Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 74

Thread: Tanks in Korean War?

  1. #1
    Member chuckster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    USA, Missouri
    Posts
    561

    Default Tanks in Korean War?

    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?

  2. #2
    Reported.....For not reporting T3ngu sooner Alfacentori's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Resident Misanthrope
    Posts
    4,367

    Default

    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/fact...kw_armor.shtml

    Alfa
    Last edited by Alfacentori; 11-16-2008 at 10:57 PM.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Kaplanr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Eating eggs & hash browns. Nahal %^&*@strong 111.
    Posts
    5,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chuckster View Post
    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 and not

  4. #4
    Senior Member goat89's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    The Republic of Singapore
    Posts
    10,660

    Default

    ^HAHAHHAHA! LMAO!!! Its Pershings lol. NOT Persians!

  5. #5
    Senior Member loganinkosovo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,837

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chuckster View Post
    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-2....htm/printable

    http://www.peachmountain.com/5Star/T..._M26_tank.aspx




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

  6. #6
    Miss Convicted 2009 SBL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Dividing my time between the far east and the east coast.
    Age
    30
    Posts
    21,566

    Default

    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.

  7. #7
    Hellfish Junior gaijinsamurai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    21,691

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaplanr View Post
    Maybe you mean and not
    Hahaha!! Good one, Kaplan!

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

  8. #8
    Reported.....For not reporting T3ngu sooner Alfacentori's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Resident Misanthrope
    Posts
    4,367

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SnakeBiteLeader View Post
    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

  9. #9
    Senior Member Chulo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    17,546

    Default

    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.

  10. #10
    **** you 20122. how goes does gaz type drunk? dricl. man Hellfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    A terra dos foguetes
    Posts
    29,736

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alfacentori View Post
    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/fact...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:



    ISBN: 0897471504

  11. #11
    Member SpeedyHedgehog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North of South Carolina
    Age
    57
    Posts
    795

    Default

    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.

  12. #12
    **** you 20122. how goes does gaz type drunk? dricl. man Hellfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    A terra dos foguetes
    Posts
    29,736

    Default

    I remember reading a history of Marine Corps armor (http://www.amazon.com/Marines-Under-.../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.

  13. #13
    Senior Member Britboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Hanging out of your mam's backdoors ya slaaaagggs!
    Posts
    2,207

    Default

    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.

  14. #14
    **** you 20122. how goes does gaz type drunk? dricl. man Hellfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    A terra dos foguetes
    Posts
    29,736

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Britboy View Post
    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.

  15. #15
    Senior Member LineDoggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    38S MB 3661/8351
    Posts
    32,807

    Default

    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •