[BMF]

I'm always on the lookout for some cool pics. from the norwegian army. Mainly from 1945 to the '90's. A wide range of weapons and gear were in use. Here's some nice shots I found in the armys media archive.

Leopard tank, at the Hjerkinn range, 19??. M24 chaffee from the only Homeguard unit with armour. They were guarding an airport outside Oslo. M48a5 tank, 1979. M3a1 scout car used in a Homeguard excercise in 1977, A weasel with a 106mm recoilless gun, 1975.
A Dodge t214 wc52, Homeguard excersice 1977.

 

[Clyde]

Neat. Do you know if the M-24 still had the original twin Cadillac V-8s or if it had been re-engined with something more up-to-date?

 

[BMF]

The M-24 were updated in the mid '70's, and named "NM116 Panserjager" (tankhunter). It got a new 90mm gun (french) , new firecontrollsystem and new diesel engines. Detroit Diesel 6V53T.
Can someone tell me wich timeframes the vehicles I showed were used in the US? Most pics. shows these vehicles used by the norwegian Homeguard. They allways got the obsolete stuff whenever the army got some new.

M-24 in Norway.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/4684786153

NM116:
http://www.primeportal.net/tanks/erik_torp/nm_116/
http://krigshistorisk-museum.no/index.php/no/kjoretoy/1945-g/nm-116-panserjager

A little info. about the norwegian variants here (at the bottom of this page):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M24_Chaffee

 

[jepari]

Neat. Do you know if the M-24 still had the original twin Cadillac V-8s or if it had been re-engined with something more up-to-date?

The M24's used by the Guard were never updated with diesel engines - the still had the twin Cadillac V-8's.

 

[Clyde]

The M-24 were updated in the mid '70's, and named "NM116 Panserjager" (tankhunter). It got a new 90mm gun (french) , new firecontrollsystem and new diesel engines. Detroit Diesel 6V53T.
Can someone tell me wich timeframes the vehicles I showed were used in the US? Most pics. shows these vehicles used by the norwegian Homeguard. They allways got the obsolete stuff whenever the army got some new.

M-24 in Norway.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/4684786153

NM116:
http://www.primeportal.net/tanks/erik_torp/nm_116/
http://krigshistorisk-museum.no/index.php/no/kjoretoy/1945-g/nm-116-panserjager

A little info. about the norwegian variants here (at the bottom of this page):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M24_Chaffee

US put the M24 into service in 1944, but not too many got in theater before the war was over. We continued to use them until the mid-1950s, but Korea was the last US combat usage.

We used M48A5s, still with 90mm guns, in Vietnam as late as our involvement lasted. With 105s replacing the 90s, we used M48s (at least in reserve units) into the 1970s.

Various allies and clients used both M24s and M48s in various models for much longer.

 

[JJames]

US put the M24 into service in 1944, but not too many got in theater before the war was over. We continued to use them until the mid-1950s, but Korea was the last US combat usage.

We used M48A5s, still with 90mm guns, in Vietnam as late as our involvement lasted. With 105s replacing the 90s, we used M48s (at least in reserve units) into the 1970s.

Various allies and clients used both M24s and M48s in various models for much longer.

An awful lot of folks died because Patton wanted light or medium tanks. The M-24 would have saved a lot of lives. Read "Death Traps" for a complete explanation.

 

[Clyde]

An awful lot of folks died because Patton wanted light or medium tanks. The M-24 would have saved a lot of lives. Read "Death Traps" for a complete explanation.

The M-24 would have made a good replacement for all the M3/M5 Light tanks if enough had been available in 1944, wth better armor and a better gun (and the same engines as the M-5). Still a light tank and had less punch and less protection than a Sherman and no match for any of the the then current Panzerwaffe Pzkpfw except IIIs and early IVs.

George Patton, God love him, was far from the only American officer who favored more mediums than fewer heavies. And some others probably had more influence on the decision than he did. It was somewhat complicated, with issues of production lines, shipping space, cargo handling and port capacity (and some other things as well) all figuring into the matter. Tank utilization doctrine (which was mainly folks besides GSP) also played a signifcant role.

 

[jjk308 In Memoriam RIP]

There's some confusion over the Medium vs Heavy controversy and Patton's role in it.
Patton selected the M4 medium for production over the existing heavy prototypes like the M6 because they had such poor power/weight ratios and he, and almost all US officers, wanted a fast moving army. The M26 heavy was close to equal to the M4 in that department, and post D- Day a heavy became top priority but M26 production seems to have been delayed because M4s took up all the available resources.

This wasn't the only time we had to weigh better models, with their higher cost and inevitable teething problems and production delays, against existing ones that could be produced in greater quantity right now. Sometimes the decision to go with the new one was a mistake, as when the SB2C Helldiver was supposed to replace the SBD Dauntless as a Navy divebomber. Although much faster and carrying a heavier payload than the obsolescent dauntless the SB2C was approved for production too early, needed an extensive series of changes which resulted in a lot of weight growth which caused more problems, and didn't become a reasonably safe and effective aircraft for 2 years after its introduction.

 

[Ol Duke In Memoriam]

We used M48A5s, still with 90mm guns, in Vietnam as late as our involvement lasted.

