One of the most interesting things about tank warfare in Korea was that the Sherman did better than the T-34. It pretty much puts the myths of the Sherman being useless and the T-34 being the best tank of WW2 to rest.
I'm a bit perplexed by all of the comments saying that this is an unfair comparison, as if these were TH-camrs making a "comparison video". It's a historical video showing what happened the first time these tanks actually faced each other in combat. There are comments which seem to suggest that the Americans should have put Shermans up against them instead, just to be fair about it. It's almost like people can't differentiate between YT and reality any more.
Well it was basically an ambush by the M26s, which is why it is a bit unfair to make big statements about which tank was better. If it had been the T-34s set up on the road firing into a column of M26s driving towards them then the T-34s would have almost certainly have won just as easily as the M26s did in reality. And it would be equally unfair to then call the T-34 the superior tank. I have no doubt that the M26 is the better tank but this scenario only really shows that the Americans had better army organisation and training.
@@mig0150 M26 was superior, it wasn't an ambush, it was a piercing attack that got stopped. You would have flat ground and a timer to be fair? I could had you a lightsaber and I bet John Paul Jones would kill you with his issued saber. gtfo
The suggestion that the M46 Patton was somehow inferior to the M26 Pershing is very misleading. The M46 was not inferior to the M26. In fact, the M46 was identical to the M26 in both firepower and protection, as it was simply an M26 with a more powerful engine and improved transmission, along with some other minor improvements. The 1,160 M46 and M46A1 tanks produced were manufactured by converting existing M26 tanks. The M46 was more mobile than the M26, due to its more powerful engine, and this proved to be a significant advantage in the mountainous terrain of the Korean peninsula, with its only real disadvantage being that it consumed more fuel. A survey done in 1954 identified a total of only 119 tank versus tank actions in the Korean War, with about 50% of those involving M4A3E8 Sherman tanks. The M26 was involved in 32% of the actions and the M46 was involved in only 10% of the actions. If the differences in the kill to loss ratios of the Pershing and Patton prove anything at all, it is that kill to loss ratios are simply not reliable as an indication of the relative capabilities of the vehicles when the sample sizes are that small. What is far more telling than those ratios is the fact that all M26 tanks were withdrawn from Korea during 1951, while the M46 and M4A3E8 tanks remained in frontline service in Korea for the rest of the conflict. The limited mobility of the M26, along with the extreme rarity of tank versus tank actions after November of 1950, made the M26 the least useful of the three types under the prevailing circumstances of the conflict after 1950.
After firing the first round, the tank commander said to the gunner that he missed but the gunner stated he did hit it. It was found later the first round went clean through the tank and infantry said they watched the round skip along the road behind it. Also the crews for the tanks where hastily put together and had not much experience with each other or had time to get to know there tank before the battle.
Kids whose only combat experience is on a keyboard are all saying, "Dude, like, Pershing against T34? Like that is so unfair! Who did the match balancing on that?" I have news for you kids. . . .This is called 'history' and 'reality' and neither of these are fair nor were they ever intended to be so. It actually happened that way in Korea. Stupidity on the internet astounds me, it really shouldn't.
It's a fair point but the title of the video of T-34-85 vs. Pershing kind of implies this line of thinking. The title wasn't the Pusan Perimeter tank battles, which would be a more history-oriented title...
It came to Korea after this action took place and proved itself to be a very good tank. Have never heard its kill ratio but it should be pretty high. Only reason it's not mentioned is that it was not in use at the time on this engagement this was a us marine operation and their tank force.
@@willmarcheselli1986 At the end of WW2, the Brits produced the Comet tank. It saw limited action for obvious reasons, and served as the basis for the excellent Centurion.
One of my relatives who served in the U.S. Marines HIS unit captured a T34/85 North Korean tank crew. THEY were mostly young teenagers very thin starving and in poor health with lung disease. THEY got the lung disease from poor living conditions with barely able to walk. The one adult was not in good shape either. He had a damage right arm and HALF blind. THEY gladly surrender. How they manage to drive that tank was something. THEY got them medical care and they told what they knew of North Korean war information. The tank was destroyed.
I think you mean the M26. Not only did the M26 have better armor and a better gun, it had a superior fire control mechanism. That allowed it to score many more hits that a T-34 could have in the same period of time.
The forgotten war is rarely talked about but I find it very interesting. The British involvement with the Centurion tank and its first baptism of fire the story of C squadron of tanks the first to shoot in anger during the Korean war. Two tanks Caughoo and Colarado supporting an American patrol received fire from ironically a captured British Cromwell tank which was dispatched and hit at 3000 yards. The British used also the Cromwell and also the Churchill tanks in this theatre of war. Now the mystery for me is the Comet tank. Wiki says it was in the conflict I have a boo on Tank War Korea by Simon Dunstan but no Comet tank.The only thing I could find is they where part of the defence of Hong Kong in case the Chinese attacked there. Anyway great vid more please.
My Grandad fought in C Squadron 7 RTR...they were actually equipped with knackered Old Churchill Crocs And No Winter Kit...They didn’t have the fuel for the Flamethrowers on the tanks. Tried using Napalm and burnt the workings out.. They ended up a fire support squadron for the Yanks...who tried to get them re equipped...They end up scraping the Churchill’s....As for the T34 Grandad didn’t rate them...too crammed inside you’d never get out one...He knew abit he’d been fighting in Tanks since 1942...and survived loads of hits and several of his tanks being destroyed by German 88’s..😉... They may have been the most Battle hardened fellas in the British Army (the survivors of WW2 & Palestine.)...These lads didn’t like Korea..well below minus 30❄️..freezing their bollocks off in The Compo Valley..No overseas pay. fuck all winter kit..honestly if it wasn’t for the clothing from US troops and the Americans feeding them they would have froze to death.. Official British Army History is one thing..the truth is always different.. Korea got proper nasty..
A lot of the people whining about this being an unfair match are the exact same people who sit there and trash U.S. Armor by saying that the M4 Sherman wasn't a match for tanks like the Tiger in a head-on engagement. Pay them no mind.
Technically the T-34's not on the same planet as the Pershing, but you'd have to also wonder at the discrepancy between the training of the Americans versus the N Koreans.
The U.S. Were Marines so I could bet a pay check. Training was a world apart. And like Marines, They stayed in the middle of the road. As as much as a challenge, as to insure the road was blocked. One way or another, No enemy tanks were getting thru. The mission complete at all cost.
Very good point, the Korean crew training was see 1 do 1 teach 1 Now if thy wouldve been up against experienced Soviet crews, different story, although the T26 is a tank from a different era compared with the T34
You also have to remember most of these American troops were not the veterans of ww2, most of which were no longer needed in service and were living out a peaceful life in America. The men who fought in Korea were green recruits that barely missed out on ww2
In terms of combat ability the M26 and T-34-85 are about equal with the Pershing having a the advantage at being able to kill a T-34 from any combat range(T-34 needed to be within 500 meter to pen a M26 frontally) while the T-34 was far superior to the Pershing in speed(56kph ~16hp/T vs 40kph ~11hp/T)
@@ODSTOninersIxTwO The Pershing's front plates were mostly immune to the 85mm, with the exception of lucky shots (like one which hit an M46's towing lug and was directed downward, perpendicular to the plate.) Meanwhile, the Pershing's HVAP round could easily punch straight through a T34 lengthwise.) The T34/85, a stopgap design, was simply outclassed by the Pershing (which was intended to fight the Tiger I).
Pershing and T-34 is not fair comparasion, 1 is heavy tank other is medium tank, this would be Russian equivalent to Pershing, this one was their WW2 heavy tank, made with same purpose as Pershing to be answer for Tiger/Panther. Soviets also struggled with them. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IS_tank_family
@@Dotalol123 The IS series(51 tons) were not true heavy tanks neither. As by the time they were deployed tanks grew in size. The T34(30 tons) faced off against PZIII-IV(28 tons) until the Tiger showed up in 42. The panther at 50 tons was classified as a medium tank. The only army to field heavy tanks of that time period were the Germans. The Tiger(63 tons) and Tiger II(77 tons) were the heavy tanks. Post WWII the concept moved to MBT by the 1960s. The Americans had the heavy tank M103(65 tons) in the 50s but they dropped it for the M60(50-55 tons). Pulling the last M103 off the line in 1974. Eventually the MBT in the US morphed into the M1 Abrams at up to 73 tons. The Pershing was by WWII standards a medium tank. It was 4 tons less heavy than a Panther. The M4 Sherman topped out at 42 tons for reference.
Well placed powerful armor under well motivated commanders are the winning factor for tank battles And this video proves it At that time it’s a fight for survival for UN troops in Korea
Dude, the "T26" designation was applied to the test models and early prototypes that were the first ones sent to Europe near the end of WWII. The designation was officially replaced by M26 before that war ended and over five years before the Korean War started.
The Soviet Arms Industry was amazing in those days. They could produce and ENDLESS stream of tanks, planes, vehicles, artillery, and small arms and munitions. They also exported and sold billions of dollars worth of arms outside the Soviet Union. From what I understand getting a gig in a Soviet factory was pretty good. You got housing and food allowance and they even supplied you with vodka.
I always find the Korean War fascinating. I've always wondered what people back in the U.S., Russia and China must have been thinking. They'd just finished fighting World War II, seen the news reels of soldiers fighting in cities and countrysides across Europe, Asia and the Pacific. But just 5 years later, they were seeing the same images again.
M4 shermans were even used during this time frame. Pershing had some mechanical issues, not sure if they were fixed or updated by the time they went out of service. But... Got to say its difficult to gauge different tanks effectiveness from only a few encounters.
My only real beef would be that by 1950, the T26 had already been accepted and type classfied as M26. Regarding the unfair comparison comments, this is what actually transpired, so get over it. You always want to have overmatch against your enemy's equipment.
Another Great History lesson from Mark of the deployment and use of the Pershing. Now for those who want Technical Videos about all the tanks mentioned here and many others. Head over to the "Chieftains Hatch". A one Nicholas Moran, former Irish Guard/U.S. Army Armor officer and now Historian and Archaist for War Gaming, puts out the straight dope on any and all things Armored! ^_^
Just remember that the T-34 was a good tank but it was far from any kind of wonder weapon. The Soviets by their own accounts claim they lost over 70% of all "medium" tanks built. Medium tank of course refers to the T-34. So with over 50 thousand T-34s built that means they lost 35,000 T-34's on the eastern front. I would never have given the T-34 a chance against the Pershing
I heard and saw mixed this about the us tanks in Korea this really got me sorted. Big fan of the videos better then anything I've seen. Would love to give send your vids to all of my history teachers old and new.... Thank you.
Any chance you could do a documentary on Task Force Smith? I read a book about them YEARS ago and would love to see something more visualized with your quality of production!
@@kensenkensen7297 Agreed. It was really MacArthur's fault that the 1st MarDiv and 8th Army got mauled the way they did at Chosin and it was only because of the bravery of the men and the leadership of their officers that both forces made it out relatively intact. MacArthur didn't believe that the Chinese would get involved and even when presented with evidence to the contrary he refused to believe it and had US forces push too far, too fast right into a Chinese trap.
@@Riceball01 Not true at all, MacArthur wanted more troops and nuclear bombs to fight China, but the CIA convinced the president that China wouldn't enter the war and both were denied.
M26, not T26. T26 was the prototype. The M26 Pershing was the production model. The T-34/85 was succesful in the first part of the war because the Allies only had M24 Chaffee light tanks deployed in Korea. The T-34 was comparable to the Sherman. Pershing was comparable to Tiger and Panther. So the Pershing totally outclassed the T-34. Which resulted in very one-sided battles between M26 and T-34. The M46 Patton was essentially an upgraded M26 with a better engine, as the original M26 was underpowered. It had less kill ration because it was introduced much later in the war and at much lower quantity. The M26/M46 fought alongside the M4A3E8 Sherman "Easy Eight'. The Sherman also outperformed the T-34/85 in combat. Both could penetrate each others armor at engagement ranges. But the Sherman's better optics meant that it could hit its target first. This comparison is in a way unfair. But in another way it is fair. Because after WW2 the M26 design (a powerful quality heavy armored tank killing tank) became the basis for US tank designs to follow. The T-34 (simple tank build in huge quantities to overwealm opponent) because the basis for Russian tank designs to follow. This is seen even today with western tanks, being heavier, better protected and build for quality rather than quantity, than Russian tanks, which are build for quantity rather then quality. Read Osprey Publication book M26/M46 Pershing.
NationalSniper Pretty sure, t54s,t55s, t64s all had comparable armor to their contemporary counterparts. It wasn’t until the abrams that russian tank design lagged. The real difference between Western tanks and soviet tanks is gun depression...
The M26 had the M3 90mm cannon but the M46 had the M3A1 which was higher velocity and was better suited for the new M348 HEATFS shells that the US army introduced.
NationalSniper T-34-85 wasn’t even in production in the first part of the war - get your basic facts right. It was T-34 with 76-mm cannon that was around back then. T-34-85 was the russian panic answer to Tigers (appeared at the russian front at the end of 1942) and Panthers (1943), so it was only around for the last two years of war. As for the comparison I agree with many people here and you as well- narrator saying that T26 were superior because they killed T-34-85s in an ambush is a pretty stupid selection of the facts to look at and draw conclusions from those. Nonetheless they got it right, - T26 was largely a post-war tank, just like the British Centurion, although they appeared right at the end of war, and of course they were far superior.
Mark. I spoke with my gramps at xmas dinner tonight about his time as a tank commander in Korea. He served in a Sherman M4a3 with the Lord Strathcona's of the Canadian Army. He did see T34s there but they were far away and he never engaged them. The artillery took them out from long range, but he said at night they could be seen moving around. He said the Sherman was great and Hella reliable. I believe their job in Korea was to sit on a hill to take fire from the Chinese so they US airforce to could then smoke their positions. He also served in a centurion when stationed in Germany and loved that tank. Hated the Patton tank said it was a piece a shut as he had a chance to test it as I believe the CDN fires were choosing between the two tanks. It was really cool to hear all of his first hand knowledge about these fighting vehicles and how much they hurt your back. Also said the Yanks were shot drivers compared to the Canadians and saw one corporal have his rank stripped on the spot for smashing his gun into the tank in front of his.
Mark M I wish I could provide you with more details about his life. His company and his service dates. He moved to Mississippi in the 60s and his family stayed so I have no one to talk to about him. Based upon his medals and family stories he served in Korea and the Vietnam war with the 1st Marine Division as a tank commander, although I do not know how much time he has logged in an actual tank as his final rank before retirement was Lt. Col. Happy mate?
One point. The HVAP (High Velocity Armor Piercing) SHOT, not shell. Just as the alternate AT round was the T33E1 shot, a 90mm drop chilled forged steel shot. Second, four of the M46 losses concerned tanks loaded on rail cars which could not be removed before being overrun by CCV forces.
The lessons learned in WW2 with the shermans inadequate gun...culminated to the development of the high velocity 90mm gun on the Pershing...They really got that gun Right....The result ....Holes right through the frontal Armor of the T34 and its cast steel Turret....Designed to punch holes in the massive Armor plate on the Tiger and king Tiger...meant the T-34 was easy Pickens for the Pershing Punch...
Overwhelming force and extreme, efficient violence, this is what wins battles. Whatever the enemy has, you bring more, faster, stronger and better. And use it better than them.
To be fair to the tank, they stumbled into an ambush against American tanks supported by infantry, both of who knew they were coming. From your description, there didn't seem to be North Korean infantry supporting the T-34s. A T-55 or a T-62 in a similar situation would brew up too. The T-34/85 is still definitely inferior to the Pershing. Not just because of this engagement though.
WTH with all this "unfair" BS? Why a lot of people call this "comparison" unfair while at the same time always comparing the Sherman with the Tiger/Panther series just fine?
I have to say I don't make comments on TH-cam much but you're short videos on a multitude of subjects are excellent sir. Out of all of the TH-camrs that I have seen that make short videos about historical things I'm different aspects of life, War Etc yours are thoroughly done that you can relay a good point great information over a short period of time. Keep the video's coming. All the best from Metro Detroit Michigan USA
I have had the pleasure of getting inside both tanks, and believe me the Patton is years ahead in features,,......anyone in a T35 had better have practiced a lot to even get a shot off, the T34 is made for very small people who have to be really strong
Didn't the T-34s of the NKPA get schooled by M4 Shermans too? Just sliding out there as definitive proof that the M4 was a superior design to the T-34.
Most of the T-34's legend comes from its early WWII performance against the Panzer III, which it was obviously superior to. By 1945, it was outclassed by the Panther and Tiger, and compared to the early MBT's of NATO it was almost laughably outdated. The same thing applies to the Sherman; it's reputation as a "deathtrap" results from its incomparability to the Tiger and Panther, but if you actually read the statistics and reports, not only is the Sherman a VERY good tank by the standards of the day, it was actually SUPERIOR to the T-34 in many ways. The main clincher? Accounts from Soviet tank crews saying they PREFER the lend-lease Sherman tanks to the T-34.
Soviet tankers liked the T-34 because it was well made and reliable. Everyone seems to ignore the fact that they ran on petrol and were much more hazardous to operate than the T-34. The Panther was an improved T-34 design. Guderian wanted to copy the T-34 straight.
@@Soundwave3591The Sherman's reputation of brewing up/cooking off was mostly due to the lack of a glycol-based wet stowage system for the ammunition, remedied in later models. It was for the most part a good tank with only it's original armament as mediocre.
Soundwave3591 T-34 outclassed by the Panther and Tiger? You mean those tanks that had brittle armor, could not move under their own power and broke down faster then a ship sank with a million holes? I mean, the idea of the Tiger and Panther were good, they just sucked way too hard… See Potential History if you are interested… And MBT’s? You mean tanks that were only build AFTER the war by the Allies when they got shitscared by the IS-3?
I spent 5 years active army and 25 in the reserves. I read a lot about WW II and the Korean War and this is the first I have heard of this. I had read of Task Force Smith and the ineffectiveness of hand served anti tank weapons of the day. I thought North Korean tanks were largely taken out by artillery and close air.
The T34/85 is an older medium tank compared to the Pershing who was a late WWII heavy tank. If the North Korea would have had IS-2 or IS-3 it would be a different story. It is also in general the case that the attacking side looses more tanks than the defenders. The defender can dig in his tank en can be camouflaged.
OMG people dare suggest that this is an unfair battle... You are totally right to rebuke them. Next time make a video KingTiger vs BT-7, that will be a fun one too. Or make one where an Abrams with air support destroys an Iraqi T-54. Cool story bro!
In the end the Pershing's made little or no difference in the outcome. At war still to this day on the Korean peninsula with the "no mans zone" more or less exactly where it was at the start
James Barca ...TH-cam was first pitted against Reality almost immediately upon YT launch. Reality, in essence, was the forerunner, paving the way for all imagined thereafter. However, when the two first met on the battlefield, it was quite a surprise. Although Reality was the stuff of actual substance, YT quickly went into mass production to the point where lackluster Reality took quite a beating. The war is not expected to end anytime soon, and there is no 'behind the lines' at all.
I really wonder what the perceived qualities of the german Tigers and Panthers were that people love to point towards. It's not like they were reliable nor well-engineered in the sense of making good use of the available resources. Not even particularly pleasant places for the crew to sit in (ergonomics etc.), judging by The_Chieftains videos for example. Is it just that they looked impressive (doesn't get more subjective, obviously) and were heavier than their shipped-around-half-the-globe american counterparts?
Given there cost, complexity, and poor reliability the Tiger and Panther were never going to be war winners for Germany (Germany would never be able to field enough tanks of any type to win WWII against the USSR and US anyways) however, they were very potent killers. They racked up very high kill counts, especially against mass amounts of Soviet armor in wide-open Eastern Europe which certainly added to their reputation. Furthermore, it is little use telling tank crews that the Tiger is unreliable because if they run into an active one they are in trouble. It's like a plane crash, sure it is very unlikely to happen but if you do indeed find yourself in a plane crash you are pretty screwed. Plus until the final months of the war they were still pretty much the biggest and nastiest tanks of the battlefield, this all adds to the fear factor. Nobody wants to find themselves facing a tank with a much bigger gun and much more armor. Also post-war when all of the Nazis technology was uncovered there was and still is a lot of mystique about Nazis technology.
I'm late to the party but I still want to throw in my two cents. With respect, I think that this particular engagement is less about the technical qualities of the opposing tanks and more about the training proficiency of both sides. The T-34-85s just charged forward blindly while the Americans were dug in, had combined arms, and had ambushed the N. Koreans. While there's no such thing as a fair fight in war, this episode is not the best argument for the superiority of the Pershing. I mean the Pershing is probably better by a decent bit, but this isn't proof of it as there are too many mitigating factors to make an accurate call.
![[ TEASER ] เงาะป่า - วงL.กฮ. | TMG RECORD](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/M4ObdFfcPww/mqdefault.jpg)
![[UNCUT] “บอสณวัฒน์” ลากไส้!! ใครหนุนหลัง "แม่ตั๊ก ป๋าเบียร์" I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ I 30 ก.ย. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QlD7mU2KKRk/mqdefault.jpg)
There is an old saying: "If it's a fair fight, then your tactics suck!"
The Korean war deserves more attention
One of the most interesting things about tank warfare in Korea was that the Sherman did better than the T-34. It pretty much puts the myths of the Sherman being useless and the T-34 being the best tank of WW2 to rest.
I don't think people understand war isn't fair.
"T34 vs M26 isn't fair"
War Isn't Fair.
Get over it.
I'm a bit perplexed by all of the comments saying that this is an unfair comparison, as if these were TH-camrs making a "comparison video". It's a historical video showing what happened the first time these tanks actually faced each other in combat. There are comments which seem to suggest that the Americans should have put Shermans up against them instead, just to be fair about it.
It's almost like people can't differentiate between YT and reality any more.
Well it was basically an ambush by the M26s, which is why it is a bit unfair to make big statements about which tank was better.
If it had been the T-34s set up on the road firing into a column of M26s driving towards them then the T-34s would have almost certainly have won just as easily as the M26s did in reality. And it would be equally unfair to then call the T-34 the superior tank.
I have no doubt that the M26 is the better tank but this scenario only really shows that the Americans had better army organisation and training.
i hope this was a troll
that's the truth
So many youtube armchair experts.
@@mig0150 M26 was superior, it wasn't an ambush, it was a piercing attack that got stopped.
You would have flat ground and a timer to be fair? I could had you a lightsaber and I bet John Paul Jones would kill you with his issued saber.
gtfo
Here's a easier way to explain it
Pershing: *POW*
T-34-85: *EXPLODES*
Lmao!
Underrated comment
The suggestion that the M46 Patton was somehow inferior to the M26 Pershing is very misleading. The M46 was not inferior to the M26. In fact, the M46 was identical to the M26 in both firepower and protection, as it was simply an M26 with a more powerful engine and improved transmission, along with some other minor improvements. The 1,160 M46 and M46A1 tanks produced were manufactured by converting existing M26 tanks. The M46 was more mobile than the M26, due to its more powerful engine, and this proved to be a significant advantage in the mountainous terrain of the Korean peninsula, with its only real disadvantage being that it consumed more fuel. A survey done in 1954 identified a total of only 119 tank versus tank actions in the Korean War, with about 50% of those involving M4A3E8 Sherman tanks. The M26 was involved in 32% of the actions and the M46 was involved in only 10% of the actions. If the differences in the kill to loss ratios of the Pershing and Patton prove anything at all, it is that kill to loss ratios are simply not reliable as an indication of the relative capabilities of the vehicles when the sample sizes are that small. What is far more telling than those ratios is the fact that all M26 tanks were withdrawn from Korea during 1951, while the M46 and M4A3E8 tanks remained in frontline service in Korea for the rest of the conflict. The limited mobility of the M26, along with the extreme rarity of tank versus tank actions after November of 1950, made the M26 the least useful of the three types under the prevailing circumstances of the conflict after 1950.
After firing the first round, the tank commander said to the gunner that he missed but the gunner stated he did hit it. It was found later the first round went clean through the tank and infantry said they watched the round skip along the road behind it. Also the crews for the tanks where hastily put together and had not much experience with each other or had time to get to know there tank before the battle.
