Cannon Fodder | BA-64 in North Korean Service
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 02. 2022
- After the birth of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) on September 8th, 1948, the Soviet Union, which supported the small communist nation on the Korean peninsula, began to provide several thousand military vehicles to form the Korean People's Army - Ground Force (KPA-GF). Among these vehicles, there were some BA-64 light armored reconnaissance all drive armored cars. These had proven themselves during the Second World War when used appropriately.
If you liked this video, please consider donating on Patreon or Paypal!
Patreon: / tankartfund
Paypal: paypal.me/tankencyclopedia
Article: tanks-encyclopedia.com/ba-64-...
Sources:
wwiiafterwwii.wordpress.com/2...
Vehicle Design, The Concept of Recontextualization - Åberg Adam, Blekinge Institute of Technology (2013)
stoneforest.ru/look/cars/ba-6...
bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/bbs/vie...
Reddit: / tankencyclopedia
TE Shop: www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/Goo...
Our website: www.tanks-encyclopedia.com
Gaming News Website: www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/games/
Facebook: / tanksencyclopedia
Twitter: / tanksenc
Discord: / discord
Email: tanks.encyclopedia@gmail.com
An article and script by Arturo Giusti
Narrated by Sosoniaru
Edited by Galahad
A BA-64 destroyed by the 90mm AP shell of a M26 Pershing, oof.
Like a knife through wet tissue paper.
The pershing killed a child
take this you nasty go-cart
A good descriptor of overkill
I am guessing they had trouble identifying the vehicle (particularly afterwards).
The BA-64 was basically an armored jeep. It was underpowered, top heavy, and the suspension was over burdened in off road conditions. Russian success with the BA-64 is partly due to them not facing recoilless and rocket launchers until later in the second world war. They probably also used it correctly as a scout vehicle and for convoy protection instead of as an armored car for infantry support.
The North Korean's probably used it incorrectly because they lacked alternatives and they didn't understand that they would be facing an enemy armed with large numbers of recoilless rifles and rocket launchers. While the UN forces used recoilless rifles and rocket launchers in large numbers because they lacked the supply infrastructure to support tanks and anti-tank guns. Recoilless rifles and rocket launchers were cheap and easy to supply to UN troops and were valuable in stopping North Korean and Chinese armor in mountainous terrain that restricted their ability to maneuver.
BA-64 was designed after Soviets saw how effective German armored cars and light tanks were and as a response to it. It was a cheaper version of Sdkfz 221. And you dont need recoilless guns or rocket launchers to destroy that. AT rifles were far better at that. Soviets didnt mass produce PTRS before the war because they expected German armor to be thicker.
Also, earlier versions of bazookas did poorly in Korea because of how hard it was to hit its sloped armor at an right angle.
Another note: The Soviet BA-64’s never had to face HMG’s either. With 4-15mm an M2 or 12.7mm would have no trouble with them.
There were no Chinese armour, and UN forces did not stop them in the mountains. Quite the opposite in fact.
@@dabo5078 - Wrong! The Chinese and North Koreans had t-34/85 tanks, IS-2 tanks, and SU-76s.
@@rogerpennel1798 The Chinese didn't. Go ask any veteran of the Chinese spring offensive. None of them saw any Chinese tanks. Are you telling me you are somehow "right"? The Chinese beat the UN forces all the way to Seoul and beyond using light infantry. If the soviets were more willing to supply the Chinese army with trucks and tanks one could theorize that they might have pushed the UN forces off the peninsular all together. The only thing that prevented the Chinese from advancing was logistics problems.
The North Koreans never truly take anything out of service (unless the scrap is used for economic stimulus), BA 64s are no doubt sitting is storage to be theoretically used if needed, the Russians do something similar with T55s and T64s. However, the ability of both governments to return such vehicles to operation is questionable.
I will agree on the DPRK, but Russia would absolutely be able to recondition their reserve fleet. They originally built the vehicles and are familiar with them, and have the technical know-how and facilities to do the work. Russia sells a lot of older equipment to other countries, much likely comes from their own stocks. They also have been continually upgrading their old T-72s over the last decade.
Edit: this comment was written before the war. It was not written to say that Russia should fix up it's old tanks for service in Ukraine, which would be a dumb idea! It was only to convey that Russia has the ability to reactivate it's reserve vehicles, which it has been doing for years for the purpose of selling them off to other countries. I'm getting pissed off at people replying and taking me out of context!
@@B52Stratofortress1 the real question is whether or not it would be worth it for the Russians to rearm all those outdated armored vehicles
@@prylosecorsomething3194 My comment was actually written before the war... It aged badly.
@@B52Stratofortress1 Hey, at least you know and admit it! Much better than many Russophiles I've seen claiming that Russia's brimming with tens of thousands of reserve tanks, ready to go whenever "the gloves come off" for the 43rd time...
@@Vhalikuporamee447 They probably have em. But old 60's and 70's tanks aren't relevant on the battlefield today. They'd get blown up just the same as the modernized T-72s and T-90s are. Who knows what condition they're in after sitting so long too. Vehicles are made to be used. Sitting does them no favors. My comment was based on Russia having the technical knowledge to rebuild their older vehicles. Which they do have.
I love armored cars, even with all tech and advances in the military field, a armored car in the right place can help change the wave of the battle giving information for HQ even with drones
What is MRAP, for 100?
@@JMiskovsky "Mine-resistant ambush protection"
Excellent video as always, good job to the team!
Just a couple remarks if I may :
- 3:09 The open top turret was probably more for reconnaissance purposes, but allowed firing the gun on a AA configuration.
- 0:38 12:20 both of those otherwise great illustrations have a small error, the sight of the machine gun shouldn't stick out at all.
3:30 Degyataryov model 27; informally known, due to the flat circular magazine on top of the receiver, as "Stalin's record player".
Now I want to see an actual record player made to look like one.
more like british cousin who come from soviet union
Ah yes, the russian dinner plate
@@jamesedwardzerrudo4522 kek, we had some Lewis MGs left from Civil war. Watch the parade of 1942, there's something like a battalion armed with those.
A great example of "use equipment for what it was designed to do"
I always wondered why recoilless rifles fell out of favor, glad to see them coming back
Well, the Soviets kept theirs around for a long time, but the main complaint is the ammunition. The shells are more complicated to make because they have to have the special venting, they don't seal well because they are not solid metallic casings so they tend to degrade in storage, and they really don't work better than rockets or missiles for light antitank purposes. They also use an enormous amount of chemical propellants which are not always the most plentiful resources in wartime. If rifled, they are suboptimal for HEAT warheads without expensive counter-rotational tech included, and if smoothbore, they tend to be inaccurate at the longer ranges. Their main selling point in the 1940s and 1950s was that they were lighter than conventional antitank guns, but once it became clear that infantry guided antitank missiles could carry better warheads more accurately over greater distance for no more bulk, they were clearly obsolete as antitank weapons and still suboptimal as artillery in general. Doesn't make them useless, but for most militaries most of the time since the 1970s, they really don't find them the most useful either.
Recoilless rifles and rocket launchers struggled to penetrate tanks tanks during the 60's. Guided missiles became favored for dealing with tanks during the 70's and 80's. The problem is guided missiles have become too expensive to use in anything other than an anti-tank role. Which necessitated the reintroduction of recoilless rifles to deal with enemy pillboxes. Also ATGMs don't work well in cold weather. So alpine, special forces, and arctic troops need recoilless instead.
@@rogerpennel1798 Very true, but unguided rockets are competitive for the role of lightweight payload delivery systems. Bazookas and RPGs have long been popular with infantry for engaging non-armored targets of all kinds. Rockets can be very cheap and tend to be more stable in long-term storage than the recoilless ammunition as well. Conversely, making a precise recoilless rifle is easier than making a precise unguided rocket, so it is all about the trade-offs and the specific concerns of the procuring military. I would definitely aim to have both systems in my military; Better to have a weapon and find it mostly redundant than not have a weapon when you really wish you did!
@@genericpersonx333, another point against the recoilless rifle is fragility of the ammo. Rounds are easily damaged to the point of being no longer usable.
@@Chilly_Billy Indeed! Thanks for emphasizing that. I had a lamp my Grandfather made from an American recoilless shell casing that had been bent badly by a falling crate. I thought it was a proper shell that someone had drilled a lot of decorative holes into, but nope, it was a 105mm recoilless casing that had to be junked for want of structural integrity.
I find it incredibly amusing that a M26 Pershing absolutely leveled a BA-64
Interesting and excellently well made video. Also I love the background music. My nostalgia kicked in after realizing what it was.
hearing a calm voice explain details about the dp28 is relaxing for me
The BA-64 was also used during the Vietnam war. I remember seeing one on a travel documentary fitted with an anti- mine magnetic device that was supposed to explode fake US tree bombs on the Ho Chi Mihn trail. The guide also said it supposedly made you sterile from the strong electro -magnetic field.
BA-64 made you sterile?!
@@unknowncommenter6698 Nah, probably agent orange.
718 was kept at the Conneticutt Armor Museum in Danbury but since has gone somewhere else. I actually was able to examine it and take measurements and my brother and I build a working replica on an M38 jeep chassis for reenacting on the west coast.
