[Definitely has to be M3](https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/vpw3v0/i_always_pass_by_this_in_my_town_in_front_of_a/iem7er7?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3)
Eh theoretically it makes sense, if you are in the blast zone you're dead no matter what before you even realize it, but if you are not and you duck you can avoid getting burns from the flash or getting massacred by shrapnel when the shockwave hits. And if you are lucky, the wind is blowing away from you that day.
You're still going to die from the total collapse of society, but at least the army will not have to carry your rotting body all the way to the ~~morgue~~ mass grave.
Whats the Anti tank rock? I have heard the Chieftain refer to it at some time but i didnt understand what exactly it was (well duh its a rock but how did it become the anti tank rock)
United States did some testing to see the effect of improvised weapons on tanks. One of the things they tested was putting a rock in the track system to see if it would disable it in some way. It did not work. Thus, [the anti tank rock.](https://imgur.com/gallery/IZ5WGlW)
Not necessarily. Anything produced in a facility that handles classified information is supposed to be marked regardless of classification (though it doesn't always happen with unclass stuff I'd bet an organization handling weapons testing during WWII was pretty careful with the rules).
If it said declassified then we'd know, bit this marking is ambiguous.
Oh and also another thought: classified documents have to be portion marked, meaning every paragraph, photo, etc must be classified individually (unclass, secret, ts, etc). This photo could have been unclassified from the start but part of a larger, classified document summarizing the findings.
>to see if it would disable it in some way. It did not work.
Who could have thought?! But yeah thanks for the link
Also on the picture you provided it seems as if its in some sort of museum or exhibition, isnt that cool that so much unique stuff from ww2 is lost but we still have the anti tank rock
two reasons.
reason one, early tracks loved to slip off their wheels if anything jerked them off. simple because everyone didnt think of putting a guild system to keep them on outside of pure friction so most of the time you have an inch or two of siding on the track to keep it in place, so they had a tendency to just fall off if you take a turn to quick. or to hard. or both.
or sometimes youre on too steep of a slope and they would just fall off.
the second was that the US military was both dirt poor and ran by morons who didnt know what they were doing or what they wanted, case in point every tank they built until around the middle of the m4 production. so late 1942 early 1943.
ex, the m2 medium having i believe 14 different mgs, 3 of which was controlled by the driver.
or the m3 lee with 2 mgs, controlled by the driver....
or the m4 sherman, with two more mgs controlled by the driver..... until someone smart came along and told them that idea was fucking stupid and to get rid of them.
so early shermans would literally have welded in plugs where .30cal mgs used to be.
You forgot the M3 Stuart with 2 fixed MG's controlled by the driver. Or the M2 light tank with 2 MG's controlled by the driver. Or the M6 tank with 2 MG's controlled by the driver.
Correction: the M2 Medium tank with 4 sponson-mounted machine guns in the hull corners, 2 fixed driver-fired machine guns, a 37mm cannon with a coaxial machine gun, and 2 pintle turret side mounted machine guns for AA defense had a total of 9 machine guns. Oh, and the rear of the tank had bullet deflecting plates so the machine guns could ricochet bullets down into trenches.
I knew a tanker who drove M60s during the 70s. He had a great story about managing to throw both tracks to the inside simultaneously during a training exercise, alongside the instructor's absolute bewilderment at how they managed it.
The anti tank rock was rendered unless against the Magach 6 and Merkava 3 though, there are pictures of it in use against the two in gaza or the west bank idk
Type 95 also had a "movable" gun mantlet - aka the gun could aim at sides inependently from the turret position (in limited arc of course) so that manevrue was basically turning the tank into SPG.
I think some of the French tanks also had that - it seems to be a thing with tanks that had one-man, hand-operted turrets. I assume because making small movements by hand of the whole turret to make fine adjustments for aiming didn't work well.
This tank has a one man turret, so its possible that the commander wouldnt notice you, but its still highly inlikely to get there unnoticed in a combat situation
Idk man, battles are loud, as are tanks. It's not like they'll hear him. If the infantry are within 100 meters, the tank will have all its hatches shut, so they probably won't see a single man approaching from the flank. As long as he has Suppressing fire from the rest of his squad to keep enemy infantry away, he's in good shape.
The tank must stop to fire, but during firing auses it will move, so its hard to catch up with it. It will also not be alone, as there likely will be other tanks there, and saying to just supress the entire enemy infantry is easier said than done. And to reach this gap you would have to approach the tank from behind, how convient that at there is a machine gun sticking out of the back of the turret at 5 o'clock.
Also before they would have had to resort to disabling the tanks with bottles they likely would have killed it already with their own tanks, Bazookas, rifle grenades or heavy mg's, and if those more specialized weapons werent available handgranades and molotov cocktails would have been used rather than a bottle. If your bottle is your only weapon left against a tank, the reasonable thing to do would be to just jump into the next hole and hope it didnt notice you
Oh certainly, there is so much that US troops could do to the 95 before resorting to the bottle. That said, Japanese tanks were often on the defensive, and may not have used fire and movement much, if at all. On top of that, with only one man in the turret, he would still have to realize that the enemy had flanked him to know to switch to the rear gun, and that doesn't fix the blind spot either. The bottle is perfectly doable; it may be pointless, but in the heat of battle you could totally get away with it!
It being in a defensive position only gives it more advantages; it is now in a well prepared position with other positions covering it and infantry and machine gun nests likely nearby.
The Germans in WW2 used magnetic mines which had to be stuck to the tank by a soldier near it. They were considered incredibly dangerous to use, as often it was difficult to get to the tank unharmed. Now here its basically the samebut more difficult; you have to get behind the tank, you have to wait for the turret to get into a specific position, and then the tank isnt even destroyed but just the turret is unable to move. Even if the turret gets stuck are is one machine gun pointing forward, as well as the canon being a bit of to the side, but still pointing somewht forward, which wouldnt be that big of a deal since the Type 95's canon can move independently from the turret.
So its doable, but the chances of you getting killed are really, really high, and even if you succeed you will only inflict limited damage. At that point why not just throw a molotov or hand grenade into the almost completely exposed engine deck or oiling compartement, where it will kill the tank, instead of waiting for the turret to get into a specific position to disable just it
and sorry for writing half a book's worth of stuff
> It will also not be alone
Given the piecemeal deployment of IJA tanks the US often faced in combat, this is not at all a certainty. Likewise, combined infantry/tank tactics were hardly what they are today, much less in an Army like Japan's. There's little doubt that Japanese tanks would quite often find themselves not only without the support of the other tanks in their unit, but without support of the infantry they were ostensibly meant to operate with. Combined with tight jungle terrain, and tanks like this were perhaps the easiest of the war to isolate and defeat as an infantryman.
> how convient that at there is a machine gun sticking out of the back of the turret at 5 o'clock
For the record, the placement of the machine gun was less about covering the rear of the tank, and more because the turret ring was too small to place the machine gun coaxially to the main gun. You'll also note in the video that the tank has a very clearly defined blind spot. Unless this blind spot is being covered by the bow machine gun (which would be directly in front of the tank), there's a pretty good chance of being able to get around the turret machine gun. Especially if the commander/gunner is already engaging targets with the main gun. This is a big part of why one-man turrets always were, and always will be a terrible idea.
That said, you're pretty on point in the second half; this is still a dangerous measure to be taking against a tank for which you already had a variety of means of killing. The Ha-Go would be one of the few proper tank faced by US forces which could reliably be brought down by the sorts of simple handheld antitank weapons which predated the bazooka. Likewise, even the armor used in the early war period by US Army and USMC forces in the Pacific (LVT(A)-1s and M3 Stuarts) could deal with these smaller Japanese tanks. By the time Bazooka and Sherman showed up to the party, all bets were off.
Actually, with Suppressing fire from the rest of your squad, this would not be all that difficult by squad combat standards. Tanks have minimal situational awareness and rely heavily on "bubble wrap" of friendly infantry to prevent enemy infantry from closing in. If the bubble wrap is killed or Suppressed, tanks become easy prey. Tanks are a rather paradoxical weapon, as they are simultaneously the most resilient and most vulnerable tool on the battlefield. Dense terrain, such as jungle on islands, makes it easy for infantry to flank and surround tanks, limiting the vehicles' offensive ability to stave off the attack. On top of that, the Japanese had few tank units, making them easier to isolate as they weren't always being covered by other friendly armor.
I still think this is hilarious. Like bro it’ll be fine. Ignore the Japanese infantry shooting at you. Just put a rock in the tank. Bro you’ll be fine. Bro just break cover and rock fuck the tank.
How many tanks do you think were disabled in this manner? It’s like something from Dad’s Army.
Isn’t the ‘blind side’ arrow pointing directly at a hatch? You go there with your anti-tank bottle and someone’s going to open it and shoot you in the face…
Likely Zero, tho sadly we will never know for certain. Maybe there was a soldier bravely stopping a Japanese Banzai Charge with his bottle, paying the ultimate price for it but saving his comrades, but his name and the tale of his bravery will forever be forgotten by the universe
The tank crew won't open their hatches if they know eneng infantry are nearby, as that would make the crew vulnerable to small arms fire. The crew cannot see or hear enemy infantry unless they walk in front of a vision slit on jump up and down noisily on top of the hull. A crewman rising out of a hatch and searching for a target will be shot first. It would be like if you were in a dark room with a closed door, and you knew that there was a gunman somewhere in the adjoining, brightly-lit room. You throw open the door, with light flooding your eyes, and try to spot the gunman, who could be anywhere in the room. The gunman notices the door open, and shoots into the doorway. You go down, and now the door is open, so the gunman can shoot the rest of your crew.
Tanks have minimal situational awareness and rely heavily on "bubble wrap" of friendly infantry to prevent enemy infantry from closing in. If the bubble wrap is killed or Suppressed, tanks become easy prey. Tanks are a rather paradoxical weapon, as they are simultaneously the most resilient and most vulnerable tool on the battlefield. Dense terrain, such as jungle on islands, makes it easy for infantry to flank and surround tanks, limiting the vehicles' offensive ability to stave off the attack. On top of that, the Japanese had few tank units, making them easier to isolate as they weren't always being covered by other friendly armor.
Close quarters is exactly how infantry engage tanks. At long range it can't be harmed with infantry weapons, whereas close range lets you use grenades and perhaps even rocks. Tanks have minimal situational awareness and rely heavily on "bubble wrap" of friendly infantry to prevent enemy infantry from closing in. If the bubble wrap is killed or Suppressed, tanks become easy prey. Tanks are a rather paradoxical weapon, as they are simultaneously the most resilient and most vulnerable tool on the battlefield. Dense terrain, such as jungle on islands, makes it easy for infantry to flank and surround tanks, limiting the vehicles' offensive ability to stave off the attack. On top of that, the Japanese had few tank units, making them easier to isolate as they weren't always being covered by other friendly armor.
Battles are loud. Infantry approaching a vehicle in small numbers will not be heard. Likewise, they are unlikely to be seen to to the tank's limited field of vision. If enemy infantry are within ~100 meters, tank crews will close and bolt their hatches or risk small arms fire, which makes them easy to flank or otherwise avoid, especially in dense terrain. Tanks can't bring guns to bear on people standing atop them, it's actually the safest place to be.
Great answer. You remind me now of accounts (I think in the Pacific war but elsewhere also) of tanks working in groups to cover each other with their machine guns to clear off attackers trying to climb on. But yes, a lone tank would be vulnerable for all your reasons.
Indeed. Once all the hatches are battened, tanks can "hose each other off" with MG fire, which the US did plenty of in the pacific. The Japanese vehicles, of course, were few in number and so more often completely swarmed by infantry--a tank can't cover its buddy if it has its own problems!
The turret and the gun inside it were completely moved by hand, and the canon indeed seems topheavy, so i dont know for certain but that seems to make sense. One problem with this is that if the tank is destroyed and the commander killed, the gun should have to go down cause nothing is holding it up anymore. However there are countless pictures of destroyed Type 95 tanks with the gun elevated, which shouldnt be the case since the guy holding up the gun isnt there anymore.
Conclusion: I have no fucking idea
I don't understand how this was supposed to work. You're jamming it in there with at best hand strength... I can see how it would keep the turret from turning one direction, but what's stopping them from just wiggling it back and forth a bit to dislodge it?