Camping Pershings spamming gold rounds
How to overcome Russian bias? Dab that #2 key! 😁
Don’t you hate when a noob camper finishes the game and brag around he had 44% WR.
Gold chucking noobs. Pz uninstall. Alt-F4. :D
Kids whose only combat experience is on a keyboard are all saying, "Dude, like, Pershing against T34? Like that is so unfair! Who did the match balancing on that?"
I have news for you kids. . . .This is called 'history' and 'reality' and neither of these are fair nor were they ever intended to be so. It actually happened that way in Korea. Stupidity on the internet astounds me, it really shouldn't.
Why you defend America though? South Vietnam?
Obviously in games t-34 is weaker than those pershings, bruh the answer is biting you already.
It's a fair point but the title of the video of T-34-85 vs. Pershing kind of implies this line of thinking. The title wasn't the Pusan Perimeter tank battles, which would be a more history-oriented title...
ohhh now i gotta ask for Centurions in Korea pretty please
Me, too!
The centurion was arguably the best tank in the Korean War
It came to Korea after this action took place and proved itself to be a very good tank. Have never heard its kill ratio but it should be pretty high. Only reason it's not mentioned is that it was not in use at the time on this engagement this was a us marine operation and their tank force.
@@willmarcheselli1986 At the end of WW2, the Brits produced the Comet tank.
It saw limited action for obvious reasons, and served as the basis for the excellent Centurion.
BY far the best tanks in korea. Now if the had T-54s i'd say otherwise.
One of my relatives who served in the U.S. Marines HIS unit captured a T34/85 North Korean tank crew.
THEY were mostly young teenagers very thin starving and in poor health with lung disease. THEY got the lung disease from poor living conditions with barely able to walk. The one adult was not in good shape either. He had a damage right arm and HALF blind.
THEY gladly surrender. How they manage to drive that tank was something. THEY got them medical care and they told what they knew of North Korean war information. The tank was destroyed.
Why is everyone acting like he is just comparing it's a historical video tf
I love the Pershing's design........it's fantastic, just awesome
Sohom Chatterjee it the First generation of the Patton series.
There was never any doubt that the T26E3 Pershing Tank was better than the T-34/85
The Pershing's had better trained crews and superior fire control. Those NORK T-34/85's never had a chance.
Kim Jong Un voted this down.
Also the T34 had 80 percent casualties when armor was pierced
The T34 wasn't built for survivability. Most T34s didn't even have driver seats.
Another great film👍
More stuff on Korea would be appreciated though👌
The British Centurion's did very well in Korea too!
I think you mean the M26. Not only did the M26 have better armor and a better gun, it had a superior fire control mechanism. That allowed it to score many more hits that a T-34 could have in the same period of time.
The forgotten war is rarely talked about but I find it very interesting. The British involvement with the Centurion tank and its first baptism of fire the story of C squadron of tanks the first to shoot in anger during the Korean war. Two tanks Caughoo and Colarado supporting an American patrol received fire from ironically a captured British Cromwell tank which was dispatched and hit at 3000 yards. The British used also the Cromwell and also the Churchill tanks in this theatre of war. Now the mystery for me is the Comet tank. Wiki says it was in the conflict I have a boo on Tank War Korea by Simon Dunstan but no Comet tank.The only thing I could find is they where part of the defence of Hong Kong in case the Chinese attacked there. Anyway great vid more please.
My Grandad fought in C Squadron 7 RTR...they were actually equipped with knackered Old Churchill Crocs And No Winter Kit...They didn’t have the fuel for the Flamethrowers on the tanks. Tried using Napalm and burnt the workings out.. They ended up a fire support squadron for the Yanks...who tried to get them re equipped...They end up scraping the Churchill’s....As for the T34 Grandad didn’t rate them...too crammed inside you’d never get out one...He knew abit he’d been fighting in Tanks since 1942...and survived loads of hits and several of his tanks being destroyed by German 88’s..😉... They may have been the most Battle hardened fellas in the British Army (the survivors of WW2 & Palestine.)...These lads didn’t like Korea..well below minus 30❄️..freezing their bollocks off in The Compo Valley..No overseas pay. fuck all winter kit..honestly if it wasn’t for the clothing from US troops and the Americans feeding them they would have froze to death.. Official British Army History is one thing..the truth is always different.. Korea got proper nasty..
My old Uncle Albert served in the US Army in Korea. The only thing he ever said of his experience there was, "It was cold. So cold."
NOOOOOO!! YOU CAN'T JUST MATCH PERSHING AGAINST T-34!! THAT'S UNFAIR.
haha 90mm cannon goes boom and T-34 goes kaboom
A “Fair” fight is when you win, period! War has simple rules, defeat the enemy with the least amount of losses.
You should make a video about the use of helicopters during the Korean war.
A lot of the people whining about this being an unfair match are the exact same people who sit there and trash U.S. Armor by saying that the M4 Sherman wasn't a match for tanks like the Tiger in a head-on engagement. Pay them no mind.
You have the BEST voice for these documentaries. I would love to see you collaborate with TIK
Technically the T-34's not on the same planet as the Pershing, but you'd have to also wonder at the discrepancy between the training of the Americans versus the N Koreans.
The U.S.
Were Marines so I could bet a pay check. Training was a world apart.
And like Marines,
They stayed in the middle of the road. As as much as a challenge, as to insure the road was blocked.
One way or another, No enemy tanks were getting thru.
The mission complete at all cost.
Very good point, the Korean crew training was see 1 do 1 teach 1
Now if thy wouldve been up against experienced Soviet crews, different story, although the T26 is a tank from a different era compared with the T34
You also have to remember most of these American troops were not the veterans of ww2, most of which were no longer needed in service and were living out a peaceful life in America. The men who fought in Korea were green recruits that barely missed out on ww2
In terms of combat ability the M26 and T-34-85 are about equal with the Pershing having a the advantage at being able to kill a T-34 from any combat range(T-34 needed to be within 500 meter to pen a M26 frontally) while the T-34 was far superior to the Pershing in speed(56kph ~16hp/T vs 40kph ~11hp/T)
@@ODSTOninersIxTwO The Pershing's front plates were mostly immune to the 85mm, with the exception of lucky shots (like one which hit an M46's towing lug and was directed downward, perpendicular to the plate.) Meanwhile, the Pershing's HVAP round could easily punch straight through a T34 lengthwise.) The T34/85, a stopgap design, was simply outclassed by the Pershing (which was intended to fight the Tiger I).
