The American Super Tank that Wrecked the Chinese Army
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 08. 2022
- The town of Chinju in South Korea was almost deserted when the improvised platoon of three American tanks arrived during the day. The vehicles adopted a defensive position and calmly awaited the upcoming enemies.
When the hostile Chinese forces showed up, they charged with all they had. They were confident that their Soviet-made T34 tanks would be enough to get rid of the US tanks without major problems.
But as the enemy approached, the .30- and .50-caliber gunners from the American tanks opened fire with lethal accuracy. To the Chinese’ dismay, one of their rounds simply bounced off a US vehicle.
It was then that they realized they were not fighting the usual M24 Chaffee tank but a 46-ton M26 Pershing one armed with a powerful 90-millimeter gun.
The Chinese didn’t stand a chance…
- As images and footage of actual events are not always available, Dark Docs sometimes utilizes similar historical images and footage for dramatic effect. I do my best to keep it as visually accurate as possible. All content on Dark Docs is researched, produced, and presented in historical context for educational purposes. We are history enthusiasts and are not always experts in some areas, so please don't hesitate to reach out to us with corrections, additional information, or new ideas. -
The M26 Pershing had the same flaw that late war German tanks had that was exposed in Korea. It was rushed into service to get some combat experience with it before Germany collapsed before testing was completed and so had a somewhat underpowered engine and transmission for its size. This wasn’t too much of a problem in relatively flat Northern Europe and the flaw wasn’t detected after the war as many were just sent to museums . Korea was a different story though and it had a terrible time with the mountains, so much so that many tank crews preferred to stick with their Easy 8 Shermans. The M46 Patton that came into service at the end of the war was for the most part simply an M26 Pershing with a better engine and transmission that was much more reliable.
Longer rifle as well.
Luckily for UN forces, the Easy 8 Shermans with 76mm guns were more than a match for the T34-85's in North Korean hands.
@Shane Doe well that's the weirdest fucking statement I've read in a while.
Thanks for that info. Those tanks always looked too big and heavy for that Ford V8 with those corresponding trannies. Why do engineers do that!!!!
I always wondered why they did not put a land vehicle model Allison 1710 V-12 like used in the Lockheed P-38, Curtis P-40 and NAA P-51A airplane fighters or the PT boats in the pacific The brits used a land version Rolls-Royce merlin engine the RR Meteor engine in there Centurion tanks.
I will never get why these engineers with all there smartness would underpower fighting vehicles.
@@22steve5150 Especially as they had easier access to the HVAP ammo that used to mostly go to Hellcat tank destroyers.
My father Inlaw was a tank mechanic in Korea. His is still kicking at 91 years old. Good video.
I remember I had to go to the VA Hospital for an appointment and I had a very good conversation with a veteran who served with the 64thTank Battalion during the Korean War.
The guy
So how did that conversation go?
@@renelaizer6518 actually I learned some things but I also had three great uncles who fought in the Korean War. So trust me it's not the forgotten war if you fought in it.
@@grapeshot hmmm I was wondering what he may have said about the operation of the tank in battle.
@@renelaizer6518 I remember him telling me about how claustrophobic you can feel any tank. I myself was in the artillery so we didn't have that problem. And he was telling me one of the worst things that can happen to you when you are a tanker if your tank catches on fire which already knew that.
In the battle at Cologne, the Panther didn't fire because the commander thought the Pershing was a friendly German tank due to it's unfamiliar armor design. Source: Spearhead by Adam Makos, which was written based off of interviews with the gunner of the Pershing and the Co-driver (I think) of the Panther.
How in the Hell That they would assume it was a German Tank? Are they that Close Minded that they don't Think America could build Heavy Tank on their Own?
@@ronanchristiana.belleza9270 Because it was completely against American military doctrine. The main reason the US used so many Sherman's was because they could easily be shipped to Europe. You cant ship as many heavy tanks.
@@ronanchristiana.belleza9270 Because that was the first time they've seen a Pershing in their wartime career.
The guy gets his leg blown off.
@@ronanchristiana.belleza9270 Normally you'd go in to battle against an enemy you know.
Just say modern Russia for example. If you fought them, you'd be expecting T-72's, T-80's, 90's, and Very rarely, Maybe a T-14 Armata. Now, you come up against them in battlefield, you'd more than likely know of them. But one day, Russia decides to field a brand new tank that nobody knows about, Coincidentally, It looks very similar to one of your tanks. Do you shoot it? Or do you find out, hey, is that ours or theirs?
From the front, the M26 Pershing, could be mistaken for Panther at a glance. It'd be quite easy to know after say, a few weeks, months where one has fallen victim to a gun to say, well yes, this is an American tank, and be able to tell.
But a tank you've never seen before? Most likely covered in bushes, netting, scrim, or even painted in camouflage? If you don't know it exists, how do you not know it could be yours, Especially when it looks not to disimilar to yours? How do you know it isn't a new variant of a Panther? Especially when all you've known the whole war, is pretty much Stuarts and Shermans?
The Pershing is iconic enough that the Chinese Sci-Fi bestseller, Three Body, has a major character tell an anecdote that "his grandfather attempted to attack Pershings with grenades in Korea. The grenades detonated harmlessly against the Pershing's armor. He was incapacitated by the machine gun on the Pershing, which then rolled over his legs. He spent the remainder of his life bedridden, but he was lucky compared to his comrades who were ground to a pulp". This anecdote was an analogy for the human civilization's helplessness against technology of a spacefaring alien civilization.
bro thats my favourite book and ur comment summarised that section so well!!!
My uncle was a M4 tank commander in Korea. I would have loved to show him this and ask his input on the Pershing models.
From what I've read, the top tanks in Korea were thought by many to be the British Centurions. They were absolute monsters, larger than anything even the US had at the time and could blast the living crap out of T-34s. One American general remarked that the Centurion had literally changed warfare due to this and its terrain-driving capabilities (even in the rugged mountain areas). The Pershing was thought to be good, but the M46 Patton derived from it was much better.
@Shane Doe That's not morbid or anything...
The centurion was a great tank but did have some issues they were expensive and difficult to produce in any real quantity and required drivers of extraordinary skill as the breaking steering system was powered by the gearbox so if the driver missed a gear on a slope the whole crew went for a fun little ride until the tank came to a stop on its own ( my old sergeant learned to drive one at the start of his career and entertained us with his first trouser soiling incident). It struggled to keep up with much faster German armour in flat terrain but was unparalleled in mountains and rough ground. Britain was still pursuing their Infantry\cruiser tank philosophy at the time as such the Centurion was designed with a very low top speed but very heavily armed and armoured we wouldn't get a true MBT design until the Chieftain. Given how that worked out probably worth the wait as it was the unquestioned king of the battlefield for almost for decades and is still in service with many of our Allies and former territories.
i would have liked to been a fly on the wall for that. I love talking to the older vets to hear how they did what they did. history geek what can i say....lol
My grandfather was a foot solder in WW-2 and gave me his input on M-4 VS Panther and said the M-4 crews must have had more crazy then guts to take a Panther on.
Chinju is in the southern tip of South Korea. The battle was very early in the Korea War. Those communist troop were North Korean, not Chinese.
When I served (Army), we had the M41, frequently seen with Hollywood makeovers to serve as panzers in "Combat" TV shows and in the movie "Godzilla." Their turret made them easy to identify in the movies. We also had the M48 and M60 tanks. I saw one M48 in TV show "Combat." The shape of the front of the hull made it easy to spot.
In the notoriously historically inaccurate 1965 film _Battle Of The Bulge,_ M48 Pattons were used as German King Tiger tanks and M24 Chaffes took the place of M4 Shermans.
@@brianknapp6215 such was life in pre-CGI Hollywood...
Hogans Heroes used an M3 Grant for their stolen tank episode.
@@drew65sep At least Hollywood was able to use three T-34 tanks (heavily modified by the Yugoslavian Army to look like Tigers) in the 1970 film _Kelly's Heroes_- as well as upgunned M4 Shermans still in use by the Yugoslavs.
@@brianknapp6215 I believe that the German panzers in the Battle of the Bulge are Spanish M-47's.
A study conducted after the war counted 119 tank-vs-tank actions during the war, 104 involving US Army tank units and 15 involving the Marine 1st Tank Bn. The M26 and M46 were involved in nearly half of these, the M26 in 38 actions (32%), and the M46 in 12 actions (10%). Only 24 of these 119 engagements involved more than three North Korean tanks and most were small-scale encounters of platoon size or less. The relatively small number of tank-vs-tank battles of the M46 was due to the fact that none saw combat until early September. A total of 34 US tanks were knocked out by North Korean armor, including 6 M26 and 8 M46 tanks, of which only 15 were totally lost. The US tanks knocked out 97 T-34/85 tanks and claimed a further 18 as probables. The M26 was credited with 39% of the NKPA tank losses and the M46 with 12%. About half of the engagements took place at ranges of 350 yds or less, and at this distance the M26 had a hit probability of 85%, somewhat higher when firing HVAP and somewhat lower when firing APC ammunition. About 20% of the engagements took place at 350-750 yds, and a similar number at 750-1,150 yds. Hit probabilities at these ranges were 69% and 46% respectively. These figures are comparable to the M46 and M4A3E8 Medium tanks, since at the time all US tanks had similar fire control systems. The shortest engagement range was 10 yards, and the longest known successful engagement by and M26 is 3,000 yards.
There were hardly any encounters with North Korean armor after November 1950. The US Army concluded that the M26 was a markedly more effective tank than the M4A3E8 Sherman in tank fighting, being about 3.5 times more effective in offensive missions, and 3.05 times more effective overall.
Type - Kills - Losses - Kill/Loss
Sherman 47 - 20 - 2.35
Pershing 38 - 6 - 6.33
M46 12 - 8 - 1.5
Good research. Thanks for that.
The M46 was simply a modernized Pershing with a new engine pack, improved sights, and a modified muzzle brake and bore evacuater for the gun. Renamed "Patton" for some reason, it was still basically the same tank. If the statistics for M26 and M46 are combined, the tank accounted for half of the enemy armor destroyed. And did so with fewer losses than the M4.
Pershing's mobility was not poor, but it was heavier and wider than M4. So when most of the opposing armor was eliminated, and fighting shifted to more mountainous terrain late in the war, the M4 became preferred for negotiating narrow mountain roads. Many mistake this to mean the M4 was "preferred" over the Pershing. Not when enemy tanks were nearby it wasn't.
Did this research adjust for the fact that the US forces in Korea claimed to have destroyed about TEN TIMES the T-34s the North Koreans ever possessed? The total kill claims were over 3,000 T-34s (!!!) when the North Koreans started out the war with just 320 T-34s.
The figures I have for T-34/85 losses in Korea are these (a Warspot Article on the T-34/85 in Korea):
"Generally, they were destroyed from the air. 60 tanks were destroyed by napalm, 17 tanks with rockets, 7 by bombs, and 7 by cannon or machine gun fire. A T-34-85 tank destroyed by an AT-6 trainer aircraft is listed separately. In total, 102 tanks were knocked out by aircraft (42%). Fewer were destroyed from land: 39 of them were destroyed by American tanks, 13 with Bazookas, 5 with artillery: 57 tanks (24%) in total. One North Korean tank was disabled by mines, 5 were abandoned due to breakdowns, 15 tanks were abandoned for an unnamed reason, and 59 tanks (25% of the total) had absolutely no damage at all, and it was hard to determine why they were abandoned by crews.
Instead of 97 T-34/85s destroyed by US tanks, this article claims only 39. This article also includes US intelligence interviews with captured North Korean tank crews. It also says that despite being issued few AT rounds, there were instances where T-34/85s managed to take out both Pershings and M46s (though I've not read of them taking out a Centurion).
IIRC this is from the book M26/M46 Pershing by Osprey Publications. Great book. If the M26 would have been deployed a lot earlier it would have saved a lot of lives. Especially tank crews.
@@nationalsniper5413 Great book. Yes, I believe it would have. Frankly, I believe it is seldom recognized, despite the rather limited deployment in 1945, how many lives were likely saved by the T26E3's that were used, particularly those used by the 3rd AD.
Operating in defense and properly used, just one or two Tigers and/or Panthers could and often did cause significant Allied losses and slow the advance of attacking forces. Even late model Mk IV panzers could be difficult to dislodge. The 3rd AD Pershing's destroyed a number of Tiger I's, Panthers and Mk IV tanks (two or three Tiger I's, two Panthers, at least three Mk IV's) on their drive into Germany that otherwise would have caused the Spearhead tankers, their Sherman's, and their accompanying infantry a great deal more trouble, loss and pain. The Pershing tanks may not have changed the course of the war, but definitely helped to speed its end.
Best tank in Korea was the centurion.
Hands Down!
Edit: The M-26 was underpowered and it’s internal layout was cramped. They attempted to fix these issues with the M-47 but that was a “no go.” It wasn’t until the M-48 that the US Army fielded an excellent tank.
The m46 was better but hailed in comparison to the centurion
Pershing is probably one of the best looking tank ever.. The turret design looks so slick and futuristic..
I always liked the T29 more shame America didn't build them in production numbers
Totally agree - best looking tank every produced! (Although the Easy 8 is a very close second!)
the turret design was copied from the russian
@@yesterdayschunda1760 look up M6A2E1
@@iluminas2866 The t1 heavy tank with the bigger turret to fit the bigger gun? t29 is wayyy cooler.
The Pershing was alright for the time but the British Centurian also saw battle in Korea and was far more effective and in service far longer.
With several Variants and many more countries still using them
The Centurion series are rightly considered one of the finest tank designs of all time, and of the Cold War era. However, since the M-26 Pershing was the first in a long series of MBTs based on the same basic layout and design, culminating in the M-60 series - which was still serving in the 1990s GW One - it isn't really correct to claim that the Centurion had a longer service life. It is more-accurate to state that both designs were successful and long-lived.
@@GeorgiaBoy1961 Maybe so, but I think the stellar combat record of the Centurion and its variants probably raise it above the Pershing and its successors in terms of proven effectiveness.
@@alexlyster3459 - Judgement call, to be sure. There's no denying the success of the Centurion platform, one of the most-influential MBTs of the 20th century. The Patton series were very influential in the U.S., however, and for the allies who used it.
@@GeorgiaBoy1961 The Chinese ONLY worried about Centurion Tanks. Just as in Vietnam the North Vietnamese ONLY worried about the Australian Centurion Tanks. The ENEMY clearly has a BETTER IDEA of what to be afraid of than the US Army?
One of these old vets currently resides by our City Hall....An inspiring static display of the US Army.
Best Tank in Korea was the Centurion, Same as it was the Best Tank in Every War it was involved in between the late 40s to late 80s.
As you were talking about the Pershing and the T-35-85, I happened to have a game open that about tanks, etc, so I looked up the specs (in the game of course). Impressive tanks for their time
War thunder
@@TheGunBub absolutely
If you like tank gameplay, Hell Let Loose has really fun tank v tank combat. A good crew makes it like no other gamin experience I’ve had.
T-34*
I'm taking a shit as I write this
They chewed up those T34-85s like toys
Not about the Pershing but about the brutality of war..my Uncle was in the Korean war as an artillery officer. His position was being overrun. They spent all their small arms ammo and had to lower their artillery to ground level and fend off the Chinese forces with artillery rounds. He won the Silver Star for his bravery and command.
We had canister rounds for a 155. ball bearings the size of ping pong balls.
My late Grandpa was in Korea. Told me he hated the Pershing. Loved his Easy 8 because he could "hit whatever he wanted to" and the 90mm on the Pershing he felt was much more inaccurate. He'd usually then tell me the story of when he was at the bottom of a hill where the North Koreans were dug in. The only one they could usually see was a message runner that would dart in and out fom a position on the hill from time to time. The infantry had been trying to get him all morning, but had missed. He then proceeded to aim his Easy 8 76mm and when the guy next came out he "blew him to pieces." He never usually liked to discuss the war but it was usually that story and a story where he got a flamethrower infantyman to let him try his flamethrower out in exchange for letting him drive in his tank for a bit. Would always laugh about it knowing they both would've gotten in trouble.
Seems like another commenter heard that as well. He also mentioned changes were made to make up for its problems with a new name.
Uh ... yeah. What was your grandfather’s name? I hear so many of these stories online ... uncles, grandfathers etc. Yet from what I know they rarely talked about their actions in the wars.
@@fifthbusiness1678 Veterans can not like to talk about wars they've been through and still have a story or two that they feel they can mention to their families
Considering that the 76mm was easily the most accurate gun of its era yeah I think going to a different gun with slightly worse accuracy would be a little bit frustrating
@@fifthbusiness1678 this is the most brain damaged comment I've read. Yes, most vets don't like talking about the war. However occasionally they will share a story or two. Not discussing absolutely everything they did there and what they saw at every opportunity. If you a vet father you would know. Otherwise you're just willingly ignorant
My grandad was a Pershing crew member in Korea. He told me one time about his tank getting pinned down and they ran low on ammunition, and had to wait for their commander to come get them using more tanks. He would tell me stories all the time about his time over there. He experienced lots of things there. He always said, he didn’t regret having to go there, but would not chose to go back.
thanks for sharing
Keep up the great work 👍 been watching since 2015
Its interesting to hear that the Pershing had its first encounter just a few Kilometer away from my hometown.
Love your videos , come from Dark Seas. I think your incredible voice does not need music. It takes out the WW2 atmosphere that your voice creates.
Thanks for sharing, I enjoyed it.
I'm working on a video for my College Fraternity and I have a question. How do you guys get those 2nd photos to look like they're moving? Specifically the backgrounds and foregrounds being separates and just looks like there's some depth and motion. Thanks!
My father was a tank instructor at Ft Knox 1950-52 thankfully he was kept there to train tank crews and didn't get sent to Korea!
Complete Pershing battle history. That's awesome thanks
Exciting content, great presentation!
It amazes me the amount of information that was gathered from troops for us to know the last time a Pershing engaged the enemy during WW2.
General Rose has a hospital named after him here in Denver, Colorado.
You have a very interesting style of delivery. Nice work.
Another great enjoyable video! Thank you.
4:41
Press F for the guys still driving around in a Stuart in 1945
i thought that was surprising that the Pershing after being late and in low numbers for ww2 was still not available in numbers 5 years later in Korea
Reminds me of the mindset after the "Great War".
From what I have read, military posts were pulling static Tank displays off concrete slabs to ship over to Korea..
Well, the US learnt the hard way that nukes don't deter a determined dictator with strong foreign support
Somehow I really doubt they were pulling static tank displays to ship to Korea…
U.S. Army Ordinance was having some fuck ups looking for a replacement vehicle to counter the newer Soviet T-54s and IS-3s, The U.S. Army at this time were placing all of their focus on a new tank that can counter those new threats hence they weren't focusing on the M26s, not only that since the Korean War happened the blink of an eye the U.S. Army couldn't go full production like they did in WW2 so they used they amount of M4A3E8s, M26s, and M46s that they had and sent them, the M48A1 entered service in 1953 shortly after the cease fire to late to see any action, if it did I have a feeling it would've performed well in Korea.
Oh the video shows it. Didn't realize it took out so many Tigers in such a brief period.
Interesting video. I was fortunate enough to see one of the Pershings used to capture the bridge at 8:36
Outstanding!! Thank you!
The round that penetrated the gun mantle Tom fireball hit right in the optic port, a weak point where theres a hole on there armor for the gunsight to see through, it was honestly a luck first shot
Considering how the Pershing was practically immune from the front from Tigers and panthers I would say it was an extremely lucky shot
@@apersondoingthings5689 not sure where you got your info, "short" 88 was effective out to 500 meters, practically double that for the long 75 against the Pershing. They were plenty capable of punching through the upper and lower hull at respectable combat ranges
@@kingwein89 long 88mm the tiger two and one on the tiger 1 are different I use it to make differences. The Pershing was a designed heavy tank. It had heavier armor than the jumbo which was purpose built to stop German shorter 88mm and from farther out long 75mm. You might be confusing it with one of the prototypes but the Pershing has a similar armor scheme to that of IS2 which was pretty much immune from those guns as well
@@kingwein89 also the fact that the Pershing can out range the panther in tiger and pen them from longer ranges while being a little bit faster
worried about production hurting the Sherman production LOL. by the time the Pershing entered production the Sherman was already out in more numbers than the allies could ever use by the end of the war and that was obvious even then , the war was on the end stretch by the end of 44
Yes but it hadn't yet been decided if they were going to continue into the new Soviet block yet.
that statement wasn't entirely true. the pershing was untested. though it was not ground forces command that refused the pershing initially. it was front line command. the pershing never fully finished the trials commonly done for new tanks seeking standardization (meaning going from the T26 designation to the M26 designation). the 20 pershing's that were sent were a compromise to see how the pershing did in combat. they were never going to produce enough of the pershing in the last legs of the war to produce a significant results.
your tank docs are more interesting then the others. Keep up the good work🙂
Good show.
I do believe that's a Super Pershing in the cover photo. That's higher velocity 90mm.
My city has the only one remaining
Not a super Pershing
yup the long barreled version it most likely a T26E1 or some variation it had a higher velocity cannon
@@davidkrappenschitz253 Well you aren't wrong but Pretty much all long barreled pershing were nicknamed super pershing that particular one is the only super pershing to see combat
@@davidkrappenschitz253 The spaced armor was a field modification added upon its arrival to Europe, as you probably already know, I'm just mentioning it incase someone doesn't. The "Super Pershing" grew up as a T26E1 but, according to Hunnicutt's Pershing book, it was redesignated to the E4 before being sent to Europe. The "Super Pershing" uses a heavily modified standard T26E1 turret to house its new T15E1 cannon. After realizing it was not only too heavy and required an externally mounted spring to counter its weight but the breach also too long for the turret, a redesigned turret was used in the newer T26E4 prototypes along with a T15E2 cannon. Technically speaking, the T26E4 has a different gun and a redesigned turret to correctly fit a T15E2 cannon compared to the "Super Pershing". Despite this fact, they're both technically T26E4 tanks but only the one is the "Super Pershing".
That being said, the thumbnail of this video is a T26E4 (It says "T26E4" on the turret and lacks the external stabilizer). The photo @ 9:30 is of the "Super Pershing" after i's arrival to Europe and after its crew cut and welded a Panther's 80mm glacis onto it's mantlet. There are photos of the "Super Pershing" as a child, it stands out from the other T26 tanks because its vertical stabilizer is visible and has the designation of T26E1-1 written on the turret's side; this is the second common name of the "Super Pershing". It's simply a factory designation but if you're trying to order reinforcements from Amazon without using the name "Super Pershing" and only designations but wanted THE "Super Pershing" you'd be more technically accurate referring it to the T26E1-1 as opposed to the T26E4 or you'd be disappointed with the new models with the redesigned turret and T15E2 cannon.
Maybe you could cover the centurion tank during the Korean War.
agree, that was the proving ground for the Centurion.
They still don’t either.
Great video 📹
I can't imagine the "WTF" feeling some that just watched the shell they shot at a tank that just bounced off its plating
that wouldn't happen much, since the T-34/85 was pretty old at this point, and facing any heavy tank with a medium tank that was designed for a different purpose. Tankers would accept that.
and the T-34/85 still managed to knock out a bunch of those "mammoths"
Interesting to see tanks dug in on a reverse incline to increase barrel elevation and overcoming the obvious limitation of tanks in the role of supporting artillery. I had read of this but it's the first time I've seen imagery.
The M4 Sherman was designed to serve as indirect fire artillery when needed since those came with an extra set of sights and elevation indicator that mounted on top of the gun inside the turret. There's plenty of photos of them lined up resting on wood ramps made for that purpose, ramps of dirt pushed up by a M4 with a dozer blade, on the side of road embankments and backed into ditches. Their 75mm all-purpose gun was mounted on the 105mm howitzer carriage so it could be quickly swapped out for a 105 barrel when needed. Ordnance designed a kit for doing that in the field when armor commanders felt that a few 105's would come in handy when assaulting a village or fortified positions.
@ theyapsta - Since the Korean peninsula is so rugged, in general it isn't all that suited to fast-moving armored warfare. In those areas where tanks were useful in their traditional roles, they went ahead and performed their missions, but in places where the terrain was less-favorable, they struggled to find a role at times. One of the uses considered was to employ tank guns as de facto artillery. Since tanks are usually direct-fire line-of-sight weapons not equipped to serve as indirect fire artillery, this was compensated for by building ramps to allow increased elevation and range for their guns. The British innovated getting their Centurions up very steep mountains, and once there, their main guns proved quite useful in taking communist positions under fire.
Far as using tanks and tank destroyers as gun platforms for artillery, they were employed that way during the Italian campaign during WW2, to name one example. When they weren't engaged in traditional armor-type missions, they did artillery support. Like Korea, Italy is a rugged and highly-mountainous country.
Enjoyed your video and so I gave it a Thumbs Up
Thank You !! Your video is like listening to my late Father and uncle, as they talked about the Pershing in Europe.
You are repeating just what they Saw !!!
I would like to see video about the 4th armored division. My Dad was am M4 driver, awarded the bronze star decorated for heroism. Wounded, layer on the beach 3 days, died in 83 with German shrapnel still in his legs
My dad was a tracked vehicle mechanic with the 4th Armored Division. He made it to an area between Nancy and Metz where he was shelled and severely wounded. He remained in a coma for almost a year. He died on his 70th birthday in 1979. It is very likely that our dads trained with and knew each other. I still have dad's graduation book with all the names and photos. Let me know and we could compare notes.
God bless all the brave but terrified souls that stepped on the beach that day. They truly are the greatest generation.
Cheers
Terry
@@machinist5828 Dad was wounded at "the meat grinder", siegfried line
So which was it? Was he wounded and laid on a beach for three days or was he wounded at the Siegfried line?
Also why would he lay on a beach for three days that was secured by his own forces on the first day?
@@pagansmc13 awaiting transport to ship, he had medical care there
@@pagansmc13 my mom kept a scrapbook of all the news paper clippings, interesting to thumb through it, but so delicate now I have to be very careful with it
Tanks. There were way more M26's in Europe than I thought.
Third Herd! Had no idea what town you were talking about until I saw the twin spires of the Koln cathedral..
Great narration brah . I remember this tank at 2nd Army corps on Ft Hood
M46, m24s, m26, and easy eights are all extremely cool tanks from that war
I may have an easy 8 obsession
🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
That last ww2 one was actually a t26e4 superpershing, an experimental pershing with a longer t15e1 90mm gun, which was up armored on the field when it was decided that this was a vehicle they needed to not lose
Thanks
good vid
love the Pershing, first encountered it in company of heroes 1 (video game)
Under powered engine and an unreliable transmission. Hence why it was replaced double quick.
All heavy tanks were unreliable back then. Remember, the T34 was a MEDIUM tank. The Soviets had tanks that were far heavier during WW II.
🏆🏆🏆👍🇺🇲🙏
Thank you for sharing
BIG TALK
"In favor of the more powerful M47 Patton"
immediately shows M4 Sherman
This battle took place on Aug. 17, 1950. The Chinese didn't enter the war until Oct. 19, 1950 so the Marines were fighting North Koreans only. If you do a search for "US 1st Marine Tank Battalion Korea 1950" you will find a link for their Korean War history, from their departure at the Marine storage depot in Barstow, California, to their arrival on the Korean peninsula to their exit from the Chosin Reservoir.
I noticed that immediately...that if there were Chinese tanks fighting in southern South Korea in the early parts of the war it's news to me! The statement was repeated several times.
@@emintey Pretty sure is was n
North Korean tanks not Chinese. The data doesn't make sense.
@@Jakezillagfw I hate to say it openly, but it needs to be said. I had stopped watching these videos because they were riddled with errors, but I watched this one after a long time and sure enough right off the bat there was this glaring error. Also, the video seldom seems to match up with the narration as it's spoken, and the voice narrator just isn't pleasant to listen to. I'm done with them.
@@emintey oo
I mean the Chinese did give the North the tanks. The Chinese got it and had plenty to hand out during that period
Didn't stand a chance but pushed us back nearly to the 38th parallel from the Yalu river.
That was McArthur’s , mot the Pershing’s. If not for his machoism in approaching China so closely they would have never sent troops into Korea.
At a capped amount of force. Had we been allowed to use the entirety of our military it would have been different. This is arguably the first of many wars the US went in half assed and neutered thanks to politics.
@@Carbiniz3r We shouldn't have been there in the first place
@@MrChiangching Well we couldn't just let commies be commies, could we?
@@Carbiniz3r You think the entire PLA was in Korea do you?
I like these documents, can you do a T-29 Heavy tank or T54E1 documentary next?
I like the guy at 10:19 when the broken tree gets tossed around, 😆
Give that man a field commission.
He's Butter Bar material .👍
Armour may not be described as powerful. That used here was of a newly introduced alloy which also allowed lighter guns, or larger. This alloy permitted the exceptional penetration of of the Grand Slam and the Disney bombs that ended so much of Germany's super hardened protection of their super weapons in 1944.
ah man, the pershing didn't really shine in ww2 for its small service periode, but its maked all good again in korea, but the t34 85 suprises me, but we also have to consider the doctrine they fighting in and the generell qualitiy and equipment of the tank, also the crew training is very important, but i still like the t34 85
The T-34-85 isn’t equal in coolness to the Pershing tho
@@notafrog2040 i agree, i think in ww2 the m24 chaffee, m18 hellcat, m26 pershing and the m36 jackson were the nicest tanks
Base design for the M48 and M60 that served until the 1980's
t34 series tanks were GARBAGE ! I don't understand how in recent times it is so skewed to some sort of mythical super tank. soviets through hundreds and hundreds of t34s at the Germans in mass production and they died in droves until German tanks were just overwhelmed. t34s were killed in Korea by easy 8 Shermans at 2 to 1 the new m46 plagued with breakdowns was even higher and then of course the m26 having the highest KD ratio . the m60 is nothing more than an improved m26 . easy 8 Shermans were still on the battlefield all the way into the 1970s . French upgraded m50 and m51s are ww2 easy 8 Shermans just upgraded and sent to Israel. and as we see in modern times Russia just builds JUNK !
History: this was a great tank!
World of Tanks: meh... Nerfed
I'm truly blown away as someone who always though that here we are with the weakest tank in the fight with the M4 Sherman and come to find out we had the most baddass tank of WW2 with the Pershing being able to take on a King Tiger and Russian T-34s.
