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.
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.
I'm a Chinese American now. When I was growing up in China, schools taught a lot of propaganda about how the Chinese volunteer army took on the American tanks and destroyed them with satchel charges. It's not until I was able to study oversea that I learned that it suffered 10x more casualties than the Americans. It's a ratio that even China's 4x population advantage couldn't sustain forever.
don't call yourself american, you're not one of us. you people come to this counrty disguise as "chinese american" to spy and steal technology from us.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
@@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 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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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
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.
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.
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
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..
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.
@@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.
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.
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
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
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 !
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"
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
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 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
"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.
@@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
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
@@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
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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
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.
I'm sorry but your introduction does not appear to be correct. Chinese forces did not operate during the initial North Korean assault and when they later intervened they never got that close to the former Pusan perimeter.
A bit of pronunciation work before recording would help! Köln is not in Italy, don't pronounce it as if it were. Even the English version of the name "Cologne" is not pronounced anything like what was used in this video. An interesting fact has been discovered about the tank battle there. The Panther actually had the M26 in its sights but the commander did not recognize the American tank as American. They had never seen one. The commander feared it could be a new model of German tank and ordered his crew to hold fire as the American tank had had plenty of time to fire but had not. Had the German commander not held his fire, the story would have ended different. Instead the American tank fired. Interestingly, the the American tank already knew exactly where the German tank was thanks to the American infantry and it still was slower in acquiring the target than the Panther, but in the end it is who fires and hits first that counts.
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
You have some interesting footage, but you are shameless in misrepresenting your film clips. Why do you need so much filler that has zip to do with your, at least modestly researched monologue? You talk about M4 production at 1:03 yet are showing M-3 Grant production line. Your 'First Encounter' segment shows proving ground footage of M-26, and combat footage of just about every OTHER US Army tank of the period, finishing off with a burning T-34/85 (Korea? Eastern Front?) that was likely not within 500 miles of an M-26. I get it - there IS no footage of early M-26 combat, but your misrepresentation of historical footage shows a lack of interest in real research and discredits everything else you say. Why should we credit your dialogue with having accurate, rigorous research when your video footage is so ridiculously misrepresented? If you were submitting this for a grade in a college (or high school) history class, you would get an "F".
"Limited numbers available for Korea"... Even with Korean "Police Action" raging... the U.S. Military was apparently watching for an attack (the Big One) from the Soviet Union into Europe. . . and of course with Atomic bombs.... conventional war will not be needed ( ; )... so not much was done to keep the conventional military in readiness... then President Truman said, "South Korea is not in our sphere of interest" (BIG MISTAKE)- still most historians still consider Truman a Great President and so do I. As mentioned in the video there were no new fanbelts for the Pershing tanks... some were "patched together" and they didn't last long.
The T34-85 was already obsolete by the beginning of the Korean War. Most were old Soviet recycled tanks that where rushed into production during world war two. I've never seen a T34 that wasn't flawed in some way. From bad welding cramped interior space and even lack of vision. There's also the fact that the transmission was prone to failure and had a low service lifespan. For the Soviet Union their tanks were almost as expendable as it's crews. The American approach was the exact opposite. Crew survival and comfort was held in high priority. Also American tankers are trained much better than most. This is way a M4A3E8 Sherman which was under armed compared to the T34-85 was still capable of killing it.
Actually, the T-34/85 production (and this is cited in reports from both British and American reviews) was well-made. Yes, where things didn't need to be polished it could look sloppy, but where it needed to be polished the parts were often of equal or higher quality to Western vehicles.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
"Cologne"...[ Ka-loan-ya ] ?? Really ?!? -- Is this a "live" narration or an "A.I. voice software"?? The German spelling is "Koln" (with an umlaut [two dots] over the "o" ...pronounced "koaln." (Like the english word "coal", with an "n" added.)
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.
You keep saying "Chinese Army" when talking about the 1950 phase of the Korean War, but they didn't get involved until November/December. You kept saying that when it was patently not true because the initial invasion was by the North Korean army. Please, do better.
I could almost write a book on the M26 that could easily came one year earlier but was much delayed by McNair and his cronies that ensured a fierce bickering among the generals. Until someone, I don't remember his name, went directly to Eisenhower to stop this nonsense so he ordered immediately to send 20 M26 to Germany but with mixed results. Unfortunately Trueman with the Congress decided to shrink army to bare minimum and ceased the production of the M26 and leaving few M24 and the rest in Japan. When North Korea invaded South Korea with their T-34/80 simply brushed aside the M24 making them very skittish to engage those tanks. After reconditioning the M26 of quite a few were standing as monuments were shipped immediately to Korea together with the late M4 manned by many veterans, the first 4 M26 came directly from Japan and were sent ASAP to Korea. The duel at Obong-Ni Ridge inally shattered the myth of the invincibility of T-34/80 with the 90 mm gun so powerful that a shot hitted the glacis and exited from rear for some yards. Hope I didn't bore you guys
You are incorrect. McNair (and Patton) had nothing to do with the unready M26 not reaching the theater before it, and the Army, were ready. The US, unlike Germany and Russia, did not field half-ready equipment into combat, and Pershing definitely was not close to being ready.
