Thoughts on the military and military activities of a diverse nature. Free-ranging and eclectic.

Tuesday, April 08, 2008

Flying Tank III.

This is coolbert:

When considering the hypothesis of "M-Day", as initially proposed by the Soviet General Grigorenko and expounded upon at length by the defector Suvorov, a flying tank, such as the Antonov A-40, or a similar species of tank thereof, and A TANK THAT COULD SHED IT'S TRACKS AND MOVE WITH GREAT SPEED VIA ROAD WHEELS ALONE would both have been absolutely essential.

"M-Day", the Red Army moving west in July of 1941 to "liberate" Nazi Germany and all of Europe in the process, required units and weapons whose mission is fundamentally OFFENSIVE IN NATURE!! Specifically, paratroop units to operate BEHIND ENEMY LINES and tanks designed for use in nations that possess GOOD road networks.

Paratrooper units can be thought of AS ONLY OFFENSIVE FORCES [name an instance of paratroopers have been dropped behind FRIENDLY LINES!!?? A flying tank deployed in support of paratroopers COULD HAVE ONLY BEEN DESIGNED WITH OFFENSIVE ACTION IN MIND!!

Same with the Soviet BT series of tanks. The BT tank was not a tank that possessed both good OFFENSIVE and DEFENSIVE capability. NOT a tank with versatility!

"The tanks [BT series] that were being produced . . had the name Mark BT, initials for the Russian words “high-speed [bistro] tank.” The Mark BTs had a speed of one mile per minute [100 kilometers or 60 miles per hour] and a radius of action without refueling of 440 miles. These tanks were also the first ever to have a diesel engine and they carried a weapons system that was very powerful at the time. Having said so many good things about these tanks, let us note one disadvantage: it was impossible to use them on Soviet territory."

[the tanks [BT series] did not have good cross-country mobility. It was not "impossible" to use them on Soviet territory, but they were not effective.]

"The tanks substituted [for] heavy armor speed and the ability to produce enormous quantities of them . . . They were only useful as an invasive tank [used for offensive purposes on territory other than Soviet territory] . . . They had a pair of detachable caterpillar tracks that let them travel anywhere, but slowly. To go fast, they must be on a good road and discard the tracks to continue traveling on wheels."

[track treads could be shed at will and the tank could proceed on road wheels. Quantity over quality. Enormous numbers exerting pressure en masse' on FOREIGN TERRITORY was the way to go with the BT series of tank!]

As to the hypothesis ["M-Day"] of Suvorov, here is what the British officer General Sir John Hackett has to say concerning the Soviet defector: [from the foreword to the book, "Inside the Soviet Army"]

"There is no doubt at all of the author's [Suvorov] right to claim unquestioned authority on matters which he, as a junior officer, could be expected to know about at firsthand and in great detail. Nevertheless, not everyone would agree with everything he has to say . . . I am sometimes bound to wonder whether he is always interpreting the evidence correctly . . . He tells the reader how he, being what he is - - that is to say, a product of the Soviet Army and the society in serves - - judges the military machine created in the Soviet Union under Marxism-Leninism, and how responded to it . . . Where he may seem to some readers to get it wrong, both in his conclusion about his own army and his opinions on military matters in the Western world, he is almost certainly representing views very widely held in his own service"

Right! Suvorov is seeing "the evidence" in the light of his training and experience as a Soviet military officer. Seeing "things" as a Soviet would see them. NOT as a western military "expert" would see the same thing! Absolute certainty is not so important here as is PERSPECTIVE!!




Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home