|
It
would seem that if the USA had all this firepower.
Sea,
Land and Air ... Why were we struggling so hard?
This is a broad
question...So what mistakes or series of decision
made?
We
seemed to change directions from winning to hold!
There
must have been politial and military decisions made.
Dan
Fahey
Ed is correct. When the war started, the 25th Division sent
its 79th Recon Battalion to Korea which was equipped with M24 Chaffees,
packing a low-power 75mm gun incapible of hurting a T-34-85. The first troops
also had the old 2.36" bazooka which did not work on them, nor did the 105mm
HE rounds from M101 howitzers.
The Shermans were sent in only as a
stopgap as it was originally felt that they exceeded Korean bridging limits
(which was why they were not there in the first place). They were an even
match for the T-34, and the later M26 Pershing and M46 Patton were overmatch.
(The difference was that the Pershing had a 500 HP Ford engine like the
Sherman and was underpowered; the M46 had a 750HP version of the Continental
1760 12-cylinder air-cooled engine, which eventually (in its ultimate and
diesel form) powered the M60. They also got HEAT rounds for the 105, the 3.5"
bazooka, and 90mm AA guns with the same ammunition as the M26/M46.
ROK
Army was equipped with the M36 90mm GMC, same gun but lighter chassis with
Sherman components.
5" HVAR was an HE-FRAG warhead, and the so-called
"ram rocket" warheads (6.5" HEAT) were developed to deal with tanks. Napalm,
as noted, was also a big killer.
There were few tank vs tank
engagements, and after August 1950 they all went one way: US X tanks
destroyed, KPA 0.
Cookie Sewell
AMPS
|