"Tanks and the Korean War:" Topic

Tanks and the Korean War: A case study of unpreparedness
Armor; Sep/Oct 2000; George F Hofmann;
Volume: 109
Issue: 5
Start Page: 7-12
ISSN: 00042420

"Abstract:
When the US Army went to war with Korea, it found itself unprepared to fight and win the first and succeeding battles. Hofmann argues that the unpreparedness was due to massive underfunding and poorly managed demobilization after World War II.

"I believe we need to read the lessons closely lest we repeat, at inestimable cost, the mistakes for which we paid so dear a price."

General Matthew B. Ridgway The Korean War (1967)

As the U.S. Army went to war in Korea in June 1950, it once again found itself unprepared to fight and win the first and succeeding battles.1 In order to understand why the Army was unprepared, we must examine the postwar development of doctrine regarding mechanized warfare with tanks as the main maneuver element.

On the eve of the Korean War, the nation's defense establishment had set aside much of what had been learned about the conventional combined arms armor doctrine so successfully demonstrated in Western Europe in World War II, and instead had begun to depend on nuclear weapons delivered by air power. As this was happening, the Army was digesting the war's lessons, attempting significant changes in organizations, weapons systems development, and doctrine, based on the success of the combined arms approach developed during the war.

It was quite evident that the tank had revolutionized battlefield dynamics. The armored force that swept across Europe had learned some important lessons, chiefly that it was essential for ground forces and tactical air to fight in combination, and that tanks could not operate independently in battle. Another lesson was that it was important to have tank units organic to infantry divisions, and consequently, a tank battalion was made organic to each infantry division to assist in the assault.2 Armor was expected to exploit the breakthrough, then strike out to pursue the enemy. In short, the Army believed that the combined arms team, built around the tank, could make operational level exploitation possible."
link

Like after every other war the US fought, they forget … there is always another coming around sooner than later … And once again, the US Gov't is going to start downsizing the military … again … Like they can't demob and give away MRAPs fast enough … cause we'll never run in to an enemy that uses mines, booby traps and IEDs … again …

Yeah. We are kinda know for that huh? Robert

It's almost S.O.P. …

Always proving that "Those who do not learn from history …….". Robert

That plus it comes down to $$$ … after a war, they used to look at a "peace dividend" … And that was stated by some after the Cold War. The best way to save $$$ is to downsize … I know, I was RIF'd in early '90 … at 10+ years of active duty. But that is another story. Of course I'm not sure we saw that "dividend" after Korea, Vietnam or will after any of the recent conflicts. "A penny saved is a penny earned", old Ben Franklin said. So maybe that's the dividend ? After 2 Wars in Iraq we know, Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia have 1/4 of the worlds known oil. But yet we are still paying very high prices worldwide to fill our gas tanks … a bit simplistic I know but it seems to fit. And 2 of those countries our considered "allies" … And again, we see today the military is going thru downsizing … But again, it appears the War on Terror is still going on …

Honestly, I think getting rid of the current crop of MRAPs is a good idea. The things weigh 15 tons for a 2.5t cargo load!

The humvee replacement, the JLTV, is down to 7 tons for a 2.5t cargo load, but I think we need to push that a bit lighter yet. Sure, the underside needs to be Vshaped and armored to resist land mines and buried IEDs, but does the upper body have to resist .50cal fire natively? Can't we downgrade that to .30-06AP, with applique armor available to 14.5mm protection?

All that weight makes the beasts less transportable, burn more fuel, and impairs their off-road capabilities.

But that idea has probably been thought of and thrown out of course.Too simple. This is the US Army you are talking about LOL. Robert