RE: [OT] Sea Leopard

At 1:04 PM -0700 4/22/02, Brian Bilderback wrote:
>
>Ok, first of all, if you can show me in quotations where I ever said 
>"Tanks were not useful to the japanese,"  I'll quit ever making any 
>comment on the list, because my Other Voices have been talking out 
>of turn.  In response to the comment about the quality of the 
>Chi-ha, I merely pointed out that in most of the Pacific war, 
>especially against the US, the japanese were fighting on terrain 
>that did not favor tanks.  In regions where tanks WERE more at an 
>advantage, the Japanese were fighting opponents with equipment 
>inferior even to their own (Except as was pointed out at the end vs. 
>the USSR, by which time it was too bloody late to matter).  This 
>does NOT mean I thought tanks useless to the Japanese, it merely 
>meant that the large-scale tank battles witnessed in Eurpoe and the 
>Soviet front did not occur, and there was little need for the 
>Japanese to rapidly evolve their tank designs the way the allies and 
>Germans had to.

It seemed like your statement indicated that since the Chinese and 
Koreans didn't have tanks, then the Japanese wouldn't have found them 
useful. (the two to tango comment).

Large scale tank battles are an oddity. Usually it is a matter of 
tanks supporting infantry in their advance on a held position and 
then exploiting the holes in the line. Battles like Kursk are the 
exception, not the rule.
>
>
>Yes, useful.  In large formations like those found in Europe and
Africa?

Nope. But just because I'm not using two full batteries for an attack 
on this mountain strong hold doesn't mean that some artillery would 
really help the attack.

>
>Let's see.  My blanket statement was that MOST terrain in the 
>pacific wasn't suited for LARGE-SCALE tank combat.  Other than 
>exceptions like Korea and Manchuria, most of the pacific WAS pretty 
>jungle-clad, no?  Or maybe I'm hallucinating all those trees in 
>places like the Phillipines....

Yes, a good portion of SEA is jungle. As it was learned in Vietnam, 
tanks do very well in jungle. Even with man carried ATW's. During 
WWII, this would have been borne out as well were it really pressed I 
think. The Japanese never developed a number of things the US used 
for island landings and were still using barges as a means of landing 
troops when the Allies had developed the Higgens boats and other 
landing craft. Further, the US development of other tracked and 
armored amphibious vehicles worked well.

WWII battles were in Burma, Malaysia, Phillipines, Vietnam, China, 
Thailand, Laos, etc. Lots of Jungles, lots of rough terrain, lots of 
places tanks would be able to be useful. Just like in the Bocage.

My point is that they were useful. Not in large massive numbers, but 
useful. The Japanese Army officials didn't see fit to develop a good 
tank or continue to develop designs to maintain parity with the 
allies.
-- 
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
- Ryan Montieth Gill			     '01 Honda Insight -
- rmgill@mindspring.com 			    '85 CB700S -
- ryan.gill@turner.com			 '76 Chevy Monte Carlo -
- www.mindspring.com/~rmgill		       '72 Honda CB750 -
-				      '60 Daimler FV701H Mk2/3 -
-				   '42 Daimler Scout Car Mk II -
-	      I speak not for CNN, nor they for me	       -
----------------------------------------------------------------
-    Smart ID cards in the US, Smart ID cards in Hong Kong,    -
-		      what is the difference?		       - 
----------------------------------------------------------------
-  C&R-FFL  /  Protect your electronic rights!	  \ EFF-ACLU   -
- SAF & NRA/  Join the EFF!  http://www.eff.org/   \ DoD #0780 -