Thank God, Korea is such a breath of fresh air considering the over saturation of WW2 stuff out there. Nicely done.
Those T-34 will be fighting in conflicts around the world for ever.
Why did the M46s perform so much worse?
Much like communism. The T-34/85 was outdated.
Any weapon outdated or not can still kill
Pershing and T-34 is not fair comparasion, 1 is heavy tank other is medium tank, this would be Russian equivalent to Pershing, this one was their WW2 heavy tank, made with same purpose as Pershing to be answer for Tiger/Panther. Soviets also struggled with them.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IS_tank_family
I expected that comment to trigger snowflakes, not armchair tankers...
...then again, what's the difference?
@@Dotalol123 The IS series(51 tons) were not true heavy tanks neither. As by the time they were deployed tanks grew in size. The T34(30 tons) faced off against PZIII-IV(28 tons) until the Tiger showed up in 42. The panther at 50 tons was classified as a medium tank. The only army to field heavy tanks of that time period were the Germans. The Tiger(63 tons) and Tiger II(77 tons) were the heavy tanks. Post WWII the concept moved to MBT by the 1960s. The Americans had the heavy tank M103(65 tons) in the 50s but they dropped it for the M60(50-55 tons). Pulling the last M103 off the line in 1974. Eventually the MBT in the US morphed into the M1 Abrams at up to 73 tons. The Pershing was by WWII standards a medium tank. It was 4 tons less heavy than a Panther. The M4 Sherman topped out at 42 tons for reference.
IS-3
My great grandfather fought in this war and I just find it so fascinating learning about one of Americas forgotten wars
The M4 sermon or jumbo Sherman with the 76 would’ve been easily able to destroy t34s
Three thumbs down from North Korean tankers.😛
Probably commi chines.
North Korean don't have Internet or youtube bahaha
dead NK tankers that tanked that is
Because north korean tankers are dumb
149 actually
Well placed powerful armor under well motivated commanders are the winning factor for tank battles
And this video proves it
At that time it’s a fight for survival for UN troops in Korea
Dude, the "T26" designation was applied to the test models and early prototypes that were the first ones sent to Europe near the end of WWII. The designation was officially replaced by M26 before that war ended and over five years before the Korean War started.
The Shermans didn't do too bad, either, sounds like. Not as good, but still something like a 2:1 kill ratio, if I understood correctly.
Nicely done video. Love that it’s fairly short. Thanks for sharing.
Cab you explain the use of tanks as artillery in Korea? I've seen the footage of tanks shooting at extreme angles at something.
Hey could you do a video on the Baltic Forest Brothers its a story with very small coverage
Yes indeed
Kingdom of Italy ball that is an amazing story, where two sides who opposed each other joined to fight against communism.
If he would such would be intetesting video.
I personally know some of the Estonian Forest Brothers.
The Soviet Arms Industry was amazing in those days. They could produce and ENDLESS stream of tanks, planes, vehicles, artillery, and small arms and munitions. They also exported and sold billions of dollars worth of arms outside the Soviet Union. From what I understand getting a gig in a Soviet factory was pretty good. You got housing and food allowance and they even supplied you with vodka.
I've always liked the Pershing T-26 tank. It looks balanced compared to the Sherman
Interesting video again, thanks Mark. Wish I knew more about the Korean war and Korean history in general.
For its day the Pershing was a decent fighting vehicle.
I always find the Korean War fascinating. I've always wondered what people back in the U.S., Russia and China must have been thinking. They'd just finished fighting World War II, seen the news reels of soldiers fighting in cities and countrysides across Europe, Asia and the Pacific. But just 5 years later, they were seeing the same images again.
M4 shermans were even used during this time frame. Pershing had some mechanical issues, not sure if they were fixed or updated by the time they went out of service. But... Got to say its difficult to gauge different tanks effectiveness from only a few encounters.
My only real beef would be that by 1950, the T26 had already been accepted and type classfied as M26. Regarding the unfair comparison comments, this is what actually transpired, so get over it. You always want to have overmatch against your enemy's equipment.
Another Great History lesson from Mark of the deployment and use of the Pershing. Now for those who want Technical Videos about all the tanks mentioned here and many others. Head over to the "Chieftains Hatch". A one Nicholas Moran, former Irish Guard/U.S. Army Armor officer and now Historian and Archaist for War Gaming, puts out the straight dope on any and all things Armored! ^_^
Just remember that the T-34 was a good tank but it was far from any kind of wonder weapon. The Soviets by their own accounts claim they lost over 70% of all "medium" tanks built. Medium tank of course refers to the T-34. So with over 50 thousand T-34s built that means they lost 35,000 T-34's on the eastern front. I would never have given the T-34 a chance against the Pershing
I heard and saw mixed this about the us tanks in Korea this really got me sorted. Big fan of the videos better then anything I've seen. Would love to give send your vids to all of my history teachers old and new.... Thank you.
Any chance you could do a documentary on Task Force Smith? I read a book about them YEARS ago and would love to see something more visualized with your quality of production!
+RogerwilcoFoxtrot
Macarthur....
@@kensenkensen7297 Agreed. It was really MacArthur's fault that the 1st MarDiv and 8th Army got mauled the way they did at Chosin and it was only because of the bravery of the men and the leadership of their officers that both forces made it out relatively intact. MacArthur didn't believe that the Chinese would get involved and even when presented with evidence to the contrary he refused to believe it and had US forces push too far, too fast right into a Chinese trap.
@@Riceball01 X Corps was at Chosin. The US Army units were heavily damaged; 31st RCT was annihilated.
@@Riceball01 Not true at all, MacArthur wanted more troops and nuclear bombs to fight China, but the CIA convinced the president that China wouldn't enter the war and both were denied.
