JonS Posted September 13, 2002 Share Posted September 13, 2002 Originally posted by gunnergoz: One wonders if air could have had a greater impact if Korean weather were more favorable, or if the country were [not] so mountainous?I doubt it. One thing seems certain...Desert Storm's conditions have to have been some of the most ideal ever imagined for air power to go tank busting!Indeed. And yet even there the effectiveness of aircraft as tank-busters was - and is - over-rated. Losses to vehicles during the 30(?) days of 'softening up' were slight compared to those suffered once the ground offensive got under way and the Abrams, Challengers, and artillery firing DPICM got going. Regards JonS [ September 13, 2002, 12:08 AM: Message edited by: JonS ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busboy Posted September 13, 2002 Share Posted September 13, 2002 Really any larger caliber gun without a muzzle break suffers from the blast kick up (I think modern tanks don't have such a problem because of the nature of their fume extractors perhaps?) Anyhoo, I seem to recall the T-34/85 being notorious for blast kickup. As for the question of M4A3E8s and M24s and M26/46s vs. "IS-IVs" (I'm pretty certian you mean the "T-10" which was an IS-III with an extra road wheel, and some other stuff if I recall.) As the European theater shows, even powerful tanks can be overcome by more mobile and numerically superior forces. The terrian in Korea was just not suited for much tank warfare. I take this to mean that if such armored engagements did take place, they'd occur at shorter ranges with reduced lines of sight in hard terrian. The T-10 has a slow turret, 2 piece ammo and a cramped turret for VERY SLOW rate of fire (2 rounds a minuite with a good crew.) Slow turret rotation, slow tank, ect. The T-10 would be pretty all powerful in a standoff against American tanks, but in standard tank warfare, it would be slaughtered. (And it WAS designed for stand off, to be used as a break-through tank, and then the T-34s took over) You can look at some of the Arab Isralii conflicts where IS-IIIs came up against M-47s and M-48s. In a desert environment, the IS-III should have done well. They were out fought, though. Part of this was inferior crews, I'm sure, but I do believe the IS-III is an inferior tank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted September 13, 2002 Share Posted September 13, 2002 Originally posted by busboy: (snip) As for the question of M4A3E8s and M24s and M26/46s vs. "IS-IVs" (I'm pretty certian you mean the "T-10" which was an IS-III with an extra road wheel, and some other stuff if I recall.) No, I mean the IS-IV Heavy Tank. I'd never known of it before reading "Soviet/Russian Armor and Artillery Design Practices: 1945 to Present" by Hull, Markov and Zaloga (ISBN 1-892848-01-5). There's Russian stuff there I'd never even imagined. Can you see the JS/IS series going all the way up to IS-VII? They did, if only in prototype or limited series production. Photos and facts abound in all their glory. Lots of photos of Russian armor at Kubinka's museum sheds. Buy it, you'll lose lots of sleep... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busboy Posted September 13, 2002 Share Posted September 13, 2002 Neat. So was this IS-IV a serious production vehicle? At what point did the IS line become the T-10? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarquelne Posted September 13, 2002 Share Posted September 13, 2002 If more weight is indeed given to the gunner's estimate, I find this hard to square with the statement about range estimation that "It is worse through the telescopic sight". Maybe because it was more difficult to first "acquire" the target with the gunner's sight, due to smaller field of vision? I was under the impression that a TC's initial range esitmation was more to allow the gunner to find the target in his sights than anything else. But that doesn't really sound like what's going on here, with the 3-way estimations. Just a thought. My source is, more or less, "Stuff I think having read a book _almost_ on this subject 10 years ago." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted September 13, 2002 Share Posted September 13, 2002 See The Rusian Military Zone for postwar developments of Russian heavy tanks. The IS-4 was not a successful design, and the T-10 would have been the IS-8 and IS-9, and finally IS-10, but by the ol' Ioseph had died, so they dropped the "IS". Oh yeah - IS-3's fought against AMX-13's in '67 - the AMX-13 was armed with a development of the Pantehr 75mmL70 gun, and wiped the floor with the Egyptian tanks. [ September 12, 2002, 10:28 PM: Message edited by: Mike ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted September 13, 2002 Share Posted September 13, 2002 Stories of the failure of JS-III's to perform agains the Israelis have to take into account that the vehicle was not being used as the designers had envisioned. When Israeli troops had to face it head on, at a distance, it gave them real headaches. If the JS-III unit could be outmanouvered, the flank and rear armor could be penetrated by Israeli Pattons and Centurions. I don't believe I ever read of Israeli AMX-13's coming up against the JS-III's in the Sinai. The Israeli's used the AMX-13's as recon tanks, for the most part. If there were instances of those two tanks meeting, I'd love to read them myself and so would appreciate a reference if anyone has one. IIRC, most of the Israeli armor at the time was Pattons/Centurions in the regular forces and Ishermans in the reserves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted September 13, 2002 Share Posted September 13, 2002 If I may weigh in with a speculation, the excessive claims by the flyboys may have resulted from a presumption on their part that a near miss with bomb or rocket equaled a kill. When pullling out of a diving attack, especially if the enemy is putting lead in the air, it is hard to make fine discriminations on where your ordnance has gone. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted September 13, 2002 Share Posted September 13, 2002 Michael- You're probably right on that count. I served with naval aviators and, to them, if the target wasn't observed flying away from the scene, they figured that they'd nailed it...that could explain a lot too in the case of armor! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amedeo Posted September 13, 2002 Share Posted September 13, 2002 In the book "Tank vs. Tank" there's an account of an engagement between Egyptian IS-3s and Israeli M-48s durung the six days war. At long ranges the IS-3 were more than a match for enemy tanks, at shorter ranges factors like slow turrets and low ROF were usually dooming for those heavies. Amedeo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted September 13, 2002 Share Posted September 13, 2002 Originally posted by Mike: See The Rusian Military Zone for postwar developments of Russian heavy tanks. I want the "Object 279". BFC pleasfixorsumfink! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeauCoupDinkyDau Posted September 13, 2002 Share Posted September 13, 2002 Me too WIckey, me too!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted September 13, 2002 Share Posted September 13, 2002 Those four sets of treads must have been great for running down the crunchies! Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts