PDA

View Full Version : Tanks in Korean War?



chuckster
11-16-2008, 11:35 PM
I've seen lots of photos of Sherman tanks in the Korean war but it is to my understanding there were not so many Persian tanks that took part. Is this because they were primarily stationed in Europe? Or perhaps because production moved rather quickly on to the Patton and therefore not so many Persians were produced? What types of tank did the US/UN forces use in Korea besides the Sherman?

On another note, I recall reading about North Korea using T-34s in the initial invasion of South Korea but have not heard much about North Korean armor since. Were the T-34s mostly desroyed early in the war?

Alfacentori
11-16-2008, 11:46 PM
There were quite a few types of Tanks used in Korea

Centurions
M24 Chaffee Light Tanks
M26 Pershing
M46 Patton
Comet Medium Tank
Churchill Heavy Tank

On the NK side obviously the T34, both the 76 and 85mm versions
The Su76
SU122
SU100
SU152
JS Heavy tanks

A few links here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Korean_War_tanks

http://korea50.army.mil/history/factsheets/kw_armor.shtml

Alfa

Kaplanr
11-16-2008, 11:51 PM
I've seen lots of photos of Sherman tanks in the Korean war but it is to my understanding there were not so many Persian tanks that took part. Is this because they were primarily stationed in Europe? Or perhaps because production moved rather quickly on to the Patton and therefore not so many Persians were produced? What types of tank did the US/UN forces use in Korea besides the Sherman?

On another note, I recall reading about North Korea using T-34s in the initial invasion of South Korea but have not heard much about North Korean armor since. Were the T-34s mostly desroyed early in the war?

Maybe you mean http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:WmzFa_3-i_ToDM:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/General_John_Joseph_Pershing_head_on_shouldersdotjpg and not http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:1pS40DHMXmoA4M:http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/04/15/Ahmadinejad_narrowweb__300x402,0dotjpg

goat89
11-16-2008, 11:52 PM
^HAHAHHAHA! LMAO!!! Its Pershings lol. NOT Persians!

loganinkosovo
11-16-2008, 11:55 PM
I've seen lots of photos of Sherman tanks in the Korean war but it is to my understanding there were not so many Persian tanks that took part. Is this because they were primarily stationed in Europe? Or perhaps because production moved rather quickly on to the Patton and therefore not so many Persians were produced? What types of tank did the US/UN forces use in Korea besides the Sherman?

On another note, I recall reading about North Korea using T-34s in the initial invasion of South Korea but have not heard much about North Korean armor since. Were the T-34s mostly desroyed early in the war?

That would be "Pershing" Tanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M26_Pershing

http://science.howstuffworks.com/m-26-general-pershing-heavy-tank.htm/printable

http://www.peachmountain.com/5Star/Tanks_Patton_Tanks_M26_tank.aspx

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/M26_Pershingdotjpg


Aside from the M-26 the UN forces also used M4A3E8 "Shermans", M-24 "Chaffees", M-46 "Pattons" and A41 "Centurions".

SBL
11-17-2008, 12:01 AM
As I recall there was very little tank-on-tank combat during the Korean war. This was due primarily to the restrictive terrain, the number available to a given side, and (later in the war) tanks being dug-in in static positions along the main line of resistance (MLR) for fire-support purposes.

gaijinsamurai
11-17-2008, 12:05 AM
Maybe you mean http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:WmzFa_3-i_ToDM:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/General_John_Joseph_Pershing_head_on_shouldersdotjpg and not http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:1pS40DHMXmoA4M:http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/04/15/Ahmadinejad_narrowweb__300x402,0dotjpg

Hahaha!! Good one, Kaplan!

(Are all Jewish guys funny, or is that just a stereotype?)

Alfacentori
11-17-2008, 12:12 AM
As I recall there was very little tank-on-tank combat during the Korean war. This was due primarily to the restrictive terrain, the number available to a given side, and (later in the war) tanks being dug-in in static positions along the main line of resistance (MLR) for fire-support purposes.

I think your right, but I do recall reading somehere that there were a few armoured battles and ambushes of armoured units etc but only involving small numbers of tanks, like a few dozen or so.
One I think was a Marine task force advancing into the north and was ambushed by a NK armoured unit in or on the outskirts of a village, anyone else recall the engagement I'm thinking of?

Alfa

Chulo
11-17-2008, 12:15 AM
i though there were more dug in u.s with tanks vs attacks from NK than full on tank battles. I remember a few stories where u.s tanks rolled in to shore up defenses. But like Snakebite said, the mountains didnt help much at all.

Hellfish
11-17-2008, 12:28 AM
There were quite a few types of Tanks used in Korea

Centurions
M24 Chaffee Light Tanks
M26 Pershing
M46 Patton
Comet Medium Tank
Churchill Heavy Tank

On the NK side obviously the T34, both the 76 and 85mm versions
The Su76
SU122
SU100
SU152
JS Heavy tanks

A few links here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Korean_War_tanks

http://korea50.army.mil/history/factsheets/kw_armor.shtml

Alfa

In addition...

M4A3E8
M4/105 HVSS
M45 (M46 Pershing with 105mm howitzer)

Cromwell (Churchills were only used as support vehicles - namely AVREs and AVLBs and I don't think Comets made it over there)
Achilles tank destroyers

The JS-2s, SU-122s and SU-152s were Chinese, and they didn't see combat as far as I can tell - remaining in reserve in Manchuria.

For the most part, combat only took place in the early years. The Chinese had several tank regiments, but they saw very, very little combat, and after Inchon there weren't many tank-vs-tank battles at all. Even in the early months, the tank battles were limited, rarely involving more than a company on each side - from what I've read, it was mostly Marine Pershings fighting the NK tanks.

An excellent book on the subject is this:

http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/05/32/e650225b9da0c2f84ee51110.Ldotjpg

ISBN: 0897471504

SpeedyHedgehog
11-17-2008, 12:36 AM
I'm looking through the book Camp Colt to Desert Storm-The History of Armored Forces. As regards the T34, when the North Koreans (with approximately 225 T34/85 tanks) attacked the ROK Army had virtually nothing with which to stop it. Initial American units were not much better-equipped, primarily M24 Chaffees, which were no match for the T34. Consequently the NKs enjoyed great success early. "As American airpower became more effective and 3.5 inch rocket launchers and medium tanks became available, NK armor losses quickly mounted." I believe it was after this point (around September 1950) that T34s became less visible on the battlefield.

M4 Shermans were the most widely used tank in Korea. The M46 Patton was really a product-improved version of the M26 Pershing. "..it was planned that 1,215 M26 tanks would be converted to M46s in fiscal year 1950". This may explain why there were fewer M26s than expected-they got converted to M46s (whether they liked it or not). But in the early days of the war they got M26s wherever they could find them. In the 70th Tank Battalion ....one "company was equipped with M26s gathered from around Ft. Knox, where they had been placed as monuments".

The Korean war is a testament to what happens when you allow your military to decay.

Hellfish
11-17-2008, 12:43 AM
I remember reading a history of Marine Corps armor (http://www.amazon.com/Marines-Under-Armor-Fighting-1916-2000/dp/1557502374) and the author mentioned that the Marines had something like 5 operable tanks in their entire inventory in 1950. They got their Pershings from the Army, trained with them for about 6 hours and then were sent off to Korea, where they immediately went into combat. The book is in storage now, so my memory might be hazy, but it was something crazy like that.

Korea was a ground war at a time when we never thought we'd have to fight a ground war ever again.

Britboy
11-17-2008, 12:48 AM
DPRK still has T34s today (not sure what level of readiness tho) so I'm going to venture that they were not all destroyed early in the war in response to OPs question, although SpeedyHedgehog does seem to point to their attrition/losses.

Hellfish
11-17-2008, 12:52 AM
DPRK still has T34s today (not sure what level of readiness tho) so I'm going to venture that they were not all destroyed early in the war in response to OPs question, although SpeedyHedgehog does seem to point to their attrition/losses.

They were nearly all destroyed, and post-1953 were replaced from Soviet stocks (indeed, it took many years to rebuild their Army - the Chinese took over nearly all combat duties, with the DPRK being nearly annihilated during and after Pusan/Inchon).

The T-34 is still considered a primary fighting vehicle of the DPRK, second only in numbers to T-54/55s.

LineDoggie
11-17-2008, 01:16 AM
The Reason in 1950's first battles Shermans and Pershings arent Prominent is that the Occupation Forces in Japan had Mothballed them. They tore Japanese Roads and bridges to hell. Chaffees were lighter, and frankly more useful for a Constabulary.


"Rebels Roost", an M24 of the 24th Recon Company, 24th ID took part in the first Tank vs. Tank action. Chonui 10 July, 1950. 3 M24's vs. unknown number of T-34/85's. Rebel knocked out at least 1 T34 and the other M24's were destroyed.

The 70th & 73rd Tank Bn's (Ft. Knox Armor school) units got their M26 Pershings from the Plinthes in front of Barracks and Museums, did a hasty overhaul and shipped out for Korea on 23 July. 6th Tank(of 2nd AD) had M46's and shipped with them.