What was wrong with the Patton tank? I thought it was to be a replacement for the m26?
M26, not T26. T26 was the prototype. The M26 Pershing was the production model.
The T-34/85 was succesful in the first part of the war because the Allies only had M24 Chaffee light tanks deployed in Korea.
The T-34 was comparable to the Sherman. Pershing was comparable to Tiger and Panther. So the Pershing totally outclassed the T-34. Which resulted in very one-sided battles between M26 and T-34.
The M46 Patton was essentially an upgraded M26 with a better engine, as the original M26 was underpowered. It had less kill ration because it was introduced much later in the war and at much lower quantity.
The M26/M46 fought alongside the M4A3E8 Sherman "Easy Eight'.
The Sherman also outperformed the T-34/85 in combat. Both could penetrate each others armor at engagement ranges. But the Sherman's better optics meant that it could hit its target first.
This comparison is in a way unfair. But in another way it is fair. Because after WW2 the M26 design (a powerful quality heavy armored tank killing tank) became the basis for US tank designs to follow. The T-34 (simple tank build in huge quantities to overwealm opponent) because the basis for Russian tank designs to follow. This is seen even today with western tanks, being heavier, better protected and build for quality rather than quantity, than Russian tanks, which are build for quantity rather then quality.
Read Osprey Publication book M26/M46 Pershing.
NationalSniper Pretty sure, t54s,t55s, t64s all had comparable armor to their contemporary counterparts. It wasn’t until the abrams that russian tank design lagged.
The real difference between Western tanks and soviet tanks is gun depression...
The M26 had the M3 90mm cannon but the M46 had the M3A1 which was higher velocity and was better suited for the new M348 HEATFS shells that the US army introduced.
NationalSniper T-34-85 wasn’t even in production in the first part of the war - get your basic facts right. It was T-34 with 76-mm cannon that was around back then. T-34-85 was the russian panic answer to Tigers (appeared at the russian front at the end of 1942) and Panthers (1943), so it was only around for the last two years of war.
As for the comparison I agree with many people here and you as well- narrator saying that T26 were superior because they killed T-34-85s in an ambush is a pretty stupid selection of the facts to look at and draw conclusions from those. Nonetheless they got it right, - T26 was largely a post-war tank, just like the British Centurion, although they appeared right at the end of war, and of course they were far superior.
The Pershing tanks shown were t26. You can tell by the gun and tracks. He's not wrong
This isn't even a comparison video. It's about what happened the first time the two met in the field, with information on the two sprinkled in.
Every military commander since the first ever battle that they consider a fight fair if all their men come back and the enemy’s don’t.
Mark. I spoke with my gramps at xmas dinner tonight about his time as a tank commander in Korea. He served in a Sherman M4a3 with the Lord Strathcona's of the Canadian Army. He did see T34s there but they were far away and he never engaged them. The artillery took them out from long range, but he said at night they could be seen moving around. He said the Sherman was great and Hella reliable. I believe their job in Korea was to sit on a hill to take fire from the Chinese so they US airforce to could then smoke their positions. He also served in a centurion when stationed in Germany and loved that tank. Hated the Patton tank said it was a piece a shut as he had a chance to test it as I believe the CDN fires were choosing between the two tanks. It was really cool to hear all of his first hand knowledge about these fighting vehicles and how much they hurt your back. Also said the Yanks were shot drivers compared to the Canadians and saw one corporal have his rank stripped on the spot for smashing his gun into the tank in front of his.
It’s weird how Patton tanks didn’t perform well during the Korean War
Pershing all the way!
I would have been surprised if the Pershing did not defeat the T-34, as it was an older design. It is surprising M-46 Patton wasn't better.
The film from 1:19 is about the last Panther in Cologne.
My great uncle was a tank commander in the Korean war, 1st Tank Battalion, 1st Marine Division.
So? Is this your claim to fame?
Mark M I wish I could provide you with more details about his life. His company and his service dates. He moved to Mississippi in the 60s and his family stayed so I have no one to talk to about him. Based upon his medals and family stories he served in Korea and the Vietnam war with the 1st Marine Division as a tank commander, although I do not know how much time he has logged in an actual tank as his final rank before retirement was Lt. Col. Happy mate?
This leaves one question..what would have happened if the Pershings would have run against a line of T 34/85 s like that or into an ambush ?
One point. The HVAP (High Velocity Armor Piercing) SHOT, not shell. Just as the alternate AT round was the T33E1 shot, a 90mm drop chilled forged steel shot. Second, four of the M46 losses concerned tanks loaded on rail cars which could not be removed before being overrun by CCV forces.
The 4th T34 was singing I'm so ronree
The lessons learned in WW2 with the shermans inadequate gun...culminated to the development of the high velocity 90mm gun on the Pershing...They really got that gun Right....The result ....Holes right through the frontal Armor of the T34 and its cast steel Turret....Designed to punch holes in the massive Armor plate on the Tiger and king Tiger...meant the T-34 was easy Pickens for the Pershing Punch...
Overwhelming force and extreme, efficient violence, this is what wins battles. Whatever the enemy has, you bring more, faster, stronger and better. And use it better than them.
Outdated and outgunned yes but this battle doesn't show that lol.
The battle shows who ever gets the first go usually wins
Awesome video like always.
Could you make more content on the Korean War?
Love to hear about more Korean war stuff. Keep em commin!
Another quality and very interesting video from Mark - thank you again :)
To be fair to the tank, they stumbled into an ambush against American tanks supported by infantry, both of who knew they were coming. From your description, there didn't seem to be North Korean infantry supporting the T-34s. A T-55 or a T-62 in a similar situation would brew up too.
The T-34/85 is still definitely inferior to the Pershing. Not just because of this engagement though.
Absolutely!!!
MARINE marksmanship rules the day.
GET SOME !
Excellent! Could you do something on the Battle of Imjin from the Gloucestershire regiment perspective please?
thanks Mark another great video
You're a great narrator.
I like the trumpets in your opening too.
Seems quite nostalgic.
Excellent content as always
to anybody saying this is unfair, since when did T34 become superior, Soviets only rely on numbers. A lone Soviet T34 cant do anything.
WTH with all this "unfair" BS? Why a lot of people call this "comparison" unfair while at the same time always comparing the Sherman with the Tiger/Panther series just fine?
The T 34 / 85 would have to use arrow head Ammunition for a head on engagement with a Pershing!
Oh hi mark
oh hai
I did not!
I have to say I don't make comments on TH-cam much but you're short videos on a multitude of subjects are excellent sir. Out of all of the TH-camrs that I have seen that make short videos about historical things I'm different aspects of life, War Etc yours are thoroughly done that you can relay a good point great information over a short period of time. Keep the video's coming. All the best from Metro Detroit Michigan USA
Damn, 7 90mm Shells against a T-34-85, and crew still bailed
"Technical Sergeant" was an Army rank suggesting the Pershings were Army and attached to the Marines.
I have had the pleasure of getting inside both tanks, and believe me the Patton is years ahead in features,,......anyone in a T35 had better have practiced a lot to even get a shot off, the T34 is made for very small people who have to be really strong
Didn't the T-34s of the NKPA get schooled by M4 Shermans too? Just sliding out there as definitive proof that the M4 was a superior design to the T-34.
Most of the T-34's legend comes from its early WWII performance against the Panzer III, which it was obviously superior to. By 1945, it was outclassed by the Panther and Tiger, and compared to the early MBT's of NATO it was almost laughably outdated.
The same thing applies to the Sherman; it's reputation as a "deathtrap" results from its incomparability to the Tiger and Panther, but if you actually read the statistics and reports, not only is the Sherman a VERY good tank by the standards of the day, it was actually SUPERIOR to the T-34 in many ways.
The main clincher? Accounts from Soviet tank crews saying they PREFER the lend-lease Sherman tanks to the T-34.
Yes.
Soviet tankers liked the T-34 because it was well made and reliable. Everyone seems to ignore the fact that they ran on petrol and were much more hazardous to operate than the T-34. The Panther was an improved T-34 design. Guderian wanted to copy the T-34 straight.
@@Soundwave3591The Sherman's reputation of brewing up/cooking off was mostly due to the lack of a glycol-based wet stowage system for the ammunition, remedied in later models. It was for the most part a good tank with only it's original armament as mediocre.
Soundwave3591 T-34 outclassed by the Panther and Tiger? You mean those tanks that had brittle armor, could not move under their own power and broke down faster then a ship sank with a million holes?
I mean, the idea of the Tiger and Panther were good, they just sucked way too hard… See Potential History if you are interested…
And MBT’s? You mean tanks that were only build AFTER the war by the Allies when they got shitscared by the IS-3?
The Mark Felton`s voice sounds like "robot voice "perfected .
I spent 5 years active army and 25 in the reserves. I read a lot about WW II and the Korean War and this is the first I have heard of this. I had read of Task Force Smith and the ineffectiveness of hand served anti tank weapons of the day. I thought North Korean tanks were largely taken out by artillery and close air.
The T34/85 is an older medium tank compared to the Pershing who was a late WWII heavy tank. If the North Korea would have had IS-2 or IS-3 it would be a different story. It is also in general the case that the attacking side looses more tanks than the defenders. The defender can dig in his tank en can be camouflaged.
The pershing was a medium tank and it wasn't in Korea very long anyway before being replaced by shermans
Just became a supporter of Marks on Patreon..encourage others to enlist support for Mark asap! Truly Awesome work!
OMG people dare suggest that this is an unfair battle... You are totally right to rebuke them. Next time make a video KingTiger vs BT-7, that will be a fun one too. Or make one where an Abrams with air support destroys an Iraqi T-54. Cool story bro!
mUh t 34 85..
I was surprised that this battle happened today..
On WoT blitz.
I thoroughly enjoyed your videos your succinct and accurate in your description of the events. Thank you and keep up the good work.
In the end the Pershing's made little or no difference in the outcome. At war still to this day on the Korean peninsula with the "no mans zone" more or less exactly where it was at the start
James Barca ...TH-cam was first pitted against Reality almost immediately upon YT launch. Reality, in essence, was the forerunner, paving the way for all imagined thereafter. However, when the two first met on the battlefield, it was quite a surprise. Although Reality was the stuff of actual substance, YT quickly went into mass production to the point where lackluster Reality took quite a beating. The war is not expected to end anytime soon, and there is no 'behind the lines' at all.
I really wonder what the perceived qualities of the german Tigers and Panthers were that people love to point towards. It's not like they were reliable nor well-engineered in the sense of making good use of the available resources. Not even particularly pleasant places for the crew to sit in (ergonomics etc.), judging by The_Chieftains videos for example. Is it just that they looked impressive (doesn't get more subjective, obviously) and were heavier than their shipped-around-half-the-globe american counterparts?
Given there cost, complexity, and poor reliability the Tiger and Panther were never going to be war winners for Germany (Germany would never be able to field enough tanks of any type to win WWII against the USSR and US anyways) however, they were very potent killers. They racked up very high kill counts, especially against mass amounts of Soviet armor in wide-open Eastern Europe which certainly added to their reputation. Furthermore, it is little use telling tank crews that the Tiger is unreliable because if they run into an active one they are in trouble. It's like a plane crash, sure it is very unlikely to happen but if you do indeed find yourself in a plane crash you are pretty screwed. Plus until the final months of the war they were still pretty much the biggest and nastiest tanks of the battlefield, this all adds to the fear factor. Nobody wants to find themselves facing a tank with a much bigger gun and much more armor. Also post-war when all of the Nazis technology was uncovered there was and still is a lot of mystique about Nazis technology.
I'm late to the party but I still want to throw in my two cents. With respect, I think that this particular engagement is less about the technical qualities of the opposing tanks and more about the training proficiency of both sides. The T-34-85s just charged forward blindly while the Americans were dug in, had combined arms, and had ambushed the N. Koreans. While there's no such thing as a fair fight in war, this episode is not the best argument for the superiority of the Pershing. I mean the Pershing is probably better by a decent bit, but this isn't proof of it as there are too many mitigating factors to make an accurate call.
In war, if you're in a fair fight somebody screwed up.
The Pershings were in a ambush position with all guns bearing on their targets, the t-34's had no chance
this channel is so underrated