Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

UN armor in Korea?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
    US Infantry Divisions should have had an Antitank Battalion. The main problem was the Japanese Roads and Bridges. I don't see the self propelled vehicles being allowed in Japan. Okinawa could have had some. I think antitank doctrine was leaning to recoilless rifles. Japan would have been last in line to get modern equipment. I few years before the Army was using 57mm (6 Pounders) and 3 Inch Cannon. Secretary Johnson under Truman cut back on the Army in Japan. He cuts the divisions back one third and they do not train. I suspect Johnson did not send a lot of equipment to Japan. If the road system does not support heavy vehicles, why send them?

    There were some tanks in depots that the Japanese were put to work rehabilitating. This leads me to wonder what the QM Corps in Japan were doing with their time?

    Pruitt
    I don't think the US Infantry Division ever had an organic tank destroyer battalion. In WW2, they were in a pool at Army or Army Group, although the regiment had an AT company. In the 1948 restructure, I think they went to an organic tank battalion, and the regiment contained an organic tank company...see McGrath, p223-227.

    What does tha QM Corps have to do with depot rebuilds? That's an Ordnance responsibility.


    Comment


    • #17
      Scratch QM and substitute Ordnance. The TOE did not call for an Anti-tank Battalion in 1944, but the European Theater assigned them all one plus an assigned Tank Battalion. The Golden Lions in the Bulge had towed 3" pieces in their AT Battalion. The Infantry Regiments went to Tank Companies for the Antitank and Assault Gun Companies. Do you have the TOE's for American Divisions in Japan before 1950?

      Pruitt
      Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

      Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

      by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
        Scratch QM and substitute Ordnance. The TOE did not call for an Anti-tank Battalion in 1944, but the European Theater assigned them all one plus an assigned Tank Battalion. The Golden Lions in the Bulge had towed 3" pieces in their AT Battalion. The Infantry Regiments went to Tank Companies for the Antitank and Assault Gun Companies. Do you have the TOE's for American Divisions in Japan before 1950?

        Pruitt
        TDs were not quite that simple- they were attached, not assigned, and often more than one battalion, or only a company- see the lists of attachments by division, posted https://history.army.mil/documents/ETO-OB/ETOOB-TOC.htm The 106th Infantry Division that you mentioned, for example, had a towed TD battalion from 8 DEC 44-4 JAN 45, but then nothing or only a company (-) for the rest of the war.

        Tank companies replaced AT companies and heavy mortar companies replaced cannon companies in the infantry regiment beginning in 1948. I do not have the actual TOEs (which would apply to all divisions) nor the MTOEs for Japan, juts the descriptions from the Army Lineage series:
        Wilson (not McGrath, correction to my last post), Maneuver and Firepower, https://history.army.mil/html/books/...ub_60-14-1.pdf

        and Mahon and Danysh, Infantry, https://history.army.mil/html/books/...Pub_60-3-1.pdf

        The whole Army Lineage Series is posted, https://history.army.mil/html/forcestruc/als.html
        ​​​​​​​

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

          Yes, there are several photos of Centurion tanks at Imjin that were knocked out...

          The one I posted earlier:



          The one in the background in a ditch:



          Another angle of that tank



          This one is interesting as it is supposed to be in Korea, the 20 pdr sort of confirming that. The interesting part is the addition of an IR searchlight on the vehicle.



          The other interesting add is many sport a .30 Browning machinegun for the commander to use from his hatch.

          Interesting that despite being British tanks they all have stars on them. Was it standard practice for all UN armour to have US marking for ID purposes?
          "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Surrey View Post

            Interesting that despite being British tanks they all have stars on them. Was it standard practice for all UN armour to have US marking for ID purposes?
            Yes, it was.

            Comment


            • #21






              Churchill's seem to be an exception and not have stars on them. Could be their distinctive shape and look was sufficient to prevent misidentification.

              Comment

              Latest Topics

              Collapse

              Working...
              X