Our unit, B Troop, 1/278th ACR had M48A5's when I ets'd in 1977. We had to train on M60A1's at Fort Stewart, though and there were some differences in the vehicles that you had to remember. When I got back in in 1984, they had M60A1's and I guess the M48A5's went to Norway because they sure do look like ones that we had...

 

[feuerwerker]

looks like an MG 34

do you know if it was still in 8x57 or did they change it sometimes for the 7,62x51?

 

[BMF]

Yes it's an MG34, it was the standard MG for the homeguard until early '90s. In mid / late '50s the MG34s were reworked to cal. 30-06, and around '79 they were reworked to 7,62 Nato. Around '93 - '94 the MG34 were replaced by the MG3 (about 25 years after the army got'em), some 34s weres still around as late as 2000, but I think they're all gone now. Here's a photo from June 1987, courtesy of the norwegian armys media archive.
BTW: the norwegian M/51 uniform in these pics. are an exact copy of the US M43. It was also used by the Home guard until around 2000.

 

[AbueloMark]

The SB2C was supposedly knickname the "Son-of-a-bitch 2nd class" for its terrible handling and its tendency to exhaust its pilots. Keep in mind that the most expensive weapons program of WWII was not The Bomb but rather the B-29. It was rushed, too, and its own engines probably killed more aircrew than Jap fighters. The last flying B-29, Fifi, recently had her engines replaced with a hybridized version of the original because the original engines were so damn problematic.

 

[feuerwerker]

interesting BMF
must have been the last MG 34 in use

 

[izzytok46]

interesting BMF
must have been the last MG 34 in use

With Norway? I bet there are still MG34's beating around Afghanistan and parts of Africa

 

[jepari]

A lot of ex US military equipment was used until early/mid 90's. This pic was taken in the late 80's early 90's

 

[smle-man]

My son came across and M24 in Iraq in 2007. They're everywhere.

 

[J.Stein]

I have to cut Patton (and the Army as a whole) some slack in the medium v. heavy controversy.

We have to think about logistics here. Not just getting the tank from America to Europe, but utilizing the roads, bridges, fields, etc., once we get there with regards to speed and overall mobility of the beasts getting them into the fight in working order.

 

[David Murvihill]

I have to cut Patton (and the Army as a whole) some slack in the medium v. heavy controversy.

We have to think about logistics here. Not just getting the tank from America to Europe, but utilizing the roads, bridges, fields, etc., once we get there with regards to speed and overall mobility of the beasts getting them into the fight in working order.

Also, people don't take into consideration the absolute proliferation of armor on the allied side. By 1944 every US infantry division had ~80 tanks and turreted tank destroyers. The German infantry divisions were lucky if they had 14 turretless jagdpanzers. The US built ~50,000 Shermans and the USSR ~50,000 T34's, that's compared to ~25,000 German AFV's in total. The "Big Cats" that everyone glories about were: Panthers, 5,000 Tiger 1's 1,500, Tiger 2's 400. In other words, the German tanks were guaranteed to see enemy tanks everytime they went into action, the allied tanks were (whatever the reverse of lucky is) if they saw any German tanks. Also, the Allies were on the offensive from 1942 on and attackers tend to take more casualties.

 

[kampfy]

Also, people don't take into consideration the absolute proliferation of armor on the allied side. By 1944 every US infantry division had ~80 tanks and turreted tank destroyers. The German infantry divisions were lucky if they had 14 turretless jagdpanzers. The US built ~50,000 Shermans and the USSR ~50,000 T34's, that's compared to ~25,000 German AFV's in total. The "Big Cats" that everyone glories about were: Panthers, 5,000 Tiger 1's 1,500, Tiger 2's 400. In other words, the German tanks were guaranteed to see enemy tanks everytime they went into action, the allied tanks were (whatever the reverse of lucky is) if they saw any German tanks. Also, the Allies were on the offensive from 1942 on and attackers tend to take more casualties.

The German's produced about 26,925 tanks*. When you include all fully tracked AFV's (assault guns and tank destroyers) the number jumps to 49,900*. The chance of Allied unit running into German armor of some kind was pretty high.

Also as a side note, I do not know about the ratio on the western front, but in the east German armor achieved a 2.94 to 1** kill to loss ratio. However, if the numbers were similar I (and have no reason to think otherwise) it would mean that if they were able to fully commit their armor to the fighting on one front they could have easily destroyed the entire tank production that any Allied nation manufactured before or during the war.

*number derived from the Encyclopedia of German Tanks of WWII.

**number derived from Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century.

 

[jjk308 In Memoriam RIP]

However, if the numbers were similar I (and have no reason to think otherwise) it would mean that if they were able to fully commit their armor to the fighting on one front they could have easily destroyed the entire tank production that any Allied nation manufactured before or during the war.

You also have to include losses from mechanical failure, not just enemy action, tanks lost due to fuel exhaustion and terrain, and tanks that needed a major rebuild, burned out, etc.. I'd guess that the German logistics problems and complexity of the equipment meant their non-combat losses could easily have exceeded the combat losses. The same thing also happens with aircraft.

Meanwhile the US and Soviet gear was considered relatively reliable and the US logistics system was the world's best.