FA+
Shop
924
Views
Views
41
Favorites
Favorites
Category
All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1000 x 680
File Size 241.8 kB
Report this content
More from Saara
This was arguably the best tank Britain put into the field during WWII. It looks a little odd to those brought up on American movies, that show nothing but American tanks, and American tanks painted grey to pretend to be German tanks, or possibly a real German tank. But the British really did make their own tanks! The reason they often used the U.S. built Sherman was because British factories couldn't possibly build enough of their own armour in time.
The Churchill was a very heavily armoured vehicle, and reputed to be reliable, fast, and agile. It had a very long track length, which would enable it to ride over trenches and other obstacles that might lead to a Sherman nosing-in. The main problem was that the British never got it through their heads that a tank wasn't a sort of mobile pill-box to cover infantry, and never armed a vehicle with a sufficiently heavy gun. The gun on the Churchill was adequate for an old PKZW III or IV, but could barely peel the paint off a Tiger or Panther. The U.S. Sherman was no better. The allies only just matched German tanks with a Sherman mounted with a 17lb. British gun, late in the war. And it still wouldn't touch a Tiger II.
I drew this at the request of someone I know who is publishing a pamphlet about Northern Ireland. Apparently, the Churchill's lived on in service after WWII when they were sent to Belfast. The urban background I drew is fairly generic, and could be Ireland, Germany, or Disneyland for that matter.
The Churchill was a very heavily armoured vehicle, and reputed to be reliable, fast, and agile. It had a very long track length, which would enable it to ride over trenches and other obstacles that might lead to a Sherman nosing-in. The main problem was that the British never got it through their heads that a tank wasn't a sort of mobile pill-box to cover infantry, and never armed a vehicle with a sufficiently heavy gun. The gun on the Churchill was adequate for an old PKZW III or IV, but could barely peel the paint off a Tiger or Panther. The U.S. Sherman was no better. The allies only just matched German tanks with a Sherman mounted with a 17lb. British gun, late in the war. And it still wouldn't touch a Tiger II.
I drew this at the request of someone I know who is publishing a pamphlet about Northern Ireland. Apparently, the Churchill's lived on in service after WWII when they were sent to Belfast. The urban background I drew is fairly generic, and could be Ireland, Germany, or Disneyland for that matter.
Category All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1000 x 680px
File Size 241.8 kB
nowa days most tanks try to achive a ballance between armour, firepower and speed but i think the british had the right idea, make the thing faster than the competition then you wont have to chalenge the armour or the gun to extreme, they just needed better drivers
And a lot of open space. You couldn't really drive a tank at high speed in the brocage and canal country of The Netherlands. But too much open country was a problem too. No matter how fast, all you had to do in most of North Africa is lead the target a little before firing.
'not if your driving the Centaur II'
tanks arent designed for urban combat, they were originaly designed to breach enemy lines, to take small arms fire and to treverse any terrain in any weather condition they might find, hense the steriotype of 'tank'
tanks are becoming redundant, wars are now confined to small states and contries in the middle of nowhere who are bent on stiring up shit to just stop and listen for a minute, i dont see another world war ever occuring on earth... but thats just me
tanks arent designed for urban combat, they were originaly designed to breach enemy lines, to take small arms fire and to treverse any terrain in any weather condition they might find, hense the steriotype of 'tank'
tanks are becoming redundant, wars are now confined to small states and contries in the middle of nowhere who are bent on stiring up shit to just stop and listen for a minute, i dont see another world war ever occuring on earth... but thats just me
I'm inclined to that argument myself, that the weapons of World Wars are becomming increasingly less effective. Why use a $80,000,000 4th. generation stealth fighter to drop a bomb on a mud & straw village or an office building in Beirut when a WWII vintage Thunderbolt would do the job just as well? It might even be a less vulnerable target to modern guided weapons.
the time of the tank is basicaly over, for conventional battle anyway, they are realy only good against their own kind now, since the RPG7, tanks are just as vulnerable to infantry as infantry is
i like tanks, they just have that 'shock and awe' effect, thats why i have designed my own range of armour, the centaur II, the centaur II atmospheric and the centaur II battering ram, these have given the tank a new purpus and range of use that would never have been thought of before
i like tanks, they just have that 'shock and awe' effect, thats why i have designed my own range of armour, the centaur II, the centaur II atmospheric and the centaur II battering ram, these have given the tank a new purpus and range of use that would never have been thought of before
Yes and no to what you said.
Tank came from the word TANK written on the creates the first tanks were put in to deceive any spies to think their water boilers, etc. Only problem was no one told the guys at port who opened it that was the cover word, so they thought it was the actual name of it.
Tank came from the word TANK written on the creates the first tanks were put in to deceive any spies to think their water boilers, etc. Only problem was no one told the guys at port who opened it that was the cover word, so they thought it was the actual name of it.
They were also using Italian tanks, generally stuff like the L5, (an improved knockoff of the French FT-17[1]), and the L3 tankette. To put things in perspective, the PzKpfw I was faster and better armoured than either and outgunned the L3 and the more common female L5s, (the male L5s mounted a 37mm gun that was overall a match for the 2cm gun of the PzKpfw II).
[1] While a revolutionary tank design, the FT-17 was built to fight in a war where the British were still fielding Mark V tanks. It's proper name is "Renault light tank FT, model 1917".
[1] While a revolutionary tank design, the FT-17 was built to fight in a war where the British were still fielding Mark V tanks. It's proper name is "Renault light tank FT, model 1917".
The Italians, though spurred on by the Facists, were not a very warlike people, and their armed forces tended to reflect this by being rather perfunctory. The Italisns did make some significant advances in aviation, though, in the 20's and early 30's -- including a working jet that preceded any German model. But by the war their war machine had slowed down. Troubles in Abyssinia and elsewhere had shown that Mussolini's "new Roman spirit" was hollow. Italians began to wish they hadn't gotten started on this foot. Even Mussolini seemed to be having second thoughts, as Germany dragged them closer and closer to the brink of WWII.
One exception was the Itlaian navy, which I gather was first rate, if not huge. But it was virtually wiped off the map early on by a British strike at the main base, ala Pearl Harbor.
One exception was the Itlaian navy, which I gather was first rate, if not huge. But it was virtually wiped off the map early on by a British strike at the main base, ala Pearl Harbor.
Churchills, in their early marks, had a 3" howitzer mounted in the front armor. The heavy armor and heavy armament went along with the British idea that tanks were divided into 'cruiser' tanks with lighter armor and weaponry and more speed, and infantry tanks, which were heavily armed and armored, and only had to be fast enough, in theory, for the infantry to keep up with. As it turned out, most British tanks were far better balanced weapon/armor/speed wise then anyone elses tanks. Thew Matilda II, proved impervious to most German antitank weapons short of the 88mm AA gun, well into 1942 and was the most popular lend lease tank that was supplied to the Russians.
Des blindés chers à mon coeur...
Malheureusement, réputés pour être assez mal conçus : très bien blindés, mais avec une puissance de feu trop faible. Un défaut récurrent chez la plupart des chars britanniques de l'époque ! C'est triste, mais il a pratiquement fallu attendre la fin de la guerre pour voir apparaître des blindés britanniques valables...
Marrant ! C'est extrêmement rare de voir quelqu'un ici dessiner des blindés de la Seconde guerre mondiale, il me semble...
Malheureusement, réputés pour être assez mal conçus : très bien blindés, mais avec une puissance de feu trop faible. Un défaut récurrent chez la plupart des chars britanniques de l'époque ! C'est triste, mais il a pratiquement fallu attendre la fin de la guerre pour voir apparaître des blindés britanniques valables...
Marrant ! C'est extrêmement rare de voir quelqu'un ici dessiner des blindés de la Seconde guerre mondiale, il me semble...
Woah! The last time I was mistaken for a girl was a few years ago. But it was Harlan Ellison who made the mistake, so it was something of an "honour".
The pedestrian fact is that I'm "Saara" to FurAffinity by accident. I tried to join as "Taral" or "Taral Wayne" and somehow it didn't go right. I tried again, but then the name "Taral" was "taken" and I couldn't use it. So I fell back on "Saara." "Saara" is my better half, though, not me or an alternate me, even. If I could change it, I would.
The pedestrian fact is that I'm "Saara" to FurAffinity by accident. I tried to join as "Taral" or "Taral Wayne" and somehow it didn't go right. I tried again, but then the name "Taral" was "taken" and I couldn't use it. So I fell back on "Saara." "Saara" is my better half, though, not me or an alternate me, even. If I could change it, I would.
Also, from what I heard, the first versions of the tank had a lot of problems and it was not till the Mark 7 variant till most of the problems had been fixed and they never managed to replace the engine that was actually too weak to power a 39 ton tank.
Still, after a lot of modifications, the tank was a fave of many Tankers, they really loved it and it was till 1952 when they replaced the Churchill with something else
Still, after a lot of modifications, the tank was a fave of many Tankers, they really loved it and it was till 1952 when they replaced the Churchill with something else
In the movie "The Longest Day" they actually had a few Churchill's on screen during the British breakout. Is a good movie overall and the addition of more than just US armor in the movie is a big added bonus in my opinion.
The Churchill was abit slow overall, compared to other British tanks of the period like the Cromwell or the better armed Comet (77mm) cruiser tanks, but yes, the armor was very thick and made it a tough tank to beat. Like the Cromwell, the MK.VII was armed with 75mm main gun and there was even an experimental version armed with a 17 pounder that never quite made it into production, but would definitely have been an even greater force to reckon with.
As for the Sherman when first used by the British in North Africa they found them to be reliable and also well armed and a good match to the Panzer III and IV's of the time. Most British tanks then were armed with 2 pounder (40mm) and 6 pounder (57mm) main guns so the 75mm, though a howitzer, not a true AT gun, came in handy more often than not by comparison. As it came in a rotating turret rather than hull mounted like the US M3 Lee/Grant it gave the Sherman a greater edge in combat.
Also, since Russia was mentioned, many MK.III and MK IV Churchill's were in use by Russia in WWII.
