weighing 0,85 kg) - much HIGHER (up to 1070 m / s)

[Undecim]

You, excuse me for being straightforward, wrote nonsense.

[Aibolit]

Quote: ism_ek

When the author writes about the initial projectile velocity of the American cannon 1,5 km / s ... Well, this is a complete lie.

The 90 mm M3 gun was developed in 1942-43 on the basis of the M1 / ​​M2 anti-aircraft gun
T44 HVAP Initial speed 3750 ft / s (1140 m / s). Maximum penetration of 15 inches (380 mm) vertical armor at 30 feet.
all other 975 m / s
However, this does not change the essence (T-34, even in the guise of -85, was obsolete back in 1944)

Quote: YOUR

TTX cannon M3

-the article does not contain any "performance characteristics"
- Performance characteristics for a barrel gun sounds ... it sounds crappy

[kig]

Quote: ism_ek

When the author writes about the initial velocity

For some reason, the author copied and italicized the text of the voice acting in the video, where this figure was called, and not in Russian. Obviously inaccurate translation. And I strongly doubt that the author of the video - someone Alexnott - translated this text himself. At the moment I'm downloading the book T-34-85 vs M26 Pershing: Korea 1950 by Steven J Zaloga, who seems to have written more than 100 books on military history. I will read it, and maybe later I will share here what I learned.

[Sergey Sfiedu]

"a certain Steven J Zaloga" - smiled!

[whiteidol]

T-34 medium tank. Tiger-heavy. I think the comparison is not correct. Let's compare the Tiger with the IS-122. The main thing was to get out of this gun ... after hitting, the Tiger was usually not subject to recovery. Or compare with the T-34-85. After hitting 85 mm, the tiger also felt bad. There is no comparison of just tanks .. it is correct to compare tank + crew.

[Gardamir]

Will you also call it a betrayal?

There are two options here: either you are a traitor, or you are very stupid. As a wheelchair user, you worry about your Americans.

[Rt-xnumx]

Quote: Gardamir

There are two options here: either you are a traitor, or you are very stupid.

There is still a third option - a rabid "patriot". If he hears that "Our Mom is not the coolest!" - then falls into hysterics.

[alexey sidykin]

Pershing and Tiger as well as the Panther are heavy tanks, t-34 and t34-85 medium tanks. The same American average Shermans 34 snapped like nuts, so they need to be compared.

[Alex Kozyrev]

The first sensible thought that I read here. I thought no one would tell. And with Pershing it is more appropriate to compare the same IS-3. Both are heavy, both at the same time.

[Oleg Bykov]

Too superficial ...

[-Dmitry-]

Quote: kig

German Tiger and its characteristics, armor and cannon, remember? Very similar to Pershing. The results of his encounters with the T-34 were the same. Will you also call it a betrayal?

And you mean what meetings and with which T-34? If we are talking specifically about the T-34-85, then the 85 mm cannon penetrated the NLD Tiger, (accordingly, with the ease of the VLD, since the VLD has an inclination angle of 90, and the NLD 20 degrees), from a distance of 1000 m. talked about the fact that the T-34 had to be approached at a distance of 200-500 m, is true only for the T-34-76 of all years of construction. And the article deals with the T-34-85. Therefore, starting in 1944, the T-34-85 fought the Tigers quite confidently.

[Sergey Sfiedu]

Confident enough are common words. In theory, the T-34 could probably hit the Tiger from 1000 km, but hardly with the first shot. And considering that the "Tiger" has a more powerful cannon, better armor protection and better optics - the chances are not very good. And in 1944 "Tigers" were taken out of production. As obsolete, they were replaced by "Panthers" and "Royal Tigers".

[-Dmitry-]

In theory, the T-34 could probably hit the Tiger from 1000 km, but hardly with the first shot.

:)))) I still like the "arguments" :))) From 1000 km, of course I could not break through, but from one I easily pierced.
For those who are not familiar with the results of the shelling of the Tiger in Kubinka in 1943, I can tell you that the 85mm anti-aircraft gun, from which the shelling was carried out and on the basis of which the T-34-85 gun was made, pierced the Tiger's armor on the conditions I mentioned above. One shot, one penetration. In case of misses, those were recorded in the report. And in general, speculation on the topic, combat conditions, misses, etc. nothing more than demagoguery - if the projectile hit the NLD or VLD of the Tiger, then he punched it. This is a historical, documented fact.

And in 1944 "Tigers" were taken out of production. As obsolete, they were replaced by "Panthers" and "Royal Tigers".

What have the Panthers and Royal Tigers to do with it? It was about the Tigers and the T-34-85. And so, during the battles near Lake Balaton, the T-34-85 very successfully burned the Korolev Tigers. Because of the ambushes, of course, and not in the forehead, but nevertheless they burned.

[zenion]

You can't imagine. The corn-man flew over the tiger and dropped a small box on it. The tiger's head flew off, and it fell apart into its component parts. The maize man was lucky that he flew a little further. I liked it so much that they began to throw boxes on tigers and other trifles. If earlier the tigers walked in close formation, then after that they had to make large gaps, and they could not cover the small fry with themselves. And one supermanherr said that if the first time did not hit the T-34, then the second time may not be.

[Sergey Sfiedu]

And many "Tigers" were burned with boxes?

[alexey sidykin]

All the same, comparing heavy and medium tanks is somehow incorrect, is not it?

[Klibanophoros]

In fact, the Pershing prototype began to be designed in 1942, under the influence of tests of the Soviet KV-1 tank.

[Catfish]

It is always useful to know the opinion of the opposite side. And where is the betrayal, or do you think that in the Soviet Military Publishing there were completely traitors, because they published the memoirs of Guderian, Ruge and naval history as presented by Morrison? Well, well ... if not to say however.

[Gardamir]

And where does

You are right, justify Solovyov, Kiselyov ... This is also an ideology, when you choose to be proud of the victories of the country or consider that, for example, the Nazis who burn Russian villages are people too. then they shout it's time to bring down ...

[Catfish]

You are right, justify Solovyov, Kiselyov ... This is also an ideology when you choose to be proud of the country's victories or consider that, for example, the Nazis who burn Russian villages are also people.

But what is this all for? And here is the ideology, some Kiselevs with the Nazis, when it comes only to the technical side of the matter. Again "elderberry in the garden, and uncle in Kiev"? Or are you like that private Sidorov from the well-known anecdote who, looking at a pile of bricks, was still unable to think about anything other than women.

[Gardamir]

it's only about the technical side of the matter

here you praised the Americans, here the Nazis

Sea Cat (Constantine)
14 October 2020 09: 29
+8
"They are using old weapons": Azerbaijan reported on the destruction of the KS-19 anti-aircraft gun of the enemy troops
The most terrible and effective anti-tank weapon of the Second World War was recognized as the German 88 mm. anti-aircraft gun Rak 43/41 1:35 Trumpeter. And what prevents the use of a similar weapon in the same capacity now?

You have a strange urge to praise enemy vehicles.

[Catfish]

Military technology is either bad or good, like any other weapon, the whole question is who and in the name of what uses these weapons and equipment.
Do you have a tablet or PC made by someone? Do you worship the West, or worse, before the East? "Bush's Legs" eaten? Then everything is clear with you.

You have a strange urge to praise enemy vehicles.

But another thing is also clear to me - just such types as you once wrote to the NKVD, because nothing else, except for false and operetta patriotism, could not show themselves.
I wish you hello to the fear of enemies, take care of your stomach.

[Gardamir]

the whole question is who uses these weapons and equipment and for what purpose.

I would put the question differently, who glorifies what technique.

Do you have a tablet or PC made by someone?

Hee hee. are the arguments over? You want to say that all of Russia is inundated with computers of our own production, but I am buying foreign goods for a vile one. 20 years or even seven after the imposition of sanctions, where is the vaunted import substitution?

[Catfish]

I would put the question differently, who glorifies what technique.

And the hell to glorify her, she will say her word for herself and, no matter how praise Yakovlev's fighters, but still Pokryshkin preferred "Airacobra" (That's a bastard, eh? He absolutely shamelessly glorified American technology, knocking down the Fritzes and getting hero stars! )

Hee hee. are the arguments over?

