T-34/85 article from Russia which is quite good, except where it isn't

[76mm]

He was joking, calm done sonny.

It was kind of an inside joke but I thought an old-timer like Sublime would have gotten it...

[sburke]

It was kind of an inside joke but I thought an old-timer like Sublime would have gotten it...

He's from Boston.  Probably a Bruin's fan.

 

Now us Phila fans are known for our quiet calm demeanor especially in hockey.

 

[Sublime]

no completely over my head

[Sublime]

can you blame me with some of the stuff being tossed around here recently?

[John Kettler]

sburke, panzersaurkrautwerfer, 76mm,

 

Clearly you weren't paying attention. My own conclusion was that somehow the tank type got garbled, and I do agree the use of the British designation for the purported Shermans is weird. I said the unit was designated the 4th Battalion, which it was. Am hardly an expert of Brigade 2506, but maybe the intention was to build it up to full strength, or perhaps to fool Cuban and Russian intelligence? Considering that during WW II, whole PDs had combat strength of as little as one tank, a battalion with 5 doesn't get me all that worked up. I called it a platoon, based on strength. The tanks were landed first, which was very fortunate considering what rapidly happened later to the transports via Castro's air force. The tank ramming incident is reported twice, and I thought it was a cool war story. Nowhere did I say the M41 in the Bay of Pigs Museum was the one which allegedly rammed the Stalin-2 in what presumably was a wild fight. What would you do with a gun that looked like a yawning chasm pointed straight at you? I like my survival chances better ramming than being an instant away from oblivion when out of ammo. Rather, I essentially said that the balance of evidence, from the training CO, to the combat accounts, to the trophy tank showed the Brigade 2506 force was M41s, not Sherman and that reports to the contrary were wrong. Think about it for a second. Let's say the ramming incident took place, and I believe it did.

 

There are quite a few tank ramming incidents on the Eastern Front, for example, so many Valera Potapov has an article (embedded in Axis Forum post on tank ramming) on that topic at Russian Battlefield. Also, Tank Archive has its own piece on the subject, the pertinent part of which is that one of the conditions in which ramming took place was when the tank was out of ammo. Sound familiar? As a dictator, are you going to let a light tank which rammed and wrecked your mighty Stalin tank aka giant phallic symbol be the trophy tank? No! You're going to quietly have that tank scrapped and the Stalin either secretly fixed or itself destroyed. Besides, it's more macho to have so overwhelmed the foe that you captured one of his tanks relatively intact. Looks better on display than scorched junk.

 

As for the nukes, having been very worried about being strategically nuked during the Cuban Missile Crisis, learning way later the Russians had 100+ tac nukes on Cuba had we landed made me both gasp and shudder when I heard it, but even worse was learning the FOXTROT subs the Navy so tormented had nuclear torpedoes and could've wiped out a whole carrier group! Had Bay of Pigs actually worked and a real bridgehead emerged and begun to really grow, especially sans direct US involvement, with Castro's forces losing, it's just possible a (or two given rather poor reliability) nuclear armed Luna/FROG rockets could've been used by the Russian commander. Goodbye landing no one knows about!

 

If that sounds far fetched, understand the MoD and CGS had already given nuclear release authority to the Russian CO on Cuba, with the weapons to be used at his discretion. You may also be interested to know that Castro was so freaked out by the Bay of Pigs he almost persuaded the Russians to let him keep 100 tac nukes to make sure there wasn't a second attempt at invasion.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

[76mm]

 

There are quite a few tank ramming incidents on the Eastern Front, for example, so many Valera Potapov has an article (embedded in Axis Forum post on tank ramming) on that topic at Russian Battlefield. Also, Tank Archive has its own piece on the subject, the pertinent part of which is that one of the conditions in which ramming took place was when the tank was out of ammo. Sound familiar? As a dictator, are you going to let a light tank which rammed and wrecked your mighty Stalin tank aka giant phallic symbol be the trophy tank? No! You're going to quietly have that tank scrapped and the Stalin either secretly fixed or itself destroyed. Besides, it's more macho to have so overwhelmed the foe that you captured one of his tanks relatively intact. Looks better on display than scorched junk.

