Sherman v T34 in Korea

[Yarbles]

Does anyone know how they did against one another?

[Blooz]

In all the books I've read about the Korean War, tanks battles are a rare thing. Initially the ROK army and US forces had few tanks and the T34/85's had little trouble driving south. Many were knocked out by field guns, infantry anti tank weapons and air strikes the farther south they went.

The counter attack north after the Inchon landings used allied tanks to spearhead up the roads but were used mainly as support and artillery whenever the enemy was encountered.

After the Chinese entered the war and things stabilized around the 38th parallel, tanks were just fire support weapons.

I'm sure there were a few incidents of tank engagements in Korea but I can't find in my books here anything significant. There was a study done in 1954, I think, that basically all they say is that the American M26, M46, and British Centurion were very good tanks vs. the T34/85. The Sherman on the other hand, while a good tank, seems to have been mostly used as artillery.

Sorry I couldn't help much.

Good luck!

[GtoRA2]

The Sherman used the most was the M4A3 76 with HVSS suspension, and it had no trouble with the T-34 85.

The M26/46 was even better as was the Centurion. After the Pusan break out and Inchon landings Tank battles were rare though.

[Die Hard]

The allies had a numerical advantage in tanks, and a weight advantage with the M26/M46 being deployed in numbers. By September 1950 allied forces had over 400 tanks in the Pusan pocket, facing only 40 T34/85s. From what I can find there were 119 tank vs tank encounters in Korea, 104 involving Army tanks, and 15 by the Marines. In those encounters 97 T-34s were confirmed killed for a loss of 34 allied tanks, including 6 M26 Pershings, 8 M46 Patton and 20 M4A3E8 Shermans. US Army studies concluded that the M26/46 was 3.5 times as effective as the M4A3E8 in offensive operations and 3 times better in overall terms.

Despite the poor quality of the NK crew it looks to me like the T-34 gave a good account of itself in the Korean conflict against the M4.

[GtoRA2]

"No trouble" you say... That doesn't sound very impartial, or realistic.

Worked up already? Relax man, history is nothing to get your panties in a bunch over.


The M4A3 76 an T-34 85 are about equal and much is going to depend on the crew. Our crews were better, even given the sad state the Army was in at the time.

So yeah, like I said "no trouble."

[Die Hard]

Worked up already? Relax man, history is nothing to get your panties in a bunch over.

Not at all. Maybe I need to use more smilies or something.

So yeah, like I said "no trouble."

Bet those 20 M4 crews thought differently. Those 14 M26/46 crews must have been like "WTF!".

[Killer91]

Worked up already? Relax man, history is nothing to get your panties in a bunch over.


The M4A3 76 an T-34 85 are about equal and much is going to depend on the crew. Our crews were better, even given the sad state the Army was in at the time.

So yeah, like I said "no trouble."

True. In game now the M4A3 76 has no trouble taking out a T34 - 85.

[Yarbles]

True. In game now the M4A3 76 has no trouble taking out a T34 - 85.

In game my experience is the t34 85 is more vulnerable than the 76 but with a better gun. I would imagine IRL the M476 might struggle with both T34'S frontal hull armour.

[Angus]

In AH, my experience is that the Firefly outguns the T34, but is more vulnerable. Somehow, that should not be a surprize....
Anyway, Russian armour vs Allied armour was tested best in an Arab-Israel conflict, where 2 British tanks held back and more or less destroyed an armoured division.
Then later, there was Iraq....
WTF 

[GtoRA2]

In AH, my experience is that the Firefly outguns the T34, but is more vulnerable. Somehow, that should not be a surprize....
Anyway, Russian armour vs Allied armour was tested best in an Arab-Israel conflict, where 2 British tanks held back and more or less destroyed an armoured division.
Then later, there was Iraq....
WTF 

Hell the Russians even liked the M4A2 76 enough to use it in their Gaurds tank units. The crews thought it was much more confortable, and disabled tanks had to be gaurded to keep the seat cushions etc from being stolen.

They thought the Thompson SMG was useless though.

[MiloMorai]

The allies had a numerical advantage in tanks, and a weight advantage with the M26/M46 being deployed in numbers. By September 1950 allied forces had over 400 tanks in the Pusan pocket, facing only 40 T34/85s. From what I can find there were 119 tank vs tank encounters in Korea, 104 involving Army tanks, and 15 by the Marines. In those encounters 97 T-34s were confirmed killed for a loss of 34 allied tanks, including 6 M26 Pershings, 8 M46 Patton and 20 M4A3E8 Shermans. US Army studies concluded that the M26/46 was 3.5 times as effective as the M4A3E8 in offensive operations and 3 times better in overall terms.

Despite the poor quality of the NK crew it looks to me like the T-34 gave a good account of itself in the Korean conflict against the M4.

~1:3 is a good account?

[Die Hard]

~1:3 is a good account?

When you're outnumbered, facing mostly heavier tanks and have poorly trained crews 1:3 is very good indeed. It's the same overall ratio the T-34 had against the Germans in WWII.

[E25280]

I would imagine IRL the M476 might struggle with both T34'S frontal hull armour.

Contrary to popular myth, the T-34's frontal hull armor was nothing special once the caliber of the guns against it increased.  At 45mm, it was even thinner than the Sherman's frontal armor.  It was sloped to a greater degree, but how much slope helps decreases with the size of the round impacting it.

The 76mm gun of the Sheman firing a standard AP round against a 30 degree plate should be able to penetrate 45mm out to 2000 yards according to the table at this site.

[Nemisis]

Yes, but thats assuming a perfect frontal shot. Most likely, they stopped their tanks at an angle, or just traversed their turrets to fire on the enemy tanks, which increases the slope (take a piece of wood, hammer a nail into it standing up, sloped at 30 degrees, and sloped at 30 degrees while hammering the nail at a 20degree angle to the left. See which one has the least amount of nail showing out the other end)

[E25280]

Yes, but thats assuming a perfect frontal shot. Most likely, they stopped their tanks at an angle, or just traversed their turrets to fire on the enemy tanks, which increases the slope (take a piece of wood, hammer a nail into it standing up, sloped at 30 degrees, and sloped at 30 degrees while hammering the nail at a 20degree angle to the left. See which one has the least amount of nail showing out the other end)

You really do just yammer to hear yourself yammer, don't you?

Point is, the 76mm gun would not struggle with the frontal armor of the T-34 at typical combat ranges.  Period.