Com-Central.net

Hi Everyone,
Great thread on the M46 going here.

Until I read a comment that the M26/M46 tanks served with other NATO countries, I was not aware that anyone other than the US Army and USMC used those two vehicles. I have never seen a picture of either with markings from any of the other NATO countries that I can remember

South Korea had some (M46) for a while IIRC. They have one in the War Museum in Seoul. I know the 2nd Division had three still on static display in 2002. Two at Camp Casey, one was in front of 1st Tank, One in front of 2nd Tank, and the last at the Division Museum in Uijonbu, Camp Red Cloud. With all the changes I'm not sure what might have happened to them, Hopefully they bring them home. I know 2nd Tank's was in poor shape, being a former hard target. I have some pretty good pictures of the 1st Tank display at home.
Roy, I actually heard/read some where all M46's and M46A1's were farmed off. I also heard all the M46's used in the Korean war never came home and instead were transfered to the new ROK Army.That's why there are so few examples in the US. Unlike the M47's none were returned to the US when these countries upgraded to their own or newer tanks (That I know of), being considered too obsolete to be worth keeping for issue to other countries later. They probably served better as parts for M47's (They shared a lot of them). This would probably explain why I've seen so many wrecks of them on overseas ranges too.

Joe D

Hi Joe! Hi Folks!

- Joe_D

South Korea had some (M46) for a while IIRC. They have one in the War Museum in Seoul. I know the 2nd Division had three still on static display in 2002. Two at Camp Casey, one was in front of 1st Tank, One in front of 2nd Tank, and the last at the Division Museum in Uijonbu, Camp Red Cloud. With all the changes I'm not sure what might have happened to them, Hopefully they bring them home. I know 2nd Tank's was in poor shape, being a former hard target. I have some pretty good pictures of the 1st Tank display at home.
Joe D

Speaking of Korea, when I was over there, the parade ground in front of the UN Headquarters Office Building had a M26 setting at one end of it.

- Joe_D

Roy, I actually heard/read some where all M46's and M46A1's were farmed off. I also heard all the M46's used in the Korean war never came home and instead were transfered to the new ROK Army.That's why there are so few examples in the US. Unlike the M47's none were returned to the US when these countries upgraded to their own or newer tanks (That I know of), being considered too obsolete to be worth keeping for issue to other countries later. They probably served better as parts for M47's (They shared a lot of them). This would probably explain why I've seen so many wrecks of them on overseas ranges too.
Joe D

I remember seeing a large target holding area at Hohenfels (1974-1978) full of, what I though at the time, were Pershing tanks. It was only later that I learned that a Pershing with two mufflers on the rear fenders was NOT a Pershing, but a M46 Patton!

Speaking of spare parts for the M47s, I wonder if any of the hulls had their M26/M46 turrets replaced by the M47 type. After all, why build new hulls, if all you need to do if replace the turret? Could that possible, ALSO, help account for why there are very few M26 and M46 tanks that have survived?

Very interesting thread! Time for bed here in Far West Texas!
Sgt, Scouts Out!

The M46's have a different front end than does the M47's. The M46 front end matches that of the M26 Pershing, but with a more squared out casting over the respirator device or whatever it is that it covers (not near my references at home and not really thinking too straight here at work at the moment to remember exactly what this is). The M47's have an all new cast front end.

cn

Re : M46 tanks

Sad to say, Fort Irwin received a bunch of M46 and I think a few M47's as European returns in 1996. I believe they were Spanish. They were lined up at the edge of the dry lake airfield.

At that time they were destined for the live fire range, although the OPFOR regiment (4/73rd Armor at the time) pulled one M46 in and painted it in a Korean War Tiger scheme.

hth,
mike

Mike,
Is this M46 still there?

Jeff,
You know anything about this one?

Neil

FYI, Hunnicutt refers to SN 16 and SN 31 early production M46s - so it appears that they were given new SNs after conversion from M26s. Hunnicutt is somewhat unclear on how many M46s vs M46A1s were built:

"An initial production run of 800 M46s was included in the 1949 budget and it was estimated that 1215 additional M26s were available for conversion during the 1950 fiscal eyar. All of these plans were to be modified by unexpected events in the Far East." (p 14)

Otherwise Hunnicutt (p 17) says 360 M46A1s were built.

Some sites appear to claim that 800 M46s were built (as planned) plus the 360 M46A1s for a total of 1160 M46s of both types - but that would make SN 1169 a fairly odd number... Although I'd probably bet it is an M46A1 regardless...

Neil

I believe Charles Lemons discussed M46s and serials on the old site. I have a printout of a message from around 6/27/05, (message 65191) that was in the middle of the thread.

KL

Care to share what was said? Or are you going to just tease us?

I wish we hadnt given up the archive of the old site at least...

Neil

Hi Heil! Hi Folks!

- Neil_Baumgardner

FYI, Hunnicutt refers to SN 16 and SN 31 early production M46s - so it appears that they were given new SNs after conversion from M26s. Hunnicutt is somewhat unclear on how many M46s vs M46A1s were built:

"An initial production run of 800 M46s was included in the 1949 budget and it was estimated that 1215 additional M26s were available for conversion during the 1950 fiscal eyar..... (p 14)

Otherwise Hunnicutt (p 17) says 360 M46A1s were built.

Some sites appear to claim that 800 M46s were built (as planned) plus the 360 M46A1s for a total of 1160 M46s of both types - but that would make SN 1169 a fairly odd number... Although I'd probably bet it is an M46A1 regardless...
Neil

Neil, question! Can you tell from the text if he talking about conversions ONLY or is he saying new hulls and turrets where constructed?

When it comes to Hunnicutt's books, Patton is one of two of his books I don't have yet.

Sgt, Scouts Out!

It appears he is only talking about conversions. He does say "production" as well, but I believe that term can include "new" production as well as conversions in the broad sense.

Neil

I read over that section last night also and found it somewhat vague. I remember in one passage he mentioned that the designation for M46 (new) was changed to M46A1 to reduce confusion. This makes me think that when he was talking about 'production' of M46s he is actually talking about conversions of existing M26s (Just now I'm wondering if there are any pertinent comments in the Pershing book)

As far as the numbers I now interpret the passage about the 800 as saying that the 800 were commited to conversion in the 1949 budget and that there would still be 1215 M26s planned for conversion in FY 50. Although he says the FY 50 plans were disrupted by the conflict in Korea it doesn't say none of the 1215 were converted. So I think we have 800 FY49 conversions + 360 Newbuilds (M46A1) + an unknown number of FY50 conversions.

In another section he says Korean units kept their M46s longer than anyone else because the Truce accords were interpreted to mean that new equipment could not be brought into the country so even after the type was retired everywhere else it remained in Korea. That section of the truce accords must eventually have either been renegotiated or reinterpreted since much more modern equipment is now over there

Hi Bob! Hi Folks!

- bsmart

Just now I'm wondering if there are any pertinent comments in the Pershing book

Off the top of head, (I am still a work), he only says something like, "the T-23E3 lead to the T-40 which became the M46". At that point the development of tank history in the Pershing book ends.

Update/correction: Now that I have my book:
On page 154, Hunnicutt reports on the 1948 modernization program for a new power pack. The test pack was installed into a modified M26, which was later redesignated M26E2. May 1948, vehicle sent to APGs for testing. Page 156, ....results incorporated into the T40, which was standardized as the M46.

Near the bottom of p156, he reports on the M3A1 90 cannon. The paragrafe ends with "Both the M26A1 and the M46 were destined to serve alongside the standard Pershing in Korea."

Those two items are the only references to the M46 in the Pershing book.
Time for bed!
Sgt, Scouts Out!

Hey Mkef2,
Welcome. Gotta question. You sure you didn't mean 1986 instead of 96?
By 1996 11th ACR was the OPFOR. In '86 they were still 1-73 Armor, then switched to 1-63 Armor in Oct when they became the 177th Armor Brigade (Seperate). I remember all the tanks lined up at Bike Lake then. A bunch of M47's. I also remember a bunch of M26's laying around as hard targets too during that time.

Joe D

- Roy_A_Lingle

Hi Bob! Hi Folks!

Those two items are the only references to the M46 in the Pershing book.
Time for bed!
Sgt, Scouts Out!

Durn

I thought it might mention the conversion of some M26s into M46s and mybe pin down the number better

- Neil_Baumgardner

Care to share what was said? Or are you going to just tease us?

I wish we hadnt given up the archive of the old site at least...

Neil

I dunno - all I kept was one page with M26 serials that was in a "M26/M46 Numbers" thread. . .

KL