Hee-hee, and you didn't have them at all.
And about import substitution, this is not for me, but for your beloved VeVePe. He will chew you up and put it in your mouth, you just have to swallow it, if you don't choke, of course.

[Lexus]

Konstantin ,
if we begin to gnaw each other's throats, we will fulfill the most cherished desire of the "gourmets" of Russia. I am categorically against such a "gift" to them.

[Catfish]

So maybe you can explain to this figure what patriotism is and what it should be. I, you know, not a psychiatrist to seriously engage in a frank clinic.

[Lexus]

Ideally, everything should be your own and better than someone else's. But this, alas, does not happen. And the current "crooks and thieves" do not even strive for this. That is why my language does not dare to "shrug" the modern, exclusively virtual, "breakthroughs" of the Russian Federation, not supported by facts. But even the use of "imports" (ANYWAY not replaced in fact), stuffed with "foreign" high-tech components, controlled only by the "manufacturer", is fraught with sad consequences. Given the "intimacy" of the scope - more than certain - fatal. I believe that those who love their homeland not by chance / for money need to unite, and not conflict and exchange reproaches. Otherwise, we ourselves will deprive our own country of the future, in general, anyone, saying goodbye to dreams of its Greatness.

[Gardamir]

Pokryshkin preferred "Airacobra" (That's a bastard, eh?

humorist you my friend or just do not care about the history of the country. Since when do the military prefer to fight than to fight?
but about chewing. where are you from ... on skis, arise and melt.

[Catfish]

... or just don't care about the history of the country

So if Pokryshkin fought in the Cobra, I don't give a damn about the history of the country?
That's it, goodbye, so at the same time you can drive off the roof.

[Rt-xnumx]

Quote: Gardamir

Since when do the military prefer to fight than to fight?

Pokryshkin is the best fighter in the Soviet Union. He could have chosen the type of aircraft. But he preferred to fight not on La, not on the Yak, but on the Aircobra for some reason.

[kot423]

Quote: Sea Cat

but still Pokryshkin preferred "Airacobra"

A bit off topic in your discussion with (Gardamir), but you are slightly wrong. Not only Pokryshkin flew effectively in the P-39 (aerocobra), there was a whole group there. Grigory Rechkalov, Alexander Klubov, Vadim Fadeev, Georgy Golubev, Glinka brothers, etc. Many had 50+ shot down. But this does not negate the fatal drawback of the cobra - "flat corkscrew", and the cobra went into a corkscrew on the tail (rear centering) and many pilots, who had 5-10 + shot down each, crashed not even in battle, but in training. Therefore, comparing yaks (yes, they also had problems with engine overheating at first) and cobra is incorrect.

[Catfish]

... but you're slightly wrong.

Good evening, namesake. I’m never a pilot, but just a banal lump. tank in the CA, so I just can't argue about the advantages and disadvantages of different aircraft brands. Here it was about something completely different, in a nutshell, something like this: you praise our everything - you are a patriot; praise something "theirs" - you are a villain and a traitor. In my opinion, this approach smacks of open idiocy. That, in fact, is the whole problem.

[kot423]

Quote: Sea Cat

you are a patriot; praise something "theirs" - you are a villain and a traitor. In my opinion, this approach smacks of open idiocy. That, in fact, is the whole problem.

I absolutely agree with this, namesake)). It is enough just to give an example that according to Gardamir - 99% of the partisans in the Second World War were accomplices of the Nazis, tk. used German rifle fire, mortars, explosives, etc ...

[Catfish]

Now that's the point! It is impossible to argue with such an argument.

[alexey alexeyev_2]

Hmm.And that Pokryshkin had a choice？ What was given on that and fought. Kozhedub clicked on the Lavochkin won how many he snapped .. I considered this car the best. And as for ,, VeVePe, well, you’re in vain. Ogulno moaning, you don’t need much mind. We know more that for this you will not be anything liberal, you are ours. Your mockery about import substitution is inappropriate. Better ask how many factories it has built and reconstructed. Here's something like this.

[Lexus]

Colleague ,
During the Great Patriotic War, many subdivisions and units equipped with trophy / lend-lease "products" operated as part of the Red Army. The crews noted the excellent quality of the German optics and the high accuracy and armor-piercing characteristics of the guns, as well as the comfort and equipment of American / British equipment, in particular. Specifications are objective indicators - they cannot be worsened or improved by denial or political overtones. It is a fatally dangerous delusion to underestimate the enemy. And I do not see anything shameful in hitting the enemy with his own weapon or provided by allies. Along the way, eliminate the identified shortcomings of their own V and VT. It is in vain that you quarrel with Constantine - I have no doubts about his decency.

[AVA77]

Gardamir. (When you choose to be proud of the country's victories).

We do not choose. We are proud! They choose potatoes in the market and kittens.

[Zoldat_A]

Quote: Gardamir

why not rely on the opinion of our side in Russia

I rely on what I know.

To my great-grandfather-tanker, who fought on the Kursk Bulge, the Order of the Red Star and the Medal "For Courage" for the Kursk Bulge, he received - let someone tell him what T-34 is "unfit for war".

I’ll add from myself - I don’t know where they came from, but the spirits in Afghanistan had T-34s. We burned them out ... But we did burn them ...

[kig]

As a consolation for Gardamir, I quote from the book "T-34-85 vs M26 Pershing: Korea 1950" by Steven J Zaloga:

The NKPA partly redeemed its fumbling attack a few weeks later on September 5, 1950, when two more T-34-85s supported by a pair of SU-76M assault guns and a company of infantry attacked the same location. The M26 tanks of the 1st Platoon rushed forward, but with their turrets facing in the wrong direction; both were hit by
85mm fire and knocked out. The NKPA armored vehicles, however, were also all knocked out with bazooka fire.

My translation:
The DPRK tankers were partially rehabilitated a few weeks later, on September 5, 1950, when two T34s, supported by a pair of SU-76s and an infantry company, attacked the same positions. M26 tanks of the 1st platoon rushed towards, but their towers were turned in the wrong direction (??); both were hit by 85mm cannon fire. The DPRK armored vehicles, however, were also hit by bazooka fire.

As you can see, everyone was wrong ...

[kig]

Quote: Gardamir

Where does betrayal begin?

I suggest you look here
https://topwar.ru/176729-ssha-hotjat-dominirovat-v-mirovom-okeane-v-shtatah-sozdaetsja-novaja-udarnaja-submarina.html
They dared to show a movie about an American submarine.

[svp67]

I wonder if an IS-2 projectile had hit the Pershing, so that and how long would it fly off?

[sabakina]

Quote: svp67

I wonder if an IS-2 projectile had hit the Pershing, so that and how long would it fly off?

Sergei I’m even scared to imagine that the IS-3 has done there ...

[masyuk.mihail]

the same thing - all tanks of the IS series, starting with the IS-2 and except for the IS-7, have the same gun in service.

[Sergey Sfiedu]

The IS-3 has a separate loading cannon. rate of fire - 2-3 rounds per minute, for M-26 - rate of fire 8 rounds per minute. So it's not that simple. "Pershing" will bombard the IS with shells, but it is not a fact that a 90mm projectile hit will necessarily disable the IS. the IS has thicker and more rationally placed armor, but again the Pershing is faster and more maneuverable.

[Catfish]

Most likely, he himself would have flown off to the second space.

[Constanty]

During the fighting in Germany, it turned out that the M26 armor is vulnerable even to the KwK36 88 / L56 "Tiger".

Yes, from a short distance - about 100 meters, but not comparable to the 122 mm IS-2. It's not even about the penetrations, because they were similar, but about the mass of the projectile - after all, the Pershing turret could fly away.

[Mytholog]

"Pershing", actually, was originally classified as heavy.
Initially unequal conditions with the T-34.

[Catfish]

Well, the "Chaffee" there is far from average, approximately on an equal footing you can compare the T-34-85 and the "Sherman" of the latest modification. This is what the video says.

[svp67]

Quote: Mytholog

Initially unequal conditions with the T-34.

