A Tank from a Former Ally

The T-34 was a mystery for the USSR’s allies for most of WWII. A sample of the legendary tank was only sent abroad in 1943, but information about an improved variant with a 3-man turret and an 85 mm gun became available soon after. Very little was known about this tank up until the spring of 1945, and with the end of the war the remote possibility of getting a sample vanished altogether. However, the odds of seeing this tank again increased with time. The Korean War broke out on June 25th, 1950. The Korean People’s Army (KPA) received aid from the USSR, which included T-34-85 tanks.

Old tanks in a new war

According to American sources, the North Koreans crossed the border on June 25th, 1950, with one armoured division consisting of three regiments numbering 160 T-34-85 tanks in total. The 16th and 17th Armoured Brigades joined them by September, and in November the 17th Mechanized Division with 41 tanks and 41st, 45th, and 46th Tank Regiments with 10 tanks each and the 43rd Mechanized Regiment with 13 tanks also crossed the border. According to the Americans, the North Koreans initially built up a force of 320 tanks in total, which was later reinforced by another 250 tanks.

A T-34-85 tank and a column of motorcyclists belonging to the Korean People’s Army.

A Sequel with Improvements

The American Heavy Tank T26E3 was standardized as the Heavy Tank M26 on March 29th, 1945. This stage was preceded by front line trials where the vehicle that the Americans spent so much time and effort building showed itself pretty well. Standardization was a green light for mass production. The end of the war limited the production volume to 2022 units, so the M26 never replaced the Medium Tank M4. It seemed that the end of production would herald in a new tank that had better armour and armament, but that was not the case. The first American post-war tank was the Medium Tank M46 or Patton, effectively a modernized M26.

The Final SU-76

The SU-76M (SU-15) light SPG was accepted into service with the Red Army on July 8th, 1943. This was the second most numerous AFV in the Red Army after the T-34/T-34-85. The SU-76M design was good and changed little throughout the war, but feedback from the front lines led to a modernization by the end of it, primarily aimed at improving the protection of the fighting compartment. This vehicle did not receive a new index. It is sometimes referred to as "SU-76M post-war production", but that is not the case. Production began in April of 1945 and lasted for only two months after the end of WW2. These "post-war" SPGs fought during the Soviet-Japanese war of August 1945.

Once More on a New Chassis

Even though American self propelled artillery lay dormant for a long time, the Americans were the first nation to enter the war with an existing SPG. This was the GMC T12, built on a halftrack chassis. The halftrack SPGs were a necessary compromise, but they allowed to quickly saturate American units with motorized artillery. Production of analogous SPGs on fully tracked chassis began in 1942. This approach proved fruitful, and by the spring of 1943 the Americans not only caught up to the Germans in SPGs but took the lead in some aspects. However, there were areas where they never managed to catch up. This is mostly true for heavy self propelled guns, but this is the Americans' own fault. Their answer to German heavy SPGs only went into battle towards the end of the war in Europe and the GMC M40 was only standardized in May of 1945.

Mobile American Howitzer

The American army had a relatively small amount of armoured vehicles on hand at the start of WWII. Just over two years of neutrality proved enough to fully prepare for war. The American army had an impressive amount of light and medium tanks by December of 1941. They had so many tanks that they were also able to supply the British and offer significant help to the USSR. By the time the United States entered WWII they also had their first SPGs. At first these were built on halftrack chassis, but half a year later fully tracked vehicles became available. One of them was the HMC M7, better known under the British designation Priest. This was the most common self propelled howitzer of the war and it remained in service for decades after.

Warspot Article: Study of the T-34-85 in the Korean War

Even though the US managed to obtain two T-34 tanks during WWII, they missed their chance to get a T-34-85. This was remedied during the Korean War. Even though the tank that was recovered was incomplete, it allowed the Americans to learn a lot about Soviet tank development. POW interrogations filled in the gaps on the tank's performance in battle.

https://warspot.net/143-a-tank-from-a-former-ally

Gorilla, King Kong's Sister

Like other members of the Light Combat Team based on the M24 Chaffee chassis, the 155 mm Howitzer Motor Carriage M41 did not take part in WWII, but fought actively in Korea. Even though the Gorilla was not numerous and its career was short, this vehicle still deserves attention.

Super Bazooka: Improved Antitank Fist

During WWII, M1 and M9 "Bazooka" rocket launchers were considered good weapons, although their penetration was inadequate to reliably penetrate medium tanks, and nearly useless against their front armour. American engineers decided to solve this problem by increasing the caliber of the weapon. Work began in 1943, but mass production of the new RPG only got off the ground after the start of the war in Korea, where old bazookas proved ineffective against the T-34-85.

SU-122-2 in Combat

The CIA has a tendency of detecting all sorts of armoured vehicles that are as interesting as they are fictional, but this time they might have hit the mark.

CIA-RDP82-00457R005700310005-7

Two guns, like a SU-122, but larger. There can be only one answer!

World of Tanks History Section: Pattons in Korea

In February of 1945, American forces in Europe received the Pershing tank. The reaction of the soldiers was positive: finally, something to fight Tigers and Panthers! The application of Pershings in combat was fairly successful, but there were some complaints about the new tank, one of which was about the poor mobility.

Engineers proposed a new hydromechanical transmission and a new engine. The modernized variant went through trials and was accepted into service under the name M46 Patton. The initial plan was to not only build new Patton tanks, but modernize already existing Pershings. However, the Second World War ended and demobilization began, putting an end to this program. As a result, when the United States entered the Korean War on the side of the south, it turned out that they were seriously lacking in vehicles.

Tank Reliability in the Korean War

In a previous article, I took a look at how many vehicles managed to reach the battlefield, and how many broke on the way there. Let's take a look at similar figures from several other sources. "The Employment of Armor in Korea, Volume I" by ORO contains information on the reliability of T-34-85 and SU-76, based on knocked out enemy vehicles.

First, T-34-85s.

Only 2% tanks lost to mechanical failure! Even assuming that no tanks were abandoned due to cowardice, a lack of fuel, or some other other such cause, that is only 27.5% of all losses. An improvement over T-34 tanks in 1942, especially considering that the conditions these tanks operated in could, at best, be described as suboptimal.

In short, no spare parts, no tools, and maintenance instructions out of the window, certainly harsher conditions than Soviet tanks faced.

Now, SU-76es.

Even better, no vehicles lost to breakdowns and 22% abandonment. Sadly, I have no Soviet SU-76 or even T-70 figures to compare them to.

Not so bad, right? Let's see what the Americans achieved under the same conditions.

These are some pretty sad figures, over 70% lost due to non-enemy action. Much higher than Soviet tanks in the same theater, and the Americans had the advantage of training and engineering vehicles present.

American Tanks in the Korean War

I haven't come across any definitive report of on any tank in Korea, but pulling bits and pieces from various reports is enough to obtain some impression of how American armour performed.

The Sherman's deficiency in off-road conditions is no big secret, having been explored in the famous Swedish video. 

The inadequate HE shell of the 76 mm Sherman previously popped up in WWII era reports. When the only alternative was the 75 mm gun and tough enemy armour was plentiful, this was a drawback that could be begrudgingly accepted. However, in situations where enemy tanks were rare and powerful 90 mm guns were more common, it's hard not to be jealous. 

Speaking of anti-infantry weapons, bigger explosives weren't the only things that were needed.

The anti-tank capability of the Sherman is considered adequate.

While a 45 or a 76 mm gun would find the front armour of a Sherman a difficult target, the statement about the T-34-85 doesn't stand up during the famous Yugoslavian trials. When tested, the tanks appeared roughly matched, with the Sherman penetrating the T-34-85 from 900-1100 meters with armour piercing rounds, and the T-34-85 penetrating the Sherman from 1000-1100 meters. The tests also showed that the ZiS-3 could indeed penetrate the front of a Sherman, but only at a very close range (250 meters).

While the Sherman gets praise, the heavier tanks, not so much.

Yikes, 60% is not a good number. The phrasing of the evaluation of American tanks vs. the T-34-85 is interesting, as though the writer of the report had significantly more respect for the tanks he was fighting than the people in them, an opinion which appears in other reports as well.

World of Tanks History Section: Post-War Light Tanks

LTTB

The acronym has a rather oxymoronic meaning: Light Tank with Heavy Armour (Legkiy Tank Tyazhelogo Bronirovaniya). However, if one looks at the requirements sent by the military to the Omsk tank factory in 1944, everything falls in its place.

