No-Name Ridge - M26 Pershings Break the Invincible Soviet T-34

  Рет қаралды 880,270

Dark Docs

Dark Docs

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 2 000
@Necron990
@Necron990 2 жыл бұрын
The Pershing was designed to take on Tigers and Panthers, so taking on a T-34 was within its specs.
@paulwalker1617
@paulwalker1617 2 жыл бұрын
And taking on Panthers and Tigers, it did. Look for a video on KZbin by the title of "Battle for Cologne". Some relatively great raw footage of the Pershing taking on a Panther.
@Necron990
@Necron990 2 жыл бұрын
@@paulwalker1617 yup so once they found these bad boys in that warehouse, those T-34s were toast.
@daveriddell3704
@daveriddell3704 2 жыл бұрын
@@paulwalker1617 And the Tiger had no problem taking on the Pershing.
@hkiller57
@hkiller57 2 жыл бұрын
@@daveriddell3704 ya, that's typically what happens when 88mm flak cannon goes up against ww2 Era tanks
@daveriddell3704
@daveriddell3704 2 жыл бұрын
@@hkiller57 Wasn't the Pershing's 90mm gun based on an AA gun as well?
@bryonslatten3147
@bryonslatten3147 2 жыл бұрын
The "T" in T24 designates prototypes. The M24 Chafee was the final production version.
@helbent4
@helbent4 2 жыл бұрын
Thanks! This was bugging me.
@LostInTheFarmersMarket
@LostInTheFarmersMarket 2 жыл бұрын
That's what I thought, when you look up T24 it certainly does not go to the chafee.
@Combatpzman
@Combatpzman 2 жыл бұрын
Given the poor choice of video clips, and bad basic information, this entire video is somewhat questionable.
@toxicclown3035
@toxicclown3035 2 жыл бұрын
@@Combatpzman Completely agree. I expected more from this channel.
@BombshellCreations
@BombshellCreations 2 жыл бұрын
@@helbent4 Me too
@AdmRose
@AdmRose 2 жыл бұрын
Anyone who has served in the military understands how the army could misplace and then forget about four heavy tanks.
@seanniver5418
@seanniver5418 2 жыл бұрын
There’s dumb, and then there’s army dumb.
@stillededge
@stillededge 2 жыл бұрын
Yeah, 20 years in the military...and I did a few financial responsibility investigations (FLIPL's) on people that "lost" M1 Tanks and other large vehicles......as inexplicable as it seems..."stupidity" sums it up. And no, I was not "understanding".
@stillededge
@stillededge 2 жыл бұрын
@LibtardsStillCant SilenceMe20 So much "fun". ;-)
@MrFlintlock7
@MrFlintlock7 2 жыл бұрын
"Army Intelligence" is an oxymoron?
@skillzsett7958
@skillzsett7958 2 жыл бұрын
Absolutely
@loudelk99
@loudelk99 2 жыл бұрын
My dad was at that engagement, he recounted to me how good he felt watching the T-34 being cracked like eggs under the 90mm guns.
@ivan200804
@ivan200804 2 жыл бұрын
Ah come on man. T-34 was not made to be "invinsible." It's a medium tank with 40 mm of frontal and side armor, but Pershing is a beast compared to T-34. It was made to go toe to toe with King Tigers.
@darnit1944
@darnit1944 2 жыл бұрын
Not Tiger IIs, just Tigers I and Panthers in general
@Therovingpatrol
@Therovingpatrol 2 жыл бұрын
In War thunder, the Pershing is useless.
@darnit1944
@darnit1944 2 жыл бұрын
@@Therovingpatrol T26E5, practically the same thing but with stupid thicc frontal armor and cheaper repair cost
@StalledAgate832
@StalledAgate832 2 жыл бұрын
@@darnit1944 Funny how the most effective vehicle for America at 6.7 is the only one with a cheap rep cost lol
@SammyPsk
@SammyPsk 2 жыл бұрын
@@Therovingpatrol so is the T34 lmao
@badlaamaurukehu
@badlaamaurukehu 2 жыл бұрын
I just love the look of an unskirted Pershing.
@jaex9617
@jaex9617 2 жыл бұрын
Jeez, keep it clean. This is a family operation.
@anthonyhamburg8885
@anthonyhamburg8885 2 жыл бұрын
Giggity
@Earth11111
@Earth11111 2 жыл бұрын
One of the best looking tanks in my Opinion
@Manco65
@Manco65 2 жыл бұрын
@@jaex9617 ROFLMAO 🤣
@mikeypiros6647
@mikeypiros6647 2 жыл бұрын
GAY BTCH !
@501Mobius
@501Mobius 2 жыл бұрын
All this additional footage of German tanks and StuGs with some Russian light tanks and early T-34/76s. I was wondering when they were going to show Japanese kamikazes attacking aircraft carriers. Usually the 85mm T-34 shell would bounce off the front of the Pershing but one struck the towing hook that acted like a shot trap and it penetrated the M-26.
@thundershirt1
@thundershirt1 2 жыл бұрын
I would have thrown in a Roman trireme from Bun Hur.
@sebbonxxsebbon6824
@sebbonxxsebbon6824 2 жыл бұрын
@@thundershirt1 And throw in a knight horse charge.
@bjkjoseph
@bjkjoseph 2 жыл бұрын
Yes that was bad
@mazzars1772
@mazzars1772 2 жыл бұрын
Probably one of the worst yet for footage.
@badlt5897
@badlt5897 2 жыл бұрын
Wait until the Cylons provide support.
@matthewanderson9754
@matthewanderson9754 2 жыл бұрын
You'd be surprised how well the 76 Sherman tanks did, they're not to be dismissed, they did huge amounts of offensive and defensive actions...
@AngryMarine-il6ej
@AngryMarine-il6ej 2 жыл бұрын
It was not well known, the 76mm armed Shermans were in fact, capable of defeating the T-34-85 with HVAP ammunition.
@hitman_zulu
@hitman_zulu Жыл бұрын
@@AngryMarine-il6ej i mean the 76 could front pen tiger 1's so t34s would be a thing
@markgreiser464
@markgreiser464 Жыл бұрын
After Action reports indicate the 76mm Shermans had a kill to death ratio of 2:1 over the T34-85. The Pershings were much higher.
@GeorgiaBoy1961
@GeorgiaBoy1961 Жыл бұрын
The M4A3E8 'Easy Eight" Shermans with their 76mm guns did pretty well against communist T34-85s, even though the two designs were fairly even on paper. This was chiefly because of the quality and experience of the American crews, many of whom had combat experience together from the Second World War, or at least who had extensively training together. The Shermans did well in more mountainous terrain, up high, where the heavier and large Pershings did not fare as well as they did at lower altitude with terrain better-suited to tanks. The undisputed champ, though, for climbing tough terrain, were British-CW Centurions. Astonished onlookers could not believe how they got their tanks up the steep grades to the tops of hills and mountains where they could then provide fire support for U.S. & UN forces. That's a story someone ought to tell... The Korean conflict, like Vietnam later, was not per se a tanker's war. The terrain in Korea was too difficult and unsuitable for that. But in the limited number of tank-versus-tank engagements in which they fought, U.S. Army and USMC tankers gave good account of themselves.
@paulbriggs3072
@paulbriggs3072 9 ай бұрын
Yes, the Fireflies.
@shenmisheshou7002
@shenmisheshou7002 2 жыл бұрын
44,000 T34s were destroyed during WW2 (110,000 made) so calling them invincible is a huge overstatement. The T34-85 was overmatched by the M26.
@Robbini0
@Robbini0 2 жыл бұрын
So far during the korean war, the T34s had been invulnerable more or less. And to be fair, none or very few of the common South Korean, US or UN troops in Korea at that time would've ever seen a T34 before the war, heard how many there had been or how many had been destroyed.
@herrero4270
@herrero4270 2 жыл бұрын
"Invincible" always is a huge overstatement about anything. In time, all are vanquished. The number of T34 tanks destroyed during the II WW speak about many things, not only tanks, but also the crew training, tactical mistakes, etc. Also, do not forget that the main weight of this war against Germany, was carried by the USSR.And in land operations, for more years than the resto of the allies.
@ericcrabtree6245
@ericcrabtree6245 2 жыл бұрын
Most tanks in WWII (on all sides) were destroyed by heavy artillery barrages or aircraft bombing them. Modern tanks can’t even stand up to that.
@mopar_dude9227
@mopar_dude9227 2 жыл бұрын
@@herrero4270 hmm, no the USSR did not carry the main weight of the war against Germany. They didn’t enter WW2 until June of 1942 after Germany invaded. Up until that time, they were dividing up Eastern Europe with the Germans. The USSR was not the heroes in WW2, they were as bad as Germany was, if not worse. The rest of the Allies were ok with Russia getting slaughtered, knowing damn well that Russia couldn’t be trusted. Of course England proved that they couldn’t be trusted after the war either, just ask Poland. Russia would have been destroyed if they didn’t get war supplies from the US, and they definitely wouldn’t have been able to defeat Germany on it’s own. The rest of the Allies should have listened to Patton and attacked the USSR while we had the forces there. Given the resources of the US, and the rest of the European countries, Russia would have been easily defeated. A couple A bombs dropped on Moscow and Stalingrad would have done the trick.
@herrero4270
@herrero4270 2 жыл бұрын
@@ericcrabtree6245 That's true.
@GenJackOneill
@GenJackOneill 2 жыл бұрын
CORRECTION: Not T24, its M24. And the M26 Was a medium tank, Not heavy. That designation was only given to later models which had much more armor. The experimental Super Pershings were also heavy tanks, but were only used in Europe, not Korea.
@ellms1115
@ellms1115 2 жыл бұрын
So, just because something is classified as a medium tank, doesn't really make it a medium tank. The M26 in weight class its more like a heavy because it was so heavy like a tiger 1s or panther. And panthers were classified as Medium tanks, but we're on par with tiger 1s
@ridethecurve55
@ridethecurve55 2 жыл бұрын
Now I'm ALL confused. I wish Dark Docs would re-voice in the video with the Correct designations. It's kind of a big deal.
@andrewpatton6194
@andrewpatton6194 2 жыл бұрын
I seriously thought I was going crazy hearing T24.
@tasman006
@tasman006 2 жыл бұрын
He has gotten confused the prototype was called the T24, which is confusing as there was also a soviet light tank called T24. By the Korean war it was known as the M24 Chaffee he has really stuffed this up a bit. I think its an editing error as he says M24 later. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-24_tank en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M24_Chaffee
@SteveJB
@SteveJB 2 жыл бұрын
@@ridethecurve55 Haven't finished the video yet, but: 0:35 Dark Docs says M24 (when at the time it was designated M24) 3:20 referring to development of T34 and Chaffee (in development the Chaffee was the Light Tank T24), although, maybe 30-60 seconds before Dark Docs does refer to the T24 as an operational tank.
@patrickmccrann991
@patrickmccrann991 2 жыл бұрын
Not the T24 but M24. This was a light tank compared to the T-34/85 medium tank. The M24 Chaffee was a late war replacement for the M5 Stuart during World War II. The T34 was originally equipped with a 76mm gun early in the war, later upgraded with an 85mm gun. However, the M26 Pershing was designed to take on the Tiger and Panther equipped with a high velocity 90mm gun.
@187mrsmith
@187mrsmith 2 жыл бұрын
Who else randomly came across this channel one day an now can't stop watching his videos!
@ageingviking5587
@ageingviking5587 2 жыл бұрын
me
@Lucas-Deepdive
@Lucas-Deepdive 2 жыл бұрын
Love it
@maxstr
@maxstr 2 жыл бұрын
All of us found it randomly
@Raider19582
@Raider19582 2 жыл бұрын
True
@ellms1115
@ellms1115 2 жыл бұрын
I'd recommend against it, unless you're just watching for the laughs. His videos are riddled with inaccuracies especially the combat footage, a lot of it being German, from WW2, about 8-10 years before the Korean war started
@mikesmith-wk7vy
@mikesmith-wk7vy 2 жыл бұрын
the Sherman still had a positive kill ratio against the t-34 in the war . its something that in ww2 the Pershing was late and only saw limited combat its sad but 7 years later in Korea we still hadn't phased out the Sherman the for Pershing even , much yet the m47,8 yet . in those years we really slacked off on modernizing and just relied on having nukes where the soviets didnt yet.
@donactdum6635
@donactdum6635 2 жыл бұрын
Lmao ratio
@Front-Toward-Enemy
@Front-Toward-Enemy 2 жыл бұрын
Yeah, in the 50’s, most defense spending was going towards the newly formed Air Force. Many people higher up believed that ground warfare was obsolete.
@mikesmith-wk7vy
@mikesmith-wk7vy 2 жыл бұрын
@@Front-Toward-Enemy we did have to rush the f-86 saber in to fight the superior mig 15 because using the ww2 p/f-80 and the f84 was not going well even after trying for while
@GeorgiaBoy1961
@GeorgiaBoy1961 2 жыл бұрын
The Shermans remaining in service by Korea were largely M4A3E8s '"Easy Eights" - the improved version of the M4 with 23-inch wide tracks, an improved suspension, and other upgrades. Their 76mm guns were comparable to those of the T34-85, especially when firing HVAP tungsten-cored ammunition, which was in good supply by that time. The 90mm main gun of the M-26/M-46 series tanks, was more than adequate to deal with the North Korean tanks. The Sherman was favored higher up in the more-rugged regions, due to its lower all-up weight and more-favorable power-to-weight ratio. The Pershing, however, was preferred lower down where the tank country was better, and its firepower advantage could be best-utilized. Korea was not, as a rule, a tanker's war, mostly due to the rugged terrain of the Korean peninsula. However, U.S. & UN forces tanks played a role, not just fighting other armored vehicles, but in providing fire-support, both direct and indirect. You're correct, though: After the victory in WWII, virtually no one in wider American society wanted to think about war or the military for a while. President Truman's defense secretary, Louis Johnson, bragged that he would not only cut the fat out of the military, he'd cut into muscle, too, if necessary - and he did. It is very tough to remain ready for an unexpected conflict - and no conflict was less-expected by the U.S. government than the Korean War - if your budget is cut by 75% or more. And it isn't only equipment which needs upgrading and replacement; training is also expensive, as are simply keeping adequate numbers on personnel rosters and in uniform. Most divisions of the Army and Marine Corps were skeleton-like in comparison to how large they were during WWII. Being so under-strength, they were not capable of doing what policy-makers and the brass at the Pentagon thought they should be able to do. That's why it was such a struggle in the early days of that war. The Marine Corps had to mobilize their entire reserves just to fill out one division, the First Mar-Div (1st Marine Division), and pilfer the 2nd Marine Division as well. The army was no better off. The Army and Marines were so short of tanks, that they were cannibalizing Veteran's Day and Memorial Day displays in towns across the country for their armored vehicles and tanks, to get them back into service. That's how badly the invasion of South Korea in June, 1950, caught the military and political establishment with their collective pants down. The U.S. advisory command then in South Korea was pathetically ill-equipped and under-staffed to fight a war, and really only served as a trip-wire force. And because the U.S. had denied them tanks, artillery and other heavy weapons, the South Korean army was not much better off. Whereas the North Korean Army had been generously supplied with captured Japanese weapons and equipment as well as some sourced from the USSR. It was totally FUBAR, in other words....
@andrewwoodhead3141
@andrewwoodhead3141 2 жыл бұрын
The Sherman tank had to be withdrawn in Korea , later to be re deployed when the threat of the North Korean armour had been written down. The Pershing should have been introduced as fast as possible in WW2. Instead , priority was given to the obsolescent Sherman tank. This resulted in a huge over production of Sherman tanks , leaving the USA holding thousands of unused Shermans at the wars end. This huge waste of industrial effort and cost ,acted, in turn , to discourage investment in to new tank development . After all, why buy new tanks when there are thousands of unused tanks already sitting in vehicle parks ? This was why the US entered the Korean War still equipped with the Sherman tank and why the Pershing remained under developed. The Sherman tank truly was a disaster in every sense of the word !
@ew3612
@ew3612 2 жыл бұрын
I appreciate your videos and the hard work that you put into them but I do have one criticism. You had a ton of WWII footage in there and a lot of german tanks. I saw a panther fighting in france against a pershing, some stugs, wrecks of panzer IIIs and panzer IVs. Also soviet infantry. the proper footage must be harder to come by but it did throw me out of the video a bit.
@schnoodle3
@schnoodle3 2 жыл бұрын
Well don't hold your breath waiting for a reply or for any changes. They don't read comments and and care.
@SteveF1967
@SteveF1967 2 жыл бұрын
All the channels this guy does are riddled with errors. He would be more accurate if he just read from Wikipedia, but he changes things to make them sound more impressive.
@ew3612
@ew3612 2 жыл бұрын
@@SteveF1967 yeah. Im going to un sub from the content. Its painful when you know the subject fairly well and you can point out several errors.
@jrmuthan2481
@jrmuthan2481 2 жыл бұрын
He did say in the description that the footages are not accurate and he would try his best
@shawnr771
@shawnr771 2 жыл бұрын
He uses what is freely available.
@syos1979
@syos1979 2 жыл бұрын
Too many glaring innacuracies in the segment talking the "t24" (m24) alone, the m24 was first designed and made during 1943 to deal with the increasing inadequacies of the m3 and m5 stuarts, and were first deployed in 1944-1945. The T34 was first deployed in 1940. Second the depiction of shermans, especially the 76mm variant as grossly infeiror to the t-34 is a joke, both tanks were relatively on equal ground, especially given the upgrades both tanks received later in the war. Tl Dr: While I normally love your channel this video was the weakest video of the bunch and did zero justice to the topic at hand, and this is ignoring the unrelated ww2 footage and footage of t-34 variants that never saw combat.
@huasohvac
@huasohvac 2 жыл бұрын
Lately most videos have alot of inaccuracies
@FishFind3000
@FishFind3000 2 жыл бұрын
Every video he makes has errors. That’s why I have unsubbed from his other channels. Probably soon this one as well.
@badgerattoadhall
@badgerattoadhall 2 жыл бұрын
This.
@badgerattoadhall
@badgerattoadhall 2 жыл бұрын
@Syros check out lazerpigs t34 sucks video. It is great
@CasperInkyMagoo
@CasperInkyMagoo 2 жыл бұрын
Of all the military history pedantry you find on the internet, there’s something about tank nerds that is just completely insufferable. You really should start prefacing your replies with “ACKSCHUALLY GUYZ…..”
@alanmcwilliams4264
@alanmcwilliams4264 2 жыл бұрын
I noticed that most of the tanks in this video were destroyed german tanks from WW2
@rebralhunter6069
@rebralhunter6069 2 жыл бұрын
Yeah they do this a lot. Almost like using it as just stock footage.
@ElkaPME
@ElkaPME 2 жыл бұрын
Every dark docs video explains that in the description
@robozstarrr8930
@robozstarrr8930 2 жыл бұрын
..... was hoping for a couple clips of WWI era tanks to roll by . . . . an occasional Trojan horse wouldn't hurt . . . just for laughs!
@roccovanelli241
@roccovanelli241 2 жыл бұрын
I was saying the same thing and most of the t-34s weren’t t-34-85s.
@johncox2865
@johncox2865 2 жыл бұрын
Give it a rest, folks. How much war video can there be to choose from? I don’t find this to be a distraction at all. It’s the narrative that most interests me.
@bman6065
@bman6065 2 жыл бұрын
The "invincible" T34 is one of the funniest sentences I've read this week. Interesting aside, my granddad captured a T34 in Korea by blowing up the bridge it was crossing. He said only a small person could get in one. Very cramped.
@brennanleadbetter9708
@brennanleadbetter9708 2 жыл бұрын
What did he use?
@GeorgiaBoy1961
@GeorgiaBoy1961 11 ай бұрын
I don't know what current doctrine is, but in the old days, the Red Army set height and weight cutoffs for tank crew trainees. They couldn't be too tall or too bulky to qualify. They wanted compact, smaller men due to the confined conditions.
@Bellthorian
@Bellthorian 5 ай бұрын
I am sure the crews in the 45,000 destroyed T-34's on the Eastern Front in WW2 would disagree with the invincible claim lol.
@clevlandblock
@clevlandblock 2 жыл бұрын
The Pershings in storage in Japan were missing their cooling fan belts (so I read) and there was delay in getting the parts from the States. So, placed in action, they could only run short distances to prevent overheating. The Army even pressed into service a display Pershing at the Fort Knox entrance for emergency duty in Korea.
@stepheng4467
@stepheng4467 2 жыл бұрын
Could of tied a make shift belt on it to turn the pump
@stillcantbesilencedevennow
@stillcantbesilencedevennow 2 жыл бұрын
There's still a Pershing outside Knox, as of the last time I saw it 20 odd years ago.
@hojoj.1974
@hojoj.1974 2 жыл бұрын
Never before heard of Korea described as, "jungle," but ok...
@natelax1367
@natelax1367 2 жыл бұрын
There’s a strip along the southern edge that is a CFA climate zone. Humid subtropical so you could call it a jungle I guess.
@GeorgiaBoy1961
@GeorgiaBoy1961 11 ай бұрын
That's gonna come as a surprise to the guys who froze their butts off over there at places like "Frozen Chosen" and the like. Maybe someone got Vietnam confused with Korea....
@andysnyder4603
@andysnyder4603 9 ай бұрын
@@GeorgiaBoy1961 That's North Korea near the Yalu in the mountains during on of the coldest winters in years. This is hundreds of miles south during the summer.
@blank557
@blank557 2 жыл бұрын
In the book, : An American Tank Gunner, when an American tank crew gets one of the new Pershings, the gunner is impressed with the Pershing's gun glass targeting optic being many times more powerful than his previous Sherman one. I doubt the T-34/85's where anywhere near as good, much less crew ergonomics that made for better teamwork and coordination. That's why the in WW2 Germans tanks with 88's mated with the best optics in the world, they could nail enemy tanks at over a thousand yards.
@peterson7082
@peterson7082 2 жыл бұрын
Many times more powerful? How so? They had some magnification increase with subvariants of the M70 scope iirc. But not by much. Quality in some Shermans scopes lacked if it was early or mid production, but that's about it.
@Mugdorna
@Mugdorna 2 жыл бұрын
The M4 Sherman interior was much more crew friendly compared to the T-34
@GeorgiaBoy1961
@GeorgiaBoy1961 2 жыл бұрын
@ Exit Only - You're absolutely right. In those days before laser sights and other such high-tech, a high-quality optical sight was a potent force-multiplier. The book by Adam Makos "Spearhead," whose protagonist is tank gunner Cpl. Clarence Smoyer, mentions how impressed he and his crew-mates were with the new M-26 in comparison to their Sherman. Smoyer relates being part of a gunnery demonstration for Division commanding officer, General Maurice Rose, and how he was asked to hit a target more than 1,100 yards away, a chimney on an abandoned house. His sights and gunnery were good enough that he obliterated it with his first shot. Germany, then as now, had one of the finest optics industries in the world, and German panzertruppen therefore had considerable advantage in the high-quality of their optical gun-sights.
@jamesbass4154
@jamesbass4154 2 жыл бұрын
M4A3 76mm Sherman's had absolutely no problem dealing with T-34 tanks. During WWII the Russians preferred the M4A1 76mm Sherman's with Wet Storage over their T-34 because they were more survivable when it was hit compared to the T-34 which normally exploded just like the newer Russian tanks do today. They liked it so much an entire Russian Guard Corps was equipped with the M4A1 76mm Shermans. A Pershing was overkill when it came to T-34 tanks.
@stillcantbesilencedevennow
@stillcantbesilencedevennow 2 жыл бұрын
Russians just get a rough ride when it comes to force multipliers. Seems like half of them are designed to kill the crews. Ships, subs, tanks, arty, helos, planes you name it.
@executivedirector7467
@executivedirector7467 2 жыл бұрын
The Red Army never had a single M4A1 Sherman. That's the cast-hull, radial engine variant. All of their Shermans were M4A2s, which had welded hulls and diesel engines. That said, no, they did not prefer the M4 and did not equip entire Guards Corps with them in preference to T-34s. They used the two tanks in exactly the same way. Guards units were equipped with whatever tanks happened to be available at the time they were needed.
@taggartlawfirm
@taggartlawfirm 2 жыл бұрын
The Pershing was only briefly listed as a heavy tank. Thereafter it was declared a medium tank.
@bluetrue6062
@bluetrue6062 2 жыл бұрын
As an old M-60A1 tanker, I enjoyed this history. Thanks!
@warragulbogan
@warragulbogan 2 жыл бұрын
What where you gunner,driver,loader,commander or radio operator
@warragulbogan
@warragulbogan 2 жыл бұрын
[T.R.S Documents] I... don’t know probably to ask a few questions about the position
@mikem6176
@mikem6176 2 жыл бұрын
@@warragulbogan M60 series tanks had no “radio operator.” The crew of four included Driver, Gunner, Loader, and Commander. The last tank with a five man crew in US inventory was the M47. And from what I’ve read, most units just filled that spot with fuel or ammunition anyway.
@brucegates448
@brucegates448 2 жыл бұрын
19E myself. "Best job I ever had"
@bluetrue6062
@bluetrue6062 2 жыл бұрын
TC/platoon leader.
@edl617
@edl617 2 жыл бұрын
The M26 saw service in the Korean War. When the war began in June 1950, the four U.S. infantry divisions on occupation duty in Japan had no medium tanks at all, having only one active tank company each of Chaffee tanks The 1st Marine Division at Camp Pendleton California had all M4A3 howitzer tanks, which were replaced with M26s just days before boarding ships for Korea. A total of 309 M26 Pershings were rushed to Korea in 1950. the automotive deficiencies of the M26 in the mountainous Korean terrain became more of a liability, and so all M26s were withdrawn from Korea during 1951 and replaced with M4A3 Shermans and M46 Pattons
@warragulbogan
@warragulbogan 2 жыл бұрын
M46 is just a revised m26 rerun of the m26
@ostiariusalpha
@ostiariusalpha 2 жыл бұрын
@@warragulbogan Heavily revised. Just about every fault on the M26 was corrected on the M46.
@warragulbogan
@warragulbogan 2 жыл бұрын
ostiariusalpha interesting
@celebrim1
@celebrim1 2 жыл бұрын
@@warragulbogan The M46 is the M26 with improved power train and other evolutionary improvements. It's important to consider the evolutionary development of the M26, which was never designed to be an heavy tank but started off as the T20 prototype intended as a replacement for the M4 with a 76mm gun and lower profile. It's original design weight was intended to be the same as the M4 and it's turret ring was designed to be interchangable. However, the M4 was so successful initially the there was no appetite for a second medium tank, and many in the army disliked the logistics of a heavy tank. The M26 was rushed to production as a heavy tank after the battle of the bulge, with a 90mm gun and heavier armor and as a result was badly overweight for its suspension, transmission and engine. (This is similar to the situation with the Panther, where it's front plate was thickened to 80mm at the last moment, resulting in a tank that was also grossly overweight compared to the design of its other components.) The M46 was the tank as it should have been were it not rushed into production as a stop gap.
