"Study of the T-34-85 in the Korean War" Topic
9 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Remember that you can Stifle members so that you don't have to read their posts.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Cold War (1946-1989) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Profile Article
Featured Book Review
Featured Movie Review
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Tango01 | 01 Jul 2020 3:15 p.m. PST |
"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. 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…"
Main page link
Amicalement Armand
|
Legion 4 | 01 Jul 2020 3:36 p.m. PST |
The T34/85 gave us a run for the money, especially when we first got there. They outclassed our M24s, and our crews were not well trained. And the North's troops were extremely motivated. Once the M4E8s with the long 76mm cannon and M26s were introduced in numbers our odds were better. Plus the USAF did kill a number of their T34/85s from the air. And the Infantry finally did receive a better Bazooka. IIRC the M20 ? Yes it was the M20 The "Super Bazooka" … en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bazooka |
Legion 4 | 01 Jul 2020 3:45 p.m. PST |
From the link above: Korean War The success of the more powerful German Panzerschreck caused the bazooka to be completely redesigned at the close of World War II. A larger, 3.5 in (89 mm) model was adopted, the M20 "Super Bazooka". Though bearing a superficial resemblance to the Panzerschreck, the M20 had greater effective range, penetrating capability and was nearly 20% lighter than its German counterpart. The M20 weighed 14.3 pounds (6.5 kg) and fired a hollow shaped-charge 9 lb (4 kg) M28A2 HEAT rocket when used in an anti-tank role. It was also operated by a two-man team and had a rate of fire of six shots per minute. As with its predecessor, the M20 could also fire rockets with either practice (M29A2) or WP smoke (T127E3/M30) warheads. Having learned from experience of the sensitivity of the bazooka and its ammunition to moisture and harsh environments, the ammunition for the new weapon was packaged in moisture-resistant packaging, and the M20's field manual contained extensive instructions on launcher lubrication and maintenance, as well as storage of rocket ammunition.[48][49] When prepared for shipment from the arsenal, the weapon was protected by antifungal coatings over all electrical contacts, in addition to a cosmoline coating in the hand-operated magneto that ignited the rocket. Upon issue, these coatings were removed with solvent to ready the M20 for actual firing. A 3.5 inch bazooka rocket—loader training projectile. Budget cutbacks initiated by Secretary of Defense Louis A. Johnson in the years following World War II effectively canceled the intended widespread issue of the M20, and initial US forces deploying to Korea were armed solely with the M9/M9A1 2.36-in. launcher and old stockpiled World War II inventories of M6A3 rocket ammunition. During the initial stages of the Korean War, complaints resurfaced over the ineffectiveness of the 2.36-inch M9 and M9A1 against Soviet-supplied enemy armor. In one notable incident, infantry blocking forces of the US Army's Task Force Smith were overrun by 33 North Korean T-34-85 tanks despite repeatedly firing 2.36 inch rockets into the rear engine compartments of the vehicles.[50][51] Additionally, Ordnance authorities received numerous combat reports regarding the failure of the M6A3 warhead to properly detonate upon impact, eventually traced to inventories of rocket ammunition that had deteriorated from numerous years of storage in humid or salt air environments. Supplies of 3.5- in M20 launchers with M28A2 HEAT rocket ammunition were hurriedly airlifted from the United States to South Korea, where they proved very effective against the T-34 and other Soviet tanks.[52] Large numbers of 2.36-inch bazookas that were captured during the Chinese Civil War were also employed by the Chinese forces against the American Sherman and Patton tanks,[53] and the Chinese later reverse engineered and produced a copy of the M20 designated the Type 51.[54] It is considered that the Communist-used bazookas destroyed more tanks than the UN bazookas did.[55]
|
Dn Jackson | 02 Jul 2020 1:45 a.m. PST |
My father was assigned to Quantico in the early 60's. They used one of the T-34s as an aggressor vehicle during wargames. The mechanics would improvise and make parts when bits broke on it. Eventually a part broke that they couldn't repair. A young Marine got in a LOT of trouble because he wrote Khrushchev and asked him to send the part. |
Tango01 | 02 Jul 2020 12:37 p.m. PST |
Thanks!. Amicalement Amrand
|
Legion 4 | 02 Jul 2020 3:25 p.m. PST |
|
Tango01 | 03 Jul 2020 12:32 p.m. PST |
Glad you like it my good friend!. (smile) Amicalement Armand |
ScottS | 05 Jul 2020 9:28 p.m. PST |
Once the M4E8s with the long 76mm cannon and M26s were introduced in numbers our odds were better. My grandfather was in the reserves when Korea started and was soon called up and sent to Korea. He was an officer, having won a commission in WWII. When mobilized, he was given the choice of taking a platoon with M4A3E8s or M26s. He chose the Easy 8s, on the basis of knowing the Sherman inside and out from WWII, and thinking that his chances of a tank-v-tank fight were slim. He was right; he never saw a "live" T-34/85 in his entire time in Korea, only seeing burned out wrecks. |
Legion 4 | 06 Jul 2020 6:25 a.m. PST |
Yes many North Korean AFVs were destroyed by US/UN aircraft. But certainly with the M4E8s and M26s gave them the edge if they ran into some T34/85s. Like in the PTO, in Korea, US/UN AFVs were generally used as Infantry support. Going with the Easy 8 was a good move too as that is the AFV he was most familiar with. Also IIRC the North had some SU-76s but much smaller in numbers than the T34/85 as well as some Russian BA-64 A/Cs. |
|