PDA

View Full Version : Tanks at Korea



Manuel K
05-27-2008, 04:47 PM
Hello Peoples,

i´m brand new here, and i was reading a lot the last time here. It´s a very interesting side!!

Now, meaby you can help me. I´m interested in all Tanks at Korean War ( US & USMC ) cause i try to buildt, the important types, as remote controled Models ( Scale 1:16 )

Also, i have two books:
- Korean War 1950-53, Concord
- ARMOR in Korea, Squadron

Here are my first three Korea Models

M4

Ok, i know it´s an 76mm, not an 105mm, but this was one of my first tankmodell also.

http://foto.arcor-online.net/palb/alben/25/6120225/3631653661646636.jpg

http://foto.arcor-online.net/palb/alben/25/6120225/6263616337363166.jpg

http://foto.arcor-online.net/palb/alben/25/6120225/3939353830653662.jpg

M26

The Pershing is not finish yet. I have to put all the little things around cans, helmets, some stuff like this

http://foto.arcor-online.net/palb/alben/25/6120225/3765623837373534.jpg

http://foto.arcor-online.net/palb/alben/25/6120225/6239326433646664.jpg

http://foto.arcor-online.net/palb/alben/25/6120225/6661336561333734.jpg

M32 Recovery

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y28/Finntrollrules/Overloon/P5182160.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y28/Finntrollrules/Overloon/P5182166.jpg


greatings Manuel

Churchill
05-27-2008, 05:44 PM
Wow, those are good.

The Soviets supplied the N. Koreans with T-34/85s, and the Americans supplied the S. Koreans with M-24 Chaffees, M-26 Pershings and M-46Pattons, as well as the M-8 Greyhounds. The English supplied the S. Koreans with Curchill VIIs, Centurions, Cromwell A27Ms, and Comet A34s. The Canadians sent the M10 Achilles 17-pounder self-propelled gun, but they were replaced by the Sherman.

Too lazy to find more... ;)

Major Walter Schmidt
05-27-2008, 09:16 PM
do you make from kits or do you make those from scratch? I also like your paint job.

Nickdfresh
05-27-2008, 09:39 PM
Nice models, but for the Sherman, I think you mean it's a 75mm (which was pretty much gone by the Korean War), and not a 76mm HVSS model...

Also, the first US tank deployed was the light M-24 Chaffee. They initially battled the T-34 and it did not go well...:(

Nickdfresh
05-27-2008, 09:53 PM
Wow, those are good.

The Soviets supplied the N. Koreans with T-34/85s, and the Americans supplied the S. Koreans with M-24 Chaffees, M-26 Pershings and M-46Pattons, as well as the M-8 Greyhounds. The English supplied the S. Koreans with Curchill VIIs, Centurions, Cromwell A27Ms, and Comet A34s. The Canadians sent the M10 Achilles 17-pounder self-propelled gun, but they were replaced by the Sherman.

Too lazy to find more... ;)

Actually, the Americans didn't supply the S. Koreans with any tanks (prior to hostilities in 1950) at all as far as I can tell. Neither did anyone else, though they may have had some left over Japanese tinboxes..

They also had few anti-tank weapons and little in the way of artillery...

Manuel K
05-27-2008, 11:52 PM
Thank you, for reactie.

Well, the M4 and the M32 i buildt, itīs an a Tamiya Kit basicly. The M26 its build on a Heng Long, cheap toy.

Major Walter Schmidt
05-28-2008, 09:23 AM
I guess you worked hard on the Heng Long.

Manuel K
05-28-2008, 03:47 PM
Here You can see, how i buildt it.

M4 Howitzer Korea
http://www.rc-militaer-forum.de/thread.php?threadid=1312

M32 recovery Korea
http://www.rc-militaer-forum.de/thread.php?threadid=1234

M26 Pershing Korea
http://www.rc-militaer-forum.de/thread.php?threadid=1410

and this is my actually tank at work M 7 Priest, will be also Koreaversion

http://www.rc-militaer-forum.de/thread.php?threadid=1483

Major Walter Schmidt
05-28-2008, 03:58 PM
Wow! Thumbs up:D

cupajoe
06-08-2009, 02:30 PM
I agree that your models are excellent! You can find a tank in this movie:

Forgotten: Korean War DVD (http://www.theforgottenthemovie.com)

It is an "open turrent" WWII " tank destroyer" tank, but for the first year or two of the Korean War, especially, they were using materiel left over from World War II.

Nickdfresh
06-11-2009, 09:55 AM
I have yet to see the film. I do know that the use of tank destroyers in Korea by the US was fairly limited as most TDs had shortcomings and were replaced with tanks such as the M46/47/48 series. The M-36 "Slugger" or Jackson (the official name) was used to some extent. Basically because it began to cross the line between what was a true (U.S.) tank destroyer and a tank and its 90mm gun would have been effective against any T-34 or other tank the Chinese or North Koreans could field...

steben
08-23-2013, 09:28 AM
The best tank in Korea:
http://i423.photobucket.com/albums/pp320/29ToyA/Research%20Armor%20photos%201/Centurion/UKcentkorea01.jpg

Nickdfresh
08-24-2013, 11:33 AM
Define "best tank." While I think the Centurion is magnificent, there were few tank battles and with the exception of the Cent's excellent performance in mountainous terrain, it is difficult to discern much between the antitank performance of the Cent and the M-46 Patton. I think one could argue that for the actual fighting where tanks were used mostly for infantry support, the M-4 Sherman with its three machine-guns and a 75mm gun firing an excellent HE shell, might have been ideal against infantry with few antitank weapons. I believe there were some deployed to Korea with the short 75, the majority were M-4A3E8 (HVSS) with the 76mm though, which tended to out match the T-34/85...

http://olive-drab.com/images/id_m4_shermanflame_04_700.jpg
Some of the less common 75mm-armed Shermans in Korea also armed with flamethrowers...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpARWt4OE4U

Nickdfresh
08-24-2013, 12:41 PM
6719These were the worst tanks, at least as far as tank vs. tank engagements went:

steben
08-25-2013, 05:52 AM
6719These were the worst tanks, at least as far as tank vs. tank engagements went:

Chaffees.... somehow they look like US "panzer IIIs in Korea" :) (with the exception of the upgunning race)

Every tank has its "comfort zone". the Centurion hilly dificult area where it could "outmanouvre" or outpower others. M46 was somehow better armoured in the hull, no?

I wonder whether the 90mm Centurion gun had that bad a HE shot?

tankgeezer
08-25-2013, 10:48 AM
The Chaffee's only saving grace was that it was more easily moved to where it was needed. It was a significant improvement over the Stuart series, but still (despite its more modern hull, and Turret construction) looked to the past rather than the future. Rear engine(s) front drive, having a large hatch in the middle of it's Glacis ,and an underpowered main gun left it too vulnerable to nearly anything it may come up against. I feel the same way about the short lived Sheridan vehicle, which while it was air transportable,(it's greatest, and most useful feature) and had a large enough(though slow to cycle) main battery weapon to handle most encounters, it was still the "knife at the gun fight" Although the Light Tank continued in use through the 70's , it should have never survived WW 1.

Nickdfresh
08-25-2013, 11:12 AM
The M-24 Chaffee was a light, reconnaissance tank. It was fielded to replace the Stuart light tank and give an upgrade in firepower and armor protection to the recon units, which it did with the same 75mm gun the first Shermans used. In that role, it was very successful. However, the occupation forces on Japan relied on the Chaffee mainly because the roads and bridges in Japan were too light for heavier tanks like the M-26 Pershings the Army effectively mothballed there, and of course there was no need for heavy armor other than to use as a show of force. The Chaffees were deployed to Korea initially because that's what they had in Japan and in the main battle tank role it performed miserably against the T-34/85 as the 75 was completely ineffective against the frontal armor of the T-34. However, they were used for the duration of the conflict and the 75mm gun was thought highly of in an infantry support and indirect fire role if certainly not in a tank-killer role....

tankgeezer
08-25-2013, 01:20 PM
I had not considered the Bridge rating situation, so that would give them an advantage, and a real purpose. To my somewhat bent, and slightly smoking way of thinking, the faster light tank was originally added to the fight in order to protect,and take some of the pressure off of the larger, and much slower lozenge tanks of WW I , and the interwar years. I also misspoke when I wrote that the main gun left it vulnerable, that should have been meant to reflect upon the armor, not the gun, which was a light year ahead of the 37 mm carried by the Stuart. The HE shell used by the 75mm of the Sherman was said to be an excellent shell, superior to that of the 76.2mm which is one reason given for the use of the 75mm in the Sherman but thats another story.

steben
08-26-2013, 03:28 AM
It surprises me though, because most succesful "infantry tanks" were heavy, thick armoured beasts (as the Churchill tank), which was expected to be a slow fortress that could get anywhere by sheer power.
The Chaffee was the opposite. I guess they just used it along as they could - never really designed to be an infantry tank - making use of the gun.

tankgeezer
08-26-2013, 01:57 PM
The Chaffee was a "recon" tank,(As Nick points out) made purposely light for rapid ingress/egress sneaking & peeking. It was useful, though not optimal in the infantry support role, but was not really meant for slow assault work as was the Churchill, and the Matilda. Its main attributes were its main gun, fairly large for such a light vehicle, and its speed, 40-55 kph Its suspension was torsion bar, which helped with the speed, but the armor was very light, and despite being of modern design, and construction was still vulnerable to most all of the A-T weapons of its time.

Nickdfresh
08-26-2013, 03:39 PM
I think the Chinese PLA and North Koreans were deficient in antitank weapons, partially a legacy of the Soviet's relying on antitank rifles during WWII until the advent of the RPG's...

tankgeezer
08-26-2013, 03:53 PM
I was speaking more to those to be encountered in Europe, but the PTRD, and PTRS rifles were capable against the Chaffee's armor. I personally would not enjoy getting as close to a Tank as would be needed to use one, but it could be done.

Nickdfresh
08-27-2013, 05:52 AM
I think the biggest threat to the Chaffees was the T-34's 85mm gun. What I was referring too was the M-24's being used as artillery SPG's in the Pusan Perimeter, by that time the T-34 threat had largely been checked and the battles turned into infantry slugging matches...

steben
08-27-2013, 07:38 AM
I think the biggest threat to the Chaffees was the T-34's 85mm gun. What I was referring too was the M-24's being used as artillery SPG's in the Pusan Perimeter, by that time the T-34 threat had largely been checked and the battles turned into infantry slugging matches...

WWII turning into WWI

tankgeezer
08-27-2013, 08:43 AM
You got me there Nick, although I've seen several different history shows about the Korean war which featured details about the perimeter, I missed the part of the M-24 being used for an SPG, though it seems an almost intuitive use for it considering the circumstances.

Nickdfresh
08-27-2013, 08:48 AM
Korea was not very good tank country. The nation is bisected by mountainous terrain and the then limited urban areas made swift armored advances impossible. But to an extent, periods of even WWII resembled defensive trench and fortification fighting of WWI until the Allies achieved overwhelming industrial superiority. The North Koreans were able to achieve such a rolling blitz in 1950 only because the South Korean ROK Army lacked much in the way of armor or antitank weapons, or even artillery and was trained in primarily anti-guerrilla operations. But the initial waves of U.S. troops also were using five year old 2.36" Bazooka rounds that often failed to detonate when they launched, Bazooka rounds that had been obsolete seven years prior! The Pusan Perimeter was steadily reinforced but all the while faced a relentless onslaught of Communist attacks that essentially were Pyrrhic in nature as they exposed themselves to increasing voluminous and competently directed U.N. fire. In fact, the North Korean commanders were so aggressive and incessant in their attacks --and so oblivious to their casualties-- that Gen. Walker assumed then Communists outnumbered them even after his forces were in fact far more numerous than the depleted legions of Kim Il Sung on the eve of Inchon. The breakout after the Inchon Amphibious landings did feature concentrated armor and rapid maneuver by-passing sizable numbers of NK troops that took to the mountains as guerrillas until of course the Chinese PLA "Volunteers" came in the war. Then it was pretty much the stalemate that might be synonymous with WWI-style trench warfare, and very limited offensives by the U.N. under Gen Ridgeway designed primarily to punish the Chinese with firepower and limited movement as the U.N. learned to cope with their "human wave" tactics that were actually more based on infiltration and isolating individual enemy units with guerrilla-style tactical movement. The Chinese of course had very little armor or artillery, so their offensives did in fact resemble the slaughters of WWI...

Nickdfresh
08-27-2013, 09:09 AM
You got me there Nick, although I've seen several different history shows about the Korean war which featured details about the perimeter, I missed the part of the M-24 being used for an SPG, though it seems an almost intuitive use for it considering the circumstances.

