Mon, 06 Oct 2008 08:03:51 GMTA Place for Military machineshttp://www.military-machine.com/enCopyright 2008, SuperbaseMon, 06 Oct 2008 10:16:27 GMThttp://item.feedsky.com/~feedsky/Superbase/~7125132/121109585/5233831/1/item.htmlhttp://www.military-machine.com/feed.asp?q=comment&id=1597<table height="218"><tr><td vAlign="top"> <h1><img src="../uploads/Else/Signal 11 2006.jpg"></h1> </td> <td vAlign="top"> <p class="introText"><br/><font face="Arial" size="2">The history of possession of these islands involves several treaties. The islands had been considered part of Taiwan and have been used by Chinese fishermen since 1403. Japan claimed possession in the Treaty of Shimonoseki in 1895 after the Sino-Japanese War. After World War II, the United States gained control of the Senkaku Islands until 1971, when Okinawa and southwest islands were returned to Japan. This issue was important because a 1969 United Nations report stated that there was a possibility of oil reserves in the Senkaku/Diaoyutai island area. Japan found the large Chunxiao natural gas field in the Xihu Trough and began drilling. A treaty line demarked the Chinese area to the west from the Japanese waters to the east. Later, China began drilling three miles west of the line. Japan increased its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) out to 200 miles around its islands in 1996, and it overlapped China's EEZ in this area. After that began a noticeable increase in Chinese warships, research vessels and oil exploration vessels operating in and around the EEZ. A Chinese coast guard was established in 1998, and the first of three new 1,500-ton Haixun-class cutters was operational in 2004. A PLAN reconnaissance vessel, Dongdiao (hull number 232), was observed collecting electronic information off the coast of Japan during February 2000. This was a prelude to several PLAN warships exercising in the East China Sea area the following month. The most likely vessels participating probably were 053H frigates, but a Luda guided missile destroyer (DDG) also could have been present depending on how strong a statement the Chinese government wanted to make. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial"><a target=blank href="http://rapidshare.com/files/151198152/Signal_11_2006.pdf">Download (rapidshare.com)</a></font></td></tr></table></p></p></font></font>ElseMon, 06 Oct 2008 16:03:51 +0800Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1597Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1597http://www.military-machine.com/feed.aspfeedsky/Superbase/~7125132/121109585/5233831http://item.feedsky.com/~feedsky/Superbase/~7125132/121109586/5233831/1/item.htmlhttp://www.military-machine.com/feed.asp?q=comment&id=1596<table height="218"><tr><td vAlign="top"> <h1><img src="../uploads/Modelling/Model Magazine International 06-07 2003.jpg"></h1> </td> <td vAlign="top"> <p class="introText"><br/><font face="Arial" size="2">First deployed in 1983, the versatility of HUMVEE is reflected in the AM General trademark acronym that is its name, High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle. Employing a V8 diesel engine capable of 150hp output as well as an advanced 4WD system, automatic transmission, and power steering, the Humvee demonstrated incredible mobility and versatility during its deployment in the Panama Conflict, the Gulf War, as well as conflicts in Bosnia and Kosovo. Depending on its variation and employment type, the Humvee can serve as a cargo or troop transport vehicle, weapon employing vehicle, TOW anti-tank missile or ground-to-air missile employing vehicle, rescue vehicle, and more. The M0125 could be fitted for armament (M2 or M60 machine guns, as well as MK.19 grenade launchers), but unlike some of its armed predecessors, the M1025 featured a metal roof in place of a canvas roof and door. Currently, this vehicle plays an indispensable role in the U.S. Military. Tamiya presents a 1/35 scale model of the M1025 Humvee using the latest in slide molding technology to render a kit with never before seen precision and authenticity. Door, rear hood, and roof hatch come as separate parts to allow for various assembly options. Parts for two types of vents on front hood and side mirrors, as well as parts for replication of air-intake and muffler layou characteristically employed by the Humvee deployed with the US Marines are also included in the kit. Parts for recreation of Mk.19 grenade launcher, M2 heavy machine-gun (newly molded), and ammunition cases are featured in kit. Rubber tires enhance realism down to the tread marks. Two figures are inclu ded- dnver and gunner with full-gear, helmet, and detailed facial expressions. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial"><a target=blank href="http://rapidshare.com/files/151197104/Model_Magazine_International_06-07_2003.pdf">Download (rapidshare.com)</a></font></td></tr></table></p></p></font></font>ModellingMon, 06 Oct 2008 15:59:10 +0800Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1596Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1596http://www.military-machine.com/feed.aspfeedsky/Superbase/~7125132/121109586/5233831http://item.feedsky.com/~feedsky/Superbase/~7125132/121109587/5233831/1/item.htmlhttp://www.military-machine.com/feed.asp?q=comment&id=1595<table height="218"><tr><td vAlign="top"> <h1><img src="../uploads/Modelling/Military in Scale 05 1994.jpg"></h1> </td> <td vAlign="top"> <p class="introText"><br/><font face="Arial" size="2">The assembly is swift to say the least. The cleaning up that is necessary on the components is negligible, taking minutes rather than hours. The single piece trailer chassis is superbly cast, especially when you consider the complexity of the castina. The first items to be added to the chassis were the two wheels, which once again were nicely cast and contained beautiful tread detail. The two support jacks were added next, but with hind sight I think I would have left these until last, as they had a tendency to be wiped off as the rest of the assembly progressed. A small hole was drilled through the tow hitch to accommodate the metal rod handle and the rod for the hand brake linkage was also added. The next items to be added were the mud guards, but you will have to ensure that the correct ones are fitted from side to side, due to each one having a different light fitting to the other. At this point it is probably best to spray the chassis and paint the tyres, otherwise access is restricted when the trailer body is in place. For the purpose of the assembly photographs, I dry fitted the trailer body, removing it later for painting. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial"><a target=blank href="http://rapidshare.com/files/151228386/Military_in_Scale_05_1994.pdf">Download (rapidshare.com)</a></font></td></tr></table></p></p></font></font>ModellingMon, 06 Oct 2008 15:53:49 +0800Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1595Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1595http://www.military-machine.com/feed.aspfeedsky/Superbase/~7125132/121109587/5233831http://item.feedsky.com/~feedsky/Superbase/~7125132/121109591/5233831/1/item.htmlhttp://www.military-machine.com/feed.asp?q=comment&id=1594<table height="218"><tr><td vAlign="top"> <h1><img src="../uploads/Modelling/FineScale Modeler 09 1990.jpg"></h1> </td> <td vAlign="top"> <p class="introText"><br/><font face="Arial" size="2">The basic kit. The Panther Ausf A is an important vehicle to modelers of German WWII armor. In my opinion, Tamiya's version is its worst tank kit; the turret and mantlet are especially inaccurate. Yet there are few alternatives. Nichimo's Ausf G also suffers from scale inaccuracies, and to buy Gunze Sangyo's kit just to use the turret, road wheels, and tracks is too costly. So a conversion of the Tamiya kit is the path I chose. Zlmmerit Zimmerit was applied by the manufacturers to all German tanks and assault guns between early 1943 and autumn 1944. Most of the Panther Ausf A tanks would have received this treatment. Later in the war, as Germany's tactics changed from offensive to defensive, the antimagnetic coating became unnecessary. Zimmerit in miniature can be a nightmare for modelers. I use two techniques, although I prefer the method described below for most of my armored vehicles. For vehicles with a lot of broad surface area or little cast-on detail, I use Milliput epoxy putty; for smaller tanks (Panzer IV and smaller) I use a hot knife. Often I combine the two techniques. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial"><a target=blank href="http://rapidshare.com/files/151218684/FineScale_Modeler_09_1990.pdf">Download (rapidshare.com)</a></font></td></tr></table></p></p></font></font>ModellingMon, 06 Oct 2008 15:35:30 +0800Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1594Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1594http://www.military-machine.com/feed.aspfeedsky/Superbase/~7125132/121109591/5233831http://item.feedsky.com/~feedsky/Superbase/~7125132/121109592/5233831/1/item.htmlhttp://www.military-machine.com/feed.asp?q=comment&id=1593<table height="218"><tr><td vAlign="top"> <h1><img src="../uploads/Uniform/Militaria.jpg"></h1> </td> <td vAlign="top"> <p class="introText"><br/><font face="Arial" size="2">Military prints have for long been popular with a variety of collectors, some of whom are attracted by their military interests, others by their artistic qualities. Apart from original water-colours and oils, often done by an enthusiastic and capable amateur, the great majority of these prints are, strictly speaking, book plates. Coloured plates have been produced since the late 18th century, but early examples were, of course, largely hand coloured, and the use of printed colour dates only from the 1840s. Coloured plates were found to sell well, and print sellers very soon realised that they could expect a better return from the sale of individual plates than for the entire book, and it became common practice to remove the plates and discard the text. Many of the illustrations were based on famous engravings and paintings, and the print collector soon comes to recognise the variations on a theme. Printed books of the 16th century contain engravings which are, on the whole, rather crude and lacking in finesse. It was normal practice to depict all characters in contemporary costume, thus it is not at all unusual to see Romans and Greeks in full-plate armour. However, it is this very feature that makes some of them useful for identifying arms and armour of the 16th century. These prints are not uncommon, and sometimes the whole page, sometimes simply a portion, may turn up. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial"><a target=blank href="http://rapidshare.com/files/151224467/Militaria.pdf">Download (rapidshare.com)</a></font></td></tr></table></p></p></font></font>MilitariaMon, 06 Oct 2008 15:31:30 +0800Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1593Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1593http://www.military-machine.com/feed.aspfeedsky/Superbase/~7125132/121109592/5233831http://item.feedsky.com/~feedsky/Superbase/~7125132/121109593/5233831/1/item.htmlhttp://www.military-machine.com/feed.asp?q=comment&id=1592<table height="218"><tr><td vAlign="top"> <h1><img src="../uploads/Uniform/Collecting Militaria.jpg"></h1> </td> <td vAlign="top"> <p class="introText"><br/><font face="Arial" size="2">By the early 1700s most of the European armies were dressed with some degree of uniformity within each arm of the service. From the mixture of colours that had been used during the seventeenth century, certain predominant colours emerged in military uniforms and these were still used by most armies, except for their bodyguard troops, until the general demise of full dress in 1914. In Britain, red had established itself as the predominant colour for coats in