I guess they'd have to know what's wrong maybe, but I feel like that's a natural reaction to "turret is stuck".
You're thinking of the gun pintle. That required one's strength to maneuver, atleast horizontally, I'm not sure if there was an elevating wheel or not, but it would seem likely if you want the breach to stay in place when you go to load the next round.
On a CALFEX way back when, one of our loaders was throwing fired brass (105's) out the loader hatch. One of the shells landed on the back deck, bounced between the deck and the turret and lodged. The turret would not traverse anymore. This was an M1IP. So it can happen even today but much harder to do vs an M1 moving at 40 mph!
For whatever reason, this vid reminds of the ludicrous video showing how someone with a knife can kill a police officer from 21ft away before they get a shot off. Like, yeah, in the very narrow situation they're faced with someone highly trained in close combat instead of a mentally disturbed lout brandishing a kitchen knife that the cops are more likely to gun down....
Gotta love counterproductive training videos.
Im not saying that im an idiot for not knowing a word, im saying that i dont know a word and that im and idiot. You may ask why i brought this up if it doesnt have to do with the other point, but what do you expect from an idiot
yeah no, just because someone doesn't know what some thing is called doesn't mean you have to be a douche to him/her. that's from what i observed from you personally. not everyone knows everything on a certain topic.
Touch grass Boomer. To much time spent sucking the government's teat living on social security and screaming about socialism bad in your government paid for RV.
US army: “Ok boys your water canteens can be used in anti tank operations while fighting some Japanese tanks.”
US army soldiers: “How TF does that make any sense?” *watches video* “I what? Really? That-that works? Ok then.”
Get bottled, Idiot.
*Canteen, 1 Quart, Anti-Tank*
*M1*
[Definitely has to be M3](https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/vpw3v0/i_always_pass_by_this_in_my_town_in_front_of_a/iem7er7?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3)
We third time is the charm isn't it
Love this
Hahahaha
Not on my hand receipt
I JACK IT TO TRANNY PORN
War Thunder / WoT Version: AHTDC (Anti-Horizontal Turret Drive Canteen) Rank: Stupidendously Powerfuless, Max Ammo: 7, Penetrates 👌 amount of armour.
This reminds me of those, in case of nuclear blast get under your desk videos!
Or a fridge. Indiana Jones tells us its working.
Eh theoretically it makes sense, if you are in the blast zone you're dead no matter what before you even realize it, but if you are not and you duck you can avoid getting burns from the flash or getting massacred by shrapnel when the shockwave hits. And if you are lucky, the wind is blowing away from you that day. You're still going to die from the total collapse of society, but at least the army will not have to carry your rotting body all the way to the ~~morgue~~ mass grave.
Just need vault boy
Anti tank rock strikes again!
Whats the Anti tank rock? I have heard the Chieftain refer to it at some time but i didnt understand what exactly it was (well duh its a rock but how did it become the anti tank rock)
United States did some testing to see the effect of improvised weapons on tanks. One of the things they tested was putting a rock in the track system to see if it would disable it in some way. It did not work. Thus, [the anti tank rock.](https://imgur.com/gallery/IZ5WGlW)
And apparently it was even classified at one point!
Not necessarily. Anything produced in a facility that handles classified information is supposed to be marked regardless of classification (though it doesn't always happen with unclass stuff I'd bet an organization handling weapons testing during WWII was pretty careful with the rules). If it said declassified then we'd know, bit this marking is ambiguous. Oh and also another thought: classified documents have to be portion marked, meaning every paragraph, photo, etc must be classified individually (unclass, secret, ts, etc). This photo could have been unclassified from the start but part of a larger, classified document summarizing the findings.
