I have only seen pictures and documentation of M48s in Vietnam. I dont get it. Didn’t the M60 get put into service in the early 60’s? SO why werent there any M60s in vietnam?
Also, how were the M48 in vietnam? Were they successful (well, as successful a tank can be in a jungle…)?
Because they were not needed there. When US combat troops were initially deployed, tanks were not supposed to even be sent there. The Marines brought theirs along as part of their standard deployment package and US tanks were introduced “by accident”. The M48 was more than enough to deal with any threat fielded by the NVA as was proven over and over again.
a 48 was the top dog in the food chain over there. But on the otherhand I never saw one ever use anything but HE and canister. There is documentation of at least one M48 knocking out a PT 76, and maybe even a T59 (?). But most of what an M48 delt with were bunker complexes when in the bush. They also used M551’s as well, but the 48 was just the one you went to right off the top. The one problem the 48 had was it’s weight, and was easy to bog down. Where as a Sheridan was light enough to be able to go just about anywhere. But neither would handle large clumps of bamboo all that well. What we needed over there was a thirty-five ton tank with a much lower ground pressure, but still with a steel hull.
gary
Yup, the only US/NVA tank to tank fight was PT-76 vs M48. Very lopsided fight, as you can guess. The ARVN would use their M41s and M48s against NVA PT-76s, and T54/55s During Lam Son and the Easter Invasion of 1972. In both cases, the ARVN tankers would prove better against the NVA tankers in tank to tank combat.
I was an Ontos Platoon Cmdr, M50 A 1 in Viet Nam. I was with BLT 1/5 and went in Country February 1966. As with all BLT,s, we had an Ontos Platoon, a Tank Platoon and an Amtrac Platoon. The M 48 was the only Tank the Marine Corps had during this period aS the M 60 was heavier than the M 48 and provided no significant improvement over the M 48 A3.
As the previous responder stated The U S army had concluded that there was no need for Armor in Viet Nam and the State Dept. agreed. They were shocked when they opened there papers and saw pictures of 1st Mar Div was landing M 48A3’s at Danang in 1965. The Corp was critcised by the Army and State Dept for “escalting” the situation.
Contrary to the army and the State Department there was plenty of opportunity to use Armor. The Ontos weighed 9 tons an hhad the same ground pressure as an infantry man. It lacked suffecient armor but had tremendous fire power with 6 106 reciless rifles, 4 50 cal spotters and a 30 cal light mg. While the M48 was limited somewhat by its weight, determined platoon leaders and tank commanders were able to get their vehicles into places Battalion, Regiment and Division Officers thought impossible. Infantry Companies and platoons were happy for their efforts.
Viet Nams main north south route was Route 1, It was the only reliable paved road in I Corps. It was Asphalt . M 48’s tore this road up when they manuvered on it. M 60s would have destroyed it.
As a Citadel graduate I was trained in Armor by the Army. In 1965 and 1966 Europe had first call on all the new M 60s coming of the line as they were facing Russia’s newest Armor in Germany and several of my classmates turned in their M 48’s for M 60’s during this period.
Cowhide Bravo 1 Actual My first Call Sign in Viet Nam. Hope this helps!
I’ve also heard that the M60s were the more advanced tank at the time, and as such, they were kept on the front lines of Europe to fight the Russians in case the Cold War erupted in that region.
Though the M60 MBT did not go over, there were two variants of the M60 which were deployed to Vietnam: the bridgelayer and the Combat Engineer tank (M728 if memory serves me right…)
Regards and Aloha,
Johnny B.
The M60 was needed to stand guard against the Soviets in Germany. Additionally, the Israelis were having troubles with several Arab nations and we supplied them M60s and M48s to defend against the threat.
It was a combination of the lack of need in Vietnam combined with the higher priority use elsewhere in the world that the M60 didn’t end up in Vietnam.
The problem with the M48 is that once you went into the rainy season it was really limited to just what you could do with it. It was just too heavy for the time frame. In the dry season they were something to deal with. A steel hulled Sheridan with the gun launcher problems fixed would have been the better solution when you look at the rounds expended and what they were used for. Still no matter whatkind of tank is brought up here the real goto workhorse in Vietnam was the M113 ACAV backed up with an M106. They would go anywhere and were very reliable.
gary