Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    From $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    US Cold War Tanks and Armoured Fighting Vehicles
    US Cold War Tanks and Armoured Fighting Vehicles
    US Cold War Tanks and Armoured Fighting Vehicles
    Ebook268 pages2 hours

    US Cold War Tanks and Armoured Fighting Vehicles

    By Michael Green

    1/5

    ()

    Read preview

    About this ebook

    This expert study of the U.S. military’s armored vehicles deployed during the Cold War features rare photographs from the wartime archives.
     
    To counter the Soviet threat and that of their client States during the Cold War years 1949-1991, the American military deployed an impressive range of main battle tanks and armored fighting vehicles. Expert author Michael Green presents a detailed study of these vehicles and their variants in this informative volume of stunning wartime photographs.
     
    The Patton series of medium main battle tanks—including the M46, M47 and M48—supplemented by the M103s Heavy Tank initially formed the core of the US tank fleet. In 1960 the M60 MBT entered service and, in turn, was replaced by the M1 Abrams in 1980. In support were armored reconnaissance vehicles, progressively the M41 bull dog (1951); the M114 (1961), the M551 Sheridan (1967) and M3 Bradley Cavalry Fighting Vehicle (1981). The armored personnel carrier range included the ubiquitous M113 and its replacement the M2 Bradley, cousin of the M3.
     
    All of these vehicles are covered in this highly detailed volume in the Images of War series.
    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherOpen Road Integrated Media
    Release dateAug 30, 2019
    ISBN9781526727220
    US Cold War Tanks and Armoured Fighting Vehicles
    Author

    Michael Green

     Michael Green (1930–2019) was one of the best-known British evangelical theologians and preachers of his generation. A scholar with degrees from the universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Toronto, Green had a passion for evangelism and a rare talent for communicating complex ideas in easy-to-understand language. In 1996, Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey granted Green a Lambeth degree of Doctor of Divinity. ?He led university missions on six continents, pastored St. Aldate's Church Oxford, and introduced innovative approaches in seminary education. He authored more than seventy books across a range of fields, including evangelism, apologetics, biblical commentary, and academic theology.

    Read more from Michael Green

    Related to US Cold War Tanks and Armoured Fighting Vehicles

    Titles in the series (100)

    View More
    View More

    Related ebooks

    Wars & Military For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related categories

    Reviews for US Cold War Tanks and Armoured Fighting Vehicles

    1/5

    1 rating0 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

      Book preview

      US Cold War Tanks and Armoured Fighting Vehicles - Michael Green

      Chapter One

      Early Cold War Tanks

      Even before the Second World War ended, the US Army was thinking about what types of tank it would need post-war. On 20 January 1945, the Army Ground Force Equipment Review Board released a report recommending the acquisition of next-generation light, medium and heavy tanks. It also endorsed the idea that research should begin on a super-heavy tank.

      In the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, the US Army once again began thinking about what tanks were required for the future. On 19 January 1946, the War Department Equipment Board, also known as the ‘Stilwell Board’, released its own report. The report reaffirmed the previous board’s findings by recommending the fielding of new light, medium and heavy tanks. There was, however, no mention of a super-heavy tank.

      As there was a strong belief among America’s senior political leadership at this time that its sole possession of the atom bomb meant that strong conventional ground forces were no longer necessary, the development of the new tanks tended to proceed very slowly. As geopolitical tensions rose between the United States and its former wartime ally, the Soviet Union, there began in 1947 what historians refer to as the ‘Cold War’.

      The Korean War

      On 25 June 1950, the North Korean Army invaded South Korea. The spearhead of their invasion force was 150 Soviet-supplied T-34-85 medium tanks armed with an 85mm main gun and weighing approximately 71,000lb. As the American-equipped and trained South Korean Army had not been provided with tanks or anti-tank weapons, it could offer little resistance.

      The North Korean Army’s early battlefield with the diesel-powered T-34-85 success led to a ‘tank panic’ among the American military. This occurred because it was clear to them that they lacked enough modern tanks to stop a corresponding Soviet Army invasion of Western Europe, which was felt to be very probable at that time.

      Besides the approximately 24,000 T-34-85 tanks built in the Soviet Union during the Second World War, the US Army estimated that another 22,700 were constructed in Soviet factories between July 1945 and 1950. These quantities reflected the Red Army (which became the Soviet Army in 1946) belief that quantity was much more important than the individual quality of a tank.

      The 1950 American Tank Inventory

      When the Korean War began, the American military possessed approximately 9,000 gasoline-powered tanks out of the roughly 28,000 it had in its inventory at the conclusion of the Second World War. The bulk of the vehicles that remained in the American military in the immediate post-war era were the approximately 40,000lb M24 Light Tank, officially nicknamed the ‘Chaffee’, and the roughly 74,000lb M4A3(76)W Medium Tank commonly referred to by its unofficial nickname as the ‘Sherman’.

      The M24 was armed with a 75mm main gun, and the M4A3(76)W had a 76mm main gun as indicated in its designation. The Second World War-vintage M4A3(76)W tanks kept by the US Army in the immediate post-war era all rode on the late-war Horizontal Volute Spring Suspension (HVSS) system. Picture evidence shows M4A1(76)W Medium Tanks riding on the HVSS in post-war US Army National Guard service but these do not appear in any Korean War pictures.

      All the 75mm main gun and 105mm armed variants of the M4 series of medium tank, riding on the HVSS suspension system and the early-war Vertical Volute Spring Suspension (VVSS) system, had been declared obsolete by the US Army in 1945 and in theory pulled from active service. Pictorial evidence shows M4A3(75) tanks, riding on the HVSS system, seeing service during the 1950s with the US Army National Guard.

      The Best We Had

      There were only two American tanks considered reasonably modern at the outbreak of the Korean War. The first was the gasoline-powered M26 Medium Tank, armed with a 90mm main gun and officially nicknamed the ‘General Pershing’. The second was a modernized version of the Pershing designated the M46 Medium Tank and officially nicknamed the ‘General Patton’. It weighed approximately 97,000lb and retained the 90mm armament of its predecessor but was fitted with a more powerful gasoline engine.

      The approximately 92,000lb M26 had been classified as a heavy tank by the US Army during the Second World War and reclassified as a medium tank following the conflict as it was anticipated that larger and heavier tanks were to be fielded.

      There was both an upgraded Pershing model labelled the M26A1 and an upgraded Patton model designated the M46A1. The prefix ‘A’ following an American military vehicle designation typically indicates a significant change to a design, such as the fitting of a new main gun or engine. Continuations such as A1, A2 and A3 identify sequential standardized vehicle modifications.

      American Tanks Enter the Fray

      To support the hard-pressed South Korean Army, the US Army initially sent a number of M24 tanks, which were then stationed in American-occupied Japan. Designed as a reconnaissance vehicle, they did not fare well in combat against the North Korean T-34-85 tanks, which they first encountered on 10 July 1950.

      Under no illusions regarding the capabilities of the M24, medium tank battalions of both the US Army and Marine Corps began preparations for deployment to South Korea as quickly as possible. The first US Army medium tanks to arrive in South Korea were three M26s found in storage in Japan. Arriving on 16 July 1950, all were subsequently lost on 31 July 1950 due to mechanical issues.

      Also on 31 July 1950, the first elements of a US Army battalion of fifty-four M4A3(76)W Medium Tanks arrived in theatre. These were soon augmented by battalions equipped with the M4A3(76)W, as well as the M26 and later the M46.

      By late August 1950, the American military had approximately 500 tanks in South Korea, increasing to 1,326 by the end of 1950. The latter number is broken down into 138 M24 tanks, 679 M4A3(76)W tanks, 309 M26 tanks and 200 M46 tanks.

      The Marine Corps’ Tanks

      The Marine Corps’ tank inventory in 1949 consisted of 102 M26 tanks and 225 M4A3(105mm) tanks riding on the HVSS system. In addition, there were 149 M4A3 tanks armed with the 75mm main gun and riding on the VVSS and the HVSS system. None of these were ever sent overseas as the Marine Corps considered them orphans to be employed in training activities until ammunition and spare parts were exhausted. However, a Korean War photograph shows an M4A3(75) riding on the HVSS system in Marine Corps’ service. It may have been acquired from a US Army stockpile in the theatre.

      The Marine Corps never took into service the M4A3(76)W riding on the VVSS or the HVSS system. Their high-explosive (HE) rounds were considered inadequate for the infantry support role. The Marine Corps also had forty flame-thrower tanks based on the M4A3 medium tank series, riding on the HVSS system.

      The Marine Corps’ tank battalions sent to South Korea in 1950 were equipped with the M26 and the M4A3(105mm) fitted with bulldozer blade kits as there was no bulldozer blade kit for the M26. Beginning in 1951, the M26 tanks would be supplemented by M46 tank-equipped battalions. Some flamethrower-equipped M4 series medium tanks riding on the HVSS system were also employed by the Marine Corps during the conflict.

      Tank-on-Tank Action

      Between July and November 1950, there had been 119 documented tank-versus-tank duels. For the loss of thirty-four American tanks to enemy tanks or self-propelled guns, the North Korean Army lost ninety-seven tanks confirmed with another eighteen unconfirmed kills. In a 1952 US Army report titled ‘Employment of Armor in Korea – The First Year’ appears this passage:

      The earlier success over M24s gave the Red tankers a fatal over-confidence when they first met US medium tanks. This was particularly apparent in the first tank actions of August [1950] … T34s attempted to carelessly overrun M26s in an apparent faith in their invulnerability to US tanks. (This faith was further fostered by a general similarity in silhouette between the M24 and M26.) The comparative effect of a 90mm round to a 75mm round was a combat lesson few Red tankers lived to pass on. The immediate result of this sudden change in US tank power caused the Red tanks to become cautious to the point of inactivity … The armor of the M26 turned [deflected] 85mm rounds on several occasions, so there may have been grounds for the Reds’ lack of confidence.

      The bulk of the North Korean Army’s inventory of 285 T-34-85 tanks was destroyed by American aircraft and artillery fire by the end of 1950 rather than in combat with American tanks. The North Korean Army also lost seventy-four Soviet-supplied SU-76M self-propelled guns in 1950. After November 1950, tank-versus-tank duels with the North Korean Army became very rare, despite the Soviet Union replacing the North Korean tank losses in 1951.

      In October 1950, the Red Chinese Army intervened in the Korean War, having acquired a selection of Soviet Army wartime tanks and self-propelled guns. The American military recorded no tank-versus-tank duels with Chinese tanks during the war. However, the Red Chinese Army claims that a few small-scale tank-versus-tank encounters did take place. Anti-tank mines were the biggest enemy threat to American tanks throughout most of the Korean War. Despite that, most tanks damaged by anti-tank mines were eventually repaired and returned to service.

      Other Jobs for American Tanks

      The most common role of the M26 and M46 tanks during the Korean War was infantry support, with occasional stints serving as ad hoc self-propelled artillery pieces when poor weather conditions restricted their mobility.

      Another role in which M26 and M46 tanks were very effective was as ‘bunker-busters’. In a 1953 US Army report titled ‘Employment of Armor in Korea – The Second Year’ appears the following passage describing some of the pluses and drawbacks of employing tanks in that role:

      The employment of tanks in bunker-busting had by this time [1952] become perfected and widely used by all tank units. From positions on or near the MLR [main line of resistance], tanks from dug-in positions would deliver direct-fire on located enemy installations-bunkers, emplacements, and troops. In such direct-fire positions tanks were impossible to conceal, and invariably drew heavy concentrations of hostile artillery and mortar fire … The enemy fire very seldom damaged friendly tanks so engaged, and then only by repeated direct hits.

      Bunker-busting was eventually considered uneconomical and wasteful by the US Army and Marine Corps due to the limited results achieved. On average, it took forty main-gun tank rounds to destroy an individual bunker. This amount of main-gun round expenditure resulted in tank gun barrels wearing out faster than normal and as a result meant they had to be changed more often, a time-consuming and difficult job, especially in the field.

      Combat Impressions from the Korean War

      Until the end of 1950, the preferred American tanks during the Korean fighting were the M26 and M46 due to being better armed and armoured than the M4A3(76)W tank. As encounters with enemy tanks became less frequent during 1951, the smaller size and lighter weight of the M4A3(76)W, often mislabelled the M4A3E8, led to it being a favourite among American tankers as it possessed better off-road mobility.

      The M4A3(76)W tank, however, had its own off-road shortcomings, as appeared in this extract from a 1st Cavalry Division report dated 20 October 1951:

      From the tanker’s standpoint, the M4A3E8 tank which this battalion is now equipped with has done an excellent job in Korea. However, it does possess limitations which are serious enough to warrant improvement. In general, the basic defect of the M4A3E8 tank is its inadequate suspension system. The major complaint is that the tracks come off too easily when negotiating rough trails or when making sharp turns. A high degree of skill is required of the driver just to keep the tracks on the tank when operating over typical Korean terrain.

      The biggest shortcoming of the M26 was that it was underpowered for its weight and hence had a very difficult time in dealing with steep Korean terrain. Other problems were addressed by a Marine tanker in an after-the-war report:

      The M26 is a bastard! The engine was the same Ford 500hp that was in the M4A3E8, it was underpowered and the steering was done the same as the M4’s, pull the levers with brute strength, good way to build the arms and upper body … We had live track with steel to the ground, good in dirt and mud, but hit cement in a turn and it was sliding to the flank that made the heart pump, no fear of turning it over but running over the locals standing alongside the road.

      Besides a more powerful engine, the M46 had a new hydraulically-assisted steering and braking system. The steering levers of the M4 series and the M26 were done away with and replaced by a simple wobble stick at both the driver’s and bow gunner’s positions. In a short article under a section titled ‘Sum

      Enjoying the preview?
      Page 1 of 1