Look at this:
As an addition a bit from wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-44
What do you think?
I’m particularly surprised by info that two brigades were trained on T-44 than re-armed to T-34-85…
Cheers,
Lancer44
Lancer, what do you mean by ‘trump card against Allies’? Why do you seem to think that every soviet decision was part of some evil plan?
It was experimental design which did not saw adequate production because T-34/85 was efficient for it’s time and it’s mass production was worked through. It was decided to move on to more superior design and make new tank from scratch (Т-54).
The T-44 was the soviet response against the PzKfw V Panther, and it was a superior AFV in some aspects.
As far as I know the Soviet’s already had superiority to the Allies when they built the T34/85. Everything after that was just icing on the cake. The Americans were lucky that Korea is not good tank country.
Hmm, I think the Pershings and especially the Centurions were more than a match for the T-34/85.
Centurians sure, but not Pershings.
Hi Firefly
I think it’s not correct to compare T-34-85 and Centurion (next generation tank). I hear much good about Centurion. But T-54 was more legitime rival for Centurion and IS-3 for “Pershing” M-26.
Hi Lancer.
T-44 was the final tank of legendary t-34 series. It was a brilliant and most balanced medium tank of ww2. But it’s time come to close after ww2, therefore T-44 didn’t become the basis soviet tank.
T-44 was never “the trump card against allies”.
Lancer ,I would want serious to have a talk with you, about names of some your thread.
… “USSR in alliance with nazi Germany”
…“T-44 was it Stalin’s trump card agains Allies”
it’s look like the titles of “yellow” press in the times of the Cold War. But not as the theme of discussion.
Although the USSR was a big mistake, it was a country of my (and some other members) ancestors. And I often see that you use the Cool war “arguments” (not better than soviet propoganda “facts”) even today.
It’s not right, mate, If you wish pleasantly to spend time in this forum.
I think you don’t want to see once the theme like “why Winston Churchill called the Poland as hyena?”
OK?
Cheers.
The M-46 Pershing (improved from the rudimentary M26), mounting a 90mm gun, was in fact more than a match for the T-34/44, and so was its prodigy: the M-47, M-48, and M-60 series.
And much of Korea was good tank country, ask the ROK forces.
The Pershing is more in the category of the JS-2s JS-3s series. But off course a god piloted T-34/85 might cause some trouble , specially with the subcaliber ammo.
The 90mm on the pershings was said to not be that good on the german Tiger’s front armor. It was with another american tank destroyer that had also have a 90mm and did not do so well on the tigers front armor.
(has the thought of WWII tanks against a modern M1 Abrams ever crossed your minds? I know it has with me!)
Yeah.
I also keep wondering who would win in a fight, a white pointer using a Bazooka loaded with broccoli against a lion with a Plasticine katana.
Secret to killing an Abrams- TOP-ATTACK WARHEADS!
I’ve always wonder how many tanks and how many shots to take out the abrams head on.
EDIT: Oh yeah I was thinking about shermans against abrams. (think how much you need)
From what I have read, the 125mm on the T64-T90 series can penetrate the frontal armor(with the right shell) on an Abrams; but the problem is the Abrams gun ranges that one by about 1000 meters, and with its advanced targeting system its far more likely to obtain a kill first. However, the ATGMs from the 125mm can outrage the Abrams gun by about the same distance or more; meaning that if those ATGMs had top-attack warheads rather than their standard HEAT warheads, the T64-T90 could have an advantage against the Abrams.
OK, now back to topic or open a new thread.
Thanks.
What more can possibly said about the T44 here?
It was big! Very Big.
Yes, but not as big as a Maus. Smaller than a Maus, bigger than an M5 Grant. That describes the T-44 to a T. (pardon the pun)