Talk:M41 Walker Bulldog

Development history

"suffered from a lack of impetuous...funding" doesn't make any sense. This should probably be reworded based on the original source, but I don't have access to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noworld (talk • contribs) 18:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Merge from M41D

(Suggested by User:Uncle G).

• Agree. Bukvoed (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

AoaPPAOkosa,ppqqqqq — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:FF47:1B00:9D96:DB6B:6D8D:458C (talk) 16:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Errors in the M-41 article

There are errors in the M-41 listing. NO M-41s were ever sent to Korea,(although we certainly could have used them.) A couple test variations T-37 were sent in late 1952, however no action was seen and they were never issued for combat use. The rangefinder, auto lead system and gun stabilizer were all discontinued as being too complex and expensive, subsequently all M-41's had power traverse but everything else was manual. Too much information in too many sources on the Walker Bulldog has been taken from the T-37 phase 1 & 2 test tanks without regard to all the changes having been made for production vehicles. A totally new turret was designed from the turret used on T-37. It was a simple welded plate steel design with better sloped armor and sleeker in appearance. In addition to the Continental engine, the Lycoming 500 HP engine was a standard issue and was very reliable. I was very happy serving with the M-41 and have never met anyone who ever served with this little sports car tank that didn't love it. Although there have been reports of the interrior being cramped, I do not find that to be true. If one is 6 ft tall, 180 pounds, he shouldn't be a tanker in the first place. The driver had plenty of room and the stowage of ammo, crew gear and positioning of the radio and other essentials was very well planned and left sufficient room to be relatively comfortable. The potent 76mm gun had a small recoil cylinder and breech and was easy to maintain and to load. It is a shame the USA discontinued the M-41. Other countries upgraded the tank and made a very verstile and effective tank out of it. We used it only for recon then gave it to South Vietnam who used it to kick some serious NVA butt. What did we get from it....the worthless M-551 Sheridan which was a problem from day one. (comment by User:Pattoncommander, copied from the article)

Agree. The Korean War "information" especially should either be sourced or be removed completely.172.191.53.72 (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Iraq War ?

The link is to the Iraq War from 2003... even the 1990/91 would be very strange since this tank with a very light armor, a gasoline engine and therefore a very small range can be easy knocked out by the modern RPG-7 grenades or even the first versions? It is like the Soldiers in Mogadischu, Somalia 1993 said that they were feeling very unsafe in the light armoured transporters and humvees the US Army had, only the Malaysian Troops that came to rescue the US soldiers had real tanks.

Sorry for spelling errors and greetings Kilon22 (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• It appears that a new editor decided to change it. It originally said "Vietnam War", before being changed to Iraq instead. It has been reverted now.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Bay of the Pigs

In his book "Decision for Disaster", CIA operative Grayston Lynch indicates that on April 17, 1961, 5 M-41 tanks wear landed in Cuba by three LCUs during the "Bay of the Pigs" affair. They saw combat against Cuban T-34s and other Soviet built armor, some were knocked-out, some abandoned intact. One is on display at the Giron Museum in Cuba. Hudicourt (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Tamoyo MBT

I don't know about you guys, but based on some quick research i think the tamoyo should be merged with this article under "Variants" For those who don't know, the Tamoyo was basically an upgraded M41 that wasn't even recognizable as an M41. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.107.236.139 (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Gun Tank Citation

I don't know the proper formatting for the reference, as there is two Hunnicutt publications listed in the sources, but on page 20 of Sheridan it does mention the cited information

It's the 9th, not the 7th of November 1950 though --Legiondude (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

M42 wrong hull

The M42 Duster is NOT based on the hull of the M42, but the one of it's predecessor, the M24. Take a look at those 2 tanks and compare the hulls. Change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.100.141 (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The M19 is based on the M24 hull, while the M42 is based on the M41 hull.73.208.227.101 (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

South Africa

Despite the claims made by the Southern Africa Committee, there were no Walker Bulldogs in South Africa. Their source was confused between South Vietnam and South Africa. I have deleted the claim. Yes, it is original research to say that I know they were wrong, but they were. Does anyone have any other source for this claim?

Grant McKenna (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I knew this was coming. Granted, I could've used a better source but that South Africa possessed some Walker Bulldogs is a well-documented if interestingly obscure fact. I saw a framed photograph of one at 1 Tank Regiment in Bloemfontein. That particular example was purchased in the 1950s but it's possible the Bulldog(s) were largely for evaluation purposes. No idea what happened to them but in all likelihood they were sold off or junked during the big SADF budget cuts of the late '50s, which explains why there are no surviving examples (very few tanks from the pre-1960 defence force have survived as they were all marked for disposal in 1959 and gone by 1961; ironic considering the SADF then underwent a massive expansion in the mid '60s and had to rebuy tanks again). Certainly, the acquisition of parts would have become impossible after the Sharpeville Massacre. I've heard the number put alternatively at 10, 25, and 100 - the latter being favoured by the Southern African Committee.

The fact that the Walker Bulldog had been in the SADF's inventory was disclosed at a 1977 Congressional hearing before the US House of Representatives. During that particular hearing - which concerned the ongoing UN arms embargo - somebody mentions the acquisition pf M41s by South Africa was made in the 1950s. No specific date is given. The The United States and the Arms Embargo Against South Africa by Sean Gervasi also references the tank in a paragraph describing obsolete US-made equipment used by the South African military (p.20). This is echoed in South Africa: War, Revolution, or Peace? by Lewis Gann (p. 29). Gervasi's book says it was purchased in 1951. I have another reference in my own library which mentions the SADF M41s but I'll have to search for it and get back to you.

By the way, there's nothing wrong with original research when it comes to challenging sources you perceive as dubious. In the future, however, I'd appreciate if you just marked the reference with a credibility tag instead of simply removing it.

Thanks! --Katangais (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Retiring

Can we get an exact date as to when the M41 was retired from US service?73.208.227.101 (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

M496 shell

The M496 shell is not mentioned in this article, being designed to be fired from the M32 and M48 cannons (the former being mounted on the M41). Sources: TM 43-0001-28 artillery report, TM 9-1300-203 artillery report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Timeister (talk • contribs) 01:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• T49.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)