@Tanker000
@Tanker000 2 жыл бұрын
M26 PERSHING WAS USED IN WW2 DONT FORGET THAT
@ericc2083
@ericc2083 2 жыл бұрын
"T-34s aura of invulnerability". Dude, what have you been smoking? T-34 was fast and easy to maintain, but NEVER invulnerable.
@donberry7657
@donberry7657 2 жыл бұрын
The fact the T34"s handled Korea's rough terrain is a testament to their American designed Christie suspension, which the U.S. Army passed on pre WW2. I'm currently reading "Spearhead," about the 1st 3rd Armored Div. Pershings going up against the German tanks. Very interesting and would recommend to you guys.
@brennanleadbetter9708
@brennanleadbetter9708 2 жыл бұрын
The Christie suspension was not that good. Tanks that had it suffered from many mechanical issues, as well as being unbearably cramped. The Americans were actually interested in it, but Christie was an asshole and that made it hard to work with him. They rejected it on those terms.
@executivedirector7467
@executivedirector7467 2 жыл бұрын
@@brennanleadbetter9708 It was the best thing available in the 1930s, but you are quite correct that it severely limited internal space. The big coil springs took up a lot of hull width. I would not say the tanks using the suspension were unreliable though. The T-34 had a pretty good reliability record, as did the Cromwell. The Crusader didn't, but it was the shitty engine, not the suspension, that caused problems. And you are quite right about the reasons the US Army told J Walter Christie to take a hike.
@johntucker6326
@johntucker6326 2 жыл бұрын
Awesome book
@Boric78
@Boric78 2 жыл бұрын
I must admit the whole Panzer 4 & Stug reunion with Waffen SS troops driving passed me by when I first studied the Korean War. Hell of a drive from Munich.
@boomslangCA
@boomslangCA 2 жыл бұрын
Thank you for doing this. I've always believe that the T26 Pershing was a much better tank than given credit for. (note... I'm not American so no bias here). Good to see the Pershing finally given its due.
@jasonrowe3847
@jasonrowe3847 2 жыл бұрын
M26 Pershing; He misspoke in the narration...
@tvgerbil1984
@tvgerbil1984 2 жыл бұрын
The M26s Pershing were all quickly withdrawn from Korea and replaced by the M46s and M46A1s before 1951 ended. The tough Korean terrain exposed the M26's shortcomings.
@thunderbird1921
@thunderbird1921 2 жыл бұрын
Even as an American myself, I'd love to see someone explore the British-built Centurions in Korea. From what I've read, they often blasted the sh*t out of T-34s. Truly incredible tanks.
@DW-wp8lo
@DW-wp8lo 2 жыл бұрын
@@jasonrowe3847 I was going to mention that. It kinda threw me off the first couple times he said T24.
@derricklarsen2919
@derricklarsen2919 2 жыл бұрын
@@thunderbird1921 check out what you can find on the indo pak war. Centurions defeated m48 Pattons.
@grapeshot
@grapeshot 2 жыл бұрын
I had three great uncles who fought in the Korean War,two in the Army and one in the Marine Corps.
@markymark3572
@markymark3572 2 жыл бұрын
The T34, for all its good points, was actually the most knocked out tank of WW2
@Kashkatuide_
@Kashkatuide_ 2 жыл бұрын
Yeah because the T34 kinda sucked in reality
@ironsmack10
@ironsmack10 2 жыл бұрын
It's standard Russian war doctrine, win by numbers
@executivedirector7467
@executivedirector7467 2 жыл бұрын
Well, that's because 80% of the german army was fighting the red army for the entire war. You do that, you are going to take heavy losses even if your training and leadership *doesn't* suck.
@AFT_05G
@AFT_05G Жыл бұрын
In fact 78% of all T-34s produced during the war were destroyed imo.And tankies call Sherman a death trap.
@ek2156
@ek2156 2 жыл бұрын
I bet is was a glorious day for those American and South Korean troops to be able to stand off and obliterate those North Korean T34 tanks! Those boys made sure there was no recovering the T34s for repairs LOL!
@paoloviti6156
@paoloviti6156 2 жыл бұрын
I know well this story but thanks for freshening my memory! It is good to remember that the crews manning the M24 became very skittish after being brushed aside by the North Korean T-34/85 hardly giving much needed support, the other big issue is that the American forces, aside being green, many of them were cooks, helpers and whatever and badly trained as well, finally the initial U.S. forces deploying to Korea were armed solely with the M92.36-in. launcher and old stockpiled World War II inventories of M6A3 rocket ammunition that immediately proved useless against the North Korean tanks. It was only when the M20 was airlifted to Korea the situation was finally addressed. That said during the encounter with the T-34/85 it must said that the gun of the M26 was so powerful that after penetrated the front armour it had exited through the rear engine and the transmission finally hitting a hill some yards away. Despite many issues with this tank finally gave the much needed confidence to the crews, the rest is history. Hope I didn't bore you people.. .
@chadjustice8560
@chadjustice8560 2 жыл бұрын
So much confidence in the Pershing most tank crews wanted Shermans and the Pershing was completely withdrawn quickly and replaced across the board with shermans and some m46s? Yes they knew what tank worked and which one didn't.
@paoloviti6156
@paoloviti6156 2 жыл бұрын
@@chadjustice8560 yes the crew knew the good and bad points of those tanks but when the fighting was really tough ithe M26 was definitely better to slug it out against the T-34/85 despite its lousy and sluggish performance but the late Shermans was much preferable because it had better performance, good offroad capability, had the similar engines, and was very reliable! It was the same issue during the final month of war in Germany.....
@filmandfirearms
@filmandfirearms 2 жыл бұрын
Yes, because a tank from the end of WW2 with a gun meant to kill King Tigers should have such a hard time killing a gun and turret from 1943 on a tank from 1934. The T-34 served Russia remarkably well, it was a great tank, but it doesn't stand up for a second against Pershing because Pershing wasn't even a concept when the T-34 first saw combat
@Jester-Riddle
@Jester-Riddle 2 жыл бұрын
Absolutely right.
@markhonerbaum3920
@markhonerbaum3920 2 жыл бұрын
This is another example of education that we never had before,and we thank you.
@KC-GOD-IS.
@KC-GOD-IS. Жыл бұрын
Strange to see so many panzerkamfwagen III's and IV's as well as other german equipment from WW II in a "documentary" about a tank battle in korea, five years after WW II ended, am I missing something ?
@tasjan9190
@tasjan9190 2 жыл бұрын
The T34 was never invincible hahaha the Germans dusted these things in droves!!
@moc6897
@moc6897 2 жыл бұрын
That's it! Thx!
@1pcfred
@1pcfred 2 жыл бұрын
The trouble was there were always droves of T34s to dust.
@selfdo
@selfdo 2 жыл бұрын
@@1pcfred WWII was won in the FACTORIES, American outproduced everyone, COMBINED, so we even gave the Soviets almost 5,000 tanks, most of them M4 Shermans with the GM 6-71 diesel engines. The Soviet "tankists" nicknamed their Sherman mounts the "EmCha" (a transliteration of 'M4' into the look-alike Cyrillic characters), and issued them to their GUARDS tank divisions, much to Stalin's chagrin. The T-34 was produced in huge numbers, a lot by taking short cuts which neither the Americans nor the Germans would have accepted, but this meant that despite the huge losses in vehicle and CREW (about 85% of Soviet "tankists" perished when their mounts were hit), they could replace them. The Germans, being bombed and running out of everything, including men, could not, and towards the war, even their vaunted Panther and Tiger tanks suffered breakdowns due to having to rely on "Ersatz" materials, including their ARMOR. It wasn't unheard of to see a King Tiger shrug off hit after hit, only to find it later, abandoned, with huge CRACKS in the armor, as the alloys the German metallurgists had to use to substitute for what they'd previously used with nickel and manganese mined out of the "Nikipol" region of the eastern Ukraine didn't work out. Hitler recognized this and hence, against otherwise sound military principle, he insisted that Army Group South hang on to the Nikopol region as long as it could, while as much nickel ore could be mined as possible. Hitler told his incredulous generals, including FM Von Manstein, "we lose Nikipol, and we lose the war!".
@1pcfred
@1pcfred 2 жыл бұрын
@@selfdo gave? We didn't give anyone squat. We got stiffed but that doesn't mean we didn't ask for compensation for all we produced. The Axis lost because they fought a war they didn't want. The conquer the world myth simply wasn't true. That was Allied propaganda. Germany was only interested in part of Russia and Japan was only interested in China. They ended up other places because of what the Allies did. That over extended them. Skoda made most of Germany's armor. So they were Czech metallurgists.
@selfdo
@selfdo 2 жыл бұрын
@@1pcfred Ehh...we did get some critical metals and minerals from Russia, but what we sent to them, and far more than just 5,000 M4 Shermans, enabled Soviet industry to focus on what they needed for their war effort. The financial mechanism was called LEND-LEASE, but it was still tantamount to a giveaway, as IDK how it was ever expected these enormous debts would begin to be collected upon. Of course, being "stiffed" on war debts was probably still a lot better outcome than having to send more American boys to fight in place of Russian boys. I'm dubious that if the Soviet Union had quit the war that we and/or the UK would have continued fighting the Germans. Agree that the "today Germany, tomorrow the World" was more propaganda than reality.
