Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Yarbles on June 08, 2010, 07:34:58 AM
-
Does anyone know how they did against one another?
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
"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."
-
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!".
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :bolt:
-
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 :bolt:
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.
-
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?
-
~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.
-
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. (http://www.tarrif.net/cgi/production/all_vehicles_adv.php?op=getvehicles&vehiclesX=196)
-
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)
-
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.
-
You really do just yammer to hear yourself yammer, don't you?
LOL I think this is about the closest I've seen you get to berating someone.
Look out akak here comes ltarget. :D
-
On typical tank combat ranges in Korea:
About half of the engagements took place at ranges of 350 yds or less (...) About 20% of the engagements took place at 350-750 yds, and a similar number at 750-1,150 yds. (...). The shortest engagement range was 10 yards, and the longest known successful engagement by an M26 is 3,000 yards.
http://warandgame.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/sherman-vs-pershing-in-korea/
-
LOL I think this is about the closest I've seen you get to berating someone.
Umm . . . I've had a bad day? :(
-
The T-34/85 and the M4A3(76) are very close in gun, armor, and other specs, there are of course differences but nothing like some folks seem to think.
As for the 76mm Sherman gun, it could do @116mm of armor at 500 yards with APCBC ammo and could kill a T-34/85 frontally. The T-34/85s 85mm BR-365 APBC round would do @111mm at 500 yards and likewise could kill a Sherman. Both tanks offered @ 100mm of actual protection frontally, the T-34 with 45mm of armor sloped and the Shermans 51mm of sloped armor, giving both tanks approx 100mm of protection (give or take). Certainly at ranges greater than 500 yards, the rounds would often not score a kill if they struck the front armor. Armor is designed after all to protect the vehicle otherwise all the tanks in WW2 would have just been canvas covered trucks with guns on the back. The special tungsten based ammo that both tanks had from 1944 would of course do better, US HVAP (not included in AH) would do 200mm of armor to the Soviet 85mm APCR (which is in the game) 140mm of armor, and thats at 500 yards (0 degree slope).
M26 Pershing vs T-34? well the M26s armor is vastly better, and so is its gun, any specs will quickly indicate that. The M26 is a heavy tank.
Some of the best books out there are Ospreys "New Vanguard" series on specific WW2 tanks. Lots of great info, sans the nationalistic BS and half baked crap that are in a lot of posts and some web sights. Not that its going to do any good, cuz dumb myths and grossly exaggerated statements are almost unkillable imho. If it can fit on a bumper sticker it usually wins out over real info, every time.
-
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.
According to squire, the M4 could penertate 116mm of armor at 500yds, add in that extra slope, and it might be enough to let the T-34/85 survive. 16mm isn't that much thicker, and could easily be aquired, hell, just pile some sand bags on the front. Of course he also made the point that ranges were likely more than 500yds, and so the rounds would likely have been bouncing off the front, regardless of the added slope.
-
According to squire, the M4 could penertate 116mm of armor at 500yds, add in that extra slope, and it might be enough to let the T-34/85 survive. 16mm isn't that much thicker, and could easily be aquired, hell, just pile some sand bags on the front. Of course he also made the point that ranges were likely more than 500yds, and so the rounds would likely have been bouncing off the front, regardless of the added slope.
You really need to learn to read and comprehend rather than yammer.
Squire is using figures that equate to a 90 degree strike for both the gun and armor. 116mm penetration vs. roughly 100mm equivalent protection at 500 yards still equals penetration. You know, because 116mm is greater than 100mm. Hopefully that fact at least you understand.
Lusche pointed out that 50% of engagements were at 350 yards or less. 350 yards is less than 500. Hopefully that also sinks in.
So, at typical combat ranges, the 76mm gun HAS NO PARTICULAR PROBLEM PENETRATING THE FRONT HULL ARMOR OF THE T-34, is what I said. Nothing either of these gentlemen posted contradicts that statement.
And to that you offer . . . . well, maybe they had sandbags??
:rofl
-
As for the 76mm Sherman gun, it could do @116mm of armor at 500 yards with APCBC ammo and could kill a T-34/85 frontally. The T-34/85s 85mm BR-365 APBC round would do @111mm at 500 yards and likewise could kill a Sherman. Both tanks offered @ 100mm of actual protection frontally, the T-34 with 45mm of armor sloped and the Shermans 51mm of sloped armor, giving both tanks approx 100mm of protection (give or take).
Squire, would you use this method rather than test data against a sloped plate? My recollection of the subject is that a shell with sufficient mass has less trouble with slope of armor -- so 45mm armor at 30 degree slope offers more protection against a high velocity 37mm round than it does against a lower velocity 75mm round even if both rounds have the same penetration rating against a flat plate. Opinion?
-
As a general rule once the diameter of the shell exceeds the thickness of the plate the likely hood of the round shattering is greatly diminished. Slope still effects richochet but rounds of less then a 1/1 ratio are much more likely to not penetrate even at higher velocities and close range where they "theoretically" should. One major element not well represented here is spalling which was a major source of tank loss in WW2. Basically a large diameter round (1/1 or greater) or a very high speed round would cause the inner portion of the plate to shed splinters that bounced around the tank and killed people and started fires etc....
-
E25280, did I do something to offend you, or are you just in a pissy mood?
And humble, wouldn't spalling just kill the crew in the area that the round stuck (under the gun = commander, loader, and gunner killed, with driver/hull gunner still alive), leaving the tank able to drive away, or at least shoot back?