Good to hear your narration again soso.
He and Stan are awesome :D
@@ThroneOfBhaal I was disappointed that they thought their English wasn't good enough and were looking for someone else because stan and soso had been here since the start
@@gustavvonstal6073 But their English is great! Hell it's better than mine in some cases and I'm a native. :P Besides, the accent is pleasing to listen to, as is the obvious dedication to the topic! :)
A Pershing took a shot at a BA-64? Christ, talk about overkill XD
Even though the engagement was won we lost some money in the process
@@decimated550 basically war
good work, thank you.
Very little on the KPA is available, so this was a real treat for anyone curious about their operations.
Very knowledgeable and informative video. Thankyou !
is it me or do i hear Minecraft music in the background
BRO I REALISED THAT RIGHT AWAY TOO
Hahaha I did too, so I looked if someone did it also. Glad to see it happened to others
Yeah I noticed that
By late war German infantry squads operated with anti tank wepons notably panzershrek and the small panzerfaust.
Based on a captured German armored car... yes, that's definitely very evident. That's exactly what I thought the first time I saw one.
Used correctly, it was probably a fairly sneaky recon vehicle...with the right amount of camo, it would look like a large bush.
And also offers the same protection as one.
@Random Guy as a bush or an armored vehicle?
No Dshk in BA-64?
BA-64D
11:03
love the minecraft music lol
Have sat inside one of the captured BA64B from Korea. In fact it is the one pictured at 9:00.
718 last I checked is with the Museum of American Armor in NY.
6:00 zooming to what's already low quality image didn't show that well inside YT video
anyone notice the minecraft like music in the background or am i just tripping
Minecraft music in the background or am I going crazy
I hear Minecraft music too lol
I can't help but listen to the Minecraft music in the background, it's such an odd but surprisingly pleasant choice of background music for the video.
Arigato Gozaimasu.
That minecraft music in the background hahaha
👍😎
Hope for T-44 video
This is a great video but I'm really fixated on the background music and the places I've heard it, if anyone knows the name or other uses lmk
It's the Minecraft OST!
@@TanksEncyclopediaYT Hey thanks for responding no wonder it sounded so familiar, great content keep it up btw!
The narator accent kinda makes me wonder...is the narator Indonesian, if I may ask?
Against infantry or for scouting purpose it could probably still have some use, but damn me if I were caught in one in a war zone voluntarily. As much as I like armor I also would never want to crew the shit storm magnet vehicles are, much better and safer as a low priority infantryman if you ask me. Sure infantry isn't without its drawbacks but hey.. At least I would not be a priority target.
In the 21st century, no, it couldn't still have some use. A vehicle like this is nothing but a death-trap. You are FAR safer advancing on foot than in a shitbox like this that was already obsolete in 1942.
Meant for unobtrusive scouting and nothing else. Replaced motorbikes. Keep so small the bazookas can´t hit it.
9:26 That's just unnecessary bullying! Jesus. Like trying to open a soup can with a hand grenade!
Just yesterday I saw some photos of a parade in North Korea. the gap between north and south is noticeable
I just really want to see a K2 black panther just get to work on north korean MBTs
@@RepublicanGuardManThey'd get punctured by Bulsae-5 atgms, SK military knows K2 armor is too weak to stop them. Guess what? Even older Chonma-216 has Bulsae-5 racks.
The Minecraft background music really makes this video.
War Thunder needs to Do a Overhaul adding many early War Vehicles.
Like before WW1 aswell.
Why? Cause they can do that. And we would enjoy the Simulation. Especially if they just did it right. Not for money.
probably still in reserve service in north korea
oooooo yaaaaaaa minecraft music at 7:00
Didn't take me long to realize he's using Minecraft music in the background 🤣
When you realize what they used for background music
IS THAT MINECRAFT MUSIC IN THE BACKGROUND?!?
Minecraft music in the back is peak
Do i hear Minecraft?
Dude playing minecraft music
The side img looks like the French armored car lmao
why do i hear minecraft music...
War Thunder still doesn't have this...
ahhh yes, lets put an armored car only armed with a 7.62 machine gun against tanks with cannons 👍
@@Shibe_X Could work at 1. something.
Is that minecraft music in the background
Yes
@@TanksEncyclopediaYT based
Great leader 😂😂
Minecraft music really
Korean war literally was fought with world war 2 weapons, other than in air. So what are you one about?
Next month these will be seen used by the Russians in Ukraine.
Look, if you don't want to say precisely: "the American & pro-American troops", at least say "the so called UN troops" when referring to them!