@uconnjames
@uconnjames 2 жыл бұрын
M26 Pershing beating the Soviet T-34, what an amazing achievement!
@brennanleadbetter9708
@brennanleadbetter9708 2 жыл бұрын
Not a surprise, even the Sherman kicked it’s ass.
@edl617
@edl617 2 жыл бұрын
My neighbor passed away. He was a corporal in the Army station in Korea from the start of the war till 1952. He swore he walked from Seoul to Busan and back again.
@robmx2324
@robmx2324 Жыл бұрын
In WWII, the average T-34s lasted as long as a full tank of gas. Like the Sherman’s, they were built in the thousands.
@daviddohman8418
@daviddohman8418 2 жыл бұрын
Rarely is narration content and delivery found with such clarity. Thankyou
@spockspock
@spockspock 2 жыл бұрын
I was fortunate to work with Paul Vozakis who was a tanker, drove shermans mostly. He re-upped in the AF as a f86 mechanic then he re-upped again to maintain ICBMs for SAC. He had some stories!
@jimhiggins8293
@jimhiggins8293 2 жыл бұрын
The T-34 was a late 1930's design. It was very sound fundamentally and was upgraded to the T-34/85 in 1944 in response to the German Tigers and Panthers. The T-34/85 achieved rough parity with the newer German Panzers and its far greater numbers ensured Soviet tank superiority in the latter stages of the war. The M-26, on the other hand, was a newer design, dating from 1943 which was intended to overmatch the Tigers/Panthers. Development and production delays kept it from seeing widespread service in WW II. However, by any measure it was a superior battle tank to the T-34/85.
@AFT_05G
@AFT_05G 2 жыл бұрын
It didn’t achieve parity by any means but at least it close range it could penetrate Tiger I’s frontal armor and Panther’s turret cheeks.
@GeorgiaBoy1961
@GeorgiaBoy1961 11 ай бұрын
@@AFT_05G - "Parity" can mean different things in different contexts. Given that the T-26/M-26 was used so late in the war and in such small numbers, it is difficult to form a complete - let alone accurate - picture of what its strengths and weaknesses were, and how good of a design it was. There was plenty of anecdotal evidence of one thing or another, but the bottom line is that a couple of months of combat by a small test batch of tanks at the tail end of the war isn't going to be conclusive one way or another. Which is why many armored warfare historians also look at its performance in the Korean War as a way of fleshing out their analyses. Let's just say that the M-26 gave formerly over-matched and outgunned American tank crews better odds against the best German armor and a fighting chance of prevailing without taking disproportionate losses. The critics will say that German tanks and TDs knocked out a number of M-26s, but consider that if the tables had been turned and the M-26s were on the defensive, they would have taken heavy losses of enemy armored fighting vehicles as well if the Germans had been attacking.
@jasonrowe3847
@jasonrowe3847 2 жыл бұрын
I love your videos, and your style. Please correct & note mistakes in pinned posts, or in the video with subtitles, to avoid confusion. Also, why so many channels? Seems like overkill...
@jonx187x
@jonx187x 2 жыл бұрын
Love your Doc's!!!
@kaypro2872
@kaypro2872 2 жыл бұрын
Thank you for remembering these brave men.
@MDPToaster
@MDPToaster 2 жыл бұрын
They weren’t using T-34s they were using the up-gunned T-34-85s which have a different turret from the regular one.
@josephjohnson5779
@josephjohnson5779 2 жыл бұрын
Also I think he meant M24 not T24.
@nickrumpp1541
@nickrumpp1541 2 жыл бұрын
He does say that they are the 85mm guns later on but I agree he should have specified
@ageingviking5587
@ageingviking5587 2 жыл бұрын
yes much more powerful than the original t 34
@adamfrazer5150
@adamfrazer5150 2 жыл бұрын
For sure, initially the 75mm 👍 and M24 Chaffee not T24, glad I'm not the only one double checking their hearing 😬
@scrappydoo7887
@scrappydoo7887 2 жыл бұрын
I love battle stories. More of Korea would be really cool. There's not enough attention given to the conflict
@ridethecurve55
@ridethecurve55 2 жыл бұрын
If only the 'UN' forces had chased with those tanks all the way to the borders of China and Russia! Oh, wait...
@miatamatt7105
@miatamatt7105 2 жыл бұрын
If you like Korean war stories I highly recommend the book “The Last Stand of Fox Company” basically one company of marines defended a hill from 2 Chinese divisions for multiple days during the larger battle of Chosin Reservoir
@chrisloomis1489
@chrisloomis1489 2 жыл бұрын
My Father served in B29 and B50 Bombers out of SPOKANE , Wa. And fought out of JAPAN against China and N. Korea. Bridges would be bombed out...and again built. The MIG was a terrible threat as the guns on the B29 were too slow to track them. My father said the runs were hours of boredom and minutes of ...neve wracking conflict...when over the targets.
@herrero4270
@herrero4270 2 жыл бұрын
@@ridethecurve55 This would be impossible, since Americans lost this war.
@jjl1790
@jjl1790 2 жыл бұрын
@Herrero Had American lost the Korean War, S. Korea doesn't exist now. S Korea has very much existing now with as much flourishing as one can be. If not for the sneaky Chinese communists invasion, there might be no rogue terrorist nation like N Korea, and the world must be much more peaceful now.
@lakewooded
@lakewooded 2 жыл бұрын
The sad part is the video portion rarely matches the subject.
@algotfolkeson4226
@algotfolkeson4226 Жыл бұрын
even the later model shermans with 76mm guns outclassed the t34
@bomber767
@bomber767 2 жыл бұрын
Getting those new (old tanks) & scoring that initial victory must have been an immeasurable moral booster!!!
@68planehits
@68planehits 2 жыл бұрын
Who the hell would ever call T-34s "invincible" lmao
@KumaFall
@KumaFall 8 ай бұрын
Commieboos would
@antonelang9118
@antonelang9118 2 жыл бұрын
It was stated that the 5th Marine Division was in this battle, they had been deactivated in 1945. I believe you meant to say the 5th Marine Regiment.
@bluespy3do669
@bluespy3do669 2 жыл бұрын
It's crazy when you see these historical tanks win battles in wars they were never planned to be in.
@Fred-px5xu
@Fred-px5xu 5 ай бұрын
Slight correction Mr. narrator: there are no jungles in the Korean peninsula. As for the documentary itself, it was brilliant bit of work.
@iamfritz
@iamfritz Жыл бұрын
How many wrong pictures of tanks can you show while relating accurate and interesting military history?
@MrChainsawAardvark
@MrChainsawAardvark 2 жыл бұрын
Side by side, an early World War two T-34 and M4 Sherman are remarkably similar in protection and performance. If anything, the US vehicle has a slight advantage with its better turret layout. However, the way the war went down there was a bit of divergence. The US could make serial improvements to their tank and would add things like wet ammo storage, improved suspensions, and even gun stabilizers on some models. Meanwhile Russia focused on how to reduce the price and production time as much as possible - meaning complexity went down compared the M4. Technically the turret of the T-34/85 was actually meant for the follow-on T-44, but it was quicker to just slap it on existing hulls. This later model would be a bit closer to a Sherman Firefly or 76mm. Meanwhile, the M26 was basically an American tiger - right down to using an inadequate engine and suspension for a scaled-up vehicle.
@chuck.reichert83
@chuck.reichert83 2 жыл бұрын
What the Israeli military did to the Sherman makes the British Firefly modification look like a botched surgery.
@MrChainsawAardvark
@MrChainsawAardvark 2 жыл бұрын
@@chuck.reichert83 Perhaps, but that came quite a bit later than the Korean war. They also tended to leave the armor as is. Like with the T-34/85, they figured dead targets don't shoot - so weak armor is less important.
@Jamesbrown-xi5ih
@Jamesbrown-xi5ih 2 жыл бұрын
@@MrChainsawAardvark So far as I know, ALL M4's had the main gun stabilizer, but many early crews didn't trust it. Those who did swore by it, those who didn't swore at it. The M4 was the better mount of the two in many regards, but as always, crew training and who saw who first, and who got the first hit matter just as much, if not more.
@MrChainsawAardvark
@MrChainsawAardvark 2 жыл бұрын
@@Jamesbrown-xi5ih I've also heard the reports about the M4's stabilizer. They seem to vary from "good enough to track target while moving slowly" to "just stop the bouncing quicker on stopping". The fact that it supposedly was a maintaince headache and often improperly calibrated has come up as well. Of course, the US had more time to train crews, in safer environments. In the end, the thing that makes or breaks the reputation of these vehicles is the weapons the Germans had. If they had faced the M4 in 1941 or 42, it would have had a rep as an armored monster compared to the 37mm and 50mm guns mostly in service. By the time the Sherman was in France the next generation of guns was available.
@selfdo
@selfdo 2 жыл бұрын
While you're correct that the T-34/85's turret was used on the T-44, which was a brand new chassis design (it did use the same engine, and road wheels, but incorporated a torsion-bar suspension like the German tanks), the turret itself had been intended for the T-43 medium, which was to use the same F-34 76mm gun. It was also to be fitted to the KV chassis with the 85 mm gun, to create the KV-85 tank. The Soviets had experiment with heavier, more thickly armored versions of both vehicles to withstand the increased firepower of the German tanks, but it was realized that an increase in firepower rather than protection was the key to battlefield success. Also, given that conversion to T-43 production would shut down tank deliveries to the front for too long an interval, the T-34 chassis had to be kept going. Hence the solution to marry the turret and gun that would have gone on the KV to instead be fitted to the T-34; and do further work to upgrade the KV into the JS series, with a more powerful gun designed not so much for anti-tank work but to blast fortifications and support the infantry.
@jds6206
@jds6206 2 жыл бұрын
The T-34 was FAR from invincible, and US forces in the Korean War put an exclamation point on the T-34's vulnerabilities.
@brennanleadbetter9708
@brennanleadbetter9708 2 жыл бұрын
Those vulnerabilities were known since WW2
@saltycanadian6190
@saltycanadian6190 2 жыл бұрын
Comparing the 90mm on the Pershing to anything the t34 ever had is a joke. The 90mm apcr round could go all the way through a panther and then go 14 feet or something into the ground behind it. The Pershing also had 76mm of frontal hull armour angled at an ungodly degree. Mated with an almost impenetrable turret, unless you use a Soviet 122mm
@pratyushkishore9030
@pratyushkishore9030 2 жыл бұрын
German long 88 could easily pen the hull .
@sabrewolf7160
@sabrewolf7160 2 жыл бұрын
I'm glad you decided to slow down your speech. Makes it much more easier on the ear. Keep up the great content.
@jasonmussett2129
@jasonmussett2129 2 жыл бұрын
Awesome stuff. Thanks👍😀
@rhoff523
@rhoff523 2 жыл бұрын
while I appreciate and enjoy your video, I dislike seeing images of German tanks instead of M24 Chafees throughout this video. It's a pet peeve of mine, using the wrong footage, but I've seen much worse historical mistakes elsewhere.
@crappycomputer77t1
@crappycomputer77t1 2 жыл бұрын
Honestly if he can't find videos of the content he could use pictures of these events as well. In fact that would be better than unassociated combat footage. He could just go to the national archives and look for more pictures and videos. It's really not hard.
@sainteyegor
@sainteyegor 2 жыл бұрын
Most people can’t tell the difference, but it’s kind of lazy. It’s hard to take anything seriously if they keep getting the basics wrong.
@CarlsonWDane
@CarlsonWDane 2 жыл бұрын
They can't even make one video without miss information. Just because your production quality is amazing doesn't mean you can use Wikipedia level of information.
@martinchen3838
@martinchen3838 2 жыл бұрын
don't insult Wikipedia!
@kevindavidson8314
@kevindavidson8314 2 жыл бұрын
T24 was a Russian tank, M24 was American light tank. Loads of footage of German tanks as well 😂
@voixdelaraison593
@voixdelaraison593 2 жыл бұрын
Nothing blows the mood more quickly than calling a M24 Chaffee a T24 failed Russian Medium Tank with a 45MM Main Gun.
@redfordbrown6666
@redfordbrown6666 2 жыл бұрын
Ive been noticing alot more simple mistakes like this. It honestly sucks
@Franky46Boy
@Franky46Boy 2 жыл бұрын
Generic movie material....
@SteveJB
@SteveJB 2 жыл бұрын
At 3:05 I thought I was about to hear that the ROK were supplied with Panzer 3s due to the footage.
@redfordbrown6666
@redfordbrown6666 2 жыл бұрын
@@SteveJB the dreaded t3 medium tank 😂
@damianp7313
@damianp7313 2 жыл бұрын
Always a fascinating new thing lesrned about a topic I vaugly knew about. I apriciate the videos cranked out mang
@Clank_Clank_Im_a_tank
@Clank_Clank_Im_a_tank 2 жыл бұрын
Did they Mean M-24 Chaffe? Or were they talking about a M4 Sherman variant when saying T-24?
@brennanleadbetter9708
@brennanleadbetter9708 Жыл бұрын
T-24 was the preproduction name for the Chaffee. Same for the Pershing, T-26->M-26.
@truetoffee8684
@truetoffee8684 2 жыл бұрын
The Centurion was the best tank of that conflict.
@executivedirector7467
@executivedirector7467 2 жыл бұрын
How so? It had an archaic 1930s suspension design. It was very difficult to drive. It had good armor and a good gun, but I am not seeing how it was any better than an M46.
@stewartbrown8115
@stewartbrown8115 Жыл бұрын
​@@executivedirector7467well at least it could fire on the move,with its gyro gun It had a better more reliable engine
@executivedirector7467
@executivedirector7467 Жыл бұрын
@@stewartbrown8115 I'd like to see some evidence that centurion of Korean-war vintage could fire effectively on the move. The US M4 and even the M3 light tank had gyrostabilized guns. They could not fire accurately on the move; what they could do is lay the gun a lot faster once they stopped. The early Cents were widely known to NOT have enough horsepower. In the 1960s-70s when armies began doing things like adding modern US diesel engines, modern transmissions and 105mm guns, that's when the Cent became a really great tank. it seems to me that the real strength of the Cent was that the basic design was sound, so it could take pretty massive upgrades and remain viable. So yes, a very good tank.
@stewartbrown8115
@stewartbrown8115 Жыл бұрын
@@executivedirector7467 the centurion throughout its british service from the Mk1 to the Mk13 had the Rolls Royce Meteor Mk4B Which produced 610 BHP It was only later in service that the Israel put a more modern engine & transmission in it
@stewartbrown8115
@stewartbrown8115 Жыл бұрын
@@executivedirector7467 Post-war, British and then Soviet tank designers developed improved gun stabilizers. In 1948, the British Centurion Mk. 3 featured the first two-plane stabilization system in a production tank, whil
@JoeBlow-fp5ng
@JoeBlow-fp5ng 2 жыл бұрын
I wish the Pershing had more time in combat in WW2.
@bbmw9029
@bbmw9029 2 жыл бұрын
They should have been available on D-Day
@williams6206
@williams6206 2 жыл бұрын
Me too. I saw a video where it destroyed a tiger tank
@Jamesbrown-xi5ih
@Jamesbrown-xi5ih 2 жыл бұрын
It was not a good tank overall. The issues it had in WWII were still not worked out by Korea, and ultimately, it was less favored than the M4 in two wars, ultimately being withdrawn in favor of more Shermans and their replacement, the Patton.
@bbmw9029
@bbmw9029 2 жыл бұрын
@@Jamesbrown-xi5ih I know it was significantly underpowered. I guess they didn't have time to develop a new engine for it with enough power. But it had the firepower and armor protection that the army could have used in the run into Germany after D-day. A lot of Sherman crews that got killed wouldn't have if they had the Pershing.
@clevlandblock
@clevlandblock 2 жыл бұрын
It's been said that Gen Patton didn't even want them.
@brucerobert227
@brucerobert227 2 жыл бұрын
Wow the amount of footage that is incorrect is ENORMOUS I mean not even close! Panthers and German MKIV's in Korea? I think not!
@1pcfred
@1pcfred 2 жыл бұрын
It was the war to end all wars, I'm telling ya!
@joeschlotthauer840
@joeschlotthauer840 2 жыл бұрын
3:17 is the famous tank battle in Cologne, at the Cathedral March 6th, 1945. Sherman vs Panther, then Panther vs Pershing...
@NandorTheRelentless76
@NandorTheRelentless76 2 жыл бұрын
I like to watch these videos as I’m falling asleep. His voice and the monotone delivery soothe me like counting sheep
@ConradSzymczak
@ConradSzymczak 2 жыл бұрын
You guys REALLY need to work on you background videos. Not germane. WW2 stuff, Waffen Heer tanks, Shermans, panther in Kologne, come on!
@dvergar1
@dvergar1 2 жыл бұрын
This is a frequent criticism of these videos. Whoever does their video archiving either doesn't have subject-matter knowledge or doesn't care. As much as I love the narrator (he's blind, by the way), the incoherent video is pretty irritating.
@ElkaPME
@ElkaPME 2 жыл бұрын
Not sure if any either of you ever read the description of each dark docs video The end of each video tells the exact same thing
@imadequate3376
@imadequate3376 2 жыл бұрын
"T-24"... It's a M24....
@1pcfred
@1pcfred 2 жыл бұрын
M26 actually.
@flycatchful
@flycatchful 2 жыл бұрын
It always amazes me that our intelligence agencies never see the threat. While at the same time for political reasons than they always see the threat.
@GeorgiaBoy1961
@GeorgiaBoy1961 2 жыл бұрын
@ flycatcher - The scandal that erupted in the wake of the surprise Blitzkrieg-style attack by the Imun Gun, the North Korea Army, into South Korea 25 June, 1950, was huge. Almost as bad as Pearl Harbor, in fact. The late great WEB Griffin did a terrific job weaving the history of that time into his "Corps" series of novels, two of which are set during the Korean conflict. Secretary of State Dean Acheson, in a press conference/talk to the National Press Club in early 1950, had in the months previous to the invasion, given a speech including information about which Pacific/Far-East allies lay within our defensive perimeter, i.e., those we would use force to defend, and those which did not. Acheson's blunder led the communists, including Stalin, to believe that we would not object to their unifying the peninsula under their control. It did not help matters that the U.S. government installed South Korean President Syngman Rhee to govern the country post-war, but then refused to arm and equip his military sufficiently for the new nation to defend itself. The then-new Central Intelligence Agency, or CIA, was caught flat-footed like everyone else. Sound familiar?It ought to, because their track-record over time in regard to such unexpected events has not been good at all. In fairness to the Langley crowd, so were the service-affiliated intelligence departments as well. Even the great General MacArthur, "Viceroy of Japan," and great hero of WWII, was caught off-guard. His intelligence officer, General Charles Willoughby, had not predicted the invasion so his boss did not see it coming.
@executivedirector7467
@executivedirector7467 2 жыл бұрын
The atomic bomb changed everyone's thinking pretty radically. Don't forget that between 1945 and 1950 there were a lot of air officers basically arguing that the army and navy were completely obsolete, and that all we needed was a few bombers.
@flycatchful
@flycatchful 2 жыл бұрын
@@executivedirector7467 These same individuals also said machine guns were not necessary on jet fighters. Vietnam proved them wrong.
@executivedirector7467
@executivedirector7467 2 жыл бұрын
@@flycatchful True
@GeorgiaBoy1961
@GeorgiaBoy1961 Жыл бұрын
The government seems to be the only organization where when it under-performs, it gets a budget increase anyway.
@wasylbakowsky5199
@wasylbakowsky5199 2 жыл бұрын
Really enjoying this! Back to the vid...
@jamesivie5717
@jamesivie5717 2 жыл бұрын
The commentary is good, but the pictures were all wrong. You have pictures of WWII German tanks. You seldom showed a picture of the American light, M-24 tanks (which you refer to as T-24's) when you are talking about them.
@oveidasinclair982
@oveidasinclair982 2 жыл бұрын
The Krauts wiped out T34's by the tens of thousands during WWII, in the early stages of the war their main weapons against the T34 were 50mm anti tank guns, Mk III tanks with 50mm cannons, Stug III's with a short barrel 75mm and early Mk IV's with the short barrel 75mm. They managed and were tearing the Soviets a new ass up until 1942/43 when supply issues depleted their offensive ability.
@thevortex6754
@thevortex6754 2 жыл бұрын
Don’t forget the how the legendary tiger could just rip the t34 to pieces in one shot, but you have to give the Soviet tanker credit for fighting with a poorly made tank. And I mean poorly as in it was only expected to fight once
@selfdo
@selfdo 2 жыл бұрын
These DPRK T-34/85s were far better armed and armored than the T-34/76 tanks the "Krauts" indeed wiped out in 1941-1943. The Mark III did indeed have a punier 5 cm gun (L42), but some got a longer caliber (L60) weapon which had much better anti-armor performance. The "StuG", once it got the KwK 40, rolled up more tank kills than any other German AFV, estimated at 11,000! Being low-slung, it did very well in the tank destroyer role. It also helped that the Germans put more effort into TRAINING, and their vehicles were better laid out to fight in.
@pootmahgoots8482
@pootmahgoots8482 2 жыл бұрын
The T-34 wasn't that particularly good of a tank at all. It just had a good gun and armor that an American light tank (M24 Chaffee) couldn't penetrate. The Sherman EZ8 was able to take out the T-34 without much trouble. The M26 Pershing was a heavy tank designed to go up against Tiger 2s and Panther tanks. The T-34/85 was by no means "invincible".
@selfdo
@selfdo 2 жыл бұрын
True, the T-34/85 wasn't the equal in any head-to-head tank slugfest against a Pershing. But it suited best the requirements of the DPRK; it's not as if anyone with a better vehicle was going to SELL them one, and the first years of North Korea under Kim Il-Sung weren't exactly prosperous. Besides, the Pershing and its successor, the M46 Patton, which also appeared by 1952 in limited service (same basic vehicle, new, more powerful and reliable powerpack, but drank even MORE gasoline than the Ford GAF V8) were not exactly SUITED for the very hilly Korean terrain. Both experienced more breakdowns due to getting stuck or overtaxing the powertrain, especially during the hot summer, than did the Shermans. By then, most of the North Korean armor was gone, and the Chinese brought relatively few tanks with them, so tank-vs-tank combat was virtually unheard of after the 1950 battles along the Naktong river. Most of the UN tanks, the British Comets and Centurions included, were used as self-propelled artillery. There are numerous pictures of tanks in prepared firing positions, angled to account for the relatively limited vertical traverse of the gun, to fire over "them thar hills".
@executivedirector7467
@executivedirector7467 2 жыл бұрын
It was a very good tank by WW2 standards. In 1941 it was easily the best tank in the world. In 1945, the T-34-85 was still a competitive tank, on par with the Panzer IV and M4. M4s could win pretty much every tank-v-tank engagement because they were essentially equal hardware-wise, and had vastly better-trained crews.
@0Dunedain0
@0Dunedain0 2 жыл бұрын
The main differences here were not in the mm of both weapons but in the length of the barrel. To go through armot you need velocity, longer barrel = faster round. The other main difference lies in the names. One is cannon the other is a gun, guns have higher velocity.
@jaredevildog6343
@jaredevildog6343 2 жыл бұрын
Thank you for this video of "The Forgotten War " .
@neireannach
@neireannach 2 жыл бұрын
“…even if they can’t stop them they can at least block them with their burning husks” Tankers- “Oh yeah greaaat, at least there’s that…”
@gregsscubavids5128
@gregsscubavids5128 2 жыл бұрын
Yeah, there’s a battle prep speech no tanker wants to hear ever.
@patrickmccrann991
@patrickmccrann991 2 жыл бұрын
The 3.5 inch rocket launcher (2nd gen Bazooka) could easily penetrate the T34. It was still in use during the Vietnam War with the Marine Corps.
@selfdo
@selfdo 2 жыл бұрын
It was an almost direct copy of the German "Panzerschrek" ("Tank Terror"), which had come in 88 mm (3.54 inch) calibre. We even had German POWs sent to US Army training schools in the states, after V-E day, to instruct our soldiers in use of their "bazooka" (named after an American comedian).
@GhostRyderID
@GhostRyderID 2 жыл бұрын
M4 Sherman medium tanks as "T-24" (M-24 Chaffee) light tanks, German Stugs, Panzer MK II, III, IV and Panthers (V), T-34/75 for T-34/85s... I appreciate the storytelling but in this instance the selected footage and incorrect vehicle info really does a disservice to the history being told. I usually really like your content but this one struggled.
@Fistmybeer
@Fistmybeer 2 жыл бұрын
Its Stupid!!!
@thomaslinton5765
@thomaslinton5765 2 жыл бұрын
"collossal" Soviet tanks were 26-27 ton medium tanks. M-26 was 47 tons. The U.S. kept South Korea deliberately weak to dissuade authoritarian leader from invading the North. Nice brief video of Pk IVs. The T 34-78 frontal gracis plate was not 2 inches thick It was 47mm, 1.85". The sides and rear were, of course, significantly thinner.
@executivedirector7467
@executivedirector7467 2 жыл бұрын
Yeah. I know its kind of a side issue but the notion that peaceful innocent little south Korea got invaded unprovoked by big bad North Korea is pretty silly.
@thomaslinton5765
@thomaslinton5765 2 жыл бұрын
@@executivedirector7467 Problems with reality much?
@executivedirector7467
@executivedirector7467 2 жыл бұрын
@@thomaslinton5765 Nope, none at all. You?
@thomaslinton5765
@thomaslinton5765 2 жыл бұрын
@@executivedirector7467 I had an uncle killed there as part of Task Force Smith, which motivated me to study, and eventually teach military history. There had been a guuerilla war raging for over two years in the South, a war the South was winning, although the Northern ruler, Kim, thought it had weakened the South. The forces of the South Korean dictator had only a few batteries of light artillery, and no anti-tank guns, no tanks, no useful number of anti-tank mines, and no airforce worth the name, lacking any fighters or bombers. It did hve ten understrength, poorly trained, poorly armed, and poorly supplied foot infantry diviions, including the over-sized Capital Guard . The North had ten infantry divisions, including three veteran PLA divisions that had merely changed their uniforms., over 250 tanks, most in an armored division, and over 300 aircraft. Suggesting that every history written in the West is all wrong about the identity oif the agresor and the balance of forces ibased on you unsupprted statement, is absurd. IF Rhee had had the forces, he might have attacked first. He did not and, thus, did not. I invite anyone with any doubt to resrearch the topic.
@executivedirector7467
@executivedirector7467 2 жыл бұрын
@@thomaslinton5765 You're arguing against a bunch of thing I have not claimed. Enjoy the argument.
@randomobserver8168
@randomobserver8168 2 жыл бұрын
Second half narrative is better, and I've gotten used to the mixed footage, but what were those tanks at 8:01? Italian WW2? Japanese?