Lovely job and a great, though yes, rare subject and one that should be appreciated more often when dealing with great Allied tanks. :)
The Churchill was abit slow overall, compared to other British tanks of the period like the Cromwell or the better armed Comet (77mm) cruiser tanks, but yes, the armor was very thick and made it a tough tank to beat. Like the Cromwell, the MK.VII was armed with 75mm main gun and there was even an experimental version armed with a 17 pounder that never quite made it into production, but would definitely have been an even greater force to reckon with.
As for the Sherman when first used by the British in North Africa they found them to be reliable and also well armed and a good match to the Panzer III and IV's of the time. Most British tanks then were armed with 2 pounder (40mm) and 6 pounder (57mm) main guns so the 75mm, though a howitzer, not a true AT gun, came in handy more often than not by comparison. As it came in a rotating turret rather than hull mounted like the US M3 Lee/Grant it gave the Sherman a greater edge in combat.
Also, since Russia was mentioned, many MK.III and MK IV Churchill's were in use by Russia in WWII.
Lovely job and a great, though yes, rare subject and one that should be appreciated more often when dealing with great Allied tanks. :)
Aaah - armour heavier than a tiger! And a climb rate like a mountain goat. Slow as a wet wig - but who cares! A damned fine vehicle.
... and led straight to the Centurion - one of the greatest armoured fighting vehicles of all time! (Arr - long live the Israeli 66th "Barak" Armoured Brigade!)
... and led straight to the Centurion - one of the greatest armoured fighting vehicles of all time! (Arr - long live the Israeli 66th "Barak" Armoured Brigade!)
Churchill Tank = win.
The Churchill tank was built along the British lines of being an infantry tank, designed to keep pace with the infantry, and 'propel' them onto an objective, and then hold it until they dug in (very WWI style). The Cromwell (and Crusaders) were dervied from the Cruiser tank line, which valued speed over armour and were meant to 'steam' out ahead of the infantry and do tanky stuff (although by 1944, the Brits had learned the value of infnatry-tank co-ordination).
Relatively few British WWII tanks were armed with 17pdrs, because that usually involved needing a chassis larger than standard loading guage to accomodate the turret, making transport a major issue. By the time the Churchill 17pdr variant (The Black Prince) was being considered, so was the Comet, and the following Centurian classes, which took priority, forcing the cancellation of the project (sadly :( ). After the Comet, the British abandoned their two-style tank ideolgy (Infantry and Cruiser tanks) and concentrated on a universal tank design, the Centaurion.
As for guns, the 6pdr (57mm in American service) had marginally better AT performance than the 75mm, and exceptionally better when it used sabbot rounds. However, the 75mm HE was about twice as good as the 6 pdrs, and for tanks, HE was important.
The Churchill tank was built along the British lines of being an infantry tank, designed to keep pace with the infantry, and 'propel' them onto an objective, and then hold it until they dug in (very WWI style). The Cromwell (and Crusaders) were dervied from the Cruiser tank line, which valued speed over armour and were meant to 'steam' out ahead of the infantry and do tanky stuff (although by 1944, the Brits had learned the value of infnatry-tank co-ordination).
Relatively few British WWII tanks were armed with 17pdrs, because that usually involved needing a chassis larger than standard loading guage to accomodate the turret, making transport a major issue. By the time the Churchill 17pdr variant (The Black Prince) was being considered, so was the Comet, and the following Centurian classes, which took priority, forcing the cancellation of the project (sadly :( ). After the Comet, the British abandoned their two-style tank ideolgy (Infantry and Cruiser tanks) and concentrated on a universal tank design, the Centaurion.
As for guns, the 6pdr (57mm in American service) had marginally better AT performance than the 75mm, and exceptionally better when it used sabbot rounds. However, the 75mm HE was about twice as good as the 6 pdrs, and for tanks, HE was important.
Another British advance, the Gloster Meteor, also never had its chance. It saw service in WWII but only by chasing V-1s. I believe it's top speed was significantly greater than the Me-262s, and I know its engines were far more reliable, more versatile too. What I can't guess is how the two compared in maneuverability. The wing platforms suggest the Meteor should have had an advantage. But sheer wieght and inertia come into the equation too.
Churchill Crocodile: An amphibious, flame-throwing tank. The only way they could had made it cooler is if it could turn into a robot! The UK forces hated American using the tanks. Not out of pride or anything, just becuase American tanks were bloody awful. The "Tommy Cooker" Sherman in particular, due to the fact it would bust into flames when it got hit... or left out in the sun, sneezed on or given funny looks.
The German mind set in tank design seemed at first to be obsessed with size of everything, and weight. The ideal tank, to Hitler, would have been the Bismark on treads. Russian tanks turned them around to thinking more about the kind of armour, not just how much. If only the Germans had thought about production as well, we might have had a harder time finishing off the 3rd. Reich. I gather than they could have built at least 2 of the smaller Panther tanks for every Tiger.
I've had a lot of practice... but as one wiseguy pointed out, I didn't bother to render all those tiny little bogey wheels in perspective. I figued they were close enough that nobody would notice. I should have remembered that at least one person *always* notices your shortcuts and mistakes.