both infantry and cavalry, while Catholic countries tended towards white or light grey. In France royal troops adopted blue while the general infantry preferred white. In Russia the infantry showed a marked preference for dark green while in Sweden blue, with yellow cuffs, was adopted during the first decade of the eighteenth century. Prussia, who had issued strict clothing regulations as early as 1685, adopted dark blue, a colour that was to predominate Prussian and later Imperial German uniforms until the adoption in the first years of the twentieth century of field grey. However, the introduction of what were later to be considered national colours of uniforms—the British 'red coat', the French blue, the Prussian blue and the Russian green—took decades to implement and become widespread. The Royal Scottish Regiment of Dragoons, later the Royal Scots Greys, were dressed in grey coats in 1683 and General Dalzell 'finding that he cannot be provided in this kingdom with as much cloth of one colour as will be clothes to the regiment . . .' asked permission from the Privy Council of Scotland to import '2,536 ells of stone-grey cloth' from England. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial"><a target=blank href="http://rapidshare.com/files/151212554/Collecting_Militaria.pdf">Download (rapidshare.com)</a></font></td></tr></table></p></p></font></font>MilitariaMon, 06 Oct 2008 15:28:06 +0800Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1592Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1592http://www.military-machine.com/feed.aspfeedsky/Superbase/~7125132/121109593/5233831http://item.feedsky.com/~feedsky/Superbase/~7125132/121109602/5233831/1/item.htmlhttp://www.military-machine.com/feed.asp?q=comment&id=1591<table height="218"><tr><td vAlign="top"> <h1><img src="../uploads/History/The Japanese Army 1931-45(2) - 1942-45.jpg"></h1> </td> <td vAlign="top"> <p class="introText"><br/><font face="Arial" size="2">The Japanese Imperial armed forces had hugely extended the Empire by conquest in a spectacular six-month campaign, Almost from the moment that their advances in the Pacific ceased they found themselves having to defend their gains against Allied counter-offensives - slow and weak at first, but steadily growing in power and confidence. This was a defence for which Japan was tactically, but not strategically, equipped. After initial setbacks an Absolute National Defence Sphere was defined, encompassing Burma, Malaya, the East Indies, Western New Guinea, and the Caroline, Marianas and Kurile Islands. For the next three years the Japanese would defend it with a ferocious determination which shocked all who fought them; but the end result was never really in doubt. The disparity between US and Japanese war production is perhaps best summed up by one extraordinary statistic: for every Japanese soldier in the Pacific there were 21bs of equipment, while for every US soldier there were 4 tons... . Nevertheless, the unique character of the Japanese military enabled them to defy these hopeless odds. Although their grim defensive battles achieved nothing but huge loss of life, there were still well over two million servicemen preparing to defend the home islands' from Allied invasion when the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 finally convinced the Imperial government that further resistance was futile. (Even then there was an attempt by a group of officers to sabotage Hirohito's surrender broadcast.) </font></p> <p><font face="Arial"><a target=blank href="http://rapidshare.com/files/151199854/The_Japanese_Army_1931-45_2__-_1942-45.pdf">Download (rapidshare.com)</a></font></td></tr></table></p></p></font></font>HistoryMon, 06 Oct 2008 15:20:35 +0800Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1591Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1591http://www.military-machine.com/feed.aspfeedsky/Superbase/~7125132/121109602/5233831http://item.feedsky.com/~feedsky/Superbase/~7125132/121109606/5233831/1/item.htmlhttp://www.military-machine.com/feed.asp?q=comment&id=1590<table height="218"><tr><td vAlign="top"> <h1><img src="../uploads/Aviation/Взлёт 03 2008.jpg"></h1> </td> <td vAlign="top"> <p class="introText"><br/><font face="Arial" size="2">Ушедший год может оказаться воистину судьбоносным для знаменитого самолета F-15 «Игл», являвшегося в течение последних 30 лет основным - и наиболее совершенным - американским истребителем завоевания превосходства в воздухе. Новый 2008 год две трети парка этих машин, состоящих на вооружении ВВС США, за исключением наиболее «молодых» истребителей-бомбардировщиков F-15Е «СтрайкИгл», встретило на земле. Причиной стала авария, произошедшая 2 ноября 2007 г. в штате Миссури: ее расследование выявило серьезный производственный дефект, встречающийся на отдельных экземплярах истребителей F-15 модификаций А/В/СЮ, выпущенных в период с 1978 по 1985 гг. В результате, все 442 находящиеся на вооружении ВВС США самолета указанных вариантов в течение более 40 дней оставались прикованными к земле. По продолжительности запрета на полеты всего парка самолетов одного типа это беспрецедентный случай в послевоенной истории американской военной авиации. И хотя с января «Иглы» начали постепенно возвращаться в строй и снова подниматься в небо, авария в Миссури может серьезно пошатнуть планы Пентагона, рассчитывавшего сохранять 179 истребителей Р-15А/В/С/0 в строю до 2025 г. Кроме того, произошедшее стало очередным поводом для ВВС США вновь поднять вопрос об увеличении ассигнований на закупки самолетов пятого поколения F-22 «Рэптор», Об аварии F-15С над Миссури и ее последствиях рассказывают Владимир Щербаков и Андрей Фомин </font></p> <p><font face="Arial"><a target=blank href="http://rapidshare.com/files/151204644/_________ae_03_2008.pdf">Download (rapidshare.com)</a></font></td></tr></table></p></p></font></font>AviationMon, 06 Oct 2008 15:13:05 +0800Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1590Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1590http://www.military-machine.com/feed.aspfeedsky/Superbase/~7125132/121109606/5233831http://item.feedsky.com/~feedsky/Superbase/~7125132/120824946/5233831/1/item.htmlhttp://www.military-machine.com/feed.asp?q=comment&id=1589<table height="218"><tr><td vAlign="top"> <h1><img src="../uploads/Aviation/Windsock Datafile 73 - FF 33E.jpg"></h1> </td> <td vAlign="top"> <p class="introText"><br/><font face="Arial" size="2">In a post-war testimonial, Admiral Kranzbuhler, the German chief of naval aviation, stated that the Friedrichshafen seaplanes had "set a standard in design and construction, to the extent that reconnaissance in the North Sea was almost exclusively performed with Friedrichshafen aircraft." The North Sea was the locus of the German navy's preoccupation with the British. It was here that the clash of titans between the Grand Fleet and the German High Seas Fleet (an oxymoron if ever there was one) was fearfully anticipated. The broad sweep of aerial reconnaissance was seen as one more tool to eliminate the effect of surprise, as well as monitoring the activity of British submarines, mine layers and sundry naval craft. The North Sea, famous for its capricious winds, rough seas and sudden weather changes, posed a demanding environment for German and British naval forces alike. It was in relation to the North Sea that the Friedrichshafen seaplanes gained their reputation for reliability and ruggedness. The Friedrichshafen seaplanes were designed and built under the aegis of Diplom-fngenieur Theodor Kober, the chief engineer and director of the Flugzeugbau Friedrichshafen GmbH located on the broad shores of Lake Constance. The Flugzeugbau Friedrichshafen was founded on 17 June 1912 by Kober with the financial support of Graf Ferdinand von Zeppelin and fellow financiers. Graf Zeppelin, under whom Kober had started his aviation career, provided the obsolete airship hangar at Manzell for aircraft assembly. By virtue of its location, Flugzeugbau Friedrichshafen was foreordained to build seaplanes to take advantage of the magnificent body of water at its doorstep. From the outset, Kober's seaplanes were noted for their deliberate design and robust construction, attributes not always emulated by other German manufacturers. Kober and his engineering team were also responsible for the excellent twin-engined Friedrichshafen army bombers similarly valued for their reliability. The reputation enjoyed by the Friedrichshafen company among navy and army aviators was well earned. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial"><a target=blank href="http://rapidshare.com/files/150756016/Windsock_Datafile_73_-_FF_33E.pdf">Download (rapidshare.com)</a></font></td></tr></table></p></p></font></font>AviationSat, 04 Oct 2008 20:47:08 +0800Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1589Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1589http://www.military-machine.com/feed.aspfeedsky/Superbase/~7125132/120824946/5233831http://item.feedsky.com/~feedsky/Superbase/~7125132/120824947/5233831/1/item.htmlhttp://www.military-machine.com/feed.asp?q=comment&id=1588<table height="218"><tr><td vAlign="top"> <h1><img src="../uploads/Aviation/Windsock Datafile 33 - Junkers D.I.jpg"></h1> </td> <td vAlign="top"> <p class="introText"><br/><font face="Arial" size="2">In an air war dominated by wood-and-fabric biplanes, the appearance of an all-metal aircraft was a technological breakthrough of the first magnitude not unlike the appearance of jet-engined aircraft in World War II. The Junkers all-metal, cantilever-winged aircraft of World War I were the creation of Professor Hugo Junkers (1859-1935), a brilliant scientist who in his extraordinary creative lifetime amassed over 1000 patents in the fields of thermodynamics, instrumentation, internal combustion engines and aircraft structures. His work was characterised by meticulous theoretical investigation to lay a solid foundation before embarking on the path of engineering development. In his aeronautical endeavours Junkers was fortunate to be able to gather an extremely competent team of scientists and engineers who with exemplary speed put his ideas into practice. In 1987, Junkers was appointed professor of thermodynamics at the Technische Hochschule Aachen, where his interest in aviation was aroused by his association with Professor Hans J Reissner, who in 1907 was engaged in the development of a canard monoplane fitted with single-surface duraluminum wings. Junkers' fertile mind began to analyze the problems of flight and he came to the conclusion that the primary goal of aircraft design should be the elimination of parasite drag. To this end, in 1912 Junkers invented the 'thick-wing' concept in which the engine, passengers and structural members were contained within the airfoil body (patented February 1 1912). It was typical of Junkers that he continued to delve deeper into the realm of aerodynamics by building a wind tunnel in his Frankenberg laboratory. In April 1914, Junkers embarked on a systematic programme to study the relationship of airfoil shape, camber and thickness which by 1919 encompassed some 4000 tests with 400 models. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial"><a target=blank href="http://rapidshare.com/files/150747613/Windsock_Datafile_33_-_Junkers_D.I.pdf">Download (rapidshare.com)</a></font></td></tr></table></p></p></font></font>AviationSat, 04 Oct 2008 20:43:28 +0800Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1588Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1588http://www.military-machine.com/feed.aspfeedsky/Superbase/~7125132/120824947/5233831http://item.feedsky.com/~feedsky/Superbase/~7125132/120824948/5233831/1/item.htmlhttp://www.military-machine.com/feed.asp?q=comment&id=1587<table height="218"><tr><td vAlign="top"> <h1><img src="../uploads/History/World War II German Battle Insignia.jpg"></h1> </td> <td vAlign="top"> <p class="introText"><br/><font face="Arial" size="2">A special version in fire-gilded Tombak was produced in which die centre plate is held on by a small single rivet with, above this on the edge of the central motif, a small retaining hook. These versions are never maker-marked but are thought to have been manufactured by the Berlin firm of C.E.Juncker. It is said that this special 'de luxe' version was for award personally by Adolf Hitler, or by Heinrich Himmler on his behalf, at two special award ceremonies at Ulm in 1945; and that a second, 'standard' piece was also issued to recipients on these occasions. Correspondence with recipients suggests that this was not the case, however, as at least one recipient on one of these occasions received only a single award, and that was of the standard form. At the time of the introduction of these new grades, the award was also made available to qualifying members of the assault artillery and crews of self-propelled artillery and SP anti-tank guns. Authorisation for the award was usually made at division, corps, army or army group command level. All of these General Assault Badges were re-authorised under the Ordens-Gesetz of 1957 in the de-Nazified formal, which in this case meant that onlv the swastika was removed. In the 1957 versions the 25/50 and 75/100 action badges are also of multi-part construction. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial"><a target=blank href="http://rapidshare.com/files/150763225/World_War_II_German_Battle_Insignia.pdf.html">Download (rapidshare.com)</a></font></td></tr></table></p></p></font></font>HistorySat, 04 Oct 2008 20:37:31 +0800Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1587Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1587http://www.military-machine.com/feed.aspfeedsky/Superbase/~7125132/120824948/5233831http://item.feedsky.com/~feedsky/Superbase/~7125132/120824949/5233831/1/item.htmlhttp://www.military-machine.com/feed.asp?q=comment&id=1586<table height="218"><tr><td vAlign="top"> <h1><img src="../uploads/History/Viet Cong and NVA Tunnels and Fortifications of the Vietnam War.jpg"></h1> </td> <td vAlign="top"> <p class="introText"><br/><font face="Arial" size="2">The war in Vietnam was characterized by evolving tactics and techniques, and seemingly conflicting means of warfare, all set within a complex political environment. It is often described as a guerrilla war, though it was also a conventional one for the United States involving multiple-division operations. The Viet Cong (VC) Main Forces and the People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN) or North Vietnamese Army (NVA) regulars may not have been supported by artillery, tanks, and aircraft (except in rare instances), but nonetheless they conducted large-scale conventional operations against the Free World military forces. In taking on the Free World forces, the VC/NVA faced tremendous firepower delivered by artillery, mortars, direct-fire weapons, fighter-bombers, strategic bombers, and helicopter gunships. The weight of ordnance dumped on the elusive fighters met and often superseded that delivered in World War II on major population centers and Pacific islands. Free World forces also possessed effective surveillance, reconnaissance, and human intelligence collection capabilities. However, the vast area of operations, dense tropical vegetation, and rugged terrain to some degree countered these capabilities. The VC/NVA needed other means to reduce the huge disparity between the belligerents. They became highly adept at camouflage and counterintelligence measures (or "asymmetric innovation" in today's terminology). Their tactics also reflected attempts to counter the massive firepower they faced. They moved at night, often rapidly covering great distances to limit their exposure; they widely dispersed deploying units; and when directly engaging the enemy they employed "belt-hugging" tactics (moving in and remaining closely engaged), even intermingling units, to prevent the enemy from bringing his artillery and close air support to bear. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial"><a target=blank href="http://rapidshare.com/files/150732547/Viet_Cong_and_NVA_Tunnels_and_Fortifications_of_the_Vietnam_War.pdf">Download (rapidshare.com)</a></font></td></tr></table></p></p></font></font>HistorySat, 04 Oct 2008 20:32:53 +0800Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1586Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1586http://www.military-machine.com/feed.aspfeedsky/Superbase/~7125132/120824949/5233831http://item.feedsky.com/~feedsky/Superbase/~7125132/120824950/5233831/1/item.htmlhttp://www.military-machine.com/feed.asp?q=comment&id=1585<table height="218"><tr><td vAlign="top"> <h1><img src="../uploads/History/The Spanish Main 1492-1800.jpg"></h1> </td> <td vAlign="top"> <p class="introText"><br/><font face="Arial" size="2">The third and last era could be referred to as the 'citadel period'. With the fall of Havana, the city considered the key to the entire network, in 1762 the defence of the Spanish Main was revealed to be inadequate. The fortifications that had mostly been built in the two preceding centuries were shown to be antiquated, and the whole system of garrisons and militias manning the forts failed when facing large, well-trained expeditionary forces. King Carlos III, one of Spain's most enlightened rulers, ordered a complete, rapid and thorough revamping of the Spanish Main's defence system, from the fortifications to the garrisons and local militias. From the 1760s, truly outstanding and impressive works were built in the main seaports that made them virtually impregnable by the standards of the time. The speed at which all these measures were ordered and implemented is remarkable, even by today's standards. Over the next dozen years, tremendous Vauban-style fortifications were built in Havana and at San Juan in Puerto Rico, while great improvements were made elsewhere, notably at Cartagena de Indias and, later on, at Veracruz. At the same time, the colonial troops were restructured and the rotation of metropolitan units was introduced, while the militias were totally reorganized and greatly expanded. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial"><a target=blank href="http://rapidshare.com/files/150795230/The_Spanish_Main_1492-1800.pdf">Download (rapidshare.com)</a></font></td></tr></table></p></p></font></font>HistorySat, 04 Oct 2008 20:27:17 +0800Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1585Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1585http://www.military-machine.com/feed.aspfeedsky/Superbase/~7125132/120824950/5233831http://item.feedsky.com/~feedsky/Superbase/~7125132/120824952/5233831/1/item.htmlhttp://www.military-machine.com/feed.asp?q=comment&id=1584<table height="218"><tr><td vAlign="top"> <h1><img src="../uploads/History/Colonial American Troops 1610-1774(1).jpg"></h1> </td> <td vAlign="top"> <p class="introText"><br/><font face="Arial" size="2">THE HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT of the North American colonies subject to the British crown before 1774 were extremely varied. Some were not initially British; some were founded by different religious groups impelled for various reasons to escape the constraints which then applied in their homeland; while others primarily attracted men who sought laud and riches. The evolution of their military institutions was therefore quite varied, reflecting the fact that some were under constant threat from American Indian, French or Spanish enemies while others were not. Few royal troops were posted to or raised in the colonies before the 18th century; consequently the colonists had to organize their own defense if they were to survive. This series of three Men-at-Arms books begins with a review of the royal troops stationed or raised in all the colonics, followed by a general assessment of the systems of militia and provincial troops. Each colony's militia and provincial troops are then examined. This volume begins the review with the oldest colons, Virginia, followed by New Netherlands, and New Sweden, which it absorbed. The forthcoming second volume will continue with coverage of militia and provincial units in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maryland, New York, and New Jersey. The third volume will examine such troops in South Carolina, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Georgia, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and Hudson's Bay; it will also include a section on Rangers, and another on colors and standards. In all volumes, special attention will be given to organisation, weapons and dress: and it is hoped that the three together will form the most complete reference to date on all these aspects. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial"><a target=blank href="http://rapidshare.com/files/150790294/Colonial_American_Troops_1610-1774_1_.pdf">Download (rapidshare.com)</a></font></td></tr></table></p></p></font></font>HistorySat, 04 Oct 2008 20:15:02 +0800Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1584Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1584http://www.military-machine.com/feed.aspfeedsky/Superbase/~7125132/120824952/5233831http://item.feedsky.com/~feedsky/Superbase/~7125132/120824953/5233831/1/item.htmlhttp://www.military-machine.com/feed.asp?q=comment&id=1582<table height="218"><tr><td vAlign="top"> <h1><img src="../uploads/History/Axis Cavalry in World War II.jpg"></h1> </td> <td vAlign="top"> <p class="introText"><br/><font face="Arial" size="2">Squads were usually divided into two groups or teams: a 2- to 4-man light machine gun group, and the rifle group. The squad leader might direct both rifle and LMG groups, lead the rifle group in person, or direct the fire of the LMG group. His assistant might lead the rifle group, control the LMG group, or simply position himself where he could best aid the control of the squad - including bringing up the rear to prevent straggling. The US squad began the war with a third team of two scouts, which the squad leader might accompany; this fell from use as all riflemen are actually scouts, and the scout team often got pinned down if deployed forward. The US Marine Corps had informally adopted a fire team concept, of 3 or 4 men centred on an automatic weapon, during the 1930s 'Banana Wars'. They did not accept the squad as the lowest manoeuvre element, and the USMC platoon began the war with three 9-man rifle squads, each with a Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR), plus a separate 8-man BAR squad with two weapons. In April 1943 they went to three 12-man squads each with two BARs capable of operating as two 6-man teams. In April 1944 they adopted a 13-man squad of a leader and three 4-man fire teams, each with a leader, a BAR man, his assistant and one rifleman. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial"><a target=blank href="http://rapidshare.com/files/150764708/Axis_Cavalry_in_World_War_II.pdf.html">Download (rapidshare.com)</a></font></td></tr></table></p></p></font></font>HistorySat, 04 Oct 2008 20:10:33 +0800Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1582Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1582http://www.military-machine.com/feed.aspfeedsky/Superbase/~7125132/120824953/5233831http://item.feedsky.com/~feedsky/Superbase/~7125132/120824954/5233831/1/item.htmlhttp://www.military-machine.com/feed.asp?q=comment&id=1581<table height="218"><tr><td vAlign="top"> <h1><img src="../uploads/History/American Civil War Fortifications(3) - The Mississippi and River Forts.jpg"></h1> </td> <td vAlign="top"> <p class="introText"><br/><font face="Arial" size="2">The Mississippi River played a decisive role in the American Civil War, and mastery of this major artery, and its tributaries, was recognized