|
Korea
May 13, 2015 8:32:11 GMT -6
Post by Yan Taylor on May 13, 2015 8:32:11 GMT -6
True Chuck, the communists did push the allies down the Korean peninsula and very nearly ousted them. Most of the small arms used by the NK were mainly Russian designed, along with the mortars, artillery and tanks/SP guns. These were all rugged and reliable weapons and proved their worth in WW2.
The T-34/85 was better armed and had thicker armour then both the M24 Chaffee and M4 Sherman, but whereas the allies developed better infantry anti-tank weapons, the NK only had obsolete Russian 14mm anti-tank rifles and 45mm anti-tank guns, these could do little against the M4.
In tank v tank situations the T-34/85 was at a disadvantage when faced with the Pershing, Patton or Centurion, but as you said these were not available early in the campaign as were the heavier versions of the bazooka and recoilless rifles.
Ian.
|
|
|
Korea
May 13, 2015 8:39:33 GMT -6
Post by dave on May 13, 2015 8:39:33 GMT -6
Well There you go again. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Korea
May 13, 2015 8:46:07 GMT -6
Post by Yan Taylor on May 13, 2015 8:46:07 GMT -6
Go were Dave my friend were.
|
|
|
Korea
May 13, 2015 9:06:03 GMT -6
Post by dave on May 13, 2015 9:06:03 GMT -6
Go were Dave my friend were. Ian Sent you a PM. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Korea
May 13, 2015 9:19:13 GMT -6
Post by Yan Taylor on May 13, 2015 9:19:13 GMT -6
Thanks Dave, now I realize that Tom, Chuck and my posts had got in the way of your intended zone.
|
|
|
Korea
May 13, 2015 9:22:31 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on May 13, 2015 9:22:31 GMT -6
Ian: The 3.5 was rushed from the States very early. Units of the had it as early at the battle for Taejon, and that is what the division commander Dean was doing when he was cut off and captured, using the 3.5 against a T34 in Taejon. So they were present by early July 50.
The M24 was issued to the recon companies of the four divisions in Japan, and it was the proper item for their MTO&E's. It was due to be replaced by the M41 which was then in the mid stages of testing. It was also issued to the divisional tank battalions. Each division had one, but these battalions, due to the reduced levels of manning only consisted of one company. None of the infantry regiments had their organic tank companies active. They were authorized by MTO&E but not filled due to personnel shortages. Tank company of the 7th Cavalry Regiment for instance was not filled until 5 August 1950, and it was at this same time 3rd Battalion was reactivated. In reality 3rd Battalion was a reflagged battalion of the 3rd Infantry Division brought to Korea from Fort Devens (I think), and the tank company was formed on a you, you and you basis from school troops at Fort Knox.
The M24 was issued as an "in lieu of" item in Japan to the divisional tank battalion (as said only companies) because Japanese bridges were thought to be insufficient for the heavier weight of the M4E8's and the M26.
The M4E8 or Easy 8, was very similar to your Sherman Firefly, with a long barrel 76 high velocity gun. I think it also had a better armor package as well, but still not the sloped armor of the 34. There is a T34 captured by the Marines during the Naktong Bulge sitting out in front of a barracks complex at Quantico MCB in Virginia, just outside DC. I had several occasions to look that beast over quite carefully, as we used to train at Quantico at their combat in villages complex.
|
|
|
Korea
May 13, 2015 9:47:08 GMT -6
Post by Yan Taylor on May 13, 2015 9:47:08 GMT -6
Chuck, great post;
I have had the privilege of standing next to a T-34/85 in the Imperial War Museum North, located at Salford Quays. it is smaller than I thought, which I found surprising due to the larger turret, I would like to see the T-34/76 in comparison as that would have a really low silhouette.
I have the stats on the M4 easy 8 ready for the web site, the 76mm high velocity gun was pretty good especially when firing HVAP ammo but not as good as the 17 pdr I am afraid.
Have you seen the latest Brad Pitt film Fury? I think the tank used in that is a Easy 8.
When the US army finally got the M20 75mm recoilless gun into action it gave them an edge straight away when dealing with T-34s.
Ian.
|
|
|
Korea
May 13, 2015 10:34:10 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on May 13, 2015 10:34:10 GMT -6
The M4A3E8(76)W, or Easy 8, had a 76mm main gun Ian, and that was the model used in Korea. There was also a version of that same tank that mounted a 105mm howitzer for indirect fire, and used by tankers not artillery.
The RR first appeared in Operation Varsity with the 17th Airborne Division. That said neither the 57 or 75 mm versions reached Korea until early fall 1950 in any quantity.
The first M26 Pershings that appeared were with the 1st Marine Brigade (Provisional)in the Naktong River battles.
Dave may I suggest that before any further discussion of No Gun Ri takes place that a wise man would review pages 246-248 of "Of Garry Owen In Glory" to ascertain the battlefield conditions that surrounded that incident, to put it in much better context. The man who wrote and edited that book was there in Command of Company H, 2nd Battalion, 7th Cavalry, and his narrative becomes a primary source, although there is no mention of his narrative in any of the investigations I have read that were later conducted into the incident by either the South Koreans, the U S Army or the U S Department of Defense, and I think I read them all in the 1990's when they were conducted.
|
|
|
Korea
May 13, 2015 12:09:11 GMT -6
Post by dave on May 13, 2015 12:09:11 GMT -6
QC
I don't have that book in my library and would have to order a used hardback for $20. I did however find a book titled “The Bridge at No Gun Ri: A Hidden Nightmare from the Korean War” in a kindle version for $ 7.99. Are you familiar with this book? Worth the cost?
I have discovered another book “No Gun Ri, A Military History of the Korean War Incident" by Robert Bateman which disputes the book listed above. Can be purchased in hardback starting at $ 2.20.
Any thouhgts on this book and the author?
Regards
Dave
|
|
|
Korea
May 13, 2015 12:18:32 GMT -6
Post by Yan Taylor on May 13, 2015 12:18:32 GMT -6
Chuck, the 76mm gun (or 76mm M1A1 gun) which I eluded to that in my last post, was also used on the M18 GMC, I cannot find any record of the M18 ever serving in Korea, which I find puzzling, even more puzzling is the fact that the more powerful M36 GMC (which mounted the same 90mm gun found on the Pershing and Patton) was only issued in small numbers and to the South Korean army only, both the M18 and M36 were used to knock out German Panthers and Tigers just five years previous, and these same German tanks used to deal with T-34/85s and win!
Ian.
|
|
|
Korea
May 13, 2015 12:49:26 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on May 13, 2015 12:49:26 GMT -6
Dave I know of neither of them. If you can get OGIG for 20 bucks get it. I really have no interest in No Gun Ri, any more than I delve into mistaken air strikes that killed hundreds if not thousands in that same conflict. I know there is fog and friction. I accept it, and understand these things happen because of it. I see no deliberate act of homicide in them, just tragic mistakes or the machinations in the No Gun Ri instance where the "but for" was a combination of untrained and inexperienced troops, not enough experienced leaders, and the use of these unfortunates as shields so their northern relatives could better infiltrate and kill American soldiers. The guy who was running the heavy barrel 30 Cals in Company H for instance was the company mess sergeant, who had once qualified with that gun a year or so before.
Ian There may have been some M18's and M36's in Korea, but they were not used by U S troops to my knowledge. The Tank Destroyer Force was disbanded in 46, and most of their equipment sold or given away. I know the FUF had some in Indo China, and one shows up every once and awhile all over the globe in the less developed countries usually in use by the raggedy ass militia. I think M3 and M5 Stuarts are still being used somewhere as well. Norway had a dynamite mod of the old Walker Bulldog (M41) in recent times, and maybe still do.
|
|
|
Korea
May 13, 2015 13:37:35 GMT -6
Post by dave on May 13, 2015 13:37:35 GMT -6
QC Just ordered the book. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Korea
May 14, 2015 4:47:17 GMT -6
Post by Yan Taylor on May 14, 2015 4:47:17 GMT -6
Chuck, I wonder if McNair was still alive that those tank destroyers battalions would still be there and not disbanded.
Ian.
|
|
|
Korea
May 14, 2015 6:35:42 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on May 14, 2015 6:35:42 GMT -6
No Ian, I think if McNair was still alive in 46 he would have been the first to disband them. McNair, despite his looks was a dynamic man, not afraid to try something new and be the first to admit he was wrong. We see that in the organization and the subsequent reorganization of the motorized division of 42-43. Check you lineages for them but the 4th, 6th, 8th, and 90th immediately come to mind. There may be one or two more.
The Tank Destroyer Command was an organizational kneejerk to the panzer division, as was the armored division (in my estimation). Had we given the standard infantry division design a cavalry reconnaissance squadron, and two decently armed tank battalions, along with two Quartermaster truck companies, as organic parts, there would have been no need for the AD's, and the division thus fielded would have been much stronger and more adaptable.
By 1946 this was pretty much the lesson that was derived from the WWII experience. The tank was the best anti-armor weapon, and much more versatile. Divisions needed them all the time, not just on an attached when required basis. By 1953 this too had evolved based upon Korea to the main battle tank (vice light, medium, heavy) was the battlefield requirement.
The idea of the armored division of the late 30's in the U S Army was never fulfilled until the combination of the MBT and the IFV, and never mistake the difference between the APC and the IFV.
|
|
|
Korea
May 14, 2015 6:49:10 GMT -6
Post by montrose on May 14, 2015 6:49:10 GMT -6
Ian,
The problem is the search for a perfect weapon. The tank destroyer is a compromise system. SO the hussars and cavalry minded folks rejected it. They would rather have a few great tanks, than larger numbers of decent systems. The result is units in combat go without. There are not enough systems to cover the battlefield.
Look at the infantry. US infantry lacked a decent anti armor weapon from its birth until the 1990s. We had this useless junk called the Dragon. Meanwhile the Soviets copied the panzerfaust with the RPG. The Army figured the best weapon against a tank was another tank, so the infantry could make do. So we made 70 ton tanks to fight in countries with 30 ton bridges.
The fix to finally gearing the infantry properly was the USSOCOM SPEAR program. This program was backed by the USMC and opposed, often violently, by the Army. It produced the M4, NODs, antiarmor weapons, thermobarb, antiarmor systems and things I am not sure are declassified.
The nation owes a debt to GEN Shoomaker and LTG Boykin for fixing this. What's odd is they were the first two officers to finish in the very first Delta Force selection class.
|
|