First Pershings in action were 3 M26's discovered in the Tokyo Ordnance depot. Shipped to Korea & the 77th Tank Bn. they were lost on 31 July due to a Blown Bridge

Also remember the M26 was being re-built to M46 Standards when the war broke out.

One of the most interesting tanks used that year was the M4A3 HVSS POA-CWS-H5 (Army speak for Flamethrower Sherman) used by the USMC.

SBL
11-17-2008, 01:37 AM
The JS-2s SU-122s and SU-152s were Chinese, and they didn't see combat as far as I can tell - remaining in reserve in Manchuria.


I read somewhere that some SU-122s did see action- I think with the NKPA- but they didn't fare very well as the Koreans had the habit of trying to use them as tanks.

Hellfish
11-17-2008, 01:44 AM
I read somewhere that some SU-122s did see action- I think with the NKPA- but they didn't fair very well as the Koreans had the habit of trying to use them as tanks.

Hm. Never heard anything about that. Wouldn't surprise me, I suppose, but I've only heard of T-34/85s, BA-64s and SU-76s being used by the NKPA.

SBL
11-17-2008, 01:49 AM
Hm. Never heard anything about that. Wouldn't surprise me, I suppose, but I've only heard of T-34/85s, BTR-40s and SU-76s being used by the NKPA.
Maybe it was the Chinese. I can't remember.

Hellfish
11-17-2008, 01:56 AM
It never fails to amaze me at how poorly documented the war was.

LRPV
11-17-2008, 03:16 AM
All these quotes of "I remember"...a site of old farts...:)

Happy
11-17-2008, 03:23 AM
My Father is in front of the tank in the photo on the left. On the right is a stock photo from the same engagement.

Here is a write up on the battle

"In mid-July 1950 General Dean's 24th Division continued as the primary U.S. Army fighting force in Korea. Taejon, located 100 miles south of Seoul, served as an important road and communications center. The Kum River makes a semicircle to the north around Taejon that constitutes a protective moat. Dean placed his 24th Division in a horseshoe-shaped arc in front of Taejonthe 34th Infantry on the left, the 19th Infantry on the right, and the 21st Infantry in reserve. By positioning elements of the 34th at Kongju, located about twenty miles northwest of Taejon, Dean hoped to prevent the North Koreans from an early crossing of the Kum River and an immediate drive on Taejon. Since the division had only about 4,000 men at Taejon, the 24th could not effectively delay two enemy divisions. During 1416 July the North Korean 4th and 3d Divisions, operating west to east, penetrated the 34th and 19th Infantries' forward defensive positions on the south side of the Kum River and inflicted substantial casualties. Dean then pulled his regiments into a tighter defensive perimeter around Taejon, and the North Koreans launched their attack on Taejon on 19 July. The men of the 24th at Taejon enjoyed one positive development. They had just received a weapon that was effective against the T34 tank, the new 3.5-inch rocket launcher. The five-foot hand-carried launcher fired a two-foot-long eight-and-a-half-pound rocket with a shaped charge designed to burn through any tank then known. U.S. Army soldiers destroyed ten enemy tanks in Taejon on 20 July, eight of them with the 3.5-inch rocket launcher."

Dean received the Medal of Honor for his actions on July 20 and 21, 1950. Dean was the highest ranking American officer captured during the Korean War.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Dean

Hellfish
11-17-2008, 03:25 AM
Cool personal history. MG Dean was a badass.

LineDoggie
11-17-2008, 10:30 AM
Cool personal history. MG Dean was a badass.
Indeed, Gotta Love a General who goes Tank Busting to set an example for the men.

Rank and organization: Major General, U.S. Army, commanding general, 24th Infantry Division
Place and date: Taejon, Korea, 20 and 21 July 1950
Entered service at: California. Born: 1 August 1899, Carlyle, Ill

G.O. No.: 7, 16 February 1951
Citation:

"Maj. Gen. Dean distinguished himself by conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the repeated risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty.

In command of a unit suddenly relieved from occupation duties in Japan and as yet untried in combat, faced with a ruthless and determined enemy, highly trained and overwhelmingly superior in numbers, he felt it his duty to take action which to a man of his military experience and knowledge was clearly apt to result in his death.

He personally and alone attacked an enemy tank while armed only with a hand grenade. He also directed the fire of his tanks from an exposed position with neither cover nor concealment while under observed artillery and small-arms fire.

When the town of Taejon was finally overrun he refused to insure his own safety by leaving with the leading elements but remained behind organizing his retreating forces, directing stragglers, and was last seen assisting the wounded to a place of safety.

These actions indicate that Maj. Gen. Dean felt it necessary to sustain the courage and resolution of his troops by examples of excessive gallantry committed always at the threatened portions of his frontlines.

The magnificent response of his unit to this willing and cheerful sacrifice, made with full knowledge of its certain cost, is history.

The success of this phase of the campaign is in large measure due to Maj. Gen. Dean's heroic leadership, courageous and loyal devotion to his men, and his complete disregard for personal safety."

sikivar
11-17-2008, 11:54 AM
Tanks were very important while korean war.When nato allies withdrawing out of seul, our soldiers defeated 1 to 10 chinese armies by tanks:D Then nato allies had come near our forehead again:D

Hellfish
11-17-2008, 01:33 PM
The Turks impressed a lot of people.

Laconian
11-17-2008, 02:17 PM
The Korean war is a testament to what happens when you allow your military to decay.


Thank you, Pres. Harry S. Truman

baboon6
11-17-2008, 09:36 PM
Cool personal history. MG Dean was a badass.

Opinion is divided on the subject

Colonel John Michaelis: (CO 27th Inf Regt, Korea 1950-51)
" Why any general would tolerate the chaos at his headquarters in the fashion Dean did, I never understood. There was a sense of hysteria. Nobody seemed to want and go kick somebody in the butt. I never knew what Dean thought he was doing, as a divisional commander, to grab a bazooka and go off hunting tanks".

Lt.Col. George Masters: (staff officer, 8th Army, Korea 1950)
" Dean was very personable, but he still did not know what war was. Fundamentally, he was a silly man."

Both from The Korean War by Max Hastings.

I would respect Michaelis' opinion. He had commanded a regt in the 101st Abn Div in WW2 at the age of 32, and was later the div's Chief of Staff. His 27th "Wolfhound" Regt, along with the Marine brigade, was crucial in the defence of the Pusan perimeter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_H._Michaelis

Hellfish
11-17-2008, 09:41 PM
I think what Dean experienced was mirrored throughout the Army. Ridgway was pretty famous for trying to reverse that kind of mentality, which persisted even into winter. I don't know if it had to do with Dean personally, or the officers (and men) of the US occupation forces at the time - from what I remember, positions were largely filled by career-men - the guys who looked good on paper, not the guys best suited to combat.

Maybe Dean was one of them, maybe not. I think it's a reflection of the Army at the time that an MG had to personally go tank hunting.

LineDoggie
11-17-2008, 10:01 PM
MG William F. Dean, MOH in his own words:

"If the story of my Korean experience is worth telling, the value lies in its oddity, not in anything brilliant or heroic.

There were heroes in Korea, but I was not one of them. There were brilliant commanders, but I was a general captured because he took a wrong road. I am an Infantry officer and presumably was fitted for my fighting job.

I don't want to alibi that job, but a couple of things about it should be made clear. In the fighting I made some mistakes and I've kicked myself a thousand times for them. I lost ground I should not have lost. I lost trained officers and fine men. I'm not proud of that record, and I'm under no delusions that my weeks of command constituted any masterly campaign.

No man honestly can be ashamed of the Medal of Honor. For it and for the welcome given to me here at home in 1953, I am humbly grateful. But I come close to shame when I think about the men who did better jobs some who died doing them and did not get recognition. I wouldn't have awarded myself a wooden star for what I did as a commander.

Later, as fugitive and prisoner, I did things mildly out of the ordinary only at those times when I was excited and not thinking entirely straight; and the only thing I did which mattered to my family and perhaps a few others was to stay alive.

Other prisoners resisted torture, but I wasn't tortured. Others hid in the hills and finally escaped, but I failed in my escape attempts. Others bluffed the Communists steadily, whereas I was lucky enough to do it only once in a while.

Others starved, but I was fed and even learned to like Kimchee. Others died for a principle, but I failed in a suicide attempt

When T-34/85's broke through the lines into Taejon. Deans Units had the M20 3.5" Bazooka but the men were afraid of the North Korean Tanks. For some time the tanks roamed the streets with Impunity. Dean saw the fear and set an Example, no less than what Teddy Roosevelt did at Utah Beach, or Gavin, Ridgeway did at Normandy, Norman Cota at Omaha Beach.

baboon6
11-17-2008, 10:37 PM
MG William F. Dean, MOH in his own words:

"If the story of my Korean experience is worth telling, the value lies in its oddity, not in anything brilliant or heroic.

There were heroes in Korea, but I was not one of them. There were brilliant commanders, but I was a general captured because he took a wrong road. I am an Infantry officer and presumably was fitted for my fighting job.

I don't want to alibi that job, but a couple of things about it should be made clear. In the fighting I made some mistakes and I've kicked myself a thousand times for them. I lost ground I should not have lost. I lost trained officers and fine men. I'm not proud of that record, and I'm under no delusions that my weeks of command constituted any masterly campaign.

No man honestly can be ashamed of the Medal of Honor. For it and for the welcome given to me here at home in 1953, I am humbly grateful. But I come close to shame when I think about the men who did better jobs some who died doing them and did not get recognition. I wouldn't have awarded myself a wooden star for what I did as a commander.

Later, as fugitive and prisoner, I did things mildly out of the ordinary only at those times when I was excited and not thinking entirely straight; and the only thing I did which mattered to my family and perhaps a few others was to stay alive.

Other prisoners resisted torture, but I wasn't tortured. Others hid in the hills and finally escaped, but I failed in my escape attempts. Others bluffed the Communists steadily, whereas I was lucky enough to do it only once in a while.

Others starved, but I was fed and even learned to like Kimchee. Others died for a principle, but I failed in a suicide attempt

When T-34/85's broke through the lines into Taejon. Deans Units had the M20 3.5" Bazooka but the men were afraid of the North Korean Tanks. For some time the tanks roamed the streets with Impunity. Dean saw the fear and set an Example, no less than what Teddy Roosevelt did at Utah Beach, or Gavin, Ridgeway did at Normandy, Norman Cota at Omaha Beach.

Good post. Events unfortunately went against Dean, whether anyone else could have done better is a moot point. But he must bear at least some of the responsibility for his division's unreadiness for combat.

Laconian
11-17-2008, 10:44 PM
Good post. Events unfortunately went against Dean, whether anyone else could have done better is a moot point. But he must bear at least some of the responsibility for his division's unreadiness for combat.

I agree but poor readiness was an organizational disease in Japan post-WWII. It resulted from the lack of funding and a lack of a bonafide enemy. MacArthur is more to blame than the individual commanders, IMO.

EDIT to add: Dean's reaction to his MOH is not atypical. Paul Bucha, a MOH recipient in VN while a company CO in the 101st, spoke at my 500th night dinner when I was at USMA. His opening, after the MC read his citation, went something like this, "Yeah, they awarded me the Medal, but you have to wonder what kind of a leader was I that I got my unit into such a mess, that I had to do all that to get them out.."

LineDoggie
11-17-2008, 10:47 PM
http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h222/linedoggie/m26Koreadotjpg
http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h222/linedoggie/73ArmorPershingsdotjpg
http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h222/linedoggie/M46dotjpg

BearInBunnySuit
11-17-2008, 11:46 PM
There is a T-34 on display at the War Memorial in Seoul, Korea (see photo below). According to the museum's website, it says that NKs had 242 of these tanks when hostilities broke out while ROK forces had none...that is until the U.S. forces arrived.

On a side note, there are no Pershings or Shermans on display at the War Memorial.

SBL
11-18-2008, 12:32 PM
On a side note, there are no Pershings or Shermans on display at the War Memorial.

Hmmmm, that's not really true.

LineDoggie
11-18-2008, 12:43 PM
There is a T-34 on display at the War Memorial in Seoul, Korea (see photo below). According to the museum's website, it says that NKs had 242 of these tanks when hostilities broke out while ROK forces had none...that is until the U.S. forces arrived.

On a side note, there are no Pershings or Shermans on display at the War Memorial.The Vehicle to the left of the T34/85 looks suspiciously like an M26/46 series, have any other pics with a wider view?

BearInBunnySuit
11-18-2008, 12:47 PM
Hmmmm, that's not really true.

Really? To be frank, I wouldn't be able to recognize them even if they ran me over so I'll take your word for it.

SBL
11-18-2008, 12:49 PM
Really? To be frank, I wouldn't be able to recognize them even if they ran me over so I'll take your word for it.
Yeah. At least there was one Sherman that I know of, as of 2006.

BearInBunnySuit
11-18-2008, 01:07 PM
The Vehicle to the left of the T34/85 looks suspiciously like an M26/46 series, have any other pics with a wider view?

After reading yours and Snakey's posts, I went back and dug around the website a bit more and they do have few more tanks on display apparently. They include M36, M46, M47 and T-59. (Sowwy)

61185

61186

61187

LineDoggie
11-18-2008, 01:44 PM
After reading yours and Snakey's posts, I went back and dug around the website a bit more and they do have few more tanks on display apparently. They include M36, M46, M47 and T-59. (Sowwy)

61185


OK, thats an M46 -Recognition points are the Bore Evacuator near the simplified Muzzle Brake, Gunners sight housing(with M2HB (M@HB) mount),Lifting points removed from Turrets left side, Small Idler wheel behind roadwheels, Straight Fenders, Armored Exhaust Covers and exhausts on top of fenders vs. the M26's exhaust on rear plate.

Hellfish
11-18-2008, 02:06 PM
More pics, because I'm bored.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/Marines-tank-Korea-19530705.JPEG/758px-Marines-tank-Korea-19530705.JPEG

http://www.paulnoll.com/Korea/War/Peng-NK-tankdotjpg

http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/tanks/M46patton-tank-koreadotjpg

http://www.kolchak.org/History/Korea/Images/bowling%20alley%20tankdotjpg

The Beard
11-18-2008, 10:09 PM
I'm prepared to be shot down here, but I was under the impression the Churchills sent as part of the British contingent were Crocodile flame thrower versions with the napalm in armoured trailers towed behind, but on arrival there was little for them to do so the trailers were unhitched and they fought as normal tanks. Although they were pretty obsolete by 1950 I think it was their performance climbing muddy hills that made them useful. I dread to think what would have happened had they come into contact with T34s, but a 75mm gun is still a 75mm gun when it comes to soft targets and buildings.

LineDoggie
11-18-2008, 10:25 PM
I'm prepared to be shot down here, but I was under the impression the Churchills sent as part of the British contingent were Crocodile flame thrower versions with the napalm in armoured trailers towed behind, but on arrival there was little for them to do so the trailers were unhitched and they fought as normal tanks. Although they were pretty obsolete by 1950 I think it was their performance climbing muddy hills that made them useful. I dread to think what would have happened had they come into contact with T34s, but a 75mm gun is still a 75mm gun when it comes to soft targets and buildings.

That was "C" sqn, 7th RTR. The Crocs were used to good effect at Chunghung Dong in January 1951. There was also some Churchill ARV's (Mk.II)and Bridgelayer, and AVRE used there.

Cromwell's (Mk. VII), Centuars, and Centurians were used also

baboon6
11-19-2008, 06:49 AM
That was "C" sqn, 7th RTR. The Crocs were used to good effect at Chunghung Dong in January 1951. There was also some Churchill ARV's (Mk.II)and Bridgelayer, and AVRE used there.

Cromwell's (Mk. VII), Centuars, and Centurians were used also

No Centaurs, the only Centaurs to see action were those in Normandy. The original tank regt in Korea, 8th Hussars, did include a recce troop of Cromwells, besides its three squadrons of Centurions, I assume subsequent regts did too. There were also some Cromwell OP tanks with 45 Field Regt RA.

EDIT:
It does seem some Centaur dozers may have served in Korea.

http://www.ww2f.com/weapons-wwii/22565-centaur-what-else-did-they-do.html

Certainly not as gun tanks though

digrar
11-19-2008, 07:32 AM
The 72nd Heavy Tank Battalion won a United States Presidential Distinguished Unit Citation in conjunction with the Third Battalion the Royal Australian Regiment and the Second Battalion Princess Patricia's at the Battle of Kapyong.

LineDoggie
11-19-2008, 06:18 PM
No Centaurs, the only Centaurs to see action were those in Normandy. The original tank regt in Korea, 8th Hussars, did include a recce troop of Cromwells, besides its three squadrons of Centurions, I assume subsequent regts did too. There were also some Cromwell OP tanks with 45 Field Regt RA.

EDIT:
It does seem some Centaur dozers may have served in Korea.

http://www.ww2f.com/weapons-wwii/22565-centaur-what-else-did-they-do.html

Certainly not as gun tanks though
Sorry, should have clarified that, Centaur Dozers, no turrets, not the 95mm armed one


Also some universal Carriers, both British and Australian pattern, and WASP flamethrowers

Billy No Mates
11-20-2008, 07:18 AM
Although they were pretty obsolete by 1950 I think it was their performance climbing muddy hills that made them useful. I dread to think what would have happened had they come into contact with T34s, but a 75mm gun is still a 75mm gun when it comes to soft targets and buildings.

I suppose as the conflict became more static and positional the conditions it encountered in Korea were closer to what the Churchill was actually designed for than most it encountered in WW2 .

baboon6
11-20-2008, 09:31 AM
I suppose as the conflict became more static and positional the conditions it encountered in Korea were closer to what the Churchill was actually designed for than most it encountered in WW2 .

AFAIK the Churchills were withdrawn when C Sqn 7 RTR left Korea in October 1951; I haven't seen any pics of Churchills dug-in in any of the 1952-53 battles, just Centurions.

Tanker31B
11-20-2008, 09:37 AM
I remember while helping restore a Stuart Tank, reading a story about a Patton tank being restored. While taking the paint off they noticed North Korean colors and marking. Apparently it had been captured, and recaptured.
They where surprised at the fact it was shipped back to the United States.
(maybe someoneed mention this in the last 46 post, quick speed read, I may of missed someone mentioning this)

Billy No Mates
11-20-2008, 10:31 AM
AFAIK the Churchills were withdrawn when C Sqn 7 RTR left Korea in October 1951; I haven't seen any pics of Churchills dug-in in any of the 1952-53 battles, just Centurions.

