Task Force Smith Failed to use M24 Light tanks

[Mike Sparks]

Task Force Smith could have flown in M24 Chaffee light tanks by USAF
C-124s or by the LST from Japan they moved their flimsy trucks and towed howitzers with. Attached are pics of a C-124 loading a M24 light tank...

Point is today we can fly two M113 Gavins for the same weight and one could carry infantry, the other could be a tank killer....

[redtanker]

cool post..... not many people know about Task Force Smith

[Hooch Turner]

Hey Mike, I'm noticing a wee bit of a pattern to your posts - your not an M113 jockey by any chance are you?

Don't get me wrong, I fully agree with most of your points especially lightweight tracked armour to support para troops or amphibious landings etc.

The M24 would only have been useful as fire support for anti-personnel work, it was not a good anti-tank platform. The 75mm gun would not really have been much use against the Korean T34/85's, they out ranged and out gunned the lightweight Chaffee. Germans found that their 75mm L48 gun (Pz IV, Hetzer, Jag IV, STUG III and IV's) could struggle against the frontal armour of the 34/85 and that gun was FAR superior to the Amercian low velocity 75's. They would certainly have been a great help though, and used properly in defence or ambush a very useful addition to the Task Force.

The limited Airborne armour that the Brits used in WWII was even more handicapped due to them having to have wafer thin armour and limited fire power. The tanks we dropped in by Hamilcar gliders (Tetrach and M22 Locust) were often easily outgunned by German Armoured cars and of very little use in an offensive capacity other than light recce.

An M22 Locust de-bussing from a Hamilcar:


Modern forces have similar problems, any lightweight vehicle mounting a decent tank killing gun is normally too thin skinned to trade any serious punches with an MBT. Some of the lighter MBT's can be airlifted but are not really viable for airdrops as they tend to mean 1 plane per MBT = EXPENSIVE. We can see what tactiticians hope to achive by using the likes of the Stryker MGS, AMX10RC or Centaro - fire support but not really tank killers. Usefull for attempting to hold the ground until the heavy mob can trundle in and take over.

The French made AMX10RC, lightweight with a big gun and quick to get out of a fight - hmm a bit like their army and MBT's then?


As with everything now the situation is fluid, perhaps the best way is to intergrate larger heavier IFV's wth limited anti-tank ablities (ATGM launchers etc) into the Airbourne mix. The Russians have done this for years with the ridiculous and cramped BMD family, but their more capable and usable BMP2 and 3's are light enough to drop from modern transport aircraft. As the C130 Hercules takes more of a back seat (to be used for more tacticle situations) and C17 Globemaster is used more and more, there is no reason why these planes could not drop Bradley or Warrior class vehicles into help the guys on the ground.

BMD1 - Tiny and toylike (same turret as BMP1 = 73mm smoothbore and AT3 launcher), you must have to be an Oompa Lumpa to crew one!

In the long run we may achieve the holy grail of a well protected and armed airportable machine, it perhaps may be decended from one of the current 'Plastic' vehicles being developed or be even more exotic, sporting electrified plasma sheiling (being developed in the UK by DSTL). Time will tell, but as always costs and practicality will be the real deciding factor.

A Warrior hull suited up in electrified armour defeating a RPG round:

[Mike Sparks]

In detail:

Infantry Carriers

1. Understanding Terrain for MOBILITY

Vehicles over 20 tons even tracked ones cannot go through closed terrain like light tracks/tanks can ie; M113 Gavins etc..

The Bradley at 33 to 36 tons is too heavy and is restricted to open terrain

So you don't want medium-weight tracks for a 3D maneuver force because of their drawbacks on the earth---even if you can find an aircraft combination to move them.

SIDEBAR on PROTECTION: medium heavy doesn't mean it better protected.

You can up-armor a M113 Gavin and get a better protected vehicle than the inefficient, poor design lay-out Bradley which is armoring dead air and has internal fuel tankage compromising the point of armor layering

2. Understanding propulsion for MOBILITY

Wheeled armored cars like the AMX-10RC or LAV3Strykers cannot go cross-country over open terrain without risk of getting stuck and are useless in closed terrains. They are easily ambushed, road-bound deathtraps.

So you don't want wheels at all.

3. Understanding light tanks for FIREPOWER

Think.

If the U.S. Army light infantry egomaniacs had valued infantry fire support tanks they WOULD HAVE KEPT USING THEM IN SOME MANNER AFTER WW2 AND IMPROVED ON THEM.

Even a M22 Locust light tank with turret removed would have been air-transportable under a C-54 to reach South Korea and once there, YOU REATTACH 106mm RECOILLESS RIFLES to become a defactor Ontos that kills T34/85s and stops the North Korean advance and TF Smith changes from truck and foot-slogging victims to victors...

General Gavin got it. He was an infantryman. He wrote about it, too:

AIRBORNE WARFARE: AN INTER-ACTIVE EXAMINATION

And he was hopping mad about the Korean FUBAR:

General Gavin asks where is the Cavalry in 1954? We ask where is it TODAY?

4. Understanding the sociological reasons for military incompetence

The problem is the narcissism of the weak ego populated U.S. military that breeds ignorance and incompetence. Its time we face this cultural defect and get rid of it instead of trying to work around it---which doesn't work.

Mike