It's amazing to me that perspective had to be invented. The ancient Romans had a kind of perspective, but it wasn't rigorous or consistent. Then, in the Renaissance, artists developed the mathematical methods for rendering perfect perspective. Why did it take so long? Why did no other culture every invent it?
Although my kindergrarten art had no perspective, I developed a knack for it early, and have never had to make much effort. Seems to come naturally.
Although my kindergrarten art had no perspective, I developed a knack for it early, and have never had to make much effort. Seems to come naturally.
Man, I wish I had my hand dandy WWII encyclopedia book with me.
Currently on my DP1 Artillery course.
Churchhill main design was to be an infantry support tank, so it was heavy armored and slow, take a beating from PIII-IVs and punch them back. (Earlier PIV models, before they got the barrel fix that gave them more punch with their shots).
The British armor was a pain to Germans earlier in the war until they got a decent number of Tigers, Panthers and Flak36s up on the front.
Then the British fought back by putting 17 pounders on the Sherman and M10 tank destroyer, creating the Firefly and Achilles. For literally, the U.S. guns did jack shit to German new armor. The Americans tried to show off by making the 76mm Sherman, but in reality, it's shells still bounced off Panthers to their frustration.
The role of the armor today is to engage and destroy the enemy with aggressive firepower and mobility.
Currently on my DP1 Artillery course.
Churchhill main design was to be an infantry support tank, so it was heavy armored and slow, take a beating from PIII-IVs and punch them back. (Earlier PIV models, before they got the barrel fix that gave them more punch with their shots).
The British armor was a pain to Germans earlier in the war until they got a decent number of Tigers, Panthers and Flak36s up on the front.
Then the British fought back by putting 17 pounders on the Sherman and M10 tank destroyer, creating the Firefly and Achilles. For literally, the U.S. guns did jack shit to German new armor. The Americans tried to show off by making the 76mm Sherman, but in reality, it's shells still bounced off Panthers to their frustration.
The role of the armor today is to engage and destroy the enemy with aggressive firepower and mobility.
I may be a bit of a cynic, but as I read it the real purpose of the tank in modern combat is to overwhelm guys in turbans who are crowded into a few huts with Kalashnikovs, without risking the lives of any of our guys. When the enemy runs away, our army "bravely" advances. If it weren't for IEDs and suicide bombers, our armed forces would hardly have any casualities in Afghanistan.
Oddly, for the terms of neutralize and destroy the enemy in artillery means:
Neutralize: kill off 10% of enemy
Destroy: kill off 30% of enemy
Don't know whats the % for Annihilate is, but I think its to kill off 70-100% of the enemy.
So I presume the ratio term is the same for the other arms of the military.
Yeah, the Taliban has realized they cannot fight head on or guerrilla style much anymore, so they resort to bombs, for its the only weapon gaining them kills in their favor.
But even now the IEDs have become more less as they resort more to suiciders, for their supply of explosives have grown low.
More sadly, this war would have been easier if the U.S. didn't use the CIA to train the Afghan milita in fighting against the Soviets during the Soviet-Afghan war. For most of the fighters are Soviet era combatants, for they're deploying the same tactics they did on the Soviets on to our forces.
Neutralize: kill off 10% of enemy
Destroy: kill off 30% of enemy
Don't know whats the % for Annihilate is, but I think its to kill off 70-100% of the enemy.
So I presume the ratio term is the same for the other arms of the military.
Yeah, the Taliban has realized they cannot fight head on or guerrilla style much anymore, so they resort to bombs, for its the only weapon gaining them kills in their favor.
But even now the IEDs have become more less as they resort more to suiciders, for their supply of explosives have grown low.
More sadly, this war would have been easier if the U.S. didn't use the CIA to train the Afghan milita in fighting against the Soviets during the Soviet-Afghan war. For most of the fighters are Soviet era combatants, for they're deploying the same tactics they did on the Soviets on to our forces.
Almost any number of mistakes were made (mostly by the US) in the early days of the war. The biggest probably includes having no clear, obtainable goals, falling back on wishful thinking about restructuring the country in our image. Another big mistake was to pull out their troops before the job was done, so they could start another and unecessary war in Iraq. A third was the attempt to suppress the opium trade. Dude! There's a shortage of medical opium in the world -- buy it, don't drive half the farmers in Afghanistan into poverty! But mainly, there had to be an exit plan. A way to declare victory and march out, regardless of whether the place becomes a model nation or not. There was no chance it would... not then, not now. You could even have left the Talban in power, if it hadn't been an aim to remove them. Okay you guys... we kicked our ass. Balls in your court again. Piss us off and we'll come back and kick your ass again. But no... we had to turn the place into our idea what a country should be like, whether that's what Afghanis wanted or not.
More oddly, when the U.S. left Afghanistan for Iraq, they handed the reconstruction job to Canada, for currently Afghanistan is #1 on our AID countries list, and we can only support 4 countries a year.
So we've been rebuilding the Kandahar province more to its original standards then what the US wanted, for our goal was to restore peace and the Afghan culture, not change it to our own countries standards. It's a Canadian military rule, treat others like from your country, and respect other countries cultures. Only thing that annoys Canadian Forces there the most is the no drinking law that's enforced, even in our owned bases, for Afghans don't drink.
But now we are handing this country control back to the U.S. this winter, as all Canadian Forces will pull out. So now the shape of Afghanistan is in Obama's hands now after we leave. Don't know if there gonna change it like Iraq or leave it the way Canada has been working on it since 2003.
And like what the Canadian Government said, our military will take a 2 year break from wars, mainly assisting the U.S. in what ever war they are involved in, unless a true goal is seen, for we got dragged into Afghanistan just to hold it while the U.S. army moved off to Iraq and wait for their return.
So we've been rebuilding the Kandahar province more to its original standards then what the US wanted, for our goal was to restore peace and the Afghan culture, not change it to our own countries standards. It's a Canadian military rule, treat others like from your country, and respect other countries cultures. Only thing that annoys Canadian Forces there the most is the no drinking law that's enforced, even in our owned bases, for Afghans don't drink.
But now we are handing this country control back to the U.S. this winter, as all Canadian Forces will pull out. So now the shape of Afghanistan is in Obama's hands now after we leave. Don't know if there gonna change it like Iraq or leave it the way Canada has been working on it since 2003.
And like what the Canadian Government said, our military will take a 2 year break from wars, mainly assisting the U.S. in what ever war they are involved in, unless a true goal is seen, for we got dragged into Afghanistan just to hold it while the U.S. army moved off to Iraq and wait for their return.
I don't think Canada has ever had any real objectives in Afghanistan. We're trying to fix the roads and start schools, and that sort of thing, because that's what Canadians do at home to make life better. But that's not what most Afghanis want. To them, education is a Western plot to destroy Islam, and teaching girls is a sin. Roads without holes in them are nice, but who puts the holes there? Afghanis who want to blow up Canadian trucks and soliders. What does this tell us about Afghani priorities? There's no question in my mind that what Afghanis want is for us to go away. They much prefer the hell they make for themselves to any imaginable improvement foreigners might bring.
That's an oversimplification, of course. There is, in fact, no such place as Afghanistan. I consider it an "unincorporated" place, left over from surrounding territories as they coalesced into modern nation-states. But this unincorporated area isn't a nation-state. It never really has been. At times it's been a number of pagan, Buddhist and Islamic city-states centered on Kabul -- I have a neat silver coin from a 10th. century Hindu kingdom. But no such state has ever controlled the entire countryside. The area is inhabited by, I think, three separate ethnic groups, speaking different languages, who don't have a shared culture, and have fought with each other immemorially. How do you make a country out of that in a few short years? Answer: you don't.
I don't believe that Canada's present course -- committed to being an auxilliary force for American or (European) military ventures -- is to our advantage. It's to the White House's advantage, to be sure. It let's them play the same old Pax Americana game at slightly less cost, but the saving comes out of the *Canadian* taxpayers' pockets. What do *we* gain? A few military contracts. A stream of bodies coming back from the desert in exchange for some jobs in Winnipeg or Montreal. Nor do I like playing the role of an Auxilliary Legion marching to Rome's wars... SPQR emblazoned just below the tribal maple leaf on our standard.
That's an oversimplification, of course. There is, in fact, no such place as Afghanistan. I consider it an "unincorporated" place, left over from surrounding territories as they coalesced into modern nation-states. But this unincorporated area isn't a nation-state. It never really has been. At times it's been a number of pagan, Buddhist and Islamic city-states centered on Kabul -- I have a neat silver coin from a 10th. century Hindu kingdom. But no such state has ever controlled the entire countryside. The area is inhabited by, I think, three separate ethnic groups, speaking different languages, who don't have a shared culture, and have fought with each other immemorially. How do you make a country out of that in a few short years? Answer: you don't.
I don't believe that Canada's present course -- committed to being an auxilliary force for American or (European) military ventures -- is to our advantage. It's to the White House's advantage, to be sure. It let's them play the same old Pax Americana game at slightly less cost, but the saving comes out of the *Canadian* taxpayers' pockets. What do *we* gain? A few military contracts. A stream of bodies coming back from the desert in exchange for some jobs in Winnipeg or Montreal. Nor do I like playing the role of an Auxilliary Legion marching to Rome's wars... SPQR emblazoned just below the tribal maple leaf on our standard.
True true, all we've been doing is repairing the communities with housing, schools and roads.
Yet we are not forcing them to make the girls go to school, we suggest it for their no longer ruled by the Taliban, but the declined and we left it there, for mass majority of Afghan women voted no.
But oddly, the Afghanistan government had been asking Canada to extend its operation deal in Afghanistan til later. We extended the 2008 end date to 2010, and then the Afghan Gov't asked for us again to stay til 2012 or 2013. They want the Canadians to guard over them, instead of the returning U.S. forces from Iraq. And the fact they fear their police and military is not ready yet to handle the country.
Yet we are not forcing them to make the girls go to school, we suggest it for their no longer ruled by the Taliban, but the declined and we left it there, for mass majority of Afghan women voted no.
But oddly, the Afghanistan government had been asking Canada to extend its operation deal in Afghanistan til later. We extended the 2008 end date to 2010, and then the Afghan Gov't asked for us again to stay til 2012 or 2013. They want the Canadians to guard over them, instead of the returning U.S. forces from Iraq. And the fact they fear their police and military is not ready yet to handle the country.
If I were President Hamad Karzai, I'd prefer Canadian troops to American. We don't have their reputation for ocassional brutality. On the other hand, we can't put as much strength in the field and couldn't possibly protect the Kabul regime by ourselves.
Kabul would much prefer foreign troops remain in the county for a simple reason. They do recognize that foreigners are unpopular, and it reflects badly on the government that it has to be supported by the occupiers. But the fact is that they are supported by occupying forces. If Canada, the US and other countries, left, the least Karzai could expect is that Kabul would be isolated from the countryside, and become irrelevent. The worst it could expect is a repitition of the events in Saigon in 1977 -- being overrun by the Taliban rather than the Viet Cong. Also, the foreign presence brings cash into the capital for Karzai, his family and friends to rip off through the customary corruption and nepotism.
This is the sort of "democracy" we're bleeding ourselves to protect.
Kabul would much prefer foreign troops remain in the county for a simple reason. They do recognize that foreigners are unpopular, and it reflects badly on the government that it has to be supported by the occupiers. But the fact is that they are supported by occupying forces. If Canada, the US and other countries, left, the least Karzai could expect is that Kabul would be isolated from the countryside, and become irrelevent. The worst it could expect is a repitition of the events in Saigon in 1977 -- being overrun by the Taliban rather than the Viet Cong. Also, the foreign presence brings cash into the capital for Karzai, his family and friends to rip off through the customary corruption and nepotism.
This is the sort of "democracy" we're bleeding ourselves to protect.
This is the sort of "democracy" we're bleeding ourselves to protect.
While true, I would point to South Korea as an example of how things, despite an inauspicious start, can turn out for the better. 'cause lets be honest, there's not going to be a good, honest government in Afghanistan for a while. But if the country can be kept more-or-less unified, and the seeds for development sown, in the long-term this might turn out to have been worth it, for the Afghans, and for us Westerners too.
While true, I would point to South Korea as an example of how things, despite an inauspicious start, can turn out for the better. 'cause lets be honest, there's not going to be a good, honest government in Afghanistan for a while. But if the country can be kept more-or-less unified, and the seeds for development sown, in the long-term this might turn out to have been worth it, for the Afghans, and for us Westerners too.
South Korea took a long time to turn around, but the situation had certain advantages, in retrospect. One was a passive population, who either didn't resist UN forces, or even supported their own S. Korean army. The UN wasn't fighting the whole blamed country, only the army of N. Korea. (And later the army of China.) The Korean people also had few retrograde cutoms... Their government was corrupt, to be sure, but on the whole the country was receptive to ideas like one-man one-vote, rights for women, universal free education and so on. Not so Afghanistan, where these ideas are accepted by some, rejected violently by others who are willing to murder their neighbors to see that religious noncomformity is savagely repressed, that women are kept in their place, that ethnic hatreds are perserved, etc.
One difference between the Korean peninsula and Afghanistan is that Korea has long been a real state. It was a medieval kingdom, unified by a central government when the Plantagenets were crawling up out of the French mud. Korea had big cities and was closely bound to Chinese trade. On the other hand, Afghanistan has usually been one or two city-states, whose authority rarely extended beyond a couple of day's horse ride. Most of the land was controlled by tribal/clan warloards. It was not a destination for anyone, produced little that could be exported (other than poppies), and people travelled through it mainly because there was no practical way to go around. Trade through Afghanistan was subject to bandit raids and exorbitant tolls paid to local chiefs to avoid bandit raids. Even today, the wisdom is that Afghanistan is thought valuable because an oil pipeline could be build *through* it.
One difference between the Korean peninsula and Afghanistan is that Korea has long been a real state. It was a medieval kingdom, unified by a central government when the Plantagenets were crawling up out of the French mud. Korea had big cities and was closely bound to Chinese trade. On the other hand, Afghanistan has usually been one or two city-states, whose authority rarely extended beyond a couple of day's horse ride. Most of the land was controlled by tribal/clan warloards. It was not a destination for anyone, produced little that could be exported (other than poppies), and people travelled through it mainly because there was no practical way to go around. Trade through Afghanistan was subject to bandit raids and exorbitant tolls paid to local chiefs to avoid bandit raids. Even today, the wisdom is that Afghanistan is thought valuable because an oil pipeline could be build *through* it.
You are correct on all counts. But if we'd been there in the later '50s, seen Syngman Rhee, his government, the crushing poverty of the country, etc, I think we'd have been tempted to just throw our hands up in disgust and despair.
I freely admit Afghanistan starts from a worse position, and that is exactly why we must take the long view. This generation not much is going to change - but if the country can be kept stable enough for long enough, we'll start to see some in the next. They've been further ahead in the past - I'd like to point you to this very interesting, if terribly depressing, photo series from the '50s of what might have been...
I freely admit Afghanistan starts from a worse position, and that is exactly why we must take the long view. This generation not much is going to change - but if the country can be kept stable enough for long enough, we'll start to see some in the next. They've been further ahead in the past - I'd like to point you to this very interesting, if terribly depressing, photo series from the '50s of what might have been...