Perhaps SPG isn't the most apt description. But they were essentially used defensively as assault guns in an anti-personnel role augmenting the more powerful armor arriving like the M-26/46 and the M-4A3E8. I think after a certain point, the North Koreans had squandered most of their armor...

steben
08-27-2013, 10:44 AM
Still, the Centurion was king over there. One could say: "well, the mountains, the roughs and hills made it an easy contest amongst the allied vehicles..." But I think it it is exactly the very nature of being a better tank.
And the sweep to back and forth infantry stalemate doesn't change that. No tank can prove itself by forcing an eventually blunted conflict into a tank contest. I guess the contest was already won then.

Nickdfresh
08-28-2013, 12:44 PM
You won't get an argument from me, the Centurion is an excellent tank and certainly one of the finest designs ever to be fielded. It exceeded the M-46 Patton, although in actual combat both were equally effective against the T-34/85. Some Israeli tankers might have preferred the M-48A5 Patton, or M-60A1 over the Centurion for ease of maintenance and reliability. But that's not a totally fair apples-to-apples comparison as the the Patton series had evolved significantly whereas the Cent was basically phased out of front line British service...

steben
08-28-2013, 02:48 PM
According to my osprey literature (which a modeller likes for its technical detail history), the US bought some Centurions as well, being impressed bij its performance in Korea.
It was the US chief-in-command that stated that the Centurion prooved that any land that is passable by a tank is tank land, which pointed to the fact that the Centurion was able to bend ample terrain to its will, making its presence the top issue of the battlefield for both sides. Its gyrostabilized gun helped ... And the full scale "Unviersal tank" use, which not only served break throughs and anti-tank battle but infantry support and thus small artillery as well in the later stage. The Centurion might just be the machine that defined the MBT in practice.

Nickdfresh
08-28-2013, 05:02 PM
The Patton series of tanks (from the Pershings to the M-60A3) was also a Main Battle Tank and was developed concurrently with the Cent. Never heard of a U.S. purchase of Centurions...

steben
08-30-2013, 03:59 AM
The Patton series of tanks (from the Pershings to the M-60A3) was also a Main Battle Tank and was developed concurrently with the Cent. Never heard of a U.S. purchase of Centurions...

The United States purchased Centurions and gave them to Denmark and the Netherlands under the Military Aid Program.

Supposedly, they didn't keep them, but tested them.

Given the history of the MBT70 and the follow-up race to equip the Army between Leo 2 and M1, the US don't seem quite sharp edge decision makers in their armour. A lot of business interests interfered. Luckily the M1 isn't a bad tank, far from it. The British got rid of their troubles once the Centurion came along. They were top notch in 50ties and 60ties, delivering their L7 105mm gun to NATO gun tanks. Nowadays the Leo 2 is rather the new Centurion by reference, export and fame, delivering "Krauss Maffei" 120mm gun to many NATO gun tanks (incl M1). Just as the Belgian FN rifles and machine guns are. No doubt there is a chance in 30 years we are speaking about the US or British reference again. Who knows?

Nickdfresh
08-30-2013, 12:56 PM
The United States purchased Centurions and gave them to Denmark and the Netherlands under the Military Aid Program.

Supposedly, they didn't keep them, but tested them.

Interesting...




Given the history of the MBT70 and the follow-up race to equip the Army between Leo 2 and M1, the US don't seem quite sharp edge decision makers in their armour. A lot of business interests interfered. Luckily the M1 isn't a bad tank, far from it.
...

I'm not sure what you mean here. The Vietnam War certainly delayed U.S. tank research and testing while the MBT-70 project was a bit of a disaster from the standpoint that the technologies being incorporated into the tank just weren't quite ready yet. I also recall something about the German and American engineers being completely confused as the former were using metrics and the latter standard for measurements of parts causing some major difficulties. Although, we should say that some good lessons were learned by both Germany and the U.S. in regards to tank development that would be applied in both the Leopard II and M-1 series. But there were some other factors for U.S. planners to consider as well.