Also at 7:45 its insane that that Pershing put THREE ROUNDS THROUGH THAT PANTHER, and CREW MEMBERS STILL MADE IT OUT WTFFF
Not ALL of them. More than half were killed. The object is to KILL the tank. Which it did easily.
Over penetration. Panthers had poor side armour, so an AP round that goes through and hits nothing vital, just keeps going.
@@johncodmore just a FYI, that happens if it's a normal AP round not if it's an AP round with explosive filler. So in this case of the Pershing if it fired T33 AP-T rounds without explosive filler then it would probably just go straight through the other side of the panther but if it fired M82 APC/HE-T rounds then the crew would be either killed or wounded by the shrapnel and the ammunition racks would probably cook off as well (rounds with explosive filler are designed to explode a certain distance inside the tank)
I saw a TV History documentary on this. Each Pershing tank would machine gun the turret of its companion tank by rotating its turret. This cleared the Hordes of North Korean Infantry that were swarming the tanks trying to pry open the tank turrets to drop grenades into it. It was like clearing Lice from your body.
Great video as always, I do have a bit of a bone to pick though. The Americans never engaged the Chinese at Chinchu (now jinju). That was the North Korean Army with T-34s about August 17th. Chinese didnt enter until late November. Surely they gave the Chinese hell later in the conflict but not at Chinju. Thanks for the vid
I love your videos and all your channels, you put out a lot of great content! I must humbly ask that you don't use music that has awful helicopter flyby/drone/drone/buzz sounds that really only make me keep pausing the video to see where the sound is coming from such as at 1:55. Again, love your stuff, but that music has got to go. I know music libraries cost alot, (i worked in post for Lionsgate among others) but there's more and more CC attribution/CC-Zero or even public doman music than ever, in addition to paid libraries.
Thanks for another rad video!!!😀
My father was 2nd Armor back in the 50's. He taught me how to drive a tank before a car. Patton was right!
Patton was murdered so the communist could live.
Patton was 100% right
@@Lord_Humungus few know what that means.
@@DrDirt-fk5ls not enough sadly
@@Lord_Humungus my money is on America.
there are some misconceptions in the beginning. it wasn't the leaders of the ground forces that didn't want the pershing. it was the front line commanders that basically stated that the pershing has not fully completed the normal trials for a new machine to be standardized as such they felt it was untested and did not want the tank. ultimately the pershing was the fastest of the tanks developed by the US as far as the development stage is concerned (it took 18 months to fully develop), and numerous flaws were not really noticed until korea. one of which the M46 shared. that flaw was to "run away" from the crew's control when traveling down hill. there were other flaws that pulled m26's from being the primary tank used in korea. they pulled M4A3(76)wHVSS (aka M4A3E8's) tanks out of mothballs to temporarily replace the failing M26's untill the M46 and M47 tanks could be produced in enough numbers.
Thanks James! I just thought I knew something about tanks until I read yours & a few others here. I decided to keep my mouth shut! :)
This runaway feature you talk about is a lot more common than you think in vehicles it's where the engine doesn't break through the transmission to slow the whole vehicle down automatic transmissions will let the vehicle speed up cuz it's freewheeling and the engine while idling won't slow it down because they're not locked together. The torque converter can lock so everything stays hooked together it could do so by hydraulic pressure or it could be done by electric solenoids but that didn't get really popular until the late seventies early 80s usually in the US spurred on by drag cars wanting to have the torque converter lock up and by other cars and trucks on the road wanting their converter to lock up so it didn't slip and heat up the fluid and ruin it
It took less than a year. Ordnance had the medium T-23 OK'ed for a limited production run in early 1943. Congress was pressing for a heavy tank before the 1944 Fall Elections so Ordnance made a larger version of the T-23 to hold a larger turret with a 90mm gun then made it bigger with more armor to become the T-26 by December of '43. It was checked out by the Army that asked for some changes with it being ordered into production in February of '44. The new assembly plant was ready by September but didn't have any parts due to the subcontractors experiencing delays having machinery made and acquiring the materials needed to produce the parts. Those started dribbling in by November where 17 were assembled and 26 in December. Congress had ordered for the first 20 made to be shipped to Europe ASAP so Ordnance tested the first 3 made by running them around a test track for 500 miles. One made it without any problems while the other 2 lost road wheels after 300 miles. Ordnance declared that was normal wear and tear so said they were ready to go as-is. That trip was delayed while the railroads rounded up the high capacity flatcars to take them to the port. Those arrived in February of '45 without trained crews, mechanics, special tools or any replacement parts so the armor commanders naturally refused to accept any for use. They finally did in March to get Ike out of hot water with General Marshall and Congress.
The M26 flaws were discovered during it's limited use at the end of the war. Those were corrected before the Korean Conflict started where a few more were found. One was that the transmission would burn itself out when trying to go up steep hills and road grades so two M4's were used to tow it up those to relieve the strain on the transmission.
@@billwilson3609 again that is full development. That means from the start of the plans starting to be drawn up to complete production and deployment. So if the t23 was the medium version planned that would mean my statement is wrong in the opposite direction. If it isn't then I am fairly close to accurate. Either way my point still stands that the m26 just could not be ready any sooner than it was. Not that it was blocked by anyone.
@@signolias100 The Army had the 55 ton M6 being ran thru trials in 1942 when the armor commanders and planners decided it would be more practical to use the M4 for anything they needed since it was light enough to cross most bridges in Europe plus the existing bridging laid down by army engineers. The M6 was mechanically unreliable plus had a problem with tracks breaking due to the weight so was kept stateside at training bases for testing various turret/gun designs. Ordnance had no plans to design a new heavy tank since the Army didn't want one so was focused on designing a replacement for the M4 that was slightly heavier with more armor and lower in height by placing the transmission and final drive in the rear. They ended up with two versions the T-23 with one using the Ford GAN V8 with a GM Hydramatic and one that used an electric drive with each sprocket driven by an electric motor. The Army liked it the best since those allowed the tank to turn around in place and go the same speeds in forward and reverse. They ordered 248 made for further testing while Ordnance got busy super-sizing the V8 powered T-23 into the T-26 after Congress demanded they get a heavy tank into combat before the 1944 Fall Elections. Congress began agitating for one after the Tiger1 showed up in North Africa in December of 1942 and twisted the arms of the War Department to get busy designing one in early 1943 by threatening to reduce their funding.
Subscribed
Dude i Like your channel but you have to fix the Title! China never got that far south during the war. That Tank battle happened during the earlier phase of the war with the North Koreans only China had not entered the war yet.
Trust and believe
You forgot a part, the Pershing was a poorly made tank and got regularly outperformed by tanks like the Sherman. Jeez there were so many heavy tank designs during that time but none of them ever worked for the US.
China entered the war first by sending their own ethnic North Koreans to join the North Korean army as a thank you gesture to North Korea for helping Communist China in the Chinese Civil War. So while they were not ethic Han Chinese (the largest ethnic group in China )that you are accustomed to seeing on tv, there were many Chinese already fighting. China has many ethnic groups, 56 in total, they’re not just one homogeneous group of people. China’s official declaration of war however , against “ American aggression “ as this conflict is called in China , was the when the Han Chinese entered the war. At the border between North Korea and China.
@@rules4mebutnot4thee12 bullshit
By N. Korea's books 📚
Kim un, the maker of the Taco created the first tank in 2020.
So we are all wrong.
😄 🤣
Uh, the M24's were encountered by the North Koreans, not the Chinese. The Chinese had not entered the war yet. It is doubtful that any of the chinese t34 tank commanders ever saw an M24. They certainly saw the Pershing as it was part of task force Drysdale at Chosen.
Another error was showing Grant tank production while speaking of Shermans. Really, making a video with such inaccuracies reveals poor research.
China entered the war first by sending their own ethnic North Koreans to join the North Korean army as a thank you gesture to North Korea for helping Communist China in the Chinese Civil War. So while they were not ethic Han Chinese (the largest ethnic group in China )that you are accustomed to seeing on tv, there were many Chinese already fighting. China has many ethnic groups, 56 in total, they’re not just one homogeneous group of people. China’s official declaration of war however , against “ American aggression “ as this conflict is called in China , was the when the Han Chinese entered the war. At the border between North Korea and China.
China entered the war first by sending their own ethnic North Koreans to join the North Korean army as a thank you gesture to North Korea for helping Communist China in the Chinese Civil War. So while they were not ethic Han Chinese (the largest ethnic group in China )that you are accustomed to seeing on tv, there were many Chinese already fighting. China has many ethnic groups, 56 in total, they’re not just one homogeneous group of people. China’s official declaration of war however , against “ American aggression “ as this conflict is called in China , was the when the Han Chinese entered the war. At the border between North Korea and China.
@@rules4mebutnot4thee12 Again, even the 'the People's Volunteer Army' did not join in until October of 1950 well after the M24's were replaced.
i served on the M-48 90mm main gun in vietnam. a crew of 5-7 52 ton. 30 mph 750 H.P LZ oasis, LZ Radcliff 4th armored div.
It's a beautiful tank. There is a very example at the Patton Tank museum out side of Palm Springs California.
IIRC only the North Koreans had T34 tanks. Not the Chinese. Early in the Korean War the M4E8 Sherman superseded the M26. Because the M26 was underpowered and unreliable. After the T34 threat was defeated a tank with a 90mm gun wasn’t needed.
An Upgunned Sherman could easily take out any T-34
@@partygrove5321 …. I’m not criticizing the 76mm gun. How many T-34’s were destroyed by Sherman’s with 76mm guns. How many destroyed by Pershing’s with 90mm guns? Pershings were sent to Korea. Shermans made it there. Early on the Pershings were withdrawn from combat. Were Shermans destroyed by T-34/85’s? I don’t know.
@@Idahoguy10157 I don't know either. But your are correct, Pershings were better tanks than Shermans for tank to tank fighting
@@Idahoguy10157 well all the issues the M26 pershing had was fixed with the introduction of the M46 Patton.
When the Norks got materiel from the Soviets, Stalin was happy to include T-34-85s. US leaders assumed if they gave Syngman Rhee heavy weapons he'd invade the north. So when tanks swept into South Korea in 1950, the south didn't have much to stop them. It was up to the US to throw in whatever armor was handy at the time.
Not Chinese, but North Korean tanks.
Great video, and the best comments section ever.
I know a gentleman that was with an armored unit in Korea during the war. He got stuck in a Sherman or a variant of it, all it took was one round from a ChiCom tank and it took out him and his crew.
Please can you do one about the centurion tank.
Great video. I knew that the Pershing went to the European Theater but didn't know that it actually saw combat. It really did play a key role in Korea though. I didn't know how much it played in the 48 & the 60s development. My initial entry into the Nat'l Guard had me as a M-60 driver. Was fun but wanted to be closer to home which led me to be a Combat Engineer officer. To date, I still love the 60
Pretty sure I saw a video of one in a city fighting a panther?
the M48 and M60 got very little from the M26 save for the torsion bar suspension and engine/transmission placement. the m48 has very little in common as far as appearance other wise. it is safe to say the m46 and m47 were directly inspired by the m26. as for the M60 there is practically nothing in common as the turret came from a prototype that had nothing in common with the m26 at all.
The Pershings sent to Europe knocked out/destroyed a known total of fourteen German tanks and an unknown number of objects off in the distance that resembled tanks. The M26 was too slow to keep up with advancing forces so was kept at the rear and called up when needed. Their commanders scanned the flanks and directed fire at anything that looked like a tank or TD.
@@billwilson3609 and yet of the three confirmed times the Americans came across tiger tanks (the tank it was meant to fight) only one time was it tiger versus Pershing, and the Pershing lost that fight. The other two times it was shermans once the Sherman beat the tiger, and the other doesn't count, since the tigers were on rail cars. The Pershing's most notable success was the duel with the panther.