The LTTB was meant for recce in force. Because of this, it was supposed to have good armour protection from the front. The sides were about on the level of a T-34, up to 45 mm. The tank was first planned with a 76 mm gun, but it was later replaced with an 85 mm S-53.

In theory, this tank could be useful for the army. Fast, well protected, effectively armed. However, the production of the LTTB would have been too complicated. It would have to start from scratch, which means new assembly lines, extra spending, extensive trials. Neither the extra time nor money existed for this project, as the factory was busy producing T-34-85s. In the end, the design never left paper.

T-54 Lightened

The project was developed at factory #183 in Nizhniy Tagil, a producer of the regular T-54, in 1949. The vehicle was meant for special duties, for which the use of a regular T-54 was not possible.

The tank had thinner armour in the turret and hull, which allowed the reduction in mass from 36 tons to 31 tons. Additionally, the new vehicle would have had wider tracks, reducing ground pressure even further, and allowing for the vehicle to be used in difficult terrain.

Due to its lighter mass, the speed of the tank was expected to reach nearly 58 kph. The armament would have been the 100 mm D-10T. Work on the vehicle never made it past blueprints.

T37

This tank was designed as a replacement for the M24 Chaffee. The requirements for this vehicle were ready in early 1945. Work on the project started after the end of the war, when the American military budget was slashed.

The T37 received its designation in September of 1946. Initially, the military ordered three prototypes at the Detroit Arsenal, but this order was reduced to 2. The wooden mockup and technical documentation were ready by 1949. The vehicle was tested at Aberdeen in 1949-1950.

The T37 did not reach mass production. The Korean War, which began in 1950, forced some changes to the American design program. The T37 did not meet the new requirements, and a new vehicle was designed using it as a starting point, the T41.

M41 Walker Bulldog

The vehicle was initially indexed T41, and used many components of the T37. It was ready in 1948, and Cadillac Motors received an order for 100 vehicles, increased tenfold with the start of the Korean War, along with increased requirements for the engine, aiming mechanisms, and ammunition rack. In 1953, it was adopted into the Army under the index M41.

At first, the tank was to be called "little bulldog". However, after American General Walton Walker died in an airplane crash, the vehicle was renamed in his honour.

The Walker Bulldog was produced until the end of the 1950s, with over 3700 vehicles built. The tank was taken out of the American armed forces for its weak armour and armament, but continued service in some nations for many years.

T49

The Korean War and clashes of American vehicles with the T-34-85 forced the US military to consider greatly increasing the firepower of its vehicles, including light tanks.

In 1954, the T49 began trials at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds. The M41 chassis was equipped with a new turret and the 90 mm T231E3 gun. Trials of the T49 lasted until May of 1955, but the military demanded even greater firepower.

In the end, the T49 was equipped with a new 152 mm gun. T49 trials ended when a new chassis was developed, and the turret with the 152 mm gun was transferred over to it.

Spahpanzer Ru 251

This lesser known German experimental tank was based on the Kanonenjagdpanzer 4-5 vehicle with a 90 mm gun. Unusual, since usually SPGs are based on a tank chassis, and not the other way around.

The light, fast, and well armed Ru 251 was meant to replace the ageing Walker Bulldog in the German army. The Henschel company was tasked with production and testing. The tank was meant for reconnaissance battalions of tank divisions and other units. A notable feature of the vehicle was its speed, up to 80 kph. The Ru 251 had a 90 mm Rheinmetall gun.

According to known sources, there were two Ru 251 vehicles built.

Original article available here.

Tank on Tank Action

Lots of casual visitors to the field of military history look upon "kill ratios" as something that defines the effectiveness of a tank, forgetting that the modern battlefield is populated by things other than tanks, or even anti-tank guns.

The Problem of Claims

I have written a number of articles exposing inaccurate kill claims, so it's always nice when someone points out that their own claims may be just a little bit overestimated.

World of Tanks History Section: M46 Patton

The most mass produced American tank in WWII was the M4 Sherman. Objectively, this was a very good design. Decent armament and armour, good maneuverability and speed. Most important of all, it was easily repaired. The Americans built 50 thousand Shermans throughout the war. However, in 1943, they first met Tigers and Panthers in Italy and Africa. After meeting with this zoo, American commanders' faces turned very pensive, and not very amused.

