Tanks at Korea

Other Wars Korean War
#1

Hello Peoples,

i´m brand new here, and i was reading a lot the last time here. It´s a very interesting side!!

Now, meaby you can help me. I´m interested in all Tanks at Korean War ( US & USMC ) cause i try to buildt, the important types, as remote controled Models ( Scale 1:16 )

Also, i have two books:

  • Korean War 1950-53, Concord
  • ARMOR in Korea, Squadron

Here are my first three Korea Models

M4

Ok, i know it´s an 76mm, not an 105mm, but this was one of my first tankmodell also.

M26

The Pershing is not finish yet. I have to put all the little things around cans, helmets, some stuff like this

M32 Recovery

greatings Manuel

#2

Wow, those are good.

The Soviets supplied the N. Koreans with T-34/85s, and the Americans supplied the S. Koreans with M-24 Chaffees, M-26 Pershings and M-46Pattons, as well as the M-8 Greyhounds. The English supplied the S. Koreans with Curchill VIIs, Centurions, Cromwell A27Ms, and Comet A34s. The Canadians sent the M10 Achilles 17-pounder self-propelled gun, but they were replaced by the Sherman.

Too lazy to find more… :wink:

#3

do you make from kits or do you make those from scratch? I also like your paint job.

#4

Nice models, but for the Sherman, I think you mean it’s a 75mm (which was pretty much gone by the Korean War), and not a 76mm HVSS model…

Also, the first US tank deployed was the light M-24 Chaffee. They initially battled the T-34 and it did not go well…:frowning:

#5

Actually, the Americans didn’t supply the S. Koreans with any tanks (prior to hostilities in 1950) at all as far as I can tell. Neither did anyone else, though they may have had some left over Japanese tinboxes…

They also had few anti-tank weapons and little in the way of artillery…

#6

Thank you, for reactie.

Well, the M4 and the M32 i buildt, it´s an a Tamiya Kit basicly. The M26 its build on a Heng Long, cheap toy.

#7

I guess you worked hard on the Heng Long.

#8

Here You can see, how i buildt it.

M4 Howitzer Korea
http://www.rc-militaer-forum.de/thread.php?threadid=1312

M32 recovery Korea
http://www.rc-militaer-forum.de/thread.php?threadid=1234

M26 Pershing Korea
http://www.rc-militaer-forum.de/thread.php?threadid=1410

and this is my actually tank at work M 7 Priest, will be also Koreaversion

http://www.rc-militaer-forum.de/thread.php?threadid=1483

#9

Wow! Thumbs up:D

#10

I agree that your models are excellent! You can find a tank in this movie:

Forgotten: Korean War DVD

It is an “open turrent” WWII " tank destroyer" tank, but for the first year or two of the Korean War, especially, they were using materiel left over from World War II.

#11

I have yet to see the film. I do know that the use of tank destroyers in Korea by the US was fairly limited as most TDs had shortcomings and were replaced with tanks such as the M46/47/48 series. The M-36 “Slugger” or Jackson (the official name) was used to some extent. Basically because it began to cross the line between what was a true (U.S.) tank destroyer and a tank and its 90mm gun would have been effective against any T-34 or other tank the Chinese or North Koreans could field…

#12

The best tank in Korea:

#13

Define “best tank.” While I think the Centurion is magnificent, there were few tank battles and with the exception of the Cent’s excellent performance in mountainous terrain, it is difficult to discern much between the antitank performance of the Cent and the M-46 Patton. I think one could argue that for the actual fighting where tanks were used mostly for infantry support, the M-4 Sherman with its three machine-guns and a 75mm gun firing an excellent HE shell, might have been ideal against infantry with few antitank weapons. I believe there were some deployed to Korea with the short 75, the majority were M-4A3E8 (HVSS) with the 76mm though, which tended to out match the T-34/85…


Some of the less common 75mm-armed Shermans in Korea also armed with flamethrowers…

//youtu.be/DpARWt4OE4U

tp.gif

#14

Chaffees_at_Masan.jpgThese were the worst tanks, at least as far as tank vs. tank engagements went:

#15

Chaffees… somehow they look like US “panzer IIIs in Korea” :slight_smile: (with the exception of the upgunning race)

Every tank has its “comfort zone”. the Centurion hilly dificult area where it could “outmanouvre” or outpower others. M46 was somehow better armoured in the hull, no?

I wonder whether the 90mm Centurion gun had that bad a HE shot?

#16

The Chaffee’s only saving grace was that it was more easily moved to where it was needed. It was a significant improvement over the Stuart series, but still (despite its more modern hull, and Turret construction) looked to the past rather than the future. Rear engine(s) front drive, having a large hatch in the middle of it’s Glacis ,and an underpowered main gun left it too vulnerable to nearly anything it may come up against. I feel the same way about the short lived Sheridan vehicle, which while it was air transportable,(it’s greatest, and most useful feature) and had a large enough(though slow to cycle) main battery weapon to handle most encounters, it was still the “knife at the gun fight” Although the Light Tank continued in use through the 70’s , it should have never survived WW 1.

#17

The M-24 Chaffee was a light, reconnaissance tank. It was fielded to replace the Stuart light tank and give an upgrade in firepower and armor protection to the recon units, which it did with the same 75mm gun the first Shermans used. In that role, it was very successful. However, the occupation forces on Japan relied on the Chaffee mainly because the roads and bridges in Japan were too light for heavier tanks like the M-26 Pershings the Army effectively mothballed there, and of course there was no need for heavy armor other than to use as a show of force. The Chaffees were deployed to Korea initially because that’s what they had in Japan and in the main battle tank role it performed miserably against the T-34/85 as the 75 was completely ineffective against the frontal armor of the T-34. However, they were used for the duration of the conflict and the 75mm gun was thought highly of in an infantry support and indirect fire role if certainly not in a tank-killer role…

#18

I had not considered the Bridge rating situation, so that would give them an advantage, and a real purpose. To my somewhat bent, and slightly smoking way of thinking, the faster light tank was originally added to the fight in order to protect,and take some of the pressure off of the larger, and much slower lozenge tanks of WW I , and the interwar years. I also misspoke when I wrote that the main gun left it vulnerable, that should have been meant to reflect upon the armor, not the gun, which was a light year ahead of the 37 mm carried by the Stuart. The HE shell used by the 75mm of the Sherman was said to be an excellent shell, superior to that of the 76.2mm which is one reason given for the use of the 75mm in the Sherman but thats another story.

#19

It surprises me though, because most succesful “infantry tanks” were heavy, thick armoured beasts (as the Churchill tank), which was expected to be a slow fortress that could get anywhere by sheer power.
The Chaffee was the opposite. I guess they just used it along as they could - never really designed to be an infantry tank - making use of the gun.

#20

The Chaffee was a “recon” tank,(As Nick points out) made purposely light for rapid ingress/egress sneaking & peeking. It was useful, though not optimal in the infantry support role, but was not really meant for slow assault work as was the Churchill, and the Matilda. Its main attributes were its main gun, fairly large for such a light vehicle, and its speed, 40-55 kph Its suspension was torsion bar, which helped with the speed, but the armor was very light, and despite being of modern design, and construction was still vulnerable to most all of the A-T weapons of its time.