@5ynth3ticNZ
@5ynth3ticNZ 2 жыл бұрын
In that intro video, are they using Pershing tanks as artillery by parking them on a slope? Ive not heard of that before...
@warcriminal5139
@warcriminal5139 2 жыл бұрын
The "invincible" T34 Ah yes. The Tank that was fucked in the thousands by german Panzer 3's when Barbarossa started...
@grahambaker6664
@grahambaker6664 2 жыл бұрын
Actually the Panzer III encountered mainly T-26 and BT tanks at the start of Barbarossa and had trouble with the T-34 and KV tanks until the Panzer III was upgunned commencing March 1943. That prompted the Soviets to upgun to create the T-34-85 which was the variant used by North Korea and China. You are correct to question the use of "invincible" though particularly by the time of the Korean War. It was an 18 year old design up against an 8 year old design where armour technology had advanced substantially in the interim. By the time of the Korean War the Soviet doctrine was to use them in mass formations trading off quantity for quality.
@warcriminal5139
@warcriminal5139 2 жыл бұрын
@@grahambaker6664 no. The germans encountered T34 even at the start of Barbarossa. The soviets lost 2000 t34 in the first day of the operation.
@bryonslatten3147
@bryonslatten3147 2 жыл бұрын
Yeah Dark Docs' research leaves a lot to be desired.
@richarddoig1865
@richarddoig1865 2 жыл бұрын
I love the content, but as a history nerd, every time you put random tanks on the screen while you are talking about totally different vehicles, a piece of me dies. I saw assorted German panzer, Sherman’s, Stewarts, and I’m pretty sure there was even a KV1 in there for a split second. Please fix this! It’s ruining your channel for me.
@alessiodecarolis
@alessiodecarolis 2 жыл бұрын
The T34 wasn't so invincible, but it was really (logically) superior to the light M24s, never intended to go toe to toe with enemy's heavies. The sad reality was that the US had criminally neglected their land forces, thinking that the A bomb could've resolved EVERYTHING. Naturally this tought was totally wrong, but if you think of the damage done by guys such as secretary to defense Johnson, a lot of your soldiers died because land forces were neglected.
@Gideonthestargazer
@Gideonthestargazer 2 жыл бұрын
For those that are criticizeing the content creators, if one does not know that the alternative make of the Korean War is called 'The Forgotten War'. It was referred to that because of the lack of Media coverage and the camera technology which was around at the time. Therefore it is rare and the film permission to use would cost a lot of money. I commend thus content creator fir doing the best with what they have to work with.
@scapegoat762
@scapegoat762 2 жыл бұрын
I enjoy all of this guy's channels. I overlook some of the glaring errors, like the video of many tanks not involved in this theater, because the stories are interesting. I don't rush into the comments section to score "that's not right" points.
@dfmrcv862
@dfmrcv862 2 жыл бұрын
It's easy to forget that the T-34 was *riddled* with problems compared to many tanks. It was cramped, hard to drive, far less survivable, and overall just... an okay design... there's a reason the M4 Sherman fought in literally *all* theaters of World War 2, but not the T-34 which the Soviets produced in mass.
@executivedirector7467
@executivedirector7467 2 жыл бұрын
It's also easy to forget that every tank is riddled with problems and the T-34 & M4 were pretty much equivalent.
@SKILLED261
@SKILLED261 2 жыл бұрын
Calling the T34 invincible is a joke.
@lyndoncmp5751
@lyndoncmp5751 6 ай бұрын
45,000 lost in WW2.
@josephwhiskeybeale
@josephwhiskeybeale 2 жыл бұрын
Well M4s broke the T34s in every single engagement they had too, in fact several M24s claimed T34s though not reliably, those had more to do with the poor quality armor of the T34s spalling on the inside.
@matovicmmilan
@matovicmmilan 2 жыл бұрын
Sherman was just an unsuccessful unergonomic box on narrow tracks with thin armour and the two main variants of armament, namely the 75mm and 76mm cannons had poor performance the moment they appeared.
@aflyingcowboy31
@aflyingcowboy31 2 жыл бұрын
@@matovicmmilan Wait what, the M4A2 (and the other US variants) had more effective armour then the T-34, the T-34 had basically no armour and was regularly taken out by the German 50mm Kwk (stats from the People's Commissariat for Tank Industry found that in 1942, 54.3% of all T-34 losses were to the German 50mm Kwk), it wasn't until the T-34-85 that it got similar effective armour then the M4A2 and M4A3. The 76mm on the T-34 would struggle to even pen the Sherman frontally until it was within 500m (the average combat range for US tanks was 800-900m) and had about the same fire power as the Sherman 75mm. The T-34 76mm using APCR could pen 92mm at 500m, whereas the Sherman 75 could pen 88mm at 500m with APCBC. The T-34's 85mm was worse then the Sherman 76mm from testing done, the T-34 85mm could pen 4.1 inches of RHA, whereas the US 76mm could pen 4.9 inches of RHA at the same range, this doesn't even account for the HVAP round the 76mm gun had access to. Also you must be meaning another word then unergonomic, its pretty well known that Russian tank crews that got to use Sherman's saw it as a luxury due to how spacious and 'comfortable' it was, the T-34 on the other hand is also quite well known as being unergonomic as it was extremely cramped for space.
@josephwhiskeybeale
@josephwhiskeybeale 2 жыл бұрын
@@matovicmmilan *t34
@selfdo
@selfdo 2 жыл бұрын
The M4A3E8 Shermans indeed "pasted" the DPRK T-34/85s in Korea, especially in the August/September 1950 battles along the Naktong river. But the outcome can be more traced to factors outside the respective technical merits of each vehicle. Such things as air support, logistics, leadership, training, and doctrine heavily favored the American tankers. I'm sure a Soviet Guards tank army, led by officers and NCOs with combat experience in the "Great Patriotic War", would have been much harder to beat.
@josephwhiskeybeale
@josephwhiskeybeale 2 жыл бұрын
@@selfdo that’s extremely doubtful as those were never an equal to the war hardened Americans.
@TheMadVulpen
@TheMadVulpen 2 жыл бұрын
I like how the description calls it "M-24" and the narrator "T-24" lmao
@Hassar650
@Hassar650 2 жыл бұрын
Aside from using footage from World War II, the documentary misidentified the M24 Chaffee as a 'T24' in the early part of the film but corrects itself later. It still is a riveting documentary.
@1MahaDas
@1MahaDas 2 жыл бұрын
Thanks for all the WW2 footage when describing the Korean war! There's nothing like "authenticity" when creating useless content like this!
@mattharrell6880
@mattharrell6880 2 жыл бұрын
T-34's were never invulnerable. M-24's were never designed to fight armor, they were recon vehicles. The Pershing wiped the floor with them.
@btbd2785
@btbd2785 2 жыл бұрын
You kept saying T-24 tanks when you meant to sayy M-24.Some people who don't know about WW2 American tanks may think its 2 differnt tanks when it's just the 1. Just thought I would point that out. Thanks again for another great video!
@marcsomero278
@marcsomero278 2 жыл бұрын
Light tank < medium tank < heavy tank. It was interesting how the Pershing was described in the vehicle. I think it was developed after the T-34 so they probably had comparable technology. The video made it sound like the Pershing was a much older design than the T-34.
@AFT_05G
@AFT_05G Жыл бұрын
Ah yes a M26 destroying a T-34,most impressive achievement ever made in armored warfare!
M26 Pershing vs T34-85
9:46
Yarnhub
Рет қаралды 1,9 МЛН
The Insane Engineering of the M1 Abrams
25:59
Real Engineering
Рет қаралды 7 МЛН
Каха и дочка
00:28
К-Media
Рет қаралды 3,4 МЛН
Mom Hack for Cooking Solo with a Little One! 🍳👶
00:15
5-Minute Crafts HOUSE
Рет қаралды 23 МЛН
IL'HAN - Qalqam | Official Music Video
03:17
Ilhan Ihsanov
Рет қаралды 700 М.
The Solothurn 20mm Anti-Tank Rifle
14:44
Kentucky Ballistics
Рет қаралды 6 МЛН
Pershing vs. T-34: Korea 1950
5:25
Mark Felton Productions
Рет қаралды 1,5 МЛН
When a Centurion Commander Destroyed Over 20 Tanks
9:31
Yarnhub
Рет қаралды 1,2 МЛН
The Coolest Heavy Tank
16:22
Spookston
Рет қаралды 639 М.
Jagdpanther vs. Churchill - Normandy 1944
10:02
Mark Felton Productions
Рет қаралды 4,6 МЛН
Evolution of Russian Tanks | Animated History
24:03
The Armchair Historian
Рет қаралды 2,5 МЛН
America's Most Feared Panzer Killer
16:01
Dark Docs
Рет қаралды 1 МЛН
Tank Chats #90 | M26 Pershing | The Tank Museum
7:46
The Tank Museum
Рет қаралды 511 М.
Did 1 Tiger Beat 50 Tanks?
18:27
Yarnhub
Рет қаралды 4 МЛН
Pershing / War Thunder
7:56
War Thunder. Official channel.
Рет қаралды 204 М.
Каха и дочка
00:28
К-Media
Рет қаралды 3,4 МЛН