Korean war tank question

[UrbanRedneck]

When the Korean war broke out the South Korean army basically had no tanks or heavy anti tank weapons capable of fighting the Soviet supplied T34's the NK army used. IOT they easily pushed aside the South Korean forces leading to a further war that lasted 3 years and is still active today.

But, at the end of WW2 their were tens of thousands of surplus allied, Germans, and Japanese tanks laying around the world which were soon doomed to the scrap heap. The US army, when it did get involved, supplied Patton and Pershing tanks and the British the Cheiftain.

So lets say starting in 1946 you had the chance to supply the South Korean forces with say 100 tanks. Which would you choose?

Remember South Korea at that time was ruled by a facist regime and you dont want them to give them a tankforce strong enough to start their own war with the north. Just strong enough to repel any invasion.

Personally I'm going to go with left over German Tigers since they are great in the anti-tank role but their limited range and thirst for fuel make them a poor choice for an invasion force. Supplemented by some Shermans because of their ease of maintenance, range, and speed make them suitable for the light tank role and stopping any breakthroughs.

 

[Ian Hathaway]

First quick thing to note here is that South Korea was actually under US occupation until late 1948 so they would not be allocated WW2 surplus AFVs. In all probability they would have been given US vehicles exclusively, most likely Sherman's ... I can't see any other option.

German vehicles were spread out mainly amongst the French and Middle Eastern countries I believe, although I don't recall off the top of my head anything larger than a Panther being taken on by another country.

The only Commonwealth tanks of note that could have been used would have been the Churchill, Comet and Cromwell but these were mainly retained in active service.

 

[urielventis]

Left over Tiger ?
And where do you find spares for a not so reliable tank ?
French army equip several unit with captured german tank after WW2, but it was short lived cause of spares part problem. And the fact that US equipment was available in good quantities and at a low price.

Simply Sherman, reliable, good firepower in late war versions (M4A3E8 with a 76/55 cal gun, and support version with 105mm gun). Not perfect but reliable, affordable and available (last one is the more important).

With this south korea could equip one or two autonomous brigade, but then what with the training of crew and support ?
Tank are nothing without support to repair, check, verify everything.
You don't create an armored force with just buying tank.

 

[Ian Hathaway]

With this south korea could equip one or two autonomous brigade, but then what with the training of crew and support ?
Tank are nothing without support to repair, check, verify everything.
You don't create an armored force with just buying tank.

In OTL the US left behind a few hundred military advisors when they withdrew ... enough to train the South Koreans.

 

[Sior]

When the Korean war broke out the South Korean army basically had no tanks or heavy anti tank weapons capable of fighting the Soviet supplied T34's the NK army used. IOT they easily pushed aside the South Korean forces leading to a further war that lasted 3 years and is still active today.

But, at the end of WW2 their were tens of thousands of surplus allied, Germans, and Japanese tanks laying around the world which were soon doomed to the scrap heap. The US army, when it did get involved, supplied Patton and Pershing tanks and the British the Cheiftain.

So lets say starting in 1946 you had the chance to supply the South Korean forces with say 100 tanks. Which would you choose?

Remember South Korea at that time was ruled by a facist regime and you dont want them to give them a tankforce strong enough to start their own war with the north. Just strong enough to repel any invasion.

Personally I'm going to go with left over German Tigers since they are great in the anti-tank role but their limited range and thirst for fuel make them a poor choice for an invasion force. Supplemented by some Shermans because of their ease of maintenance, range, and speed make them suitable for the light tank role and stopping any breakthroughs.

The British used Churchill and Centurion Tanks in Korea The Cheiftain did not enter service untill early 1966!

 

[bsmart]

Go ahead and equip them with Tigers. Let me know how many you get off the ships that bring them. And then let me know how many you get out of the dock area.

The answer is probably ZERO. The U.S. forces in Japan were only equipped with M24 light tanks because of concerns about the bridges. And Japan was in much better shape than Korea was for infrastructure. The M24 weighed ~20 tons. The Tiger weighed ~60 tons. I'm not sure if there were any port facilities in South Korea that could handle unloading 60 ton tanks from ships (and very few ships had cargo handling equipment to self unload very heavy vehicles)

Now let's get serious. What would be the purpose for equiping the South Koreans with any tanks? The South Korean Army was primarily a Police type force. There was no concept that it had to protect the country from invasion. The plan was that the two halves would be peacefully joined after the occupation forces were withdrawn. If you want to give the South Koreans a realistic anti invasion force you might think about two armored battalions (each has about 54 AFVs by an American TO&E) one on each side of the central mountanous spine. At the time I would suggest either M36 tank destroyers if you could get them with M24 light tanks as the recon component. I would also beef up the artillery to provide the real deterence.

If you insist on a non American vehcle you don't have much choice. The only real choices are the Cromwell and the Churchill. The Churchill is HEAVY (~40 tons) but had fantastic hill climbing capability. The Cromwell is lighter at ~28 tons but doesn't have any outstanding qualities. Either one will be a logistics nightmare.

Realistically if the South Koreans were supplied a token armor force I think it may have been M5 light tanks. They, combined with good artillery and good training might have been the best choice. Cheap to operate, reliable, good radios. The best thing they can do is call in concentrated artillery fire on any invasion forces. Preplotted medium (155mm) and heavy (8") artillery fire along the few good roads would stop an invasion as fast as any number of tanks that could realistically have been deployed. The M5s are small enough to move through the country have decent protection from random fire, and don't have a big enough gun to encourage the crew to do anything stupid.

 

[phx1138]

Since giving ROK any tanks presupposes knowing they'll need them...

If ROK is fighting on the defensive, better AT guns (90mm?) and large numbers of hand-held AT (PIAT might be better than the 60mm bazooka, since the M20 wasn't in service yet; Panzerschreck?) make more sense.

 

[BlairWitch749]

for defensive purposes, if you want cheap left over german stuff

hetzers... the swiss used them for decades after the war;

 

[AdA]

M36 TankDestroyers.

 

[ScrewySqrl]

why do I think this question is inspired by the new World Of Tanks asia/winter map that looks like Northern Korea just south of the Yalu?

OBWI: Is there a reasonable timeline that allows that kind of wild melee of tanks (Allied, Axis, and Soviet tanks on each side.) Beyond the logisical nightmare of Shermans and Churchills and Tigers and IS-2s on teh same team. Theres a combat nightmare of both sides having all the same tanks (how do you identify friend from foe?

 

[DoomBunny]

Sherman Firefly. Reliable and packs a punch.

Perhaps the Centurion if it's available, but I don't see those being handed out.

 

[UrbanRedneck]

Go ahead and equip them with Tigers. Let me know how many you get off the ships that bring them. And then let me know how many you get out of the dock area.

The answer is probably ZERO. The U.S. forces in Japan were only equipped with M24 light tanks because of concerns about the bridges. And Japan was in much better shape than Korea was for infrastructure. The M24 weighed ~20 tons. The Tiger weighed ~60 tons. I'm not sure if there were any port facilities in South Korea that could handle unloading 60 ton tanks from ships (and very few ships had cargo handling equipment to self unload very heavy vehicles)

Now let's get serious. What would be the purpose for equiping the South Koreans with any tanks? The South Korean Army was primarily a Police type force. There was no concept that it had to protect the country from invasion. The plan was that the two halves would be peacefully joined after the occupation forces were withdrawn. If you want to give the South Koreans a realistic anti invasion force you might think about two armored battalions (each has about 54 AFVs by an American TO&E) one on each side of the central mountanous spine. At the time I would suggest either M36 tank destroyers if you could get them with M24 light tanks as the recon component. I would also beef up the artillery to provide the real deterence.

If you insist on a non American vehcle you don't have much choice. The only real choices are the Cromwell and the Churchill. The Churchill is HEAVY (~40 tons) but had fantastic hill climbing capability. The Cromwell is lighter at ~28 tons but doesn't have any outstanding qualities. Either one will be a logistics nightmare.

Realistically if the South Koreans were supplied a token armor force I think it may have been M5 light tanks. They, combined with good artillery and good training might have been the best choice. Cheap to operate, reliable, good radios. The best thing they can do is call in concentrated artillery fire on any invasion forces. Preplotted medium (155mm) and heavy (8") artillery fire along the few good roads would stop an invasion as fast as any number of tanks that could realistically have been deployed. The M5s are small enough to move through the country have decent protection from random fire, and don't have a big enough gun to encourage the crew to do anything stupid.

Wow, you know your tanks and Korean logistics!

 

[Sior]

Wow, you know your tanks and Korean logistics!

Looks like they had pretty good bridges in Korea!

 

[FlyingDutchman]

Personally I'm going to go with left over German Tigers since they are great in the anti-tank role but their limited range and thirst for fuel make them a poor choice for an invasion force. Supplemented by some Shermans because of their ease of maintenance, range, and speed make them suitable for the light tank role and stopping any breakthroughs.

Have you seen the terrain in Korea?

It's the result of enormous amount of horsepower, decades and decades of training, decades and decades of improving infrastructure and a decent doctrine that the US is able to operate M1 tanks over there.

With the Koreans operating Tiger tanks in the late '40s/early '50s they would have none of those.

Who would pay for getting the tanks in Korea? Considering how poor South Korea was after WWII, it's not going to be the Koreans. The Americans will be too busy cutting their own military to the bone to be able to pay for the transport of additional surplus heavy weaponry to Korea.

One way more tanks could end up in Korea before the American mobilisation, would be for some of the Lend Lease help of the US to Nationalist China ending up in warehouses in Korea as an effect of the Chinese and Americans falling out. Otherwise I see no reason for the Americans to move tanks towards Korea after '45.

The French, who operated Panthers post-war, IIRC never did operate more then two battalions of them, mostly because of a lack of spare parts and a lack of availability. I bet there are a lot less Tigers available post-war then Panthers. The chance of the Koreans operating Tigers is about zero IMHO.

With this south korea could equip one or two autonomous brigade, but then what with the training of crew and support ?
Tank are nothing without support to repair, check, verify everything.
You don't create an armored force with just buying tank.

And you don't start with one or two brigades, but with maybe at most a battalion at first.

 

[burtledog]

Realistic

Realistically, the best of the Sherman, its assault gun, and M24's. The M4 with a hv 3 inch ggun for anti-tank. The picture noted, even in 1988, there were bridges and roads only a 113 could maneuver.

 

[Bernard Woolley]

Perhaps the Centurion if it's available, but I don't see those being handed out.

Considering we hestitated to send our own Cents to Korea (worries about the secret gun stabilisation system falling into DPRK, or PRC hands) I don't see us exporting them to the ROK.

 

[Simon]

Considering the logistical and training issues that bsmart and FlyingDutchman respectively mention seems like rather than tanks the better solution might be towed anti-tank guns. The British 17-pounder looks as though it could handle a T-34/85 well enough and at only 3 tons plus say anther 2 tons for a truck to tow it and the crew that still makes it roughly only a third of the weight of an M24 Chaffee. Of course you'd also need a second one to haul the ammunition and materiel but a couple of trucks is likely less complicated to manage than a tank and they can go over bridges or roads separately to spread the weight. Considering the time period I'm sure that the British had some extra ones going spare that they could be persuaded to part with for a halfway decent price.