Picture of the day
- Thread starter jwhc
- Start date
Dark Alley Dan
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Darkest Edmonton
More redistribution, same neighbourhood and time:
When Russia started hostilities with Japan, Japan surrendered.
I do not know which was the bigger motivator - Russian invasion or the A bomb.
There were no more A bombs (although Japan probably did not know this) , but there were lots and lots of Russians.
I do not know which was the bigger motivator - Russian invasion or the A bomb.
There were no more A bombs (although Japan probably did not know this) , but there were lots and lots of Russians.
More redistribution, same neighbourhood and time:
Interesting that some soldiers on this photo wear pre-1943 uniform.
And division after division of all kinds of state f the art armour. Allied commanders what themselves when the IS tanks debuted to the public in the victory parades. Imagine being a Japanese soldier with a couple ha-go tanks and a knee mortar trying to hold them off!
fat tony
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
And yet about 10 yrs later the heyday of heavy tanks was over.
I am willing to bet the Iraqi troops and armored brigades felt quite differently about that when the Coalition forces rolled out with their Abrams.
Technically, the M1 Abrams is a "Main Battle Tank" - not a heavy tank. Partly a nomenclature change on the part of the US military, but "Heavy Tanks" are notably different in design and purpose. "Heavy Tanks" have a larger bore gun, and are designed specifically with an infantry support role in mind.
MBT's are "dog-fighting" multi-role tanks. Designed to be able to go toe-to-toe with other tanks independent of infantry support, they can also act in an infantry support role. Think of it in terms of aircraft - a heavy tank would be akin to an F-111 Aardvark, whereas an M1 Abrams would be the multi-role F-18.
Sporting Lad
Regular
- Location
- Vancouver Island
The tank's heyday is NOW!
In 1955 ("10 years later") the 'heyday' of the heavy tank was just dawning. Ten years after that (1965) our M-60 A1s were nearly the same size and weight as those 'dreaded' PzVI Tiger I, as were the T-62s opposing us. Tanks of this size (renamed as MBTs) were the mainstay of both the NATO & Warsaw Pact armies. The next generation of tanks (Abrams, Leopard II, T-90, et al carried that concept into the 21st century with new technological innovations.
Personally, I think the Bradleys are not up to competing in a large-scale war against modern MBTs. They may be quick, but can their armour withstand 5 rounds a API fired from a .50 cal (or a Russian 12.7)? Most APCs or 'recon tracks' cannot. I've seen the results of HMG fire vs M-113s and Russian PT-76s, and it's not a pretty sight--their interiors are just a mess.
Those poor Iraqi tankers were mismatched against Coalition forces because they were poorly trained and their equipment was by then obsolete. The few Iraqis who did manage to get a round off were found to have been firing practice rounds--basically tin cans without explosive warheads. They were quickly neutralized. It just wasn't a fair fight.
Infantrymen have been dreaming and scheming about the demise of the tank as a weapon of war for 100 years now. From time to time some army will come up with a hand-carried weapon that promises to sweep armour from the field, but each time, tank designers always come up with a way of overcoming those inventions.
I think the tank will be with us for a good while to come.
In 1955 ("10 years later") the 'heyday' of the heavy tank was just dawning. Ten years after that (1965) our M-60 A1s were nearly the same size and weight as those 'dreaded' PzVI Tiger I, as were the T-62s opposing us. Tanks of this size (renamed as MBTs) were the mainstay of both the NATO & Warsaw Pact armies. The next generation of tanks (Abrams, Leopard II, T-90, et al carried that concept into the 21st century with new technological innovations.
Personally, I think the Bradleys are not up to competing in a large-scale war against modern MBTs. They may be quick, but can their armour withstand 5 rounds a API fired from a .50 cal (or a Russian 12.7)? Most APCs or 'recon tracks' cannot. I've seen the results of HMG fire vs M-113s and Russian PT-76s, and it's not a pretty sight--their interiors are just a mess.
Those poor Iraqi tankers were mismatched against Coalition forces because they were poorly trained and their equipment was by then obsolete. The few Iraqis who did manage to get a round off were found to have been firing practice rounds--basically tin cans without explosive warheads. They were quickly neutralized. It just wasn't a fair fight.
Infantrymen have been dreaming and scheming about the demise of the tank as a weapon of war for 100 years now. From time to time some army will come up with a hand-carried weapon that promises to sweep armour from the field, but each time, tank designers always come up with a way of overcoming those inventions.
I think the tank will be with us for a good while to come.
Orders of the Red Banner all round!
That's Harbin for those that don't read Cyrillic, where thousands of "White Russians" used to pass their time debating about how they lost the homeland. Most got a free trip to the Gulag when the Red Army got there; those that weren't already working for the NKVD.