Nice pic!
But I will have to disagree with the speed, reliability and agility. Although it is great to not get stuck, the long tracks make it slow to turn, especially with its unreliable underpowered engine. No wonder that they preferred using Cromwell tanks after the war. (they even replaced the cannon with the same one as the Centurion and gave it a new name: Charioteer)
But all in all, the heavy armour (not sloped, so the armour is not at its full potential) was very appreciated.
Mobile pill-box. XP
Yeah!!!
True, it's based on the WWI Mark tank.
But I will have to disagree with the speed, reliability and agility. Although it is great to not get stuck, the long tracks make it slow to turn, especially with its unreliable underpowered engine. No wonder that they preferred using Cromwell tanks after the war. (they even replaced the cannon with the same one as the Centurion and gave it a new name: Charioteer)
But all in all, the heavy armour (not sloped, so the armour is not at its full potential) was very appreciated.
Mobile pill-box. XP
Yeah!!!
True, it's based on the WWI Mark tank.
There was also the Pershing tank, which was a match for pretty much anything, though admittedly very few of those saw combat in WW2.
The problem the Germans faced was that they had strictly limited numbers of their heavy tanks, while the Allies had scads and scads of lighter ones. So while the German heavies tended to exact a heavy toll when they met, more often the Allied tankers had no armoured opposition. Specifically, the US produced about 50 000 Shermans (and Sherman-derived vehicles). The Germans built about 6000 Panthers, 6000 Panzer III, 8800 Panzer IV, 1400 Tiger I, and 500 Tiger II. And had to split them across two fronts, with most going East. So yeah...
Nice job on the drawing!
The problem the Germans faced was that they had strictly limited numbers of their heavy tanks, while the Allies had scads and scads of lighter ones. So while the German heavies tended to exact a heavy toll when they met, more often the Allied tankers had no armoured opposition. Specifically, the US produced about 50 000 Shermans (and Sherman-derived vehicles). The Germans built about 6000 Panthers, 6000 Panzer III, 8800 Panzer IV, 1400 Tiger I, and 500 Tiger II. And had to split them across two fronts, with most going East. So yeah...
Nice job on the drawing!
The statistics are precisly why wiser heads in the German command knew they had to surrender. Either that, or be crushed. But Hitler was certain that his engineers and scientist would come up with a secret weapon that would tip the balance. Being a self-taught know-it-all, he had no idea who science worked or how the process of refining an idea takes time. Like many SF fans I've known, he beleived that if only you'd spend enough money, you could send a man to mars in five years... or build a doomsday machine at least.
The German tanks also had the advantage of being on the defensive. They could dig in, pick off advancing Shermans, and fall back before anyone knew precisely where they were and could arrange an airstrike. Fortunately, there was lots of tactical air power to deal with panzers. A 3.5 inch or 5 inch rocket from a Typhoon or Mustang would tear a Tiger II's top open like it was a beer can.
It would have been interesting if the war in Europe had gone on another year or two, so that Centurion and Pershing tanks, Gloster Meteors and P-80 Shooting Stars could have got in on the fun. Except that they're have been another 200,000 casualties and who knows how many more civilian deaths.
The German tanks also had the advantage of being on the defensive. They could dig in, pick off advancing Shermans, and fall back before anyone knew precisely where they were and could arrange an airstrike. Fortunately, there was lots of tactical air power to deal with panzers. A 3.5 inch or 5 inch rocket from a Typhoon or Mustang would tear a Tiger II's top open like it was a beer can.
It would have been interesting if the war in Europe had gone on another year or two, so that Centurion and Pershing tanks, Gloster Meteors and P-80 Shooting Stars could have got in on the fun. Except that they're have been another 200,000 casualties and who knows how many more civilian deaths.
I'd say Germany knew how to fight a war, they just 1) wern't all to good at the logistics behind it as it dragged on, 2) just didn't quite do well enough when it counted (i.e. Bltizing towards Moscow) and 3) Hitler didn't know how to fight a war.
Had Germany standardised its tank production, done just a bit better when trying to fight the Russians (i.e. reachying Moscow), and not let Adolf interfere in just about every level and branch of the military, then things may have been very different.
Germany knew they couldn't fight/prepare for a war on two fronts, hence their relaince on speed (knocking France out in a few months of actual fighting and forcing Britian off the Continent). [Un]fortunatly, they couldn't knock Russia out quickly and then paid the price.
Hitler was also a military idiot, who knew very little about how to successfully attack a place, and about vehicle production. With his constant interfering, the German army had huge logistical problems, too many resources wasted on crackpot designs and was thrown into too many losing conflicts (Kursk + Stalingrad, etc.)
Had Germany standardised its tank production, done just a bit better when trying to fight the Russians (i.e. reachying Moscow), and not let Adolf interfere in just about every level and branch of the military, then things may have been very different.
Germany knew they couldn't fight/prepare for a war on two fronts, hence their relaince on speed (knocking France out in a few months of actual fighting and forcing Britian off the Continent). [Un]fortunatly, they couldn't knock Russia out quickly and then paid the price.
