Guns used in the Korean War?

Answer 1

It is true that most of the small arms used in WW II by US Forces were also used in Korea: however, as war always seems to, it sparked an evolution in small arms development. The Thompson Sub-machine gun, a WW II icon had ceased to be issued by 1950 and was rarely seen except when carried by special security detachments or veteran noncoms who managed to retain them after WW II. The M3 "grease gun" was a more common sight but submachine guns of the .45 caliber were already beginning to fade into history. The M1 Garand was still the main battle rifle of the infantry in both the Army and the Marine Corps, and infantry squads still relied on the BAR of WW I, as a primary squad automatic. Still, small arms were already beginning to evolve into what they are today.

The M1 Carbine had been fitted with a selector switch, giving it fully automatic fire capability, and was re-nomenclatured as the M2 Carbine. Higher capacity 30 round magazines were issued and newly developed infra-red night vision scopes were fitted more commonly to the M2 than to the Garand. The M2 wasn't exactly a stellar performer. The new magazines were unreliable and it didn't, of course, have the range and knock-down power of the Garand. However, arms experts and veterans have found that the 30 caliber carbine round was far more capable than what armchair ordnance experts gave it credit for, viewing it historically as simply a glorified side-arm for officers and rear echelon troops. Yet the light-weight carbine performed well enough in so many roles that some view it as the grandfather of the Stoner/AR 15/M-16/M-4 family of infantry small arms.

The M4A3 Sherman latest generation tank was in general use. Early WW II light tanks were side-lined in favor of the late war M-26 which was already obsolete. The Russian T-34/85 was the best tank anywhere in the world and it flatly outclassed anything the UN Forces could field. To make matters worse, the old bazookas of WW II simply bounced off their thick sloped armor. A new heavy bazooka was rushed into production but a lot of ground was lost before the new 3.5 inch bazooka could be issued and infantry troops trained in anti-tank tactics.

Perhaps our worst problem we faced in the Korean War was hastily and recklessly conducted down-sizing of the US Military. Not only did it lead to the decision by the communist forces to invade Korea, but it left the ranks of the military decimated. Not just in numbers, but in experience. The UN armies of the Korean War were not armies of veterans as one might think, but mostly armies of undertrained, under supported, ill-equipped rookies. Most students of the Korean War know the famous story of the Major General who went tank hunting with a new 3.5 bazooka on his shoulder, because he was the only soldier in his command who had any experience in anti-tank warfare.

As for air forces, the only WW II prop driven fighter still in general production was the F2-G Corsair, the Corsair now being produced by Goodyear instead of Vought. The F4U-4 and 5 latest generation Corsairs were in use as was the A1 Skyraider, a WW II design that arrived too late to see WW II service. The Skyraider was an outstanding heavy single engine ground attack carrier based support aircraft that went on to serve effectively in Vietnam. Propeller driven fighter aircraft were also going the way of the dodo so they served mostly in the ground support roles. Most WW II air force types were obsolete but the P-51 Mustang, renomenclatured the F-51, saw service mostly in ground support and forward artillery control. Helicopters were in general use and students of the Korean War cringe when they hear the common refrain that Vietnam was the first helicopter war. Sure there was no vertical envelopment doctrine yet developed by Korea, but choppers were already saving lives and inserting fire teams where needed.

Korea began the jet age of air combat. Tough jets had seen limited service in the closing months of WW II, they were mostly a side show. Now the jet was center stage. The communist forces had the best jet fighter and tank of the war, but we had more of them. Their troops were more experienced and they had more of them. Our infantry and ground troop training was not up to our own WW II standards but we had better trained pilots and ultimately troops than North Korea and China. The US bore the brunt of battle for the UN forces, seeing little more than token support from the other members, but the South Korean people bore the major brunt of the war. Korea was a costly war lasting a third as long as Vietnam but costing over half the troops lost there.

It is a mistake to think of Korea as an extension of WWII. It was the beginning of the jet age, the atomic age, and the age of limited engagements. It far more resembled the modern battlefield, than it did Normandy or Guadalcanal.

Joel Lashley

Answer 2

the same type of supplies as used during WW2