I have little doubt that tank-rammings occured on occasion ion the Eastern Front--after all, it  was a massive campaign, lasting for four years and stretching over thousands of columns, between what could be fanatical troops.  However, your conclusion that it happened on the Eastern Front, doesn't do much to bolster your case that it happened at Bay of Pigs, where there were a grand total of a couple of dozen tanks fighting for a few hours.

 

I also can't agree with your psycho-musings about what Castro would have done with the tank.  In my view:

1)  an M41 ramming a Stalin tank (or whatever) would hardly "wreck" either tank--they're armored vehicles don't forget--although (if the ramming occured) one or both of the vehicles might have been immobilized.  

 

2)  If I were Castro, for propaganda purposes I'd have put every captured US tank on display somewhere and would not have scrapped anything.

[sburke]

unfortunately I was paying attention.  I sadly know better and should have avoided this thread... sigh I will eventually learn... I hope.

[76mm]

unfortunately I was paying attention.  I sadly know better and should have avoided this thread... sigh I will eventually learn... I hope.

You can be sure there will be a next time, so you'll have another opportunity to demonstrate your mettle.

[A Canadian Cat]

Just use the ignore setting and then you will not get sucked in...

[sburke]

Just use the ignore setting and then you will not get sucked in...

So what is your excuse, you a masochist?

[A Canadian Cat]

Nope, I never read the OP - not even now.  Clearly from the reaction that was a good call.  I did read you poor guys reactions - that's kinda like watching a car accident - I just cannot stop looking at all the wrecked vehicles and confused people

[sand digger]

Lol at the comment re Cents not doing any tank -v- tank action in Korea. The T34 was mince meat for the Cent's 20 pounder gun, plenty of records of that including lifting T34 turrets off with HE. Basically we had post war UN tanks -v- WW2 veterans used by amateurs, the outcome was predictable and nothing much to get excited about.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

Lol at the comment re Cents not doing any tank -v- tank action in Korea. The T34 was mince meat for the Cent's 20 pounder gun, plenty of records of that including lifting T34 turrets off with HE. Basically we had post war UN tanks -v- WW2 veterans used by amateurs, the outcome was predictable and nothing much to get excited about.

 

I'd really like to see those records considering the first Centurions did not arrive in country until November of 1950, which marked the effective end of tank vs tank fighting.  I'll need to find my reference for it, but the British tank on tank kill of the war was against a Chinese captured Comet.

 

Centurion would have done a number on a T-34, don't get me wrong....but it arrived just after hunting season closed. 

[John Kettler]

Period Kiwi doc on Centurion tank in ROK. It doesn't report any direct engagements, but it is a fascinating assessment of the tank by a junior officer then serving in a Centurion unit, the 8th Hussars. What he has to say regarding the Centurion's battlefield  mobility was echoed by the CO of US 1st Amy.

Centurion Tanks in Korea - Report by Lt J Brown RNZAC March 1952

 

 

 

http://antipodeanarmour.blogspot.com/p/centurion-tanks-in-korea-report-by-lt-j.html

 

The below is apparently taken from either the Osprey or the Crowood Centurion tank books, though the poster, SMIDSY, doesn't seem to have a real handle on source.

 

"...In their Centurions, the 8th Hussars have evolved a new type of tank warfare. They taught us that anywhere a tank can go, is tank country: even the tops of mountains." -General John O'Daniel, Commander US 1st Corps."

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

 

P.S.

The top link, though visually broken, works fine.
 

 

Edited June 7, 2015 by John Kettler

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Re: John

 

The mobility of the Centurion was never in doubt, as that quote as made the rounds, and the Centurion did good work in infantry support.

 

However the vast overwhelming majority of tank vs tank fights occurred between August and November 1950.  Simple basic fact, that's when the NKPA had the armor to use, but by November it had lost nearly all of it.  November is also when the first Centurions show up, but they were not where the last ten or so T-34s in Korea were at.  

 

After that point the Chinese largely did not employ armor*, and the NKPA received only fairly modest resupply and much of it sat out the war.  Armor was in both CPV and NKPA use post 1950, sort of a white elephant, very expensive, very hard to maintain over the very limited logistical system available, while also not especially effective (given the 1300+ UN tanks in theater, it was not like they could replay the armored battering ram thing the NKPA had done in opening stages of the war).

 

So in that regard I'm interested to see some sources on Centurion vs T-34 fighting in Korea, as my sources don't seem to indicate it occurred.  On the other hand, there's very little I've found on any tank vs tank fighting post November 1950, indicating either it simply did not happen, or perhaps is a subject I could use some more sources on.

 

*There's Chinese sources that claim their knockoff of the T-34 went on to murderize several hundred US tanks during the conflict.  There's no documentation of those tanks arriving in theater, and the US tank losses to other tanks amounted to 38 (with 15 of those destroyed beyond economical repair, the remainder recovered and returned to use), which makes those Chinese claims pretty dubious.  

[John Kettler]

JasonC,

 

Always good to see you wade in on tacair ineffectiveness in attacking armor. Have you been able to do anything like your WW II and Korea work for Nam, the 1967 War, the Yom Kippur War and the two Persian Gulf wars? 

 

armorpanzersaurkrautwerfer,

 

I understand what you're looking for and the underlying logic. The Kiwi tanker's remarks were something which turned up when I started looking for the so far nil evidence of Centurion vs T-34/85 clashes. The Chinese are notorious to this day for making all sorts of grossly inflated-baseless claims, so outrageous fabrications regarding tank battle that never were don't surprise me at all. What was surprising to me was that business of the Chinese fighting in a captured Cromwell. That would make for a most unusual Cromwell diorama. My personal favorite tank story from the Korean War had to do with debriefing of captured ATG crews regarding the planned to be fearsome snarling tiger's mouths painted on some of the American tanks, as seen here. The replies went something like:

"Oh, very good. Make excellent aiming points for our guns!"  I've read the Germans were equally appreciative of those big white Ailled stars, too. 

 

Should your researches defy what appear to be really steep odds and find an actual engagement of Centurion vs T-34/85, that would be great, but your core premise is exceedingly difficult to challenge

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Re: Cromwell

 

Eh.  Looking at other tank-poor forces it's not uncommon to see moderately functional vehicles get turned around and sent back at the enemy.  

 

Re: Tiger face

 

Anti-Tank Gunners were actually fairly uncommon too.  The vast preponderance of US tank losses were actually from mines. And while the Korean restrictive terrain makes for bottlenecks, it also makes for difficult terrain to emplace larger weapons....and the NKPA and CPV both wanted for infantry portable AT assets.  To a large degree the tendency of communist forces to flee from armor gave credence to the power of the tigerface.....while disregarding the average North Korean/Chinese unit had very little that would make a sizable impression on a tank and would have bugged out, even if it'd been a peaceful pastoral scene painted on the bow of the tank.

 

Re: China

 

China has done a lot to try to invent this legendary fighting strength from what has largely been a lackluster military history.  To that end powerful Chinese tankmen crushing Shermans fits the image....and if you're on the wrong side of the Great Red Firewall, there's not much to counter that mythology.

 

Also considering the losses sustained by the CPV to what ends...I have to imagine some fluffing is required to make it a less lopsided body stacking.  

[John Kettler]

panzersaurkrautewerfer,

 

1951 intel doc. The site of which it's but a small part is simply amazing.

 

RESTRICTED MATERIEL IN THE HANDS OF OR POSSIBLY
AVAILABLE TO THE ENEMY IN KOREA GENERAL HEADQUARTERS
FAR EAST COMMAND
MILITARY INTELLIGENCE SECTION,
GENERAL STAFF      AUGUST 1951 RESTRICTED

 

Enemy weapons

http://www.koreanwaronline.com/history/Enemy%20Weapons/TOC.htm

 

List includes 45 mm ATG, 76.2 mm ZIS-3, 57 mm and 82 mm RR. As a bonus, I did come up with evidence  from 1952 of a Centurion in combat, but not tank vs tank.

 

http://www.koreanwaronline.com/history/Ron/FrameHome/centurian.html

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited June 9, 2015 by John Kettler

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

I'm certainly not denying the weapons existed, just that the CPV and post 1950 NKPA lacked the prime movers to keep those guns in the fight, and further, the light infantry infiltration tactics used extensively precluded moving with many of the large caliber guns (while again, I will not deny they can be pushed/dragged....they're certainly not going up the hills of Korea without significant effort, and definitely not being man-hauled for more than short distances).

 

In terms of battlefield threats, keep in in mind for the 1950 fighting (which represented the highest tempo, highest threat period for armor) 136 US tanks of all types were lost.   69% of those losses were from mines, so about 94 total, with 34 lost to enemy tank fire (T-34/SU-76) which leaves a whopping nine or so lost to all other causes.  

 

While the later fighting would doubtless include significantly less kills from tanks, it's fairly indicative that the NKPA anti-tank guns were fairly low on the threat threshold, and PVT Kim cooly remarking on the tiger painting should be taken with a grain of salt*

 

 

*Especially given the painting was done on the frontal slope of the hull, which is a pretty bad point of aim, especially on the M26/M46.  Sherman would have stood an okay chance at warding off anything less than 85 MM on the frontal slope too, with the 45 MM being not especially effective by 1950.   

[John Kettler]

panzersaurkrautewerfer,

 

I ran out of editing time, so was unable to include this further research. I suspect the term "antitank gunners" included RR crews, too. Those were portable over even the worst terrain. 

 

A brief account in Armoured Warfare in the Korean War: Rare Photographs from Wartime Archives, by Anthony Tucker-Jones has 8th Hussars arriving in Pusan 14 November 1950, in action on the drive to Pyongyang, then being thrown back to the Han River. Your comment about mines as a cause of tank loss is apt, for the pics show several Centurions so afflicted. The story of 8th Hussars Centurion 3s is on pages 56-58 and details some quite intense combat as well as very messy approach to removing Chinese infantry. In two battles where Centurions played a major part: Imjin and The Hook, there were no engagements against enemy armor. Increasingly, it appears the only tank kill Centurions got was the captured Cromwell. The specifics of that are discussed by Andy_S here in a post on Armchair General regarding British armor in the Korean War. There is a link in his sig to what appears to be a seminal work on the fight at the Imjin River. To the Last Round, by Anthony Salmon, who also authored a second book, Scorched Earth, Black Snow, Britain and Australia in the Korean War, 1950. The comments are quite moving. Paul MacKenzie's book, The Imjin and Kapyong Battles, Korea 1951, flatly states "Though never used in its intended role of foiling enemy armor--by the time the brigade arrived the North Koran force of T-34/85s supplied by the Soviet Union had been virtually wiped out--and the newly emerging threat from the Chinese People's Volunteers did not include tanks..."

 

Conclusion? I believe the claims about Centurions killing anything in the way of enemy armor other than the aforementioned captured Cromwell are entirely baseless and wrong. The brigade mentioned above is the 29th Brigade.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited June 9, 2015 by John Kettler

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Yeah.  Most of the stuff I have indicates zero Chinese armor outside of captured vehicles, it just gets fuzzy in that some replacements were received by the NKPA for lost armor, but certainly not to the degree where the 400 or so AFVs lost in 1950 were made good again, and again by November 1950 there were 1300+ US Army/USMC tanks in theater, let alone commonwealth platforms.  I have to wonder if there's not one or two odd moments were T-34s showed up again later, but I certainly cannot find good references to it occurring again.

 

Sort of bringing it back on topic:

 

The Korean war is a really good benchmark in my opinion for measuring the T-34's performance objectively, neither the Russ Monster tank the Germans liked to paint it as, or the Hero Comrade Tank of Comrade Tankist 1st class that Soviet renditions show it as.  The post-action analysis is pretty transparent, and fairly honest in assesing results.  It also helps that unlike in the Eastern front, virtually none of the knocked out tanks escaped to fight again, or disappeared into the depths of history, virtually every T-34 provided for the initial invasion was destroyed or captured which provides a really good sampling of vehicles of differing circumstances.  Further the small scale armor fights (usually fewer than five tanks on each side) generally makes for a good sort of microcosm, the relative numbers of tanks available in Korea meant less than the number occupying Ron-Ni-Ung (random madeup name mind you) Valley at 1343 on October 3rd 1950 in terms of making an assessment of performance.  

 

From that it's really interesting to draw the conclusion that the T-34/85 was effectively on par with an M4A3E8 (and even then, arguably a M4A3 76 (W) given the E8's big difference was the tracks vs armor or firepower).  The 85 MM performed about as well as the 76 MM in terms of anti-tank, but a bit better in terms of spitting out HE.  Both tanks could destroy each other with a high probability "kill" on the first hit....but in practice the Shermans were more typically mission/mobility/firepower kills with about 50% returning to duty after being recovered, and on average 1 KIA/WIA per knocked out tank.  On the other hand, most T-34s knocked out were destroyed beyond repair, and on average T-34 crewmen stood something like a 75% chance of being killed (vs simply wounded) when the vehicle was knocked out.

 

Of course this was somewhat a result of the US tanker's tendency to shoot up knocked out tanks until they burned, blew up, or the crew bailed (and even then unmanned tanks were frequently shot until entirely destroyed just to be sure).  However it's pretty easy to note the location of the fuel tanks, internally stored ammo, and the small interior volume all would lead to fairly dramatic results when penetrated.  

 

Mobility was similar, T-34 likely commanded some sort of advantage there, but likely was balanced out by the fairly limited elevation/depression of the main gun (effectively it could go more places, but shoot from fewer of those positions).

 

Which all and all gets to one of my personal things of no one will bat an eye if you claim the T-34 was the greatest tank of World War Two.  They might argue the Panther was better blah blah whatever.  But god help you if you call the Sherman tank the best despite it effectively being the equal of the T-34 in the most common variants.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Both tanks could destroy each other with a high probability "kill" on the first hit....but in practice the Shermans were more typically mission/mobility/firepower kills with about 50% returning to duty after being recovered, and on average 1 KIA/WIA per knocked out tank. On the other hand, most T-34s knocked out were destroyed beyond repair, and on average T-34 crewmen stood something like a 75% chance of being killed (vs simply wounded) when the vehicle was knocked out.

This had a lot to do with the composition of Soviet explosives.

For a long time after the war I sought an answer to one question. If a T-34 started burning, we tried to get as far away from it as possible, even though this was forbidden. The on-board ammunition exploded. For a brief period of time, perhaps six weeks, I fought on a T-34 around Smolensk. The commander of one of our companies was hit in his tank. The crew jumped out of the tank but were unable to run away from it because the Germans were pinning them down with machine gun fire. They lay there in the wheat field as the tank burned and blew up. By evening, when the battle had waned, we went to them. I found the company commander lying on the ground with a large piece of armor sticking out of his head. When a Sherman burned, the main gun ammunition did not explode. Why was this?

Such a case occurred once in Ukraine. Our tank was hit. We jumped out of it but the Germans were dropping mortar rounds around us. We lay under the tank as it burned. We laid there a long time with nowhere to go. The Germans were covering the empty field around the tank with machine gun and mortar fires. We lay there. The uniform on my back was beginning heating up from the burning tank. We thought we were finished! We would hear a big bang and it would all be over! A brother's grave! We heard many loud thumps coming from the turret. This was the armor-piercing rounds being blown out of their cases. Next the fire would reach the high explosive rounds and all hell would break loose! But nothing happened. Why not? Because our high explosive rounds detonated and the American rounds did not? In the end it was because the American ammunition had more refined explosives. Ours was some kind of component that increased the force of the explosion one and one-half times, at the same time increasing the risk of detonation of the ammunition.

-- Dmitriy Loza

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

I'm not sure if I buy off on the component thing.  By most measures Soviet HE was not markedly more potent shell for shell, and ammunition cookoff remained a threat in all tanks regardless of nationality.  The T-34 did stuff a lot of crew, fuel, and ammunition into a very tiny place which is much the same problem faced by T-55, T-62, T-72 etc etc crewmen into the modern era, and the survival rates for those crews remains quite poor regardless of HE filler. On the other hand the Sherman had a fair amount of space for rounds to rattle around without causing a catastrophic explosion. Even in the case of brewing up, the larger interior gave more space for a crew to successfully escape a tank that's about to start burning, while getting out of a T-34 in a hurry just wasn't happening.