Hitler was also a military idiot, who knew very little about how to successfully attack a place, and about vehicle production. With his constant interfering, the German army had huge logistical problems, too many resources wasted on crackpot designs and was thrown into too many losing conflicts (Kursk + Stalingrad, etc.)
The Germans were very good tactically, but they were a disaster strategically. For instance, they didn't put their economy on war footing until long after everyone else had. The started the Battle of Britain, when it should have been clear they could never really win it. They kept up the Battle of Britain despite the fact they were losing it. Somehow some people in German high command thought that Operation Sealion was realistic. They pissed away their strength by fighting in North Africa. Then reinforced North Africa right at the point where it was unwinnable, eventually losing them 275 000 men as prisoners. They walked straight into the biggest trap ever at Kursk. They kept fighting in '43, after the war was lost.
Besides, it would be as fair for me to ask what would have happened had the French not sent their best mobile force into Belgium where it accomplished nothing, then recalled it, upon which it accomplished a whole lot more of nothing? What if that force had been available to plug in Guderian? Or, what if Stalin hadn't recently purged the Soviet Army?
Besides, it would be as fair for me to ask what would have happened had the French not sent their best mobile force into Belgium where it accomplished nothing, then recalled it, upon which it accomplished a whole lot more of nothing? What if that force had been available to plug in Guderian? Or, what if Stalin hadn't recently purged the Soviet Army?
We've learnt our lessons about tanks since then. The Challenger II is one of the best, if not the best tank in the world. Fast, maneuverable, heavily armoured and packing a 120mm rifled gun more than capable of turning all but the hardiest MBTs inside out.
The L30 gun fitted to the Challenger II is a direct descendant of the L11A5 fitted to the Challenger I. In the first Gulf War a Challenger I used its L11A5 to score the longest confirmed tank-to-tank kill against a T-72 at a range of 5100m (3.1 miles in old money). At that range the Iraqi T-72 tank formation weren't even aware that the British were coming for them. The first they knew about it was one of their number exploding.
I like tanks >.>;
The L30 gun fitted to the Challenger II is a direct descendant of the L11A5 fitted to the Challenger I. In the first Gulf War a Challenger I used its L11A5 to score the longest confirmed tank-to-tank kill against a T-72 at a range of 5100m (3.1 miles in old money). At that range the Iraqi T-72 tank formation weren't even aware that the British were coming for them. The first they knew about it was one of their number exploding.
I like tanks >.>;
Tanks are indeed fun -- the appeal to the brute in us. What can be more fun than running over someon's car or home in irresistible, 60 ton, steel monster?
British tanks seem to have really hit their stride only as WWII was coming to an end. The Centurion was the turning point. The Chieftain was good, and the Challenger II arguably the equal of the Abrams second generation. (Depends on who you argue with, I suppose. The Americans will stick up for their own, and so will the British.)
Of course, to deploy tanks successfully, it's best to have air superiority. I would't want to be sitting in any kind of tank while there were uncontested, enemy, ground-attack craft in the air.
British tanks seem to have really hit their stride only as WWII was coming to an end. The Centurion was the turning point. The Chieftain was good, and the Challenger II arguably the equal of the Abrams second generation. (Depends on who you argue with, I suppose. The Americans will stick up for their own, and so will the British.)
Of course, to deploy tanks successfully, it's best to have air superiority. I would't want to be sitting in any kind of tank while there were uncontested, enemy, ground-attack craft in the air.
Maybe not outrun, but evade, decoy or go undetected are another matter. All I'm saying, though, is that air superiority is an indispensable part of armoured operations. Pretty much all of modern warfare is interdependent, in fact. If we ever have to fight anyone with our own resources and level of sophistication, I suspect it could be a bloodbath on both sides.
Being somebody who has played war thunder the Churchill Mark IV is a good tank however because it was meant to be an infantry support tank it is very slow but for low tier it does have really good armor it's until you start running into KV-1&2s or panzer IV F2 that becomes a problem to the sole fact that they Churchill has nothing but flat armor however playing it defensively I have managed to survive being the last person on the team many times!
In my opinion, the German's were fixated on heavy armour, and wasted assets that would have been better spend by making more Panther tanks, and fewer Tigers. That goes double or Tiger II's! The Panther was not as hard a hitter as a Tiger, but I think it was nearly so, more maneuverable, more survivable, and could employ more armour in the field than the equivalent number of Tiger's. In other words, 20 Panthers in the hand were probably worth more than 10 Tigers in the bush.
I really wouldn't say that the panther was perfect either especially with all of its mechanical problems.
But I believe these two videos free here should some up the entirety of Germany In World War II
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sbim2kGwhpc
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xYTrjxOPYNY
But I believe these two videos free here should some up the entirety of Germany In World War II
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sbim2kGwhpc
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xYTrjxOPYNY
The early model panthers broke down and ran out of fuel a lot it is until you get to the panther II's that many of these problems are taken care of and resolved. But if I had to pick a German tank from the World War II I would have to go with the Panzer IV H! ❤️ I have had many good matches especially up against American M10's and M18's and Soviet KV-1 and KV-2!
Comments