"M-41 Tanks Are Museum Pieces … And Still in Service" Topic

"The U.S. Army never really liked the M-41 Walker Bulldog. A light tank designed in 1949 and produced between 1951 and 1954 to replace the M-24 Chaffee of World War II fame, the M-41 was too light to handle beefed-up communist armor coming off Soviet assembly lines — namely the T-55.

To make matters worse, the Walker Bulldog's development process was chaotic, the tank was both cramped and uncomfortable and too big to act as an effective reconnaissance vehicle — one of the original design goals — and its 76-millimeter cannon was underpowered. To put it simply, the tank just wasn't cut out for U.S. government work, and tougher M-551 Sheridans replaced the machines in the 1960s…."
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Were these in Korea? Funny that the US didn't like them yet, they are still in use all over the world even today.

Depends on what you expect them to go up against.

The M41, despite a few flaws, was not a bad concept, a fast, capable recon tank that could be used against targets of opportunity and if necessary, hold off enemy tanks.

The big mistake most people did was to apply the principle "If it looks like a tank …"

If you were lucky they would be used against enemies who barely had anything better to match it, but by the 1960's when Soviet equipment like the T-54 and AT missles were being distributed like candy to anyone who liked and friended Moscow on the social media of the day it usually got into major trouble.

Not used in Korea, never used by the US in combat. US soldiers did fight alongside ARVN M41s in Vietnam.

I've always read that this was a respected and functional tank. The ARVN used them effectively against T54s even with that 76mm gun, which had penetration for a gun that size.

I just drove past one yesterday sitting in Fairbanks, Alaska in a park as a monument.

It certainly had some potential. A big let down I think was that they were gassers in a time when the US Army was moving towards diesel. But the design certainly had some upgrade potential, as evidenced by the upgrades used by foreign users.

Damon.

Yes, didn't make it for the Korean War, '50-'53. But certainly served and still serves in a number of militaries. With the ARVN being the most "iconic" per se for the US tank-philes, historians, etc.

IMO the M-41 could be used 'best' vs Inf. w/ HE.
However if they could be 'dug in'/ 'hulled down', to help compensate for the lack of armor compared to what eastern block countries were rolling out (T-55's), they could still be effective vs. armor, just not in open field 'head-to-head' fights.

"and tougher M551"?

I think that's the first time I've ever seen anyone say the Sheridan was tougher than something.

Rob

LOL !!!! The M551's 152mm cannon/missile combo was a good idea that really didn't workout. Just like the same weapon mounted on the M60A2s aka "The Starship". The old timers in used tell us, many times the A2 stayed in the motor pools "NMC".

But the 82d for the longest time used the 551's in their Airborne Armored Bn. But I think they are no longer in the unit. Can't remember if and what replaced them ? But in that case an M551 was better than nothing, AFAIK.

Many M551s ended up as Vis-Mods at the NTC, Ft. Irwin, CA.

The Airborne division used M551s for a long time because there was nothing else to replace them. The M8 was supposed to be a replacement, but they never really took off & the project was cancelled. IIRC a few units were deployed at one time or another after the M551 was withdrawn, but AFAIK not a permanent organization change…

Damon.

Yes, I remember them using them in a number of Ops, e.g. the invasion of Panama. Can't remember if they used them in Granada ?

I know for a long time they were looking for a replacement … They should get something newer and "better" than the M551. It has to be older than most if not all of it's crews !

Ironically, the M8 looks to be getting back into the military… There's a contest for a 'Mobile Protected Firepower' light vehicle with big gun (105 or 120mm).

And I think the FCS may be back up, too, just aiming at 35tons in full armor instead of 18tons.

That sounds like a good development.

And again, if the FCS makes it into the inventory, just like the Bradley, more armor was required. To make it a little more survivable.

Lighter armor may make vehicles more deployable … but in turn sometimes less survivable. That paradigm has always been a consideration/conundrum for AFVs. I.e. mobility vs. firepower vs. survivability vs. power to weight ratio …

@ TGerritson

Did it still have snow on it?