Eternal Proving Grounds in the Middle East

Throughout the various Arab-Israeli wars of 1948-1982 Israel, Egypt, and Syria received foreign military vehicles in large amounts. The Middle East was an excellent proving grounds to compare the performance of Soviet and Western military vehicles in real combat. Let's see which vehicles Israeli and Arab tankers got their hands on and how they performed over the decades of conflict.

Patton's Growing Pains

The US Army received the M48A5 tank in the early 1970s. This index represented earlier tanks, chiefly the M48A3, upgraded to match the characteristics of the M60. The modernization consisted of installing a 105 mm gun, new fire control systems, new engine, improved cruising range, etc. Large scale modernization began in 1975 and touched about 2100 tanks. However, there were earlier attempts to modernize the M48 to the M60 standard, attempts that will be covered in this article.

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.

Soviets vs M48 Patton

Fig. 2 Tactical diagram of complete penetration and satisfactory penetration limits when firing at an M48 tank with domestic 85 mm sharp tipped capped armour piercing shells.

Muzzle velocities higher than stock were tested at 100 meters with an increased charge.

1. Complete penetration limit of the lower front hull.
2. Rear plate integrity limit of the lower front hull.
3. Complete penetration limit of the upper side of the hull.
4. Rear plate integrity limit of the upper side of the hull.
5. Complete penetration limit of the lower side of the hull.
6. Rear plate integrity limit of the lower side of the hull.

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.

Penetration, Part 9: Milsurp Edition

As a result of Lend-Lease, a large number of American guns and vehicles ended up in the hands of whoever was willing to fight the Axis. After the war ended and allegiances shifted, a lot of those nations ended up hostile to their former suppliers. Naturally, the US already had data on all of these weapons, and compiled it into a convenient table.

PAM 30-60-1 Vol. 3 Pt. 1 (composite image from several pages)

The first is the M1 76 mm gun, still in the service with the Yugoslavian army in Sherman tanks as of this document's composition. According to the document, the muzzle brake was not used. 

The second gun is the 90 mm M36 gun from the M47 Patton tank, also operated by Yugoslavian forces. 

The 37 mm M6 gun was used on many vehicles, but the vehicle in question is the M8 Greyhound armoured car. The document mentions that it "has but a limited performance against modern tanks". Indeed, 50 mm isn't going to impress anyone in this day and age.

Just like the "S" versions of Soviet guns, the M1A1C is just the same 76 mm gun as seen earlier in the table, but mounted in a Hellcat. Unlike the Sherman variant of the weapon, the muzzle brake is still used here. 

The 90 mm M3 was used on the M36 tank destroyer. The document points out that this gun cannot use 90 mm ammunition from the M36 gun, although the opposite is possible. Again, the muzzle brake has been removed in Yugoslavian service.

Last but not least is the 105 mm M2A1 howitzer, used both as towed artillery or a part of the M7 Priest. 

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.

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.

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.