The effectiveness of both the Sagger and TOW AT missiles in Vietnam and Middle East certainly caused a bit of consternation in developing ultra-expensive tanks that could possibly be defeated by cheap missiles carried by infantry. But overall, the M-48A3 Patton (with the 90mm gun) had performed well overall in Vietnam as did the Centurion in Aussie service. The M-60 series was still effective against the latest generation of Soviet armor such as the T-72, especially with the upgrades of the L7 which to my knowledge can still kill most tanks today likely to be encountered. Even as the M-1's were rolling off the lines in the mid-80's, some were asking "why?", as one could build three M-60A3's for every M-1 and still save more on fuel! But the M-1 was the worlds first modern tank from multiple standpoints of automotive performance, optics, fire-control and other electronics after nearly doubling the horsepower ratings of its predecessors, and it's overall effectiveness still made it the ultimate deterrent of a desperate last gamble of a withering Soviet empire...

steben
08-30-2013, 02:37 PM
Interesting...
I'm not sure what you mean here. The Vietnam War certainly delayed U.S. tank research and testing while the MBT-70 project was a bit of a disaster from the standpoint that the technologies being incorporated into the tank just weren't quite ready yet. I also recall something about the German and American engineers being completely confused as the former were using metrics and the latter standard for measurements of parts causing some major difficulties. Although, we should say that some good lessons were learned by both Germany and the U.S. in regards to tank development that would be applied in both the Leopard II and M-1 series. But there were some other factors for U.S. planners to consider as well.

The US decided not to buy the Leo 2 for themselves, but develop the M1, despite the signs and promises.
With all the politics behind us, we still can make a summary which brings the M1 to the front as being an unnecessary developped, more expensive gas guzzler with the same mobility and gun as the Leo 2. It is still as good an MBT to employ no matter what. It just caused more costs and timelag because of internal national interests.




The effectiveness of both the Sagger and TOW AT missiles in Vietnam and Middle East certainly caused a bit of consternation in developing ultra-expensive tanks that could possibly be defeated by cheap missiles carried by infantry. But overall, the M-48A3 Patton (with the 90mm gun) had performed well overall in Vietnam as did the Centurion in Aussie service. The M-60 series was still effective against the latest generation of Soviet armor such as the T-72, especially with the upgrades of the L7 which to my knowledge can still kill most tanks today likely to be encountered. Even as the M-1's were rolling off the lines in the mid-80's, some were asking "why?", as one could build three M-60A3's for every M-1 and still save more on fuel! But the M-1 was the worlds first modern tank from multiple standpoints of automotive performance, optics, fire-control and other electronics after nearly doubling the horsepower ratings of its predecessors, and it's overall effectiveness still made it the ultimate deterrent of a desperate last gamble of a withering Soviet empire...

hm... A whole new theme to think about ... what are today's paradigms?

Nickdfresh
08-30-2013, 07:54 PM
The US decided not to buy the Leo 2 for themselves, but develop the M1, despite the signs and promises.
With all the politics behind us, we still can make a summary which brings the M1 to the front as being an unnecessary developped, more expensive gas guzzler with the same mobility and gun as the Leo 2. It is still as good an MBT to employ no matter what. It just caused more costs and timelag because of internal national interests.

You would have to indict every European power with the same accusations as all the majors ones also have their indigenous "third generation" tank designs. There are criticisms of the M-1 series' "gas-guzzling" turbine engine. But that isn't really an indictment of the tank as a whole since its modular power plant could be replaced with a suitable turbo-diesel, which is in the works. In general, the turbine engine, while thirsty, also has been shown to be very reliable and effective in real world operations. And while the Leopard series of tanks are great, the M-1 has repeatably proved itself reliable and very effective in actual combat. I know the Leopard II has been used in anger, but certainly not to the extent of the M-1A1 and not against significant armored opposition. Politically, of course it's difficult to simply buy someone else's design with an indigenous industrial base that is lagging and in need of jobs such as the U.S. was in the 1970's. It really is only relatively recently the U.S. military has deployed foreign weapon systems at all, such as the AT-4...

tankgeezer
08-31-2013, 09:51 PM
[QUOTE=Nickdfresh;190172]Interesting...

The infantry carried wire missiles were a problem to be concerned with, the sapper, and swatter missiles as well. The one break was in that the shooter had to keep the missile on target with a joystick the entire time which was difficult enough, but more so if the attackers could put out some suppressing fire. A hit was as good as a kill in those days on either side. The U.S. Tow missile was a little different in that it had a sighting system that allowed the shooter to aim using a reticle, and by just keeping the reticle on the target, the missile would find its way to a range of just over 3km. (IIRC) We were present at a testing session of the Tow, the missiles were being fired at a test tank outfitted with extra side plates for the missiles to impact against. There were no misses, or failures although the warheads were inert and just made a loud thunk on the plates. The test had to be interrupted in order for repair welds to be made to the side plates as they would occasionally crack just from the impact. All of these missiles were a game changer for both sides of the Cold war. This was about the time someone came up with the (bad) idea for the M-60-A1-E2 Starship that had a weird turret, and carried a 152mm gun/launcher that fired either the sheleighleigh missile, or a combustible cased conventional (but lower velocity) round The main headache with the system was that it was slow to cycle between rounds due to the need for clearing the breech of debris prior to reloading it was just too slow in a pinch, so it was not around for long. The missile was fine as long as one was not in a forest.
There were rumors of big changes for armor in light of the new missiles, that tanks may be on the way out, but that never happened especially with the advent of Chobham armor. The main Battery of the M-60 series the L-7 105mm rifle was well more than capable of dealing with any tank it might face. It was quick to load with metal cased one piece munitions, of 5 different types. Sabot, HEAT, HEP, Fletchette,(Beehive) and White Phosphorous (smoke) The M-60 was able to take on the Warsaw Pact T-72 which actually had some fire control and maybe even a turret floor. T-54's, and 62's were not so equipped, in those days anyway. While much better than its predecessors, the 72 was not superior to the 60's mostly because it was hobbled by its not so quick auto loader system which was as likely to load one's arm as charge the gun. This loader also required the ammo to be stored around the circumference of the turret ring, which was a real Achilles heel. Its crampt interior also lessened its operating efficiency in battle.
The M-60's had (depending on version) a very reliable fire control system to go along with the excellent gun, and munitions. It used a stereo optic mechanical rangefinder that could range to 4,400 meters. This fed info into an electro mechanical ballistic computer which had a setting for each of the 5 different rounds. It also accounted for bore wear via an E.F.C. setting , and on later versions also gathered information on wind speed, and direction, and temperature and humidity. The primary gunner sight was a simple aiming cross having mil-dots in all 4 directions to account for spindrift, and target lead if needed. the gunner had only to select the munition called for, and place the cross on the target. The computer provided all of the super elevation to the gun. There was also a secondary sight coaxial to the gun, that had a separate reticle for each round which had all of the range marks, and drift corrections etched into them. I.R. sights were also there. The coax machine gun had the same velocity as the HEP round so we could have that gun aligned to the primary sight to make things a bit easier, though it also had its own sight a red circle that was supposed to indicate the area coverage, but no one I know ever used it. The Cupola mounted .50 cal had its own sights independent of all the others, as was its own traverse, and elevation mechanism. (sadly, all manual) The L-7 is still in use on the Stryker vehicles, and still does a bang-up job.
All of the 60's had the same Continental air cooled V-12 Turbo Diesel pack, two speed auto trans, it made 950 gross H.P. 750 at the ground and got 1.1 miles per gallon on a level hard surface. Not bad for 52 tons. I see the reason behind the turbine engine of the Abrams,reliable, can burn many different types of fuel, but I also think a present technology 1,500 HP diesel pack would be a better idea overall. Just my opinion.

Nickdfresh
09-01-2013, 08:56 AM
I agree with the diesel pack, TG.

As far as the guided missiles, I think the North Vietnamese (and hence the Soviets, ultimately) were also shocked by the use of TOW's on tactical choppers such as the AH-1 Cobra. I think they as much as anything else halted the 1972 NVA/VPA offensive and for the first time turned tactical aircraft into precise, effective antitank weapons - and their potential to reduce the armored concentration of any Blitz even before they met significant enemy opposition on the ground...

steben
10-04-2013, 08:36 AM
Anyone who can give advice on which 1/35 scale model to use if one wants to construct a Korean Centurion (mk III)?

LionMarc has a mk III turret (without bins) for retrogard conversion of a mkV, AFV club has excellent 1/35 20pdr barrel.
But what base model?

The AFV Club mkV Aussie
http://www.perthmilitarymodelling.com/reviews/vehicles/afvclub/images/afv35100.jpg
or the mkV with L7?
http://www.perthmilitarymodelling.com/reviews/vehicles/afvclub/images/afv35122.jpgAccording to many resources, only the turret/gun was a major change. Or in other words, all the upgrades from mkIII to mkV concerned items within the turret.
I would love to use AFV Club models because of the detailed suspension and real rubber rings on the wheels.

steben
10-09-2013, 09:24 AM
http://www.tamiya.com/english/monthly/002korean_war/tank_e.gif

Nickdfresh
09-19-2015, 03:05 PM
Some interesting snippets here written as AAR's at the following site regarding the performance of the M-4A3E8 Sherman:

http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2014/12/american-tanks-in-korean-war.html