Triple C

I am wondering how T-34 holds up against M3 75mm gun. The numbers suggest that T-34/85 should be proof against US 75mm shells, but when Snipe was arround here I recall that the Chaffees managed to kill T-34/85 in the Korean War.

__________________
What benefits the body is called medicine; what benefits the soul, discipline.
-Augustine of Hippo

Ucar

The M3 cannons statistics are :

Barrel length: 40 calibres (3 m)
Muzzle velocity: 619 m/s
Shell weight (M72 AP): 6.32 kg
Armour penetration (M72 AP shell, 457 m, at 30 degrees): 76 mm

The T-34/85 frontal armor statistics are :

Frontal armor maximum thickness : 90-110mm
Turret armor maximum thickness : 90mm

Of course these figures may vary by a few mm from source to source. It looks a frontal penetration and kill is unlikely. The reports from the Korean War are probably referring to lucky close range shots, or side/rear penetrations.

Triple C

I have access to the raw numbers; what I am wondering is if anyone has actual annedotes of engagements between US M3 75mm cannon armed vehicles and T-34/85.

zraver

IIRC the Chaffes didnt do so well inigtially beign both out numbered and out classed and American artilley did most of the killing. Later once the Pershings and M4A3E8's started to arrive and the Chaffee's got pulled back into support roles. I know the Pershing dominated the T34/85

Triple C

T-34/85 tank's glacis front is 47mm, but sharply sloped, which should ammount to 110mm of armor. US 75mm AP penetrates about 90mm of armor at 0 degrees impact. Snipe, however, in a very old post, said that Chaffees had killed T-34/85s.

dalem

I'm sure some Chaffees did kill some T-34s, possibly even from the front, but I don't believe that was a common event. The M24 was a light tank - a recon tank, not a T-34 killer.

-dale

RustyBattleship

Any kill of a T-34 (of any type) with that 75mm gun of the M-24 Chaffee would have to be a lucky shot through an open driver's hatch or a rear shot in the engine compartment. Basically the gun was merely a long-barrelled 75mm Howitzer and it's limitations were very obvious in WW II when mounted on the early M-4 Shermans. One old-time tanker told me that the best they could do was fire a smoke shell onto a Panther or King Tiger so the crew would think they were on fire. Then we killed them with our machine guns as they evacuated the tank.

As for Chaffee's taking on T-34's in Korea, one of the members of the VFW post I belong to was in a Recon Battalion of 17 Chafees. He said in less than two weeks they were all knocked out by the T-34's. The 75mm shells just bounced off the main armor.

He survived because he was not in his Chaffee and was standing alongside reviewing the terrain. A T-34 came up from the otherside and blew off the turret of his Chaffee.

For a light tank with a decent high velocity gun, the M-41 Walker Bulldog was produced with the 76mm (though Shermans were now carrying an older version of it) that had a higher velocity and flatter trajectory than the 90mm guns on the M-26 Pershings and early M-46 Pattons.

__________________
Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

dalem

I remember reading somewhere that the Chaffee's 75mm was developed from the 75mm gun used on B25s. Same lineage?

-dale

Wraith601

The UN forces had plenty of Pershings, Centurions, and upgraded Shermans that all outmatched the T-34 that the Chaffee really wasn't needed. Also Korea really isn't very good tank country from what I understand, so the need for scout tanks really wasn't there.

Besides from what I've read the NK tanks crews were nowhere near as well trained and experienced as comparable Soviet crews and as a result the performance of the T-34 in Korea isn't indicative of its true capabilities.

__________________
"We always have been, we are, and I hope that we always shall be, detested in France."
-Sir Arthur Wellesley

RustyBattleship

That was probably the same gun that was mounted on a very few B-25 Mitchell bombers. Those Mitchells were used for ground support and precision skip bombing. The B-25 was always my favorite bomber in both looks and versatility.

RustyBattleship

All of the above is true up to a point. Remember that our Division organization charts at the time called for Reconnaisance Battalions to be equiped with "Light" tanks. At that time it was the Chaffees as all Stuarts were no longer part of our inventory.

Our General staff wasn't all that technically educated either then or WW II where they used lightly armored tank destroyers as main battle tanks.

As for NK crew training, they had the same limitations as the Soviet crews of WW II where only every fifth tank had a radio. The TC's of the rest of them had to stick their unarmored heads out of the hatches to see which way they should go or if there was a target for them.

gunnut

I thought the 75 on the B-25 was a modified French 75 field piece.

The French 75 was also modified to fit the early Shermans, if memory serves.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

Feanor

I thought it was every 10th tank that had a radio in the Soviet Army, as tank companies were 3 platoons of 3 tanks each and one command tank, which had the comms.

dalem

I don't think so.

I can't prove it, but I don't think so.

-dale

Triple C

That might be true for the first months of the war, but after 1941 this should not be the case.