I suppose they must have got pretty knackered fairly quickly,the Korean terrain looks pretty rugged and the conditions really rough,no point in perservering with them when you've got tanks like the Centurion available i suppose .

The father of a girl i went to school with was a commander on Centurions in Korea and gave our class a talk on his experience,extracting British troops under fire and them clinging to the turret/decks i don't remember much else he said but that sticks in my mind .

Hellfish
11-20-2008, 01:28 PM
I remember while helping restore a Stuart Tank, reading a story about a Patton tank being restored. While taking the paint off they noticed North Korean colors and marking. Apparently it had been captured, and recaptured.
They where surprised at the fact it was shipped back to the United States.
(maybe someoneed mention this in the last 46 post, quick speed read, I may of missed someone mentioning this)

IIRC the first tank-on-tank action the Centurions had was against a captured Cromwell. It's not outside the realm of possibility, though I know the USAF was pretty keen on napalming any vehicles that were abandoned.

LineDoggie
11-23-2008, 03:48 AM
IIRC the first tank-on-tank action the Centurions had was against a captured Cromwell. It's not outside the realm of possibility, though I know the USAF was pretty keen on napalming any vehicles that were abandoned.
Nope, your right. On 11 Feb, 1951 "Caughoo" & "Colorado" of "C" Sqn. 7RTR at Yongdongpo engaged a Captured Cromwell with their 20 pdr. main guns at a range of 3,000yds. The Cromwell had been Captured during the "Happy Valley" Battle and out into service.

soldier20
11-23-2008, 08:34 AM
did the turkish army had tanks back then at that war or did we just fought side by side with the american tanks

BearInBunnySuit
11-23-2008, 11:40 AM
On the U.N. forces side, it looks like only U.S. and U.K. tanks saw battle in Korea, according to this Web site.

http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/tanks.htm (http://www.rt66.com/%7Ekorteng/SmallArms/tanks.htm)

umutferhat
11-24-2008, 02:11 PM
did the turkish army had tanks back then at that war or did we just fought side by side with the american tanks

What ı know is Turkish side never deployed tanks in korean war.

Cobber15-08
11-25-2008, 12:13 AM
Most larger Allied units had US Army tanks attached to them especially during first year while war was mobile. The non US forces were attached as Btns or Bgds to US Army Divisions. The British commonwealth 27th Bgd (Brits & Aussie) had US tank Coy attached, while 29th British Bgd (Brits) arrived with their own tanks
As far as non USA tanks, i think only the Brits sent some to Korea. The larger Allied formations, Turkish Bgd etc would most likely of had US tank Coy attached, esp during the early fluid operations in Korea.

Hellfish
11-25-2008, 01:45 AM
The Canadians arrived with some Achilles TDs, but they were exchanged for Shermans later on. I don't know if they brought Shermans of their own, but I know they got some from the US.

LineDoggie
11-25-2008, 02:10 AM
ROK's had some M36B2's with roof armor around 1951

soldier20
11-25-2008, 02:46 AM
Most larger Allied units had US Army tanks attached to them especially during first year while war was mobile. The non US forces were attached as Btns or Bgds to US Army Divisions. The British commonwealth 27th Bgd (Brits & Aussie) had US tank Coy attached, while 29th British Bgd (Brits) arrived with their own tanks
As far as non USA tanks, i think only the Brits sent some to Korea. The larger Allied formations, Turkish Bgd etc would most likely of had US tank Coy attached, esp during the early fluid operations in Korea.

thats what im after

Alfacentori
11-25-2008, 03:08 AM
Heres some more pics of Korean War Armour.

From left to right

-M39 SK APC
-Early Centuron with 17pdr, Aussie or Brit troops.
-The caption for this on said a wrecked T34 but looks like a Centurion to me.
-M45
-NK T34/85's
-M4A3's
-WW2 Pic, Marder II with Me 323 Giant

Alfa

Hellfish
11-25-2008, 03:41 AM
-This last one I'm sure is WW2, looks like a Marder, anyone ID the vehicle and plane?

Alfa

Marder II, I think, with an Me 323 Gigant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_323

Alfacentori
11-25-2008, 03:41 AM
A few more

-US forces pause near a captured T34/85
-US Forces advance pass a knocked out T34/85
-Infantry supporting an M26
-A M4A3 Sherman clearing an obstacle
-Edit: M19 SPAA

Alfa

Alfacentori
11-25-2008, 03:44 AM
Marder II, I think, with an Me 323 Gigant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_323

Thanks Hellfish, I can't recall seeing an Me 323 before, must have been rare sight.