It's interesting how the Japanese Army in Manchuria and Korea folded up like a house of cards with mass surrenders, in contrast to the bitter resistance on the Pacific Islands. The abject defeat they suffered at Nomohan in 1939 must have had something to do with it. I happened to see a recent Korean movie trailer about this period and it was amusing how it presented the Japanese as heroically resisting the Soviet onslaught in 1945.
Does anyone understand why a Korean movie would present the then-hated Japanese in such a heroic light? After all, the Soviets were out to communize Korea, but the Japanese openly declared their intention to totally extinguish the Koreans as a distinct nation.
Dark Alley Dan
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Darkest Edmonton
Lotta Korean conscripts in the Japanese army in those days. Plus, assuming it's a South Korean movie, you have multiple generations worth of anti-communist thought and propaganda bouncing around in the writer's head. Fierce armed opposition to Mr. Lenin's Grand Idea is kinda hardwired in the S. Korean mind.
- Location
- WMU247 near Edmonton
tanks are great, big targets that can soak up lots of small arms fire. Gives the poorly trained enemy troops something to shoot at while the infantry gets busy killing them.
Tanks are here to stay and have the most success when used in combined arms operations with infantry, artillery, engineers, close air support and plenty of logistics response. This also assumes that the terrain is favourable to their use. No single arm can go it alone and hope to succeed on the battlefield.
Back in the bad old Cold War days the threat was from masses of Soviet armor and NATO armies were heavily weighted with tanks and skewed towards large scale anti-armor warfare. Nowadays we are facing a lightly armed irregular/insurgent type of threat in places like Afghanistan and Iraq/Syria, so tanks aren't necessarily the dominant arm, although they can still play a useful role. Let's hope that we aren't getting into Cold War 2 with the Russians. They still have a lot of armored capability and keep on R&Ding new tanks as well.
I'd second the comments on the protection offered by the M113 type APC having seen a lot of them reamed out like tomato cans in the middle east. They were never intended as a fighting vehicle, but rather as a means of getting the infantry quickly through indirect arty, mortar and small arms fire so that they could dismount and engage the enemy. The Bradley family is certainly a step up, but they still aren't proof against tank guns or hand held anti-tank weapons. They have a 25mm gun and can mount TOW, which is a good thing, but they do offer the temptation to be used as a tank-like vehicle in a direct fire role. This is not good for the infantry riding in the back who can be reduced to spectators and have a high risk of dying in bunches if confronted by hostile tanks.
Back in the bad old Cold War days the threat was from masses of Soviet armor and NATO armies were heavily weighted with tanks and skewed towards large scale anti-armor warfare. Nowadays we are facing a lightly armed irregular/insurgent type of threat in places like Afghanistan and Iraq/Syria, so tanks aren't necessarily the dominant arm, although they can still play a useful role. Let's hope that we aren't getting into Cold War 2 with the Russians. They still have a lot of armored capability and keep on R&Ding new tanks as well.
I'd second the comments on the protection offered by the M113 type APC having seen a lot of them reamed out like tomato cans in the middle east. They were never intended as a fighting vehicle, but rather as a means of getting the infantry quickly through indirect arty, mortar and small arms fire so that they could dismount and engage the enemy. The Bradley family is certainly a step up, but they still aren't proof against tank guns or hand held anti-tank weapons. They have a 25mm gun and can mount TOW, which is a good thing, but they do offer the temptation to be used as a tank-like vehicle in a direct fire role. This is not good for the infantry riding in the back who can be reduced to spectators and have a high risk of dying in bunches if confronted by hostile tanks.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/...xpa7xI3zEmWkna5iGU4rMXrR9UlFuSSKmbu9WoJ4exstm
This guy has quite the story--Hans Joachim Marseille.
Loved shooting planes down, but regretted killing of the pilots.
This guy has quite the story--Hans Joachim Marseille.
Loved shooting planes down, but regretted killing of the pilots.
The Bradley IFV is not what it was supposed to be. It was supposed to be an APC that could protect troops from 14.5mm fire. But then Generals got involved and it became what it is today. A jack of all trades but master of none.
Are you referring to the movie "My Way"? based on a true story.
Why was it made? glorifying the hated Japanese? large part of it probably had to do with the antagonist "seeing the light" and taking on the role of his former victim, the protagonist.
Dark Alley Dan
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Darkest Edmonton
Speaking of Japanese soldiers and WW2...
"Well, lads, let's have a talk. And if I like what I hear, I won't let these gentlemen eat you..."
"Well, lads, let's have a talk. And if I like what I hear, I won't let these gentlemen eat you..."