To help the Sherman, the M26 Pershing was developed toward the end of the war. It could fight with German tanks as an equal, but since the first Pershings appeared in February of 1945, they didn't have much time to prove themselves. Pershings fought as a part of the 12th tank group.

The Pershing was, in many ways, superior to the Sherman, but had its drawbacks. The Pershing had the same engine as the M4A3, but was 10 tons heavier. Because of this, it had poor maneuverability and off-road capability. Its 120 km range was laughable when held up to the standards of modern war. High command issued a verdict: the M26 needed improvement.

A new tank began development in 1948. The reason for this delay was that the Americans were enamoured with atomic bombs and the methods of their delivery. A war that could be swiftly ended by a handful of planes carrying such bombs seemed much more attractive than tank and infantry battles. However, the failing relationship with the Soviet Union rid the Americans of these illusions. You can't throw around atomic bombs in Europe all willy-nilly, civilization won't appreciate it. As for valuable targets in the USSR itself, just try getting to them. Americans had to come back to Earth and modernize the M26. However, the resources that were dedicated to this project were scarce.

In May 1948, the first prototype was shipped to Aberdeen. It had a more powerful engine and a more reliable transmission than the M26. It was suggested that the gun be replaced, but the same M3 gun ended up on the tank, with a few modifications. Prototypes were tested until July 1949, after which the tank was accepted for general production. It was named "Patton", after the American general Joe Patton.

The M46 was very similar to its predecessor, and serves as a good example of what can be achieved with very tight financial limitations. The Patton's superior engine and transmission did not fully get rid it of the Pershing's "illnesses" of poor maneuverability and range. Contemporaries remark that the Patton had difficulties with climbing hills. The new engine exhausted the gas tanks within 120 to 145 kilometers. This was not enough for any maneuvers. Additionally, the Patton's 44 ton mass could not be supported by a large number of European bridges. Its size was greater than both the European and Soviet railroad standards. This meant that whoever had to deal with the logistics would have a hard time; the tank could not be shipped everywhere.

The armour and armament were nothing special either. The 90mm gun was weaker than British and Soviet analogues. It was an effective weapon against late WWII tanks, but it had great difficulty with the tanks of the potential enemy. A T-54 Model 1949 was impenetrable with standard AP rounds, and subcaliber rounds could only penetrate it at short distances, at angles close to normal. The Patton's armour could not protect it from 100 mm shells, and 85 mm shells, while not guaranteeing penetration in the front, could easily penetrate the side. Without going too deep in the details, let us say that the only Soviet tank that the Patton was a deadly opponent to was the T-34-85. In order to defeat more modern armour, the Patton would have to work hard, taking up tactically superior positions and aiming for sides, rears, or use expensive subcaliber ammunition.

The only war the M46 fought in was the Korean war. In the fall of 1950, two American tank battalions with Pershings and Pattons supported the advance of American and South Korean forces. Here, what was described one paragraph above was proven: after engaging with 8 T-34-85s and one SU-76, Pattons of the 6th armoured corps defeated them with no losses. Over 12 battles where Pattons were used, 12 total T-34-85s were destroyed.

After more advanced M47 and M48s were built, M46 Pattons were removed from the regular army and transferred to the National Guard or reserves. A number of these vehicles remained in service in South Korea. In 1957, the M46 Patton was officially added to the list of obsolete vehicles. In the early 1960s, all M46 Pattons were either scrapped or handed off to serve as either museum exhibits or practice targets.

A number of M46 tanks survive to this day, including one at the Kubinka museum.

Original article available here.

Immortal T-34

The initial T-34 was far from a perfect vehicle, with the T-34-85 upgrade being a far superior vehicle that saw many decades of post-war service. However, the older 76 mm model was not forgotten, and saw post-war service along with its successor.

T-34-85 and T-34-76 in the East German Nationale Volksarmee. The T-34-76 has a small turret and lacks railings for infantry, meaning it was likely produced in early 1942. 

The above image is dated somewhere around the late 1950s to late 1960s, but here is a much more recent image of two T-34-76es in North Korean service, a model 1941 and a model 1942.

Despite the poor picture quality, the suspension is obviously different. The road wheels have been replaced with post-war ones, and the track is from a T-55. The gun, however, is still the same F-34. I wonder if they developed any improved ammunition for it.

Edit: Another T-34-76 from North Korea. This photo is dated 2013.