Talk:M41 Walker Bulldog

message: "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)
thread_title: Development history

message: (Suggested by User:Uncle G).
*Agree. Bukvoed (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge from M41D

message: 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)
thread_title: Errors in the M-41 article

message: 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)
thread_title:  Iraq War ? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bay of the Pigs 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tamoyo MBT 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gun Tank Citation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  M42 wrong hull 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Retiring 

message: 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)
thread_title:  M496 shell 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion