 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Split Page
editPage was created as part of a split of the IS tank series
Korean War Involvement
editThis page says the IS-2 did not see combat in Korea but the page on the T-34 said it did see combat there; can someone sort this out?2601:245:C101:9C70:A5AA:1D4F:61AD:419F (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- IS-2 saw combat under Chinese force, but not with North Korea. 30 out of 60 tanks they purchased went to Korea for the war. Kadrun (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Which is it?
editI'm the same article:
"However, in the summer of 1944, the Germans experienced a shortage of manganese and had to switch to using high-carbon steel alloyed with nickel, which made armor very brittle, especially at the seam welds."
Then:
"Lower-quality alloys had to sometimes be used, substituting manganese for nickel, meaning that while the armour had high hardness and resisted penetration better than steel, it was also quite brittle and thus at risk of shattering."
Unless I'm totally wrong and "substituting manganese" means to replace manganese with something else like nickle? I read it the exact opposite way.
In any case, I thought this was the issue the Germans were having. Both sides were short on alloy metals? Even though the Soviets were allied to the US which had abundant sources of both and sent the USSR huge amounts of high quality steel and metals, and Germany had almost no access to them after losing the small sources in Scandinavia?
And even if it was true it just means that the two cancel each other out and it becomes even again. Because the Germans _definitely_ had issues with access to alloys. I thought Soviet issues were more typically in heat treatment and quality control.