I think the Chinese PLA and North Koreans were deficient in antitank weapons, partially a legacy of the Soviet’s relying on antitank rifles during WWII until the advent of the RPG’s…
I was speaking more to those to be encountered in Europe, but the PTRD, and PTRS rifles were capable against the Chaffee’s armor. I personally would not enjoy getting as close to a Tank as would be needed to use one, but it could be done.
I think the biggest threat to the Chaffees was the T-34’s 85mm gun. What I was referring too was the M-24’s being used as artillery SPG’s in the Pusan Perimeter, by that time the T-34 threat had largely been checked and the battles turned into infantry slugging matches…
WWII turning into WWI
You got me there Nick, although I’ve seen several different history shows about the Korean war which featured details about the perimeter, I missed the part of the M-24 being used for an SPG, though it seems an almost intuitive use for it considering the circumstances.
Korea was not very good tank country. The nation is bisected by mountainous terrain and the then limited urban areas made swift armored advances impossible. But to an extent, periods of even WWII resembled defensive trench and fortification fighting of WWI until the Allies achieved overwhelming industrial superiority. The North Koreans were able to achieve such a rolling blitz in 1950 only because the South Korean ROK Army lacked much in the way of armor or antitank weapons, or even artillery and was trained in primarily anti-guerrilla operations. But the initial waves of U.S. troops also were using five year old 2.36" Bazooka rounds that often failed to detonate when they launched, Bazooka rounds that had been obsolete seven years prior! The Pusan Perimeter was steadily reinforced but all the while faced a relentless onslaught of Communist attacks that essentially were Pyrrhic in nature as they exposed themselves to increasing voluminous and competently directed U.N. fire. In fact, the North Korean commanders were so aggressive and incessant in their attacks --and so oblivious to their casualties-- that Gen. Walker assumed then Communists outnumbered them even after his forces were in fact far more numerous than the depleted legions of Kim Il Sung on the eve of Inchon. The breakout after the Inchon Amphibious landings did feature concentrated armor and rapid maneuver by-passing sizable numbers of NK troops that took to the mountains as guerrillas until of course the Chinese PLA “Volunteers” came in the war. Then it was pretty much the stalemate that might be synonymous with WWI-style trench warfare, and very limited offensives by the U.N. under Gen Ridgeway designed primarily to punish the Chinese with firepower and limited movement as the U.N. learned to cope with their “human wave” tactics that were actually more based on infiltration and isolating individual enemy units with guerrilla-style tactical movement. The Chinese of course had very little armor or artillery, so their offensives did in fact resemble the slaughters of WWI…
Perhaps SPG isn’t the most apt description. But they were essentially used defensively as assault guns in an anti-personnel role augmenting the more powerful armor arriving like the M-26/46 and the M-4A3E8. I think after a certain point, the North Koreans had squandered most of their armor…
Still, the Centurion was king over there. One could say: “well, the mountains, the roughs and hills made it an easy contest amongst the allied vehicles…” But I think it it is exactly the very nature of being a better tank.
And the sweep to back and forth infantry stalemate doesn’t change that. No tank can prove itself by forcing an eventually blunted conflict into a tank contest. I guess the contest was already won then.
You won’t get an argument from me, the Centurion is an excellent tank and certainly one of the finest designs ever to be fielded. It exceeded the M-46 Patton, although in actual combat both were equally effective against the T-34/85. Some Israeli tankers might have preferred the M-48A5 Patton, or M-60A1 over the Centurion for ease of maintenance and reliability. But that’s not a totally fair apples-to-apples comparison as the the Patton series had evolved significantly whereas the Cent was basically phased out of front line British service…
According to my osprey literature (which a modeller likes for its technical detail history), the US bought some Centurions as well, being impressed bij its performance in Korea.
It was the US chief-in-command that stated that the Centurion prooved that any land that is passable by a tank is tank land, which pointed to the fact that the Centurion was able to bend ample terrain to its will, making its presence the top issue of the battlefield for both sides. Its gyrostabilized gun helped … And the full scale “Unviersal tank” use, which not only served break throughs and anti-tank battle but infantry support and thus small artillery as well in the later stage. The Centurion might just be the machine that defined the MBT in practice.
The Patton series of tanks (from the Pershings to the M-60A3) was also a Main Battle Tank and was developed concurrently with the Cent. Never heard of a U.S. purchase of Centurions…
The United States purchased Centurions and gave them to Denmark and the Netherlands under the Military Aid Program.
Supposedly, they didn’t keep them, but tested them.
Given the history of the MBT70 and the follow-up race to equip the Army between Leo 2 and M1, the US don’t seem quite sharp edge decision makers in their armour. A lot of business interests interfered. Luckily the M1 isn’t a bad tank, far from it. The British got rid of their troubles once the Centurion came along. They were top notch in 50ties and 60ties, delivering their L7 105mm gun to NATO gun tanks. Nowadays the Leo 2 is rather the new Centurion by reference, export and fame, delivering “Krauss Maffei” 120mm gun to many NATO gun tanks (incl M1). Just as the Belgian FN rifles and machine guns are. No doubt there is a chance in 30 years we are speaking about the US or British reference again. Who knows?
Interesting…
Given the history of the MBT70 and the follow-up race to equip the Army between Leo 2 and M1, the US don’t seem quite sharp edge decision makers in their armour. A lot of business interests interfered. Luckily the M1 isn’t a bad tank, far from it.
…
I’m not sure what you mean here. The Vietnam War certainly delayed U.S. tank research and testing while the MBT-70 project was a bit of a disaster from the standpoint that the technologies being incorporated into the tank just weren’t quite ready yet. I also recall something about the German and American engineers being completely confused as the former were using metrics and the latter standard for measurements of parts causing some major difficulties. Although, we should say that some good lessons were learned by both Germany and the U.S. in regards to tank development that would be applied in both the Leopard II and M-1 series. But there were some other factors for U.S. planners to consider as well.
The effectiveness of both the Sagger and TOW AT missiles in Vietnam and Middle East certainly caused a bit of consternation in developing ultra-expensive tanks that could possibly be defeated by cheap missiles carried by infantry. But overall, the M-48A3 Patton (with the 90mm gun) had performed well overall in Vietnam as did the Centurion in Aussie service. The M-60 series was still effective against the latest generation of Soviet armor such as the T-72, especially with the upgrades of the L7 which to my knowledge can still kill most tanks today likely to be encountered. Even as the M-1’s were rolling off the lines in the mid-80’s, some were asking “why?”, as one could build three M-60A3’s for every M-1 and still save more on fuel! But the M-1 was the worlds first modern tank from multiple standpoints of automotive performance, optics, fire-control and other electronics after nearly doubling the horsepower ratings of its predecessors, and it’s overall effectiveness still made it the ultimate deterrent of a desperate last gamble of a withering Soviet empire…
The US decided not to buy the Leo 2 for themselves, but develop the M1, despite the signs and promises.
With all the politics behind us, we still can make a summary which brings the M1 to the front as being an unnecessary developped, more expensive gas guzzler with the same mobility and gun as the Leo 2. It is still as good an MBT to employ no matter what. It just caused more costs and timelag because of internal national interests.
The effectiveness of both the Sagger and TOW AT missiles in Vietnam and Middle East certainly caused a bit of consternation in developing ultra-expensive tanks that could possibly be defeated by cheap missiles carried by infantry. But overall, the M-48A3 Patton (with the 90mm gun) had performed well overall in Vietnam as did the Centurion in Aussie service. The M-60 series was still effective against the latest generation of Soviet armor such as the T-72, especially with the upgrades of the L7 which to my knowledge can still kill most tanks today likely to be encountered. Even as the M-1’s were rolling off the lines in the mid-80’s, some were asking “why?”, as one could build three M-60A3’s for every M-1 and still save more on fuel! But the M-1 was the worlds first modern tank from multiple standpoints of automotive performance, optics, fire-control and other electronics after nearly doubling the horsepower ratings of its predecessors, and it’s overall effectiveness still made it the ultimate deterrent of a desperate last gamble of a withering Soviet empire…
hm… A whole new theme to think about … what are today’s paradigms?
