I think Vietnam.
Seriously, what insane colonial conflict was this from?
I always assumed that tanks had some form of cooling, I mean, armored warfare was a thing in North Africa during WWII.
In any case, that umbrella is probably loved by any tank hunters and artillery spotters.
that umbrella is probably loved by any tank hunters and artillery spotters.
Closest to a tank I've been was in a museum, and even around here we don't let people climb in and play around.There's cooling inside the tanks, but not sitting on top of the bloody thing. I'm going to guess someone doesn't work outside all that much.
Tell that to the Frienchies at Dien Bien Phu, they were surprised by Vietnamese artillery, too.Also in the old tanks, like M-48 in the picture, the only cooling was from the insufficient ventilation system, so if you were in hot place, then the only way to alleviate the discomfort was through improvisation. Twin M2 mount is also nonstandard modification.
It was a guerilla conflict so artillery was not much of a problem outside border areas and the way US armored forces operated, being spotted was not much of an issue, much bigger issue was not spotting the VC sappers in the tall grass, because the guy sitting on top was too fatigued from the elements.
Tell that to the Frienchies at Dien Bien Phu, they were surprised by Vietnamese artillery, too.
In any case, I don't think those tanks were of much use throughout most of the conflict.
And I am sure that the math whereupon you threw the lives of a tank crew and tank to potentially take out a few poor peasants with makeshift weapons made sense.Also tanks in Vietnam were used as both the hammer and the anvil on Search and Destroy missions, being fast enough in even the worst terrain to outflank and outrun guerrilla and sturdy enough that one tactic used was for the tanks to advance firing automatic weapons in order to flush soldiers waiting in ambush until the tanks acting as containment (and crew safely stationed inside their vehicles) reported bullets boincing on their armor.
In particular the M60 was liked for its survivability to most handheld weapons and light artillery at even point blank range which at worst managed mission kills and light damage, and was part of the reason unexploded aviation bombs were converted into antitank mines.
And I am sure that the math whereupon you threw the lives of a tank crew and tank to potentially take out a few poor peasants with makeshift weapons made sense.
Disability of a tank is major
Oh, really, so anti-tank weapons were not a thing?Don't be absurd. The math was that the NVA/VC had very limited anti-tank capability that was heavy enough to take a full MBT as opposed to a light tank, so you weren't "throwing away" a tank and crew to go after them. Those improvised anti-tank mines were generally at most capable of a mobility kill that did not actually harm the crew, you realize.
This is tanks doing their job as offensive assault powerhouses with very little risk to themselves.
Yeah, a persistent folly is still a folly.What the hell are you talking about? Use of armor in counterinsurgency operations is a common thing for a long time, Germans for example had dozens of police tank companies that supported their anti-partisan operations. Use of tanks in Vietnam was effective, US and ARVN forces would have suffered higher casualties in their operations if not for their mechanized elements. Soviets also found their tanks much needed in Afghanistan, despite the fact it was not exactly a tank country and Canadians also found their tanks to be a mayor life-savers.