And yet...
During the Korean War. According to American data, then the M26 lost six vehicles in battles with the T-34-85, but they themselves destroyed twenty-nine Soviet-Korean tanks. The Korean side speaks about 11 destroyed American and 17 lost their own.

[akarfoxhound]

A heavy Pershing against heavy peers IS-2 or IS-3? As Carlson said: "Is this where we laugh?"

[Iron_Ivan]

Why didn't they expose?

[Holgerton]

The M26 Pershing is a medium tank, and even putting the IS-2 against it would not change much, the M26 at that time was equipped with quite advanced optics and stabilizer, as well as the latest BPS for the then tanks.
The M26 de facto held 85 mm at real effective firing ranges.
122-mm shells confidently hit the M26, only the rate of fire, that the IS-2, that the IS-3 was about 2 rounds per minute, which is clearly not enough for tank duels, especially in the absence of at least some kind of stabilizer, which would their extremely convenient target. Even the Negro Joe in the American M26 could throw 5-6 90-mm blanks per minute, and if you try hard, then all 7 shots.
The 90-mm gun pierced the IS-2's forehead from the maximum effective firing range of the IS-2 itself, but the IS-3 then could not hit any American gun, except for artillery.
But here, as it were, another moment, the mass of the IS-3 itself of 50 tons and the insufficiently powerful engine did not allow it to be effectively used when conducting a database against a more maneuverable enemy and a tasty target for assault aviation, even in Egypt there were quite a few problems with cross-country ability, which talk about the Korean thaw, humid climate, wood-stone bridges and multi-level relief, which did not even allow to realize the advantage of armor protection.
That is why the IS-3 began to be produced in 1945, the production finished well in 1946, and they forgot how about a nightmare and a relic of the Second World War, and relied on the more versatile T-54/55.

[whiteidol]

Perhaps not forgotten, but on the way was the IS 7 and T10. IS 7 development is just 45-47 years. The pike nose of the IS-3 was moved to the IS-7. Good armor and a 130 mm cannon ... Marine diesel with a capacity of 1050 hp. But he also did not go into the series. I needed a wash, already MBT.

[garri-lin]

Pershing average 45 tons. Is 3 heavy 49 tons. Strange logic. But the fact that Pershing was much more mobile I do not argue.

[Holgerton]

The Pershing on average weighed, depending on the modification, 41-43 tons, 45 tons weighed only the "Super Pershing", which was basically a piece modification in order to assess and see the possibilities, and it could really be called a heavy tank.
And even more so, the post-war medium tanks seriously gained weight, since versatility was required, well, as if even the T-34-85 already weighed 34-35 tons, then its T-54/55 offensive weighed 36-37 tons in basic configuration.
The relatively high mass of the M26 was mainly due to the technological limitations of the period of its development, since it fell on wartime, when everything needed to be done in a short time, and most of the systems were not worked out, or did not exist at all, because of this, the dimensions of these systems grew. due to dimensions, weight, etc.
Well, do not forget that in the United States in particular, and in the West as a whole, there was a tendency towards more spacious fighting compartments than ours, in order to increase habitability and convenience with a long stay inside the tank, which also increases the mass of the tank.

[garri-lin]

Well I do not know. It seems like the actual mass of serial was 43,5 and above. With IS 3, by the way, they are peers and were created on the basis of the same experience.

[PROXOR]

Believe me. Both the TIGER and the Royal Tiger and the Panther were equipped with guns and optics much better than Pershing. And the crews of the Wehrmacht were trained better than the American ones. And that didn't save them. For all the coolness of the technique, the most important thing in it is the CREW. Katukov, back in 1941, showed how to detain the tank divisions of the Wehrmacht with one brigade. The fact that the Koreans substituted their tanks for the Pershing shots is already their miscalculation.

[Constanty]

To make it more fun, these tanks weigh the same as the average Panther.

[Terrible GMO]

Quote: akarfoxhound

A heavy Pershing against heavy peers IS-2 or IS-3?

In a mountainous and hilly Korea?

[kapitan92]

Specifications M26 Pershing
Body length, mm: 6208
Length with a gun forward, mm: 8090
Width, mm: 3505
Height, mm: 2769
Ground clearance mm: 440
Reservations: steel, cast and rolled homogeneous

- Forehead of the body (top), mm / deg: 102 / 46 °
- Body side, mm / deg: 51-76 / 0 °
- Body feed, mm / deg: 51 / 0-30 °
- Bottom, mm: 13 — 25
- Front of the tower, mm / degree: 102 / 0 °
- Tool mask, mm / degree: 114

Armament:
- 90 mm M3 rifled gun
- machine guns - 1 12,7-mm x M2HB, 2 7,62-mm x M1919A4

Ammunition: 58 shells, 400 12,7-mm ammo, 5000 7,62-mm ammo.

Engine type - V-shaped 8-cylinder carburetor liquid cooling
Engine power, hp: 500
Highway speed, km / h: 48
Cruising on the highway, km: 120

Gradeable climb, degrees: 30 °
Breakable wall, m: 0,9
Overcoming ditch, m: 2,45
Overcoming ford, m: 1,2.
Weapon stories. M26 Pershing.
In March 2019. there was an article on VO.
https://topwar.ru/155695-rasskazy-ob-oruzhii-m26-pershing-general-kotoryj-pochti-uspel-na-vojnu.html

[boris epstein]

The Pershing was standardized in January 1945 and serial production began at the same time. There could be no question of any serious participation of him in the Second World War. So the legend of World War II is a linden. In addition, it was a HEAVY tank and it was created not to counterbalance the T-34, but to counterbalance the IS-2. Pershing's weight is 41 tons, the front of the hull and the forehead of the tower is armor 102 mm. T-34, even T-34-85-medium tank, weight 34 tons, the front of the hull and the forehead of the turret of the first parties-45 mm, the last parties-up to 90 mm. But the T-34-76 participated in the Second World War since June 22, 1941 years until the end of the war, T-34-85 - from February 1944. So the T-34 of all modifications is truly a legend of World War II. As soon as the USSR began to supply the North Koreans with IS-2s, Pershing towers began to fly.

[voyaka uh]

"it was a HEAVY tank and it was created not to counterbalance the T-34, but to counterbalance the IS-2" ///
---
It was created to counterbalance the Tiger.
At that time, no one imagined that the USSR and the USA would collide somewhere

[boris epstein]

Supposed. Even the commander of the aviation army, after Kozhedub shot down two American planes, told him: "They will count towards the future war." As he looked into the water, IN Kozhedub commanded Soviet aviation in Korea, and not only suggested, but also prepared it. Churchill, Operation Unthinkable. In 1942, an American submarine sank the Soviet destroyer Resolute in the Indian Ocean, which was sailing as part of a division from the Pacific Fleet to the Northern Fleet, and an English bomber sank a submarine sold by the USSR by Great Britain in the Baltic Sea. As part of Operation Alsos under the command of General Groves, the Americans repeatedly climbed into the Soviet zone of occupation in search of scientific and technical documentation, German scientists and designers, until they were given a mouthful. The US Air Force Lightning bombed a Soviet motorized rifle brigade column, killing the corps commander. Soviet fighters did not expect this and were a little late with the response, but the amers gave it to the teeth - they shot down 9 Americans, losing two of their own. Creation of a coalition against the USSR with the participation of American, British and ... Hitler troops from prisoners of war captured by the allies in the Wehrmacht. And here the Pershing had to go on a par with the Tigers and Panthers. Soviet intelligence learned about this plan in time and the Supreme High Command by redeploying the Red Army troops prevented the war.

[voyaka uh]

What redeployment? What is the war with America?
Lend-Lease ceased immediately after May 45.
Ammunition: cartridges, gunpowder, explosives came from America.
For another half a year there were enough supplies of food sent for the army
and for the workers of military factories.
The Red Army was quickly reduced many times over,
the soldiers were dismissed to their homes.

[MMX]

What redeployment? What is the war with America?
Lend-Lease ceased immediately after May 45.

And where does the Lend-Lease?

Ammunition: cartridges, gunpowder, explosives came from America.

Miser from what the Union did for itself.

For another half a year there were enough supplies of food sent for the army

And without the sent ones, how much?

The Red Army was quickly reduced many times over, the soldiers were dismissed to their homes.

Well, yes, it is surprising, however, that the mobilized army is kept in wartime.
Believe it or not, all the belligerent countries, after the end of the war, did the same, including the United States (apparently the same gunpowder and food ran out )

[voyaka uh]

"And how much without the sent ones?" ///
----
Not how much. There were no supplies.
Those people who believe that after 1945 the Red Army could
triumphantly move west to the English Channel, forget
that the technical and food supply of the Red Army
carried out by America.
This supply abruptly ended in one day in May 45.
Therefore, no further offensives could be carried out.
Despite the large amount of equipment and combat experience of soldiers and officers.

[zwlad]

Well yes. You're right. And so the Japanese at 45 were defeated by the Americans.
You gotta get a cigarette.

[Terrible GMO]

Quote: zwlad

And so the Japanese were defeated at 45 by the Americans.

Having knocked out their aviation, the fleet, completely cutting off from the resources, the occupied territories and with the destroyed industry? Definitely. The fate of Japan in 45 was decided regardless of the actions of the USSR, the only difference is in the conditions of surrender.

[stalkerwalker]

Quote: TerribleGMO

Having knocked out their aviation, fleet, completely cutting off from the resources, the occupied territories and with the destroyed industry? Definitely. The fate of Japan in 45 was decided regardless of the actions of the USSR, the only difference is in the conditions of surrender

It turns out that I. Stalin in Yalta himself proposed to enter the war with Japan on the side of the allies?
Why, I wonder? Sakhalin would definitely be returned.

[Terrible GMO]

Quote: stalkerwalker

It turns out that I. Stalin in Yalta himself proposed to enter the war with Japan on the side of the allies?

Quote: TerribleGMO

The fate of Japan in 45 was decided regardless of the actions of the USSR, the only difference is in the conditions of surrender.

With the USSR it was faster and more devastating, a little later without it. The Kwantung Army did not even have a chance to cross over to the islands.

[stalkerwalker]

Quote: TerribleGMO

With the USSR it is faster and more devastating, a little later without it. The Kwantung Army did not even have a chance to cross over to the islands

A little later - is it a lope of grams?

Quote: TerribleGMO

Having knocked out their aviation, the fleet, completely cutting off from the resources, the occupied territories and with the destroyed industry

Resources are doubtful. Industry is even more dubious. And the unsubstantiated statement about the defeat of aviation and the fleet does not go into any gate.
By the summer of 45, the United States had essentially returned the status quo of the summer of 41, removing the consequences of both its mistakes in the Pacific theater of operations and the shoals of allies in Oceania and the Philippines, including Singapore.

[zwlad]

And having won the victory at the cost of several million more lives?
No. I do not believe.
Their population would not have allowed them to ditch so many people and Japan would not have been defeated. There would be a peace agreement before the next war, in which the Soviet soldier would have to win again.

[PROXOR]

Here you are dissembling. The fleet did not agree, from the aviation remained the ashmetki agree. But the battles for Okinawa showed what awaits them in Japan and China itself. The Japanese fought in any conditions. There was only one way to take Japan itself with minimal losses: total burning out with nuclear weapons.

[Sergey Sfiedu]

Or napalm. What the Yankees would do. A naval blockade and a year of total bombing. After that, one could forget about Japan forever.

[PROXOR]

And then they would be equated with war criminals.

[-Dmitry-]

Those people who believe that after 1945 the Red Army could
triumphantly move west to the English Channel, forget
that the technical and food supply of the Red Army
carried out by America.
This supply abruptly ended in one day in May 45.
Therefore, no further offensives could be carried out.

Typical misconception. You probably think that Lend-Lease was a gratuitous aid from the States of the USSR? :) If you don’t know or have forgotten, then I will remind you or let you know that ALL the equipment received under the lend-lease, if it was not destroyed, was subject to return. Of course, it was especially difficult to return the vehicle equipment. This is not to mention the fact that they paid the United States for this "aid" until the 2000s.
The supply of course was, but it was not in such quantities as to be considered that it was carried out by America :) It's like saying that the States defeated the Germans in WWII. You will also say that by opening the Second Front, the Allies turned the tide of WWII :))) In August 1944, the Red Army was already fighting in Europe.

[alexey alexeyev_2]

Well, you are a liar and a liar. The Soviet Union supplied the population in its occupation zone with food for almost six months. So far, they have harvested 45 g. Shared the seed fund.

[MMX]

Not how much. There were no supplies.

The USSR itself did not produce anything ???

that the technical and food supply of the Red Army
carried out by America.

Really? To what extent?
It is believed that these scales did not exceed 4%. In the most difficult years of the war of 1941-1942, the USSR somehow turned the tide of the war without the volume of Lend-Lease (let me remind you that more than 70% of all supplies fell precisely in 1943-1945, i.e. after the USSR came out on a victorious line in the war with Germany).
Therefore, without Lend-Lease, the Union could fight and more than successfully. And given the number of troops in Europe, it seems that the defeat of the Allied troops was a matter of several months.

[voyaka uh]

"Given the number of troops in Europe, it seems that the defeat of the Allied troops was a matter of several months." ///
---
Taking into account the number of strategic bombers and fighters in the United States and Britain, it could have turned out and vice versa.
In 45, a lot of soldiers in the Red Army were either 17 years old or over 40 years old.
The rest of the age was raised during 4 years of a hard war.
During the Berlin operation, the divisions were completed by 1/3. Most of the reinforcements were untrained infantry from Central Asia.
You have a common misconception about the potential of the parties in 1945.

[MMX]

Taking into account the number of strategic bombers and fighters in the United States and Britain, it could have turned out and vice versa.

For a rival of the scale of the USSR, this is clearly not enough.

In 45, a lot of soldiers in the Red Army were either 17 years old or over 40 years old.
The rest of the age was raised during 4 years of a hard war.
During the Berlin operation, the divisions were completed by 1/3. Most of the reinforcements were untrained infantry from Central Asia.

You will decide: either there is nothing to feed the soldiers, then there is nobody to fight

You have a common misconception about the potential of the parties in 1945.

Given the fact that even with nuclear weapons at that time, the States did not dare to open conflict with the USSR (and there were such plans). This suggests that the ratio was not in favor of the Allies.

ADF. P.S. By the way, the "untrained infantry" from Central Asia already in 1941 and 1942, quite fought against the trained Wehrmacht, including the battle of Moscow. Which was an unpleasant surprise for Hitler.

[voyaka uh]

"You will decide: there is nothing to feed the soldiers, then there is nobody to fight" ///
---
Both. The USSR defeated Germany heroically, but absolutely at the limit
opportunities. They began to call in 45 at the age of 17.
The mobilization potential of the USSR was exhausted.
We fed the 15 million Red Army and the workers of the military-industrial complex
actually Americans. And provided ammunition and shells
no limits. This is subsidiary, of course, but without it to attack
impossible.
In 45, deserters were recruited from Central Asia after massive round-ups.
Those soldiers, 41, 42 years old (Panfilov and others) were different - trained,
prepared.

[MMX]

That is, after 1945 everyone died of hunger ????
The people did not go anywhere after demobilization. And all the factories of the military-industrial complex survived (and multiplied). Therefore, here you do not agree.
In addition, the Allied armies were not fired at at all compared to us. They had an order of magnitude less military experience than the USSR. I think the ratio of the quality (and quantity) of troops was overwhelming in favor of the USSR.
Yes, Germany was strong, no doubt about it. But even she could not be compared with the might of the USSR. In fact (and the memoirs of German generals confirm this) already after 1942 (Stalingrad happened already in 1942, let me remind you) there was an understanding that Germany was not capable of winning the war against such a giant as the USSR. The strategic operations of 1944 clearly demonstrated the power of the Soviet military machine, when entire groups of German armies ceased to exist ...
During the entire war, the Allies had nothing close, neither in scale nor in success!

[-Dmitry-]

The mobilization potential of the USSR was exhausted.
We fed the 15 million Red Army and the workers of the military-industrial complex
actually Americans. And provided ammunition and shells
no limits. This is subsidiary, of course, but without it to attack
impossible.
In 45, deserters were recruited from Central Asia after massive round-ups.
Those soldiers, 41, 42 years old (Panfilov and others) were different - trained,
prepared.

God, what nonsense are you talking about ...

[hohol95]

And provided ammunition and shells
no limits.

And did the Americans supply us a lot of cartridges 7,62x54R, 7,62x25?
Artillery rounds 53-UBR-354A, 53-UBR-354B, 53-UBR-354P, 53-UOF-354M, 53-USH-354T?
Could you give the delivered volumes?

[-Dmitry-]

In 45, a lot of soldiers in the Red Army were either 17 years old or over 40 years old.

In 45, they were the most efficient soldiers, at least in all of Europe. As the experience of air battles in Korea showed, they were at least not inferior to the Americans.

During the Berlin operation, the divisions were completed by 1/3. Most of the reinforcements were untrained infantry from Central Asia.
You have a common misconception about the potential of the parties in 1945.

Let me quote "You have a common misconception about the potential of the parties in 1945."

Nevertheless, Churchill did not dare to implement his "unthinkable" plan. Yes, and shtatovtsy, did not dare to implement their numerous plans for the atomic bombing of the USSR. These were exactly the plans that they could very well carry out. At first, it is clear that there were not enough bombs, but by the age of 50, the supply of bombs was quite sufficient. But nevertheless, they again did not dare to put their next plan into practice. And this was not at all a fear for the fate of the world.

[The eye of the crying]

Quote: Boris Epstein

after Kozhedub shot down two American planes

And Pokryshkin began his career by shooting down a Su-2. Was this the beginning of the civil war?

[akarfoxhound]

Kozhedub's memoirs actually describe this story, he knew whom he had failed and why, he described the battle itself in detail, and this phrase "on account of a future war" from his own words was told to him in the "upper" headquarters together with the FKP film transmitted. And here is your far-fetched "humorous" example of Pokryshkin's failure to recognize the silhouette of his plane at 41?

[The eye of the crying]

Quote: akarfoxhound

In Kozhedub's memoirs, this story is really painted, he knew whom he flunked and why

It's funny. Are you saying that the USSR had already begun to fight against the allies then?

Quote: akarfoxhound

And here is your far-fetched "humorous" example of Pokryshkin's failure to recognize the silhouette of his plane at 41?

Despite the fact that friendly fire is a long and glorious tradition.

[akarfoxhound]

I want to say that the "allies" even then checked for weakness, without disdaining attacks, I look at you everything connected with military operations - everything is funny and funny. Single clashes with minke whales for more than 70 years - was it a declared war? Judging by the demagogy you were in the army, who were you - a bread cutter? Those. You do not know anything about that air battle and its circumstances, as well as about the circumstances of the clashes with amers in our zones of occupation, but scratching your tongue is not to roll bags, right?

[The eye of the crying]

Quote: akarfoxhound

I want to say that the "allies" even then checked for weak

And ours were tested for "weak" allies, so in your opinion (the incident with Pokryshkin)?

In my opinion, you attach too much importance to the usual friendly fire.

[Andrey NM]

As for Pokryshkin ... It was not Pokryshkin that was sent to Korea to command the 324th Division, but Kozhedub. Why? And Kozhedub at that time was only 30 years old. I hope you don’t need to tell how his division fought in Korea? Don't remind me about April 12, 1951? By the way, it must have coincided with the Cosmonautics Day, or the Cosmonautics Day coincided ..

[Paragraph Epitafievich Y.]

You shouldn't elevate friendly fire to the rank of deliberate actions and wrap up cheap conspiracy theories around it. You are pulling the FF facts you want from the general tragic (in places tragicomic) list. And the 'Unthinkable' is overgrown with such amateurish speculations that it is considered almost an operation with the included countdown.

[-Dmitry-]

All this was of course, but nevertheless, the Pershing still fought a little. And yes, all the same, they were not created in opposition to the T-34-85. It's just that if we compare the mobility (specific power), then everything becomes immediately clear - 12 hp / t for Pershing and 15 hp / t for the T-34-85. Tanks have completely different niches and goals.

[garri-lin]

At the time of Overlord, the future of Europe was clear. And forcing the creation of technology in 44 -45 years was conducted not for the ongoing war, but for the future. Likewise, T 44 and IS 3. Not tested in battles. So that the infa on the performance characteristics does not flow to the possible future of the opponents.

[PROXOR]

Oh, is it? !!!! Stop lying to everyone. When Pershing was preparing for graduation, the "allies" themselves were already in Normandy. The days of the Wehrmacht were numbered. And the USSR was viewed precisely as a future geopolitical adversary. And everything was preparing for this. Therefore, when the Wehrmacht began to pour in on all fronts and thousands of officers and soldiers began to surrender to the allies, the United States and England began to actively recruit specialists from the Wehrmacht with experience in fighting on the Eastern Front.

[Constanty]

The armor of the T-34-85 hull has not changed. There were attempts to increase the thickness to 75 mm, but such tanks (T-34-85M) did not enter serial production.

[rocket757]

T 34 is truly a victory tank, legendary.
Pershin appeared too late and his achievements in that war, well, quite modest.
The tank is good, for its time, there are no questions, but the T 34, by that time, was not capable of head-on, head-on, to withstand the heavier, newer technology.

[Catfish]

Hi victor There is still no answer to the question why Stalin didn’t give North Koreans the newest "half-four-quarters", well, be it even a battalion of ISs ... in short, of course.

[rocket757]

Hi Konstantin
There is also an opinion that the Korean comrades have begun their "game", contrary to the opinion of their big brother, Comrade Stalin.
Who now dares to say for sure, to prove why and why then everything happened ... but, again, those T 54s, in Vietnam, faced Pershing, with the next generation of Yankee tanks and BURNED! because having a good technique is one thing, being able to apply it correctly is another!
Another war, different conditions, a different type of military operations and, accordingly, the technique had to be learned to use in a different way ... different tactics.
The husband was later in Afghanistan, very much convinced that starting a new war, relying only on the baggage of previous wars, is a big mistake!

[Catfish]

Well, in Vieta, "Centurions", for example, just drowned in the swamps ... I mean that at the North. Most of the Koreans, including the Minister of Defense, went with our army to Berlin and they knew how to use tanks, there were even Heroes of the Soviet Union there. And so, they even had nothing to compensate for losses in technology. Alas.

[rocket757]

In Korea, the war was somewhat different, the enemy was different ... just the opinion of people who are closer to the topic.
Not my topic, so there is not much to say.

[-Dmitry-]

The husband was later in Afghanistan, very much convinced that starting a new war, relying only on the baggage of previous wars, is a big mistake!

Husband is we? That is, the USSR? Are you saying that the USSR was defeated in Afghanistan? :) A common misconception. Firstly, unlike the United States, the OKSV SA in the DRA did not have goals and objectives to conquer the territory of the DRA, there was simply no need for this, only in the first year, maybe a year and a half, the spooks fought as military units, then realizing the futility of such hostilities , have already moved on to partisan actions. Secondly, it was assumed that the Afghans themselves would fight the dushmans, but experience showed that they were not fighters, although they were constantly involved in almost all military operations. Thirdly, as far as I know, almost all operations of the 40th Army have achieved their goals and objectives. And already in the beginning somewhere from 82-83, they were carried out with a small number of losses from the side of the 40th Army. For example, the United States lost in killed, according to various estimates, from 40K to 60K people over 12 years. 40 Army in 9 years of war, lost 13K people (according to Soviet data), according to new data, about 14,5 thousand people. For example, the United States in 1968 alone lost more than 16K people.
Fourthly, the withdrawal of the 40th Army took place without losses and in an orderly manner. Including left without loss, and parts covering the exit of 40 Army. So that the war was not lost.

[rocket757]

Quote: -Dmitry-

Husband is we?

Not us, it is GUGLYA who distorts words / phrases as he pleases.

Quote: -Dmitry-

Are you saying that the USSR was defeated in Afghanistan? :) A common misconception.

