Jump to content


Photo

Is-3 Soviet Heavy Tank


  • Please log in to reply
64 replies to this topic

#61 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,928 posts

Posted 03 September 2019 - 1443 PM

 

"From static positions" is the point Stuart. To "break through" later in the conflict, enemy mechanised forces would have had to travel down single roads at the bottom of steep valleys. They would have been easily interdicted by AT weapons. artillery, mines, obstacles and demolitions. Even to attempt that they would have had to time their attack for bad weather because they would be creating a dream target for air interdiction, assuming they made it out of their assembly areas. There is a reason the last two years of the conflict were primarily an infantry affair.


Rather earlier than that. We lost at least 2 Centurions in the Imjin battle to Chinese soldiers with explosive sticks.

I don't believe that was why the war was static though. I think it was more an unwillingness to face the casualties it would take to move the front line, armour led or not.

 

 

Yes, we could have advanced, but Truman in particular was not willing to pay the price of advancing through mostly incredibly defensible terrain or of the conflict escalating into a general war against China and Russia. I'm sure we could have advanced, at great expense, given enough resources, but we had air supremacy (superiority nearer the border) and the ability to strike from the air at will, weather permitting*. I can't see how the communists could have made significant inroads. There were occasional exceptions to this. If you google the 72nd Tank Battalion and Mundung-ni Valley, you will come up with one.

 

*Ground controlled radar bombing may have been possible.


  • 0

#62 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,757 posts

Posted 07 September 2019 - 1729 PM

As in World War II once again, sea and air power weighted heavily in the favor of UN forces. However, the rugged terrain of the Korean Peninsula and the primitive logistical 'tail' of the Chinese and North Korean forces limited the effects of the overwhelming aerial and naval firepower that could be brought to bear. Nor could the most destructive weapons used to end World War II be employed in bringing the victory that some leaders and the public expected. 
 
Instead, the leadership and public of the United States learned that the air weapon was no panacea in warfare, and that balanced forces of all arms had to be maintained in order to meet the uncertain threats of the present and future. The response to aggression in Korea had to be balanced against further moves by the USSR and its bloc of collaborating nations. With nuclear weapons present on both sides, the substitute for victory had to be the quarantine of aggression, using flexible response and a strong alliance structure poised to contain the expansion of Soviet power. 
 
The policy response to the Korean War reflected these points as well as the emerging technologies. The United States maintained a peacetime conscription, expanded the defense budget from $13B to $60B, strengthened NATO (including rearming Germany), expanded the army and navy, adding aircraft groups to both the Air Force and Navy, now equipped with both strategic bomber fleets and CVA class aircraft carriers. 

  • 0

#63 Jim Warford

Jim Warford

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,638 posts

Posted 07 September 2019 - 2330 PM

The North Koreans captured and shared a Cromwell and a Centurion (see report below)…

 

North%20Korea_Captured%20UN%20Tanks_Oct1


  • 0

#64 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,612 posts

Posted 08 September 2019 - 0312 AM

The report probably ought to be qualified with this observation. They certainly had a Centurion captured at the Imjin Battle, and I think at some point prior to this, they also got a Cromwell. The Cromwell was driven in view of the British lines, and was dispatched by 20 pounder fire, which was possibly the only British Tank Vs Tank conflict in the Korean War. The Centurion from the photos that Vasiliy Fofanov posted up over 10 years ago is substantially intact, but has the hull floor burned out, suggesting it was successfully demolished.

 

I guess the point in making is, studied they might have been, but its very unlikely they were tested because they were derelicts.


  • 0

#65 Jim Warford

Jim Warford

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,638 posts

Posted 09 September 2019 - 2219 PM



Hello,   I'm looking for the date when the IS-3 was modified and re-designated the IS-3M.   Also a listing of what these upgrades were.

 

I understand most (all) IS-3 were modified in 1946 to fix engineering and armor plate problems.  Then there are references to an early 1950s (1952?) modification.  And last a 1960 modification.  Also the initial shipment (31) IS-3 to Egypt in 1956, were these IS-3 or IS-3Ms?  Again different references seem to contradict.

 

Any information would be most appreciated.  

 

---Kenny

 

Here's some interesting info from a post awhile back...

 

IS-3%20Heavy%20Tanks%20In%20Egypt_CIA-FO

 

IS-3M%20Tanks%20In%20Egypt_1956_1_2.jpg


  • 0