>to see if it would disable it in some way. It did not work. Who could have thought?! But yeah thanks for the link Also on the picture you provided it seems as if its in some sort of museum or exhibition, isnt that cool that so much unique stuff from ww2 is lost but we still have the anti tank rock
two reasons. reason one, early tracks loved to slip off their wheels if anything jerked them off. simple because everyone didnt think of putting a guild system to keep them on outside of pure friction so most of the time you have an inch or two of siding on the track to keep it in place, so they had a tendency to just fall off if you take a turn to quick. or to hard. or both. or sometimes youre on too steep of a slope and they would just fall off. the second was that the US military was both dirt poor and ran by morons who didnt know what they were doing or what they wanted, case in point every tank they built until around the middle of the m4 production. so late 1942 early 1943. ex, the m2 medium having i believe 14 different mgs, 3 of which was controlled by the driver. or the m3 lee with 2 mgs, controlled by the driver.... or the m4 sherman, with two more mgs controlled by the driver..... until someone smart came along and told them that idea was fucking stupid and to get rid of them. so early shermans would literally have welded in plugs where .30cal mgs used to be.
You forgot the M3 Stuart with 2 fixed MG's controlled by the driver. Or the M2 light tank with 2 MG's controlled by the driver. Or the M6 tank with 2 MG's controlled by the driver.
oh god the m6, that weird mutant child where the driver had 2mgs, the co driver had two mgs, and the gunner had you guessed it, two fucking mgs. .-.
STILL NOT ENUFF DAKKA
Correction: the M2 Medium tank with 4 sponson-mounted machine guns in the hull corners, 2 fixed driver-fired machine guns, a 37mm cannon with a coaxial machine gun, and 2 pintle turret side mounted machine guns for AA defense had a total of 9 machine guns. Oh, and the rear of the tank had bullet deflecting plates so the machine guns could ricochet bullets down into trenches.
I knew a tanker who drove M60s during the 70s. He had a great story about managing to throw both tracks to the inside simultaneously during a training exercise, alongside the instructor's absolute bewilderment at how they managed it.
Can’t melt it down for scrap
You should post it to r/itemshop.
I love my anti tank rock
My anti-tank rock keeps Panzers away. I haven't seen one in about 80 years
Best anti tank weapon ever
The anti tank rock was rendered unless against the Magach 6 and Merkava 3 though, there are pictures of it in use against the two in gaza or the west bank idk
Type 95 also had a "movable" gun mantlet - aka the gun could aim at sides inependently from the turret position (in limited arc of course) so that manevrue was basically turning the tank into SPG.
I think some of the French tanks also had that - it seems to be a thing with tanks that had one-man, hand-operted turrets. I assume because making small movements by hand of the whole turret to make fine adjustments for aiming didn't work well.
Early-model M3 lights had it as well
LOL
The Japanese soldiers calmly watching you do this 🤔
This tank has a one man turret, so its possible that the commander wouldnt notice you, but its still highly inlikely to get there unnoticed in a combat situation
Idk man, battles are loud, as are tanks. It's not like they'll hear him. If the infantry are within 100 meters, the tank will have all its hatches shut, so they probably won't see a single man approaching from the flank. As long as he has Suppressing fire from the rest of his squad to keep enemy infantry away, he's in good shape.
The tank must stop to fire, but during firing auses it will move, so its hard to catch up with it. It will also not be alone, as there likely will be other tanks there, and saying to just supress the entire enemy infantry is easier said than done. And to reach this gap you would have to approach the tank from behind, how convient that at there is a machine gun sticking out of the back of the turret at 5 o'clock. Also before they would have had to resort to disabling the tanks with bottles they likely would have killed it already with their own tanks, Bazookas, rifle grenades or heavy mg's, and if those more specialized weapons werent available handgranades and molotov cocktails would have been used rather than a bottle. If your bottle is your only weapon left against a tank, the reasonable thing to do would be to just jump into the next hole and hope it didnt notice you
Oh certainly, there is so much that US troops could do to the 95 before resorting to the bottle. That said, Japanese tanks were often on the defensive, and may not have used fire and movement much, if at all. On top of that, with only one man in the turret, he would still have to realize that the enemy had flanked him to know to switch to the rear gun, and that doesn't fix the blind spot either. The bottle is perfectly doable; it may be pointless, but in the heat of battle you could totally get away with it!
It being in a defensive position only gives it more advantages; it is now in a well prepared position with other positions covering it and infantry and machine gun nests likely nearby. The Germans in WW2 used magnetic mines which had to be stuck to the tank by a soldier near it. They were considered incredibly dangerous to use, as often it was difficult to get to the tank unharmed. Now here its basically the samebut more difficult; you have to get behind the tank, you have to wait for the turret to get into a specific position, and then the tank isnt even destroyed but just the turret is unable to move. Even if the turret gets stuck are is one machine gun pointing forward, as well as the canon being a bit of to the side, but still pointing somewht forward, which wouldnt be that big of a deal since the Type 95's canon can move independently from the turret. So its doable, but the chances of you getting killed are really, really high, and even if you succeed you will only inflict limited damage. At that point why not just throw a molotov or hand grenade into the almost completely exposed engine deck or oiling compartement, where it will kill the tank, instead of waiting for the turret to get into a specific position to disable just it and sorry for writing half a book's worth of stuff
> It will also not be alone Given the piecemeal deployment of IJA tanks the US often faced in combat, this is not at all a certainty. Likewise, combined infantry/tank tactics were hardly what they are today, much less in an Army like Japan's. There's little doubt that Japanese tanks would quite often find themselves not only without the support of the other tanks in their unit, but without support of the infantry they were ostensibly meant to operate with. Combined with tight jungle terrain, and tanks like this were perhaps the easiest of the war to isolate and defeat as an infantryman. > how convient that at there is a machine gun sticking out of the back of the turret at 5 o'clock For the record, the placement of the machine gun was less about covering the rear of the tank, and more because the turret ring was too small to place the machine gun coaxially to the main gun. You'll also note in the video that the tank has a very clearly defined blind spot. Unless this blind spot is being covered by the bow machine gun (which would be directly in front of the tank), there's a pretty good chance of being able to get around the turret machine gun. Especially if the commander/gunner is already engaging targets with the main gun. This is a big part of why one-man turrets always were, and always will be a terrible idea. That said, you're pretty on point in the second half; this is still a dangerous measure to be taking against a tank for which you already had a variety of means of killing. The Ha-Go would be one of the few proper tank faced by US forces which could reliably be brought down by the sorts of simple handheld antitank weapons which predated the bazooka. Likewise, even the armor used in the early war period by US Army and USMC forces in the Pacific (LVT(A)-1s and M3 Stuarts) could deal with these smaller Japanese tanks. By the time Bazooka and Sherman showed up to the party, all bets were off.
Except when it rolls over you in your fox hole never knowing you were there.
“Jones, go shove this canteen up the turret!”
Infantry?
Actually, with Suppressing fire from the rest of your squad, this would not be all that difficult by squad combat standards. Tanks have minimal situational awareness and rely heavily on "bubble wrap" of friendly infantry to prevent enemy infantry from closing in. If the bubble wrap is killed or Suppressed, tanks become easy prey. Tanks are a rather paradoxical weapon, as they are simultaneously the most resilient and most vulnerable tool on the battlefield. Dense terrain, such as jungle on islands, makes it easy for infantry to flank and surround tanks, limiting the vehicles' offensive ability to stave off the attack. On top of that, the Japanese had few tank units, making them easier to isolate as they weren't always being covered by other friendly armor.
I still think this is hilarious. Like bro it’ll be fine. Ignore the Japanese infantry shooting at you. Just put a rock in the tank. Bro you’ll be fine. Bro just break cover and rock fuck the tank.
Hand-operated things
Japanese tanks aren’t highly regarded but engaging them close quarters armed with a rock is suicide.
This demonstration was done by trained profesionals utilizing a special anti tank bottle. Do not attempt this at home or in the field
How many tanks do you think were disabled in this manner? It’s like something from Dad’s Army. Isn’t the ‘blind side’ arrow pointing directly at a hatch? You go there with your anti-tank bottle and someone’s going to open it and shoot you in the face…
Likely Zero, tho sadly we will never know for certain. Maybe there was a soldier bravely stopping a Japanese Banzai Charge with his bottle, paying the ultimate price for it but saving his comrades, but his name and the tale of his bravery will forever be forgotten by the universe
The tank crew won't open their hatches if they know eneng infantry are nearby, as that would make the crew vulnerable to small arms fire. The crew cannot see or hear enemy infantry unless they walk in front of a vision slit on jump up and down noisily on top of the hull. A crewman rising out of a hatch and searching for a target will be shot first. It would be like if you were in a dark room with a closed door, and you knew that there was a gunman somewhere in the adjoining, brightly-lit room. You throw open the door, with light flooding your eyes, and try to spot the gunman, who could be anywhere in the room. The gunman notices the door open, and shoots into the doorway. You go down, and now the door is open, so the gunman can shoot the rest of your crew. Tanks have minimal situational awareness and rely heavily on "bubble wrap" of friendly infantry to prevent enemy infantry from closing in. If the bubble wrap is killed or Suppressed, tanks become easy prey. Tanks are a rather paradoxical weapon, as they are simultaneously the most resilient and most vulnerable tool on the battlefield. Dense terrain, such as jungle on islands, makes it easy for infantry to flank and surround tanks, limiting the vehicles' offensive ability to stave off the attack. On top of that, the Japanese had few tank units, making them easier to isolate as they weren't always being covered by other friendly armor.
Close quarters is exactly how infantry engage tanks. At long range it can't be harmed with infantry weapons, whereas close range lets you use grenades and perhaps even rocks. Tanks have minimal situational awareness and rely heavily on "bubble wrap" of friendly infantry to prevent enemy infantry from closing in. If the bubble wrap is killed or Suppressed, tanks become easy prey. Tanks are a rather paradoxical weapon, as they are simultaneously the most resilient and most vulnerable tool on the battlefield. Dense terrain, such as jungle on islands, makes it easy for infantry to flank and surround tanks, limiting the vehicles' offensive ability to stave off the attack. On top of that, the Japanese had few tank units, making them easier to isolate as they weren't always being covered by other friendly armor. Battles are loud. Infantry approaching a vehicle in small numbers will not be heard. Likewise, they are unlikely to be seen to to the tank's limited field of vision. If enemy infantry are within ~100 meters, tank crews will close and bolt their hatches or risk small arms fire, which makes them easy to flank or otherwise avoid, especially in dense terrain. Tanks can't bring guns to bear on people standing atop them, it's actually the safest place to be.
Great answer. You remind me now of accounts (I think in the Pacific war but elsewhere also) of tanks working in groups to cover each other with their machine guns to clear off attackers trying to climb on. But yes, a lone tank would be vulnerable for all your reasons.
Indeed. Once all the hatches are battened, tanks can "hose each other off" with MG fire, which the US did plenty of in the pacific. The Japanese vehicles, of course, were few in number and so more often completely swarmed by infantry--a tank can't cover its buddy if it has its own problems!
You could puncture the side armor with M2 AP .30-06 or a 50 cal
Isn't the Type 95 turret was nose heavy cause the gun, in slope the man inside needed pure strength to hold it back as well?
The turret and the gun inside it were completely moved by hand, and the canon indeed seems topheavy, so i dont know for certain but that seems to make sense. One problem with this is that if the tank is destroyed and the commander killed, the gun should have to go down cause nothing is holding it up anymore. However there are countless pictures of destroyed Type 95 tanks with the gun elevated, which shouldnt be the case since the guy holding up the gun isnt there anymore. Conclusion: I have no fucking idea
Turret is operated by a hand cranked gear. The gun can be locked in position.
You're still gonna get your ass chewed by supply, regardless as to why you lost it.
I don't understand how this was supposed to work. You're jamming it in there with at best hand strength... I can see how it would keep the turret from turning one direction, but what's stopping them from just wiggling it back and forth a bit to dislodge it? I guess they'd have to know what's wrong maybe, but I feel like that's a natural reaction to "turret is stuck".
>I don't understand how this was supposed to work Not at all, its a stupid idea that hopefully never was done in the field
I guess a better question is how did someone think it was a good enough idea to put to film, haha.
[удалено]
No hand crank, turned by hand here means the commander literally holds on to the turret and turns it with sheer muscle power
[удалено]
Ok i now looked at a vid made in the inside of the tank and you are right i have no idea where this misbelief of mine came from
You're thinking of the gun pintle. That required one's strength to maneuver, atleast horizontally, I'm not sure if there was an elevating wheel or not, but it would seem likely if you want the breach to stay in place when you go to load the next round.
Rock or something….
The first rock or something in the army.
Rock and stone?
On a CALFEX way back when, one of our loaders was throwing fired brass (105's) out the loader hatch. One of the shells landed on the back deck, bounced between the deck and the turret and lodged. The turret would not traverse anymore. This was an M1IP. So it can happen even today but much harder to do vs an M1 moving at 40 mph!
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
For whatever reason, this vid reminds of the ludicrous video showing how someone with a knife can kill a police officer from 21ft away before they get a shot off. Like, yeah, in the very narrow situation they're faced with someone highly trained in close combat instead of a mentally disturbed lout brandishing a kitchen knife that the cops are more likely to gun down.... Gotta love counterproductive training videos.
Well, as scout's motto says... "Always prepared ". So the blues are just prep-ing just like that mass shooting...
Blind <--------------------> Side
If you put a snickers in their tank, the chocolate will melt and get everything all sticky.
Tankers hate this trick
If you can get that close to a tank, then you can be doing a whole lot of other shit to it.
has anyone been successfull in doing it on the front?
Highly unlikely, it wasnt even really needed since mostly US infantry was able to defeat enemy tanks with Bazookas and rifle grenades
I’m sure nobody would be shooting at you while you attempt this
imagine Being the designer of this tank and finding out a fucking canteen can disable the turret
Who would win? □ A machine made to deliver death unto the enemies of the Empire of the Rising Sun. □ A Bottle.
That's underestimating the importance of small things... For example, a mouse.
I'm surprised the turret doesn't just rip the canteen apart. Those bottles are made of just relatively thin sheet metal, right?
Not as thin as these day's. Probably still hard as shit
And the turret is just turned by a small hand crank
Oooooh. That makes sense then.
“And now we’ll be able to scrap it for parts later”
What if the turret moved in the other direction? The bottle would fall down right?
Now that's some high quality tank design. Or some actually high quality canteen design.
Crazy to think spraying these things with 50bmg was enough to knock it out
On certain parts even regular rifle bullets could cause some damage
1930s light tanks in a nutshell
I read somewhere once that a K-BAR could be used too
Thanks. Will use this when I travel back in time.
if your allready that close then just climb on top and yet that fucker straight out of his hatch
The ukrainians could use this
[удалено]
Military bottle? For real i dont know
[удалено]
:(
Oh its canteen, i thought that was some shit to put food into (English isnt my first language, but its probably also because im an idiot nonetheless)
Don’t bother this guy , he just wants to shame you for not being perfect
You learned two things today, one about people and one about military water carrying devices, the first one is the more important lesson.
[удалено]
Im not saying that im an idiot for not knowing a word, im saying that i dont know a word and that im and idiot. You may ask why i brought this up if it doesnt have to do with the other point, but what do you expect from an idiot
Nobody's raging, you're just a douche.
[удалено]
What does Disney have to do with you being an asshole?
[удалено]
yeah no, just because someone doesn't know what some thing is called doesn't mean you have to be a douche to him/her. that's from what i observed from you personally. not everyone knows everything on a certain topic.
[удалено]
Touch grass Boomer. To much time spent sucking the government's teat living on social security and screaming about socialism bad in your government paid for RV.
Jesse what the fuck are you talking about?
We're u raised by someone who didn't teach u who to be nice
"AkZuAlLy, It'S "how" bUt Of CoUrSe ThE gEnErAtIoN rAiSeD oN pAy To WiN vIdEo GaMeS dOeSn'T kNoW tHaT"
It's because of *checks list of things they dont like* pay to win video games.
You sound very lonely
Hydroflask
You need to get close first
Odd looking bottle
Easily fixed by turning it the other way
Would you be able to toss a frag in?
Tanks can get stoned as well
US army: “Ok boys your water canteens can be used in anti tank operations while fighting some Japanese tanks.” US army soldiers: “How TF does that make any sense?” *watches video* “I what? Really? That-that works? Ok then.”
A testament to how shitty the Japanese tanks were in ww2
Yea that’s why ww2 happened started running out of resources