Alfa

Hellfish
11-25-2008, 03:49 AM
200 built, but none seemed to last long. IIRC they were used to resupply/reinforce Tunisia quite a bit.

Hellfish
11-25-2008, 03:50 AM
-M42 Duster SPAA

Alfa

That's an M19 SPAA. An early version of the Duster, on an M24 chassis. The Duster was on an M41 chassis.

Jarhead
11-25-2008, 03:52 AM
Hellfish is right.

Its a Sd.Kfz. 131 Marder II (7,5 cm PAK on Pz.Kpfw II chassy).

One Man Gang
11-25-2008, 03:57 AM
Alfa, Pic 1 is of an ROK M-30 which was an APC/Prime Mover variant of the M-18 Hellcat tank destroyer.

The last pic is from WWII. The aircraft is a Luftwaffe Me 323 transport which was a six-engined version of the Me 321 glider. The Me 321 was so big it took three He-111 bombers to get the thing off the ground. The 323 was slow and very lightly built, not surprising given it's background as a glider. Not the the best combination, though, if it encountered any opposition in the air. They were used in North Africa and in Russia.

The vehicle is a Marder II tank destroyer based on the Pzkw II. It mounted a 75mm PAK 40/2 AT gun.

Alfacentori
11-25-2008, 04:19 AM
Alfa, Pic 1 is of an ROK M-30 which was an APC/Prime Mover variant of the M-18 Hellcat tank destroyer.

Cool, I wondered what that was, I tried to find a better pic but no luck.

Ok I'll see if I can get some right this time.

-M26 in action
-Knocked out T34/85
-Knocked out T34/85
-M46 late in Korean War
-Knocked out T34/85

Alfa

Laconian
11-25-2008, 08:54 AM
Nice pics and info guys. Thanks.

SBL
11-25-2008, 10:55 AM
-I'm not sure, US infantry passing a SK light tank?


Looks like they may be National Police.

LineDoggie
11-25-2008, 11:10 AM
Thanks Hellfish, I can't recall seeing an Me 323 before, must have been rare sight.

Alfa
Especially in Korea p-) and the ROK APC is an M39, not 30

baboon6
11-25-2008, 11:56 AM
Cool, I wondered what that was, I tried to find a better pic but no luck.

Ok I'll see if I can get some right this time.

-M26/46/7 in action
-Knocked out T34/85
-Knocked out T34/85
-M47 late in Korean War
-Knocked out T34/85

Alfa

It's an M46, no M47s were used in Korea.

LineDoggie
11-25-2008, 12:04 PM
Cool, I wondered what that was, I tried to find a better pic but no luck.

Ok I'll see if I can get some right this time.

-M26/46/7 in action
-Knocked out T34/85
-Knocked out T34/85
-M47 late in Korean War
-Knocked out T34/85

Alfa


Your first picture is interesting.

First off the tank is an M26 as you can see the Travel lock on the rear plate, fenders and low set sprocket, and finally the Muzzle Break & the Tube has no bore evacuator.


But, the most interesting thing is the Marine at far left, he has a Mosin-Nagant rifle slung on his back. Typical G.I. Souvenier hunters :)

Alfacentori
11-25-2008, 07:12 PM
Especially in Korea p-) and the ROK APC is an M39, not 30

Yeah those damn gerry's are everywhere p-)


It's an M46, no M47s were used in Korea.

Thanks, noted :)


Your first picture is interesting.

First off the tank is an M26 as you can see the Travel lock on the rear plate, fenders and low set sprocket, and finally the Muzzle Break & the Tube has no bore evacuator.

But, the most interesting thing is the Marine at far left, he has a Mosin-Nagant rifle slung on his back. Typical G.I. Souvenier hunters :)

I never even noticed, fancy that he does too, nothing wrong with a bit of battlefield salvage, was probably shiney new and only dropped once. p-)

One Man Gang
11-26-2008, 03:43 AM
Especially in Korea p-) and the ROK APC is an M39, not 30

Absolutely. I missed that one. I checked the nomenclature on the others and not that. (grumble)

The M-30 was the support version of the M-12 GMC 155mm SP gun based on the M-3 medium chassis that used French-designed (155mm GPF) ordance brought back after WWI. The US Army built about 30 or so of the SP's then left them behind. After D-Day, the troops in Europe began screaming for an SP 155mm and the Army quickly dusted some of these off and sent them over. They were used in the battle for Cologne. A few made it to the Pacific and were used at Manila.