You would have to indict every European power with the same accusations as all the majors ones also have their indigenous “third generation” tank designs. There are criticisms of the M-1 series’ “gas-guzzling” turbine engine. But that isn’t really an indictment of the tank as a whole since its modular power plant could be replaced with a suitable turbo-diesel, which is in the works. In general, the turbine engine, while thirsty, also has been shown to be very reliable and effective in real world operations. And while the Leopard series of tanks are great, the M-1 has repeatably proved itself reliable and very effective in actual combat. I know the Leopard II has been used in anger, but certainly not to the extent of the M-1A1 and not against significant armored opposition. Politically, of course it’s difficult to simply buy someone else’s design with an indigenous industrial base that is lagging and in need of jobs such as the U.S. was in the 1970’s. It really is only relatively recently the U.S. military has deployed foreign weapon systems at all, such as the AT-4…
[QUOTE=Nickdfresh;190172]Interesting…
The infantry carried wire missiles were a problem to be concerned with, the sapper, and swatter missiles as well. The one break was in that the shooter had to keep the missile on target with a joystick the entire time which was difficult enough, but more so if the attackers could put out some suppressing fire. A hit was as good as a kill in those days on either side. The U.S. Tow missile was a little different in that it had a sighting system that allowed the shooter to aim using a reticle, and by just keeping the reticle on the target, the missile would find its way to a range of just over 3km. (IIRC) We were present at a testing session of the Tow, the missiles were being fired at a test tank outfitted with extra side plates for the missiles to impact against. There were no misses, or failures although the warheads were inert and just made a loud thunk on the plates. The test had to be interrupted in order for repair welds to be made to the side plates as they would occasionally crack just from the impact. All of these missiles were a game changer for both sides of the Cold war. This was about the time someone came up with the (bad) idea for the M-60-A1-E2 Starship that had a weird turret, and carried a 152mm gun/launcher that fired either the sheleighleigh missile, or a combustible cased conventional (but lower velocity) round The main headache with the system was that it was slow to cycle between rounds due to the need for clearing the breech of debris prior to reloading it was just too slow in a pinch, so it was not around for long. The missile was fine as long as one was not in a forest.
There were rumors of big changes for armor in light of the new missiles, that tanks may be on the way out, but that never happened especially with the advent of Chobham armor. The main Battery of the M-60 series the L-7 105mm rifle was well more than capable of dealing with any tank it might face. It was quick to load with metal cased one piece munitions, of 5 different types. Sabot, HEAT, HEP, Fletchette,(Beehive) and White Phosphorous (smoke) The M-60 was able to take on the Warsaw Pact T-72 which actually had some fire control and maybe even a turret floor. T-54’s, and 62’s were not so equipped, in those days anyway. While much better than its predecessors, the 72 was not superior to the 60’s mostly because it was hobbled by its not so quick auto loader system which was as likely to load one’s arm as charge the gun. This loader also required the ammo to be stored around the circumference of the turret ring, which was a real Achilles heel. Its crampt interior also lessened its operating efficiency in battle.
The M-60’s had (depending on version) a very reliable fire control system to go along with the excellent gun, and munitions. It used a stereo optic mechanical rangefinder that could range to 4,400 meters. This fed info into an electro mechanical ballistic computer which had a setting for each of the 5 different rounds. It also accounted for bore wear via an E.F.C. setting , and on later versions also gathered information on wind speed, and direction, and temperature and humidity. The primary gunner sight was a simple aiming cross having mil-dots in all 4 directions to account for spindrift, and target lead if needed. the gunner had only to select the munition called for, and place the cross on the target. The computer provided all of the super elevation to the gun. There was also a secondary sight coaxial to the gun, that had a separate reticle for each round which had all of the range marks, and drift corrections etched into them. I.R. sights were also there. The coax machine gun had the same velocity as the HEP round so we could have that gun aligned to the primary sight to make things a bit easier, though it also had its own sight a red circle that was supposed to indicate the area coverage, but no one I know ever used it. The Cupola mounted .50 cal had its own sights independent of all the others, as was its own traverse, and elevation mechanism. (sadly, all manual) The L-7 is still in use on the Stryker vehicles, and still does a bang-up job.
All of the 60’s had the same Continental air cooled V-12 Turbo Diesel pack, two speed auto trans, it made 950 gross H.P. 750 at the ground and got 1.1 miles per gallon on a level hard surface. Not bad for 52 tons. I see the reason behind the turbine engine of the Abrams,reliable, can burn many different types of fuel, but I also think a present technology 1,500 HP diesel pack would be a better idea overall. Just my opinion.
I agree with the diesel pack, TG.
As far as the guided missiles, I think the North Vietnamese (and hence the Soviets, ultimately) were also shocked by the use of TOW’s on tactical choppers such as the AH-1 Cobra. I think they as much as anything else halted the 1972 NVA/VPA offensive and for the first time turned tactical aircraft into precise, effective antitank weapons - and their potential to reduce the armored concentration of any Blitz even before they met significant enemy opposition on the ground…
Anyone who can give advice on which 1/35 scale model to use if one wants to construct a Korean Centurion (mk III)?
LionMarc has a mk III turret (without bins) for retrogard conversion of a mkV, AFV club has excellent 1/35 20pdr barrel.
But what base model?
The AFV Club mkV Aussie
or the mkV with L7?
According to many resources, only the turret/gun was a major change. Or in other words, all the upgrades from mkIII to mkV concerned items within the turret.
I would love to use AFV Club models because of the detailed suspension and real rubber rings on the wheels.
Some interesting snippets here written as AAR’s at the following site regarding the performance of the M-4A3E8 Sherman:
http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2014/12/american-tanks-in-korean-war.html