@@signolias100 Belton Cooper also complained about the poor armor used on the M26 since his maintenance shop repaired the ones that got shot up. Ordnance decided to shut him up by allowing him to up-armor the sole Super Pershing sent to Europe since the armor commanders showed no interest in using it. He added 5 tons which made it nose heavy so wanted to add more in the rear "to balance" the tank. Ordnance said no out of fear that any more added weight would burn out the transmission after traveling at a crawl for the first few miles. The Army got a unit to try it out so once crewed, crawled away to take on the Germans. It reportedly hit two targets that resembled tanks from a distance of 1,500 yards before being knocked out by a Panzer 4 that put a round thru the side of the hull. It was hauled to a vehicle dump where it disappeared after the war, presumably cut up for scrap.
Congress ordered 9,000 M26's to be produced with Ordnance stopping production at 2,200 due to being mechanically unreliable. Ordnance went to work designing a more powerful engine and robust transmission for it. Those were ready in 1950 so the Army had 1,309 M26's sent to shops to be reworked and rebranded as the M46 Patton. Ordnance also had designed a different turret that was ready later to turn the M46 into the M47 Patton.
Few things to add: US Army wasn't rally surprised that Tiger and Panther showed up - it was just the power and armor. And Tigers first showed in Africa in 1942, so both Brits and Americans knew exactly what thy dealt with, especiallly after on Tiger was captured. But even then the panic was short-lived because everyone worked on better guns and tanks. Brits had ready 17-pounder i Challenger was already tested, with Firefly and Achilles also available soon. Americans had their 76mm Sherman and M10 ready soon after...
T26 was ordered in May 1943, but no one was rushing to both produce it and then field it because tests in 1944 were a failure and besides it's weight was huge problem not only in ETO (where bridges were mostly small and old), but there was precious few rail wagons able to carry it IN THE CONTINENTAL USA and last but not least it could not be unloaded from any transport in any captured CONTINENTAL USA ports, it was so heavy.
M26 was never considered replacement for M4.
Excellent, i always wanted to know what happened to the other Pershing Tanks as i only knew the story for one or two of them during WW2.
Love ur vids, very well made and narrated. One thing though: the German city is called Cologne (pronounced Colown) in English nowadays, not the original latin "Colonia". No biggie.
that tank fits its name sake. because the guy that they name it after had fought in the Spanish American War all the way to fighting in W.w.1 and he was considering one of the best general that fought for this country from the turn of the century to fighting against poncho vea to. W.w.1 and fun fact he almost became general Pattons brother in law
I loved the until-the-internet impossible-to-find factory scenes of assembling M3 Grant tanks (when this video was talking about a replacement for the M4 Shermans). I regard this as a mistake in everyone's favor, as the rest of the internet will correct any confusion created. Loved this video, overall. Thank you.
Me likey this content man, Keep up the good work 🤙🏻
The Pershing was the precursor to the modern 20th and 21st century main battle tank. It had a sleek, futuristic look that was way ahead of its time. All of the modern Russian, American and Nato tanks have a similar look to the Pershing. This tank was truly way ahead of its time. Impressive!
It was the Centurion and the only inovation it had was a compact power pack (engine and transmission).
The turret was average, similar to German Panther.
Or a longer and more rounded Sherma turret.
Pershing and M47 (in the 50's) had 2 crew in front (a cop pilot)
Something droped by Britain and Russia in the late 40's.
Only thing trully inovative was the Abrams but even then others had something similar (leopard 2).
Pershing designwas usefull, M48 and M60 Patton were inspired by it, but not only.
Leopard 1 and AMX-30 were different, similar layout, but driver on right side. And way more lighter armour.
Cheiftain was very different.
Russian tanks dint look like the Pershing. More like a T-44 (this one had a side ways engine, something adopted by all T series tank after him, making the tank shorter and 1 driver).
@@76456 Thanks for the feedback. You obviously know your stuff! I still think the Pershing looked completely different from any tank all the way from 1945 right up to the early 1960s. For me, it seems its styling and silhouette were about 15 years ahead of its time. Just my opinion though.
This the second episode that you referred to Chinese communist forces in Korea in 1950. But the Chinese did not enter the war until much later when the US forces approached the Yalu River.
China entered the war first by sending their own ethnic North Koreans to join the North Korean army as a thank you gesture to North Korea for helping Communist China in the Chinese Civil War. So while they were not ethic Han Chinese (the largest ethnic group in China )that you are accustomed to seeing on tv, there were many Chinese already fighting. China has many ethnic groups, 56 in total, they’re not just one homogeneous group of people. China’s official declaration of war however , against “ American aggression “ as this conflict is called in China , was the when the Han Chinese entered the war. At the border between North Korea and China.
Accounts of Remagen often fail to mention that the T26E3 tanks were ordered not to cross the bridge because it had been damaged in the fighting.
Right, "didn't stand a chance"... History begs to differ.
"Colonia"? Are we attacking the Roman army? Most English speakers call this Cologne -- as in "eau de cologne" -- like kuh-LONE. He could have used something approximating the German pronunciation of Köln, but no, he gives us the old Latin name for the city. I do wonder where our narrator picks up his unique pronunciations.
You stole my thunder on that account . Yes mispronouncing Cologne once ok but so many times . Irking as well as puzzling .
I’m pretty sure the voice is computer generated. They have gotten really good but not perfect.
@@gyrsriddle Yes, indeed. Good point -- that is a possibility. However, Dark Docs shows his location as the USA. Most times, I see an English speaking computer voice used when the creator lacks English fluency. His grammar, syntax, and enunciation are generally quite good -- suggesting someone with good fluency in North American English -- except for the occasional flop in a proper noun. If he's using a computer voice, he fooled me. In my experience with computer voices, if a word is not in the computer's lexicon, the computer will try to say it phonetically. In that case, I'd have expected a computer voice to say something like "co-log-nee."
I agree I feel like it could just be a non native English speaker making the scripts then handing them off to someone to narrate hence the weird pronouncement of words and in proper usage of others
You get a lot of that on CZcams.
I think the T34 tank crews were North Koreans. The Chinese army were mostly infantry and they got involved after November 1950 when the North Koreans retreated from Pyongyang.
"Fireball" might not have been the best idea for the name of the tank.
My grandfather Wilbur A. Poore was a Pershing tank commander in Korea ! Always said they were hell to maintain but whenever the shots started going off there was no place he felt safer in.
The Pershing tank is such a beautiful tank!
It was the tank design used in my bags of army men when I was small! loved it, beautiful lines