@@coachhannah2403 nope you are wrong because McNair and his cronies had a lot to with the absurd delay of the M26 and other important issues. If you read the booklet on this tank written by Steven Zaloga and other books they all pointed too McNair about this issue. Patton had nothing to do with the M26 as he was only interested in the M4 Sherman and wanted to have much as possible those tanks....
You speak of fighting against the Chinese, were the Chinese even involved during this early part of the war? It was just the N Koreans, the Chinese didnt get involved until US/UN troops neared the Yalu River, much later in the war. And......Russia, not China built the T34's and equipped the N Korean army with them.
Really, wrecked??? You seem to forget N Korea/China handed the US it's ass in the war - - it was not a win at all. And much of Korea was ill suited for tank warfare, except as improvised artillery doing HEP shoots. But ultimately, this tank was far from being a plus to the war effort.
@@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)
Sorry, but at 7:15ff, you are mispronouncing the city name Cologne. In German, the name is Köln (pronounced , (see Wikipedia). Not since it was the 1st Century Roman colony of Colonia would it be written in a form that might be pronounced in the manner that you are pronouncing it.
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.
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!
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
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
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.
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.
. You sweep any EXPOSED troops with machine gun fire and use the main gun on enemy tanks. Apparently you're too busy picking nits to figure out that using the 90mm main gun is a given.🙄
@@Manco65 Watching, and listening to the narration as a total newbie to warfare, what is said is not very clear to your given point. I know this, you know this. Laymen do not. Unless it is fully explained. Which is not done well on this channel.
MG fire can take out periscopes, view ports, and gun sights and .50 can cause spalling when hitting thinner parts of the armor, possibly injuring the crew.
Hey is it just me or is this battle against North Korea and not China since no Chinese troops made it that south. Plus the Chinese don’t have 34’s only the DPRK did.
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.
The M26 Pershing tank absolutely a beautiful tank and one time and yes it was based on multiple designs it was a strong routine at this time you could say it was the best for this time and yes it might have stolen technology it looks from German technology tanks to be honestly that's by how it was made studying German tanks better why other armor was such better
It is a drop dead gorgeous tank but I think it was more of an evolution of American tank design. You can see this through it evolution. From the T20, to the T23, the T25, to the T26E3 we all know and love. Also it was made studying the German tanks but I think it was made to counter the Germans just like they did with the Sherman.
Although I do disagree with you that German armor was better. Soft factors are really what mattered in the long run and when your most reliable tank is the tiger 1 that says something
correction: the tank that disabled Fireball was Nashorn a tank destroyer with 88mm gun, t26 had no tiger kill the only record is the duel in Cologne where it destroy a Panther.
It wasn't a Pershing that knocked out the Tiger. It was a T26E1-1 Super Pershing that knocked out a King Tiger in the first and only recorded combat victory of the Super Pershing.
@@albinospino3089 no there was a separate duel where a base Pershing encountered a tiger 1 and a panzer fours which idk how many there were but it managed to destroy the German tanks. The king tiger super Pershing duel is highly dubious since records show that the closest tiger 2 was on the eastern front. Pershing’s managed to knock out a couple tiger 1s, panthers, and panzer 4s in its combat in Europe and performed better than them
Where’d you get this. Fireball was temporarily knocked out by a tiger. Pershing’s managed to destroy more than two tigers with photographic tigers. There were so many times Pershings fought tanks. The pershing fought panthers in cologne and a lesser known one were a Pershing manage to upper front plate a panther. They also encountered panzer 4s many times and destroyed many of thise
Now this speed of narration is much better than before. The way it sounded before was way too fast. it's like you were rushing thought your speech because you had to take a piss
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
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.
Reminds me about stories I heard about some of the German to anks in WW2 lol Supposedly some Germans hated them bc so many rounds would bounce of they would've rather just been killed than have the headaches from hearing/feeling rounds bouncing off
Not sure why he keeps talking about the Chinese when all those actions involved the North Koreans. The Soviet never even gave the Chinese any T34s and the Chinese didn't enter the war until the Winter of 1950.
