Comments by "Ken ibn Anak" (@kenibnanak5554) on "Military History Visualized" channel.

It makes perfect sense for old, inferior tanks in running condition with ammo to to be used as rear guard units or even as diversionary force units while newer tanks do the real attacking. A similar thing happened during WWII when the US Army in Europe deployed their obsolete M5 Stuart light tanks to the MPs guarding prisoners and also to patrol occupied areas. I would expect the Russians to find similar uses for old Soviet era tanks.
74
So are there any photos of Russian tanks that had at least one block of contact armor do it's job before something else destroyed the tank?
4
@Vibakari "that will always be viable in the recon and light armor role" LoL that they show some in parades doesn't mean anything more than they still have enough spare parts to keep some of them running and also that no one is willing to buy them. Mexico had some but found a company willing to accept them as scrap and give them more capable armored scout vehicles. If you communicate with collectors that have running Stuarts you will learn many critical parts once Israel phased their Stuarts out have become pure unobtanium. Obsolete weapons include those for which spare part suppliers no longer exist. New rubber coated road wheels is a good example. So are their tracks. Etc. etc.
4
@hedgehog3180 The Stuart was indeed obsolete as soon as it began to confront Mk IIIs in North Africa. Indeed during Operation Torch in 1942 only the intervention of a US Navy destroyer and it's guns, upon viewing the fight on the beach, saved a squad of M3 Stuarts from being killed off by a squad of old French Renault FTs. Yes the Stuart was a scout tank and the later sloped armor of the M5 was a slight improvement. But also mostly useless as the German Mk. III and Iv (especially the ones with long guns) could kill it at 3x the range a Stuart could successfully engage. How do you define obsolete? The M3/M5 were good tanks to use against non-mechanized infantry caught out in the open or against horse mounted cavalry. But the US command was fully aware that for most purposes it would encounter in Europe it was wholly inadequate, the Germans were not going to attack while mounted on horses, and newer better tanks such as the M4 were what was needed. Their definition of obsolete was the same as mine and in Europe Stuarts were considered to only be fit for rear echelon duties without much risk. In the Pacific Theater after the fall of the Philippines (where many Stuarts were destroyed) it was still used only because many of the islands had bridges incapable of supporting the weight of the heavier Sherman. Also the lack of medium Japanese tanks meant it was (initially) superior to the Japanese tanks it encountered. Still battle reports show more than just a few Stuarts being lost to infantry swarm attacks (they would simply pry the hatches open with their bayonets once they clambered onboard) in the jungles and later versions of Japanese tanks with larger guns began taking a toll on the Stuarts. That the US continued to use gasoline versions with hoses that leaked explosive fumes into the crew compartment ensured that they burned like torches. Over 100 Stuarts went into Burma to assist in the British evacuation. Only about 6 made it back. The early lack of explosive shells for the 37mm gun really didn't help as it was kind of hard to disable an artillery piece or concealed anti tank gun and it's crew while firing only inaccurate solid shot. In the Pacific theater whenever the US and Britain could replace a Stuart with a Sherman, or even an M3 medium, they did because the Stuart was as obsolete as the 1903a3 Springfield and newer and better things were becoming available.
3
Good video, but I have a problem with the conclusions. The Japanese Army was well aware that it planned to seize territory from Colonial powers (the UK, the Dutch, the Americans, etc.) and therefore the failure to anticipate their own light tanks would be coming into conflict with the tanks of Western powers was a major breakdown of their thought process. Noting that once they began to encounter the M-3 Grant/Lee tanks and Shermans at Tarawa they began working on heavier tanks and in fact after the surrender some prototype Japanese tanks that could have gone toe to toe with the Sherman were found on their mainland. Their real problem was getting the steel, the fuel and how to get the tanks to where the enemy was with us sinking their shipping as fast as we could.
1
The Weasel reminds me of the the old Ontos, but with a 20mm instead of 6 106mm launcher tubes. There was nothing wrong with the ontos that a change of weapons would not solve, but the US instead discarded the concept.
1
In related news this week, Russia has announced that due to a current inability to manufacture new T-72, T-80 or T-90 tanks a decision has been made to pull 800 T=62M tanks out of deep storage and attempt to modernize them.
1
@pajTHEman If they use it as an assault gun and everyone gets out except the gunner, then it is a good use of them. But when an incoming shell blows it up, if there was a full crew inside, then that was a dumb thing to do.
1
@pajTHEman When was that? Last time I looked it was Russia losing. They are even begging other nations to help them.
1
There were several incidents of opposing tanks colliding in the Pacific theater. There also exists a published photo of a Japanese tank stuck on the engine deck of a US Sherman after plunging off an embankment onto the Sherman.
1
I feel the main gun of the Leopard 1 is too small for the combat in Ukraine. Incapable of dealing head on with even a T-72 the Leopard would just become cooked meat in a can. Also the delivery time is absurd. Russia is not going to wait 2 months for Ukraine to arm. At the end of the Gulf War in the late 80s the US made a decision to not return the vehicles used there to the US, but instead left huge numbers of M-1 Abrams tanks (and other equipment) behind in Kuwait with the understanding that Kuwait would maintain that fleet of vehicles and keep them ready for use if called. Those older M-1s would be a much better choice for Ukraine and the rush time to train on their use would be equivalent. It is probably just political reluctance that keeps them from being put on the table as a gift to Ukraine.
1
The only justification for use of the Churchill in that raid was it was the best tank the British had available. However, given how poorly the entire event went, they'd have been just as well off using domr old Renault tanks. Noting also if the Churchill had been a great tank there would have been no need to replace them with Sherman Fireflies later in the war.
1
I am not understanding the reference to East Germany and a banana. I assume that is based on something known locally, but here in the US, I don't get it. Why is a banana worse than an apple or a peach or a simple ruler or Bic cigarette lighter? Something only someone local will know I think. Beyond that, an excellent video.
1