WHERE did you find this with me ???

Quote: -Dmitry-

First, unlike

Yes, even in tenths .... we made a bunch of mistakes, political, first of all, and others there, to the heap.
I just trust the opinion of serious people who more reasonably prove their opinion .... this does not exclude other opinions, just everyone chooses what is closer to him.

[-Dmitry-]

Yes, even in tenths .... we made a bunch of mistakes, political, first of all, and others there, to the heap.

And you are probably not only a connoisseur of history, but also political science, military affairs ... What else will surprise you? :)

I just trust the opinion of serious people who more reasonably prove their opinion .... this does not exclude other opinions, just everyone chooses what is closer to him.

More justified than me? :) But you didn’t even put forward such justifications, except for your own unjustified opinion.

[rocket757]

Everyone chooses what opinion to listen to.
Although, as a rule, at the end of the operation, war, conflict, they sum up the results ...
The bottom line is that they left and everything returned to normal ...
What was the purpose of the operation? Is this goal fulfilled?
Everything else is information for statistics, analysis and making a variety of decisions, changes where necessary.
That's all.

[-Dmitry-]

What was the purpose of the operation? Is this goal fulfilled?

The purpose of entering OKSV into the DRA was not to allow Amin to go over to the Americans. There were prerequisites for this. Having received quite a few refusals to send troops in 1979, he could well turn to our overseas "partners". So yes, in that time frame, the goal was achieved. After the arrival of Gorbachev with his perestroika and an ardent desire to please the States, of course, the goals of introducing the OKSV have already disappeared. Thus, all the set goals and objectives of the OKSV in the DRA achieved. The fact that the general secretary changed the line of the party is a completely different matter. Unlike the same Americans in Vietnam, who successfully failed their goals and objectives.

[rocket757]

Let's just say that Afghan hush-up is not my favorite topic, but I got acquainted in general terms. From all sides and opinions, by the way.
You have not indicated anything new, at least from one side .... but there is another side that does not present its reasoning from scratch.
In my opinion, it is not possible to have an unconditional, unified opinion.
And again, I repeat, everyone decides for himself what grades and to whom to assign.

[-Dmitry-]

You have not indicated anything new,

I presented the facts, confirmed by documents. This is what history actually consists of. For as modern realities have shown, it is very simple to rewrite history. Simply by pulling facts, documents out of the general context and adjusting them to fit our needs, and now we get that there was no feat of Panfilov, Matrosov slipped, Budyonny is generally a madman and so on, etc., etc.

From all sides and opinions, by the way.

\

What does the opinion have to do with it? When what I have stated is the fact that it is documented. Amin has repeatedly appealed to Brezhnev with requests to send troops to Afghanistan. It is a fact. He was repeatedly refused. This is also a fact. Then Amin went off the rails altogether, and then they came to the conclusion that Amin was "displaced" and the troops were brought in.

[Sergey Sfiedu]

"Retreats do not win wars." You can of course argue that the Soviet army was not defeated in Afghanistan, but the fact that the USSR as a country was defeated there is undoubtedly.

[-Dmitry-]

You can of course argue that the Soviet army was not defeated in Afghanistan, but the fact that the USSR as a country was defeated there is undoubtedly.

The USSR did not suffer defeat there either. Just with the arrival of Gorbachev, perestroika, and other things. The need for Gorbach disappeared. Yes, and their own internal problems made themselves felt. For example, you play something (no matter what, computer, board games, sports), then you simply lost interest in the game and stopped playing it. You lose?

[hohol95]

Thirty-fours vs. Pershing, Patton and Shermans
warspot.ru

[Catfish]

Thank you, Alexey. This is interesting, I will definitely look.

[hohol95]

Look, read. Then tell us about your impressions.

[Catfish]

Required.

[hohol95]

I wonder if there are revelations in the "global whirlpool" that fought on the Ratel-90 (with a 90 mm gun)? And who knocked out the T-1981-34 in Namibia in 85?
I wish I could listen to these stories ...

[Catfish]

I'll try to search the net. In general - "Ratel" is a successful car, then many tried to copy it, a tank on a wheel drive is much more practical and profitable than, say, the same clumsy "Centurion", for all its undoubted advantages.

[hohol95]

It all depends on the battlefield! The South African bush, with its hard ground, is more suitable for wheeled vehicles than, say, the Ganges delta.
Before the Ratel car, the South African used French AML-90 Panhard /
In Angola, the T-34-85 coped with them.
In 1987, on the Lomba River, T-54s crashed 4 Ratel-la!

[Catfish]

I meant exactly the bush as a convenient springboard for wheeled vehicles. I found a couple of articles there called "African Stalingrad", but this is much later than 81.

[hohol95]

This is probably about 1987!

The apotheosis of the civil war in Angola and the War of Independence of Namibia was the defense by the Angolan government troops, Cuban internationalist soldiers and military advisers from the USSR of the village of Kuito Quanavale. From October 1987 to June 1988, a major battle continued here with the massive use of armored vehicles, artillery and aviation.

warspot.ru
African Stalingrad

[ycuce234-san]

quote] The South African bush with its hard ground is more suitable for wheeled vehicles than, say, the Ganges delta. [/ quote]

The bush is local and is mainly located on the plateau in front of the Drakensberg Mountains, and even there it rains during the rainy season. This is not a sandy desert, but a steppe covered with shrubs, the soil of which is easy to roll out into a dirt track. All other territory is normal tropics and subtropics with dense forests and swamps with water bodies and a slightly Mediterranean climate.
The network has an interesting "Africana Books Collection" (https://repository.up.ac.za/handle/2263/17235) where the notes of African travelers of the past centuries are collected and there you can get to know Africa better - for example, read Travels and adventures in Southern Africa. Vol. II, Thompson, George, 1796-1889 - how in 1827 the remains of an ancient Phoenician ship were found near Cape Town:
https://repository.up.ac.za/handle/2263/17235/browse?value=Thompson%2C+George%2C+1796-1889&type=author

[hohol95]

Thank you. But I do not think that the South African army would use heavy wheeled armored vehicles on the wrong terrain.

[ycuce234-san]

It is especially interesting - why and from whom they decided to defend themselves with such wheeled vehicles - they are still partially protected by the Drakensberg Mountains with non-melting snows and tropical mountain forests on one side from their neighbors. It is easier then to make the armored vehicles tracked (of the same type across the country) and not risk the dirt that suddenly formed in the bush. And in other areas - forests and humid cultural fields in the cities. In the forests and fields, tanks should definitely be tracked.

[hohol95]

They had tanks. Upgraded "Centurion" and received "Olifant".
But it is more convenient to drive different partisan detachments or underdeveloped armies of close neighbors on wheeled vehicles. Namibia and Angola!

[ycuce234-san]

Then it was necessary to make a tracked-wheeled version, following the example of the BT, which can both “take off your shoes” and “put on shoes”. Now the electric transmission and motor-wheels (in the version of motor-rollers) allow this to be done at a new level of technology. The caterpillars should not be transported by a truck, but automatically reeled by a winch into the fenders or stern drums. Then such a machine can be used throughout the country, where there are other problematic neighbors and sold, and this is how the "endemic tank" that only lives in the Velda turned out.

[hohol95]

War in Korea. All series in a row. Documentary. StarMedia.

[the Saint]

According to American data, in Korea the Pershing lost six vehicles in battles with the T-34-85, but they themselves destroyed twenty-nine Soviet tanks. The Korean side speaks about 11 destroyed American and 17 lost their own.
How much you can trust these figures is unknown.

[boris epstein]

To believe the Americans is the same as to believe Goebbels; they still do not admit the huge losses of their aircraft in Korea.
Lists of losses of both sides are in the book "Red Devils in the Sky of Korea". Author-Igor Seydov, Moscow, Yauza, Eksmo, 2007.

[akarfoxhound]

There is also an episode in E. Pepelyaev's memoirs, when he was invited in the 90s to the annual meeting of aces "Gathering of Eagles" and when he announced to the audience the number of his shot down (22), the young inhabitants had a slight shock, American pilots greeted this announced information in silence , modestly without commenting. Only two of the most productive striped pilots, James Jabaru (15) and Joseph McConnell (16), "surpassed" 8 of our pilots, Sutyagin (23) ends the list, and with about the same "score" as in the striped whales, ours will be under a couple of dozen. And this despite the fact that the Americans were individually on a "hot business trip" longer.
But what is interesting, at the end of the book, Pepeliaev describes how he went to the DPRK after the trips. And among the general impressions, a visit to the local central museum. So in the exposition of the war there is not a single word about our and Chinese pilots, there "all" loyal disciples of Kim Il Sung defeated.

[-Dmitry-]

To believe the Americans is the same as to believe Goebbels; they still do not admit the huge losses of their aircraft in Korea.

Moreover, they even lie about the number of downed MiGs. For example, when Black Tuesday happened, the Americans reported downed Soviet MiGs, although all planes returned to the airfield - none were shot down.

[Sergey Sfiedu]

In war, truth is the first victim. The number of enemy aircraft shot down is always overstated (and our reports here are no better than American or German ones). Therefore, the results are looked at only after two-sided revisions of the archives.

[Deniso]

In the USSR, apparently many takn remained after the war. Goodness should not be lost.
The Koreans did not have enough experience, as I understand it, otherwise they would have overturned the American military.

[smart fellow]

They had enough experience to drive the American military together with the South Koreans to Busan. The Americans took advantage of manpower superiority, air supremacy and a huge military and merchant fleet, which allowed them to land in Incheon, in the rear of the army and cut supply routes.

[Holgerton]

Speak correctly, there was not enough experience, but the Chinese infantry. The war on the T-34-85 is also very well suited to the description of "experience", against the light M24 "Chaffee", as soon as the Americans had more heavy equipment and artillery in marketable quantities, the "experience" of the North Koreans sharply diminished, as well as the number of Chinese soldiers in their ranks increased.

[smart fellow]

Don't be so categorical. This sounds rude. In the first stage of the war, the KPA defeated the South Korean army together with American troops and pushed them to the sea. CPV entered the war later... The role of tanks is not as important as the role of aviation and navy. There were no major tank battles. Although the Americans during their offensives provided a density of tanks 2-3 times more than in World War II.
As for experience, Koreans from among those who fought in China and the USSR fought in the KPA against the Japanese and Germans. The number of the KPA was about 150 thousand people. and they continuously attacked the enemy outnumbered by two on the Pusan ​​bridgehead, not to mention the weapons, aircraft and navy.

[Sergey Sfiedu]

"The Americans took advantage of manpower superiority" - did the Yankees have manpower superiority? Oh well...

[smart fellow]

What's so surprising?

[Terrible GMO]

Quote: denis obuckov

The Koreans did not have enough experience, as I understand it, otherwise they would have overturned the American military.

They threw away the poor southerners, but fled from the landed Americans to their native 38.

[-Dmitry-]

Quote: TerribleGMO

Quote: denis obuckov

The Koreans did not have enough experience, as I understand it, otherwise they would have overturned the American military.

They threw away the poor southerners, but fled from the landed Americans to their native 38.

Well, then they pushed the poor southerners and rich Americans to the sea. They simply didn’t have enough reserves to finally throw them into the sea, while the Americans, on the contrary, had by that time numerous "multinational" forces arrived.

[Bear040]

Pershing was created as a heavy tank and its comparison with the medium T-34 is not correct. In addition, one must take into account the difference in preparation and banal nutrition, which does not have a sickly effect on combat effectiveness, between Koreans and Yankees.

[know]

Excellent logic ... Based on the opinion of the combatant ... Is all this enough?
Then you can ask another participant in the hostilities. For example, seem to be Houthi. In general, he will tell how, with the help of cardboard and a lighter, he defeated the one-piece "Abrams" And on this we will conclude "Abrams" is worse than cardboard.

[Prisoner]

And that's it ?! I certainly understand brevity is the sister of talent. But not in this case. Obviously not in this one.

[mvg]

The video is outright crap. Excuse my French. And let the author better "fry cutlets" or work with a shovel

[Paragraph Epitafievich Y.]

Well, Alexnott is the same. Yandex zen-level bullshit, chips and similar sandboxes for undergrowth. I'm surprised that this one is being dragged to VO. But for those who like to speculate 'who is stronger - a whale or a sperm whale' is quite suitable. Fantasies like - 'but if IS-2, then #seulnash'

[Dilettante grandfather]

Quote: Gardamir

And where does

You are right, justify Solovyov, Kiselyov ... This is also an ideology, when you choose to be proud of the victories of the country or consider that, for example, the Nazis who burn Russian villages are people too. then they shout it's time to bring down ...

You did not put it quite correctly ... Yes, the Nazis, and, for example, the Nazis, and the Khmer Rouge are people. Another thing is that they are bad people. But - exactly people. And Chikatillo was a man, not a devil. And Hitler and Goebbels. And Yagoda and Yezhov ... Any, even the most vile deeds, do not negate the fact that they were committed by people.

[nikkolay]

an author from the outskirts?

[Paragraph Epitafievich Y.]

Quote: Nikkolay

an author from the outskirts?

With what fright? Because he wrote that the m26 demolished the tower from the t-34? So what?

[hohol95]

I think the person who posted this video here should look for a similar story from an American tanker who fought on the M4A3E8 "Sherman".
Such tanks fought in Korea and were used more intensively than the M26 Pershing and M46 Pattons!
For everyone on warspot.ru, there was an article "Thirty-fours" against "Pershing", "Pattons" and "Shermans".
If this topic is interesting - find and read!

[certero]

This video is the usual propaganda, only the other side.
Undoubtedly, pershing was more heavily armed than the T-34 85. And why?
The Americans sucked twice in Korea without bending over. The first time when the war began and the Koreans drove them with rags to the end of the peninsula, and the second time when the Chinese "volunteers" crossed the border to which the North Korean units were pressed.

[totsamyitip]

In general, comparing the T-34-85 and M26 Pershing is tantamount to a professional boxer with an amateur)))
https://warspot.ru/10327-pershing-s-dlinnoy-rukoy

[fif21]

The comparison is not correct.

[Mikhalych]

Compared too. M26 Pershing - heavy (43,1T). T-34 - medium (26,5-30,9 T).

[Rt-xnumx]

He does not compare tanks. He compares tank battles. Naturally, the heavy tank wins over the light one and the towers fly nafig. But so after all, the T-34 tower, it seems, was not specially attached, but kept on its own weight. So the towers are flying like the head of an octopus. No?

[Tneburashka]

This golden shot was given to one friend for this order

[Kostadinov]

In addition to the memories of the American participants who destroy 2-3 T-34s on average with one shell, there is also a statistics of the loss of both sides.
According to these statistics, for the period from the beginning of the war to January 1951, American losses were about twice as high as Korean ones. It can be added to this that half of the Korean losses from aviation and the Americans have no losses from aviation.

[Rt-xnumx]

Quote: Kostadinov

In this statistics

In this joke, there is a desire to shower the Americans with hats.

[Kostadinov]

The speed of 1,5 km / s could only have a Pershing sabot projectile. His blow will not tear off the T-34 turret. The turret could be torn off or ripped off by exploding the ammunition, or the HE shell or the armor-piercing shell which does not penetrate the armor.

[Amba412]

Yankee words should be treated with caution. Once on Inosmi I read an article about the tests of the T-34 in the states. And it said that in the rain the tank flows through the RIVETS !!!!!!!!!!! Now I'm breaking my brain where the T-34 has riveted armor. Especially after crossing the Dnieper along the bottom)))))))))))

[Mikhail S.]

In general, the article is about nothing. A small droplet of propaganda on the heads of immature minds.

[Rt-xnumx]

Comment about nothing. The mind is not strong enough.

[bukhach]

Quote: Rt-12

Quote: Gardamir

Since when do the military prefer to fight than to fight?

Pokryshkin is the best fighter in the Soviet Union. He could have chosen the type of aircraft. But he preferred to fight not on La, not on the Yak, but on the Aircobra for some reason.

They forgot about Kozhedub? Moreover, he began to fight later than Pokryshkin, and for some reason Cobra did not prefer La, probably, there was not enough for everyone, they did not give it.

[Rt-xnumx]

Quote: Buhach

Forgotten about Kozhedub?

No, I haven't forgotten. I remember. Why Kozhedub flew to La I do not know. But Pokryshkin flew in the Aircobra.
That's for sure. But I could have chosen La-5. But I didn't choose for some reason.

[bukhach]

The question is that the Cobra was just one of the types of fighters used by the Soviet Air Force, and it is fundamentally wrong to conclude that this type was totally superior to other fighters based on Pokryshkin's choice! Yak, in response to the offer of any, I emphasize, any type of fighter. On this basis, I can say that the yaks were our everything, there, even the French made a choice in their favor, or they could have chosen the Cobra, because it was not for nothing that they abandoned it.

[andrew42]

It is strange that such a discussion about the performance characteristics of Pershing and the T-34-85 flared up. And all that on the basis of one single mention of a successful HIT in 34 - obviously under the tower, so it was blown off the shoulder strap. One might think that during the years of WWII there were few such hits. Or did all the Pershing in Korea regularly do nothing but demolish our towers? - I see no reason for hack about the superiority of the almost heavy Pershing over the unambiguously medium tank T-34-85.

[Rt-xnumx]

Quote: andrew42

And all that on the basis of one single mention of a successful HIT in 34 - obviously under the tower, so it was blown off the shoulder strap.

Well, it probably wasn't a single hit. There were others.
And the tower from the T-34 is demolished not only by a successful hit of a shell, but also by an explosion of ammunition.
The tower is not supported by anything, only its weight.
The crew then sits on the shells.
That's why I like the Abrams better. They have no shells in the crew compartment. They are in a special niche.
People are protected, imperialist bastards.

When out of a tank, outsmarting death,
You pop out the plague a moment before the explosion
Well, that's it - you decide - from now on I'll be alive
In the infantry, safe happy.

And only when you come to your senses completely,
The truth is simple:
The infantry is also bad at war.
Infantry is also being killed.

[Kostadinov]

Quote: Rt-12

Quote: Kostadinov

In this statistics

In this joke, there is a desire to shower the Americans with hats.

This "joke" is called "The Use of Armored Vehicles in Korea" and was published by the US Operation Research Service in April 1951.
According to this document, the loss of tanks of UN forces from the beginning of hostilities in Korea to January 21, 1951 amounted to 576 tanks only, including 256 irrevocably.
Among them: 87 M46 Paton, (40 irrevocably), 156 pcs. M26 Pershing (50 irrevocable), 220 M4A3 Sherman (120 irrevocable), 61 (24) M24 Cheffey, 7 (1) Centurion, 4 (2) Churchill, 12 (12) Cromwell.
North Korean tank losses - 239 irrecoverable vehicles, including 102 from aviation. There are many other interesting things in this analysis (for example, only aviation declared 857 destruction of North Korean tanks).
So the Americans showered themselves with hats.

[kig]

Quote: Kostadinov

"The Use of Armored Vehicles in Korea" and published by the US Operation Research Service in April 1951.

Can I get a link? It would be interesting to read in the original

[tank64rus]

The Pershing is a HEAVY post-war generation American tank. Look at its outline it is a mixture of T-34-85 and IS-2. So, we compare again as with the Tiger and Panther. In Germany, the T-4 tank is the former heavy tank, which, after the production of Tigers and Panthers and the discontinuation of the T-3, turned into a medium one. This tank is the main rival of the T-34-85.

[Freedim]

Americans are still liars .. All their victories can be safely divided by three, and plums can be multiplied by two ... The same statistics on aircraft in Korea clearly speaks of this .. At least, our photographs of shot down Americans are direct evidence of the cunning of the states in plan of their losses. To explain this fact is quite simple - loot .. For every bucks knocked down, they poured with a hill not only the pilot, but also all his bosses, ending with bigwigs in the Pentagon, who did not particularly interfere with falsifications, because the "high-likes" were in the share.

[kig]

Well, since a specific battle at Obong-Ni Ridge was considered in the movie, then the book contains a photo of two of the four of those Korean tanks. After the battle, they were pushed off the road to the side of the road:

The turret roof of the left tank was torn out after the fire of the ammunition load.

[Igor Berg]

[quote = Sea Cat] Military equipment is either bad or good, like any other weapon, the whole question is who and for what use these weapons and equipment.
Do you have a tablet or PC made by someone? Do you worship the West, or worse, before the East? "Bush's Legs" eaten? Then everything is clear with you.
[Quote] You have a strange urge to praise enemy equipment. [/ quote]
Do not forget, everyone who scribbles opuses here has ALL West-Eastern equipment, there is not even a Russian bolt in the computer case. Only tables and stools, and even then not all of them are Russian ...

[mat-vey]

Quote: Igor Berg

Do not forget, everyone who scribbles opuses here has ALL West-Eastern equipment, there is not even a Russian bolt in the computer case. Only tables and stools, and even then not all of them are Russian ...

Ayyayayay, who did it? Or the people are crazy and do not want to buy domestic products?

[SkyMaXX]

Well these are Koreans, they are not trained like experienced wolves tankers from the USSR, who gained invaluable experience in battles with the Nazis. Naturally, they were more skilled than the tankers of other nations.

[135lm]

So what? Heavy tank versus medium

[meandr51]

Let him rely on his own and others' nonsense in his USA. I would try this Pershing with the IS-3 ...

[Sedoy]

For example, we can note the confrontation between the Soviet T-34 and American tanks "Pershing".

what a mess ... :)
those. skip the confrontation with M24 and move on to heavy pershing ...
it is a pity that the Koreans did not have the IS-2, with its 122mm cannon ...
here is a comparison of the opposition of the two strands would be correct ...

[Vyacheslav Ivanov_2]

Yeah, listen to the tales of the American balabol.

[Alexander Kalashnikov]

Key phrase: "WHEN we hit."
Another dance "heroes", fighters for "democracy". Riding the best (essno) tank in the world.
No, I believe that no one will argue with the fact that the memories of those who fought AGAINST ours (people or tanks does not matter) are a useful thing. But only if these "memories" are not s. Germans, British, Jews, whatever. But not. Because the natives of the "country of advertisers" cannot fail to star by definition. And therefore they ALWAYS star. And they do not lie (like the overwhelming majority of war veterans of any nationality) in STARS - brazenly and selflessly.
Well, for example: "The speed of the Pershing tank shell reached 1,5 km / s." That is, 1500 meters per second. WHERE did this Tansky "hero" suck such a figure? Whose ... finger?
In ANY reference book you can find out that the 90-mm tank gun M3 arr., Was developed on the basis of the 90-mm anti-aircraft gun M2 arr 1943 and STRUCTURALLY has an initial projectile velocity of 823 m / s. This is when firing with a regular full-bodied projectile weighing 11 kg.
And only when firing subcaliber projectiles weighing from 5,6 kg (M332A1) to (M304), the initial speed could reach 1249 m / s or 1021 m / s, respectively. And these are excellent indicators, but nevertheless they are very far from 1500 m / s.
Well, and most importantly: light BPS, by definition, CANNOT "tear off the turrets" of T-34-85 tanks, because constructively designed for PUNCHING armor. But an eleven-kilogram BS (or even an OFS) can. Sometimes. If you hit it successfully. AND WHEN it hits. Here are just an initial speed of 823 m / s for these shells - that is, quite average for tank guns of that time of comparable caliber: a solid shell of the Soviet 85-mm tank gun ZIS-S-53 had an initial speed of 800 m / s, and a solid shell of a German tank gun 8,8 cm KwK 36 L / 56 - had an initial speed of 810 m / s.
Conclusion: we ALWAYS shine as they breathe. And, as a result, the memories of the Tang "veterans" have no practical value either for tankers or for tank builders.

[megavolt823]

The Pershing is a heavy post-military tank. 34, though 85, is essentially a military tank. Medium, at the time of manufacture and war. Compare pershing with the IS-3. This will be the right thing to do. But meaningless.