by both Union and Confederate authorities as the major factor in any strategy for winning the war in the West. Not only would control of this mighty river provide a means for the movement of troops and war materials, it also offered access to world markets for industrial and agricultural products for both the North or the South. The lower river valley was bounded for hundreds of miles on its east side from Kentucky through Tennessee and Mississippi by a line of high bluffs and ridges. As the river wound southward towards Louisiana through its lower basin, it occasionally looped against the base of this escarpment at places such as Columbus, the First and Second Chickasaw Bluffs, Memphis, Vicksburg, Grand Gulf, and Port Hudson. With only a small navy, the Confederacy had to rely on fortifications to maintain its hold on the Mississippi River. Hence they concentrated their forces in earthworks on the numerous high bluffs overlooking the river. These were virtually unassailable to foot soldiers, while naval guns on river-borne warships could not elevate high enough to fire on them. Meanwhile, the defenders found it easier to rain down an effective fire from above. The Confederate fortifications that controlled the lower Mississippi Valley were put to the test in the lengthy Federal campaign of 1862-63, which was based on the "Anaconda Plan" devised in 1861 by General-in-Chief Winfield Scott. Aimed at strangling the South into submission via a naval blockade at sea and the capture of the entire length of the Mississippi River using a fleet of gunboats supported by the army, this plan would also cut off the Confederate states of Arkansas, western Louisiana and Texas and block the vital trade route from Matamoras, Mexico, which crossed the Mississippi at Vicksburg, and ran via railroad to Richmond, Virginia.</font></p> <p><font face="Arial"><a target=blank href="http://rapidshare.com/files/150771269/American_Civil_War_Fortifications_3__-_The_Mississippi_and_River_Forts.pdf">Download (rapidshare.com)</a></font></td></tr></table></p></p></font></font>HistorySat, 04 Oct 2008 20:08:29 +0800Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1581Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1581http://www.military-machine.com/feed.aspfeedsky/Superbase/~7125132/120824954/5233831http://item.feedsky.com/~feedsky/Superbase/~7125132/120532580/5233831/1/item.htmlhttp://www.military-machine.com/feed.asp?q=comment&id=1580<table height="218"><tr><td vAlign="top"> <h1><img src="../uploads/Aviation/German Fighters over The Mediterranean.jpg"></h1> </td> <td vAlign="top"> <p class="introText"><br/><font face="Arial" size="2">Geisler set up his headquarters in the Hotel Domenico in Taormina and commenced carrying out the three major tasks his force had been assigned: 1) an offensive against Malta; 2) control the straits between Tunis and Sicily; and 3) assist the Italians with air support in North Africa and eventually obtain air superiority to enable safe transport of supplies and men to North Africa. In addition to the major objectives the small force available to Geisler was also expected to attack any reinforcements heading for and using the Suez Canal. From January to March Fliegerkorps X mounted a continuous assault on Malta and in so doing suffered heavy losses at the hands of the ground defences, the few fighters based on the island, and the carrier-borne reinforcements. Until the arrival of 7/JG 26 under the command of Oberleutnant Mun-cheberg and I/JG 27 under Hauptmann Neumann, fighter escort was in the hands of the Bf 110s of ZG 26. The two Jagdgesc-hwadern were both equipped with Bf 109E-7 aircraft which were superior to the defending Hurricanes. In fact, one of these British fighters fell to the guns of Miin-cheberg on February 12, just three days after 7/JG 26 arrived in Sicily. In addition to escort duties the Bf 109s also carried out strafing attacks against land and sea targets accounting for a considerable quantity of Wellingtons, Sunderlands and Maryland reconnaissance bombers. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial"><a target=blank href="http://rapidshare.com/files/150051088/German_Fighters_over_The_Mediterranean.pdf">Download (rapidshare.com)</a></font></td></tr></table></p></p></font></font>AviationThu, 02 Oct 2008 20:06:26 +0800Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1580Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1580http://www.military-machine.com/feed.aspfeedsky/Superbase/~7125132/120532580/5233831http://item.feedsky.com/~feedsky/Superbase/~7125132/120532581/5233831/1/item.htmlhttp://www.military-machine.com/feed.asp?q=comment&id=1579<table height="218"><tr><td vAlign="top"> <h1><img src="../uploads/Armor/Russian Tanks of World War II - Stalin's Armoured Might.jpg"></h1> </td> <td vAlign="top"> <p class="introText"><br/><font face="Arial" size="2">The MS-1 or T-18 had its origins in a three-year plan drawn up in 1926 to produce a number of tanks to provide close support to infantry whilst breaking through enemy defences. A number of foreign designs were considered by the Red Army in order to speed design and production. Initial studies favoured the adoption of the Italian FIAT-3000 over the French Renault FT, or its Soviet modified variant the KS-1. because of its lower weight and relatively high speed. The accuracy and weight of the FTKS tanks was considered inadequate, and so too was the overall poor quality of the workmanship. The first prototype was built by the Bolshevik Factorv and was ready for trials in March 1927. Designated T-16, it performed adequately, but a number of improvements were recommended, including the addition of another road wheel and alterations to the transmission. Final tests on the new model were conducted in mid—1927, with the vehicle re-designated as Small Support Tank Model 1927, or T-18. Lack of a gun led to concentration on road tests, during which the T-18 was judged to have performed effectively and it was afterwards recommended for service. The Red Army ordered 108 vehicles to be built between 1928 and 1929, and the first 30 were available to take place in the 7 November 1929 Moscow and Leningrad parades celebrating the revolution. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial"><a target=blank href="http://rapidshare.com/files/150056171/Russian_Tanks_of_World_War_II_-_Stalin_s_Armoured_Might.pdf">Download (rapidshare.com)</a></font></td></tr></table></p></p></font></font>ArmourThu, 02 Oct 2008 20:01:08 +0800Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1579Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1579http://www.military-machine.com/feed.aspfeedsky/Superbase/~7125132/120532581/5233831http://item.feedsky.com/~feedsky/Superbase/~7125132/120532582/5233831/1/item.htmlhttp://www.military-machine.com/feed.asp?q=comment&id=1578<table height="218"><tr><td vAlign="top"> <h1><img src="../uploads/Warship/U-Boats vs Destroyer Escorts - The Battle of The Atlantic.jpg"></h1> </td> <td vAlign="top"> <p class="introText"><br/><font face="Arial" size="2">The battle of the Atlantic pitted Germany's U-boats against Allied convoys sailing from North America and the South Atlantic. The name itself is a bit of a misnomer as it was not one single battle but the longest continuous military campaign of World War II, lasting for six years, stretching over hundreds of miles and involving almost countless combat engagements. By the end of hostilities, the Kriegsmarine's U-boats had sunk in excess of 2,900 ships, representing over 12 million tons of Allied shipping. Despite some post-war claims that the U-boat campaign had no real chance of being successful in the long run, it is clear that the Allied leaders at the time had a different view. Bv January 1943, such were the worries over the U-boats successes that at the Casablanca conference, it was agreed that the defeat of the U-boats was to be a number one priority. Indeed, when summarizing his thoughts on the Battle of the Atlantic, Prime Minister Winston Churchill famously said, 'The only thing that ever really frightened me during the war was the U-boat peril'. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial"><a target=blank href="http://rapidshare.com/files/150037383/U-Boats_vs_Destroyer_Escorts_-_The_Battle_of_The_Atlantic.pdf">Download (rapidshare.com)</a></font></td></tr></table></p></p></font></font>WarshipThu, 02 Oct 2008 19:57:59 +0800Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1578Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1578http://www.military-machine.com/feed.aspfeedsky/Superbase/~7125132/120532582/5233831http://item.feedsky.com/~feedsky/Superbase/~7125132/120532583/5233831/1/item.htmlhttp://www.military-machine.com/feed.asp?q=comment&id=1577<table height="218"><tr><td vAlign="top"> <h1><img src="../uploads/Warship/German Destroyers and Escorts.jpg"></h1> </td> <td vAlign="top"> <p class="introText"><br/><font face="Arial" size="2">In 1934, with the re-emergence of German nationalism, the destroyer force, by then hopelessly outdated, began a rebuilding programme. This programme was initially conducted in great secrecy because Adolf Hitler did not repudiate the Treaty of Versailles until March 1935. The first designs were for 2,270-ton destroyers with 5x1 128 mm (5-inch) main armament and eight torpedo tubes apiece. This was, of course, totally contrary to the Versailles agreement, but the Western Powers stood bv and watched the threat build up. Further building was put in hand with five units being launched in 1935 and seven in 1936. These destrovers were of the 1934 type and were followed by the 1936 type, for as war clouds gathered over Europe more and more of these 'greyhounds' were ordered, their tonnages slowly creeping up. The famous Z-Plan called for 58 destroyers and 90 torpedo boats to be built by 1948, and by the commencement of hostilities in 1939, 20 of each type had been completed. The 1936A (Mob) type (or class) were fitted with a supposedly lightweight forward twin gun turret, but this modern-looking mounting caused considerable problems in service conditions. The problems were, in fact, so severe that the Senior Officer of the 8th Destroyer Flotilla (Flotilla Narvik) felt it necessary to write to the Oberkommando der Marine in Berlin. In his report Kapitan zur See Erdmenger complained bitterly about the seakeeping problems which led to a high crew fatigue rate, especially in that infamous forward turret which still had to be hand loaded. He, like many other destroyer commanders, thought the single A&B mountings of other types to be superior. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial"><a target=blank href="http://rapidshare.com/files/150041858/German_Destroyers_and_Escorts.pdf">Download (rapidshare.com)</a></font></td></tr></table></p></p></font></font>WarshipThu, 02 Oct 2008 19:54:52 +0800Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1577Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1577http://www.military-machine.com/feed.aspfeedsky/Superbase/~7125132/120532583/5233831http://item.feedsky.com/~feedsky/Superbase/~7125132/120532584/5233831/1/item.htmlhttp://www.military-machine.com/feed.asp?q=comment&id=1576<table height="218"><tr><td vAlign="top"> <h1><img src="../uploads/History/World War II Infantry Assault Tactics.jpg"></h1> </td> <td vAlign="top"> <p class="introText"><br/><font face="Arial" size="2">Squads were usually divided into two groups or teams: a 2- to 4-man light machine gun group, and the rifle group. The squad leader might direct both rifle and LMG groups, lead the rifle group in person, or direct the fire of the LMG group. His assistant might lead the rifle group, control the LMG group, or simply position himself where he could best aid the control of the squad - including bringing up the rear to prevent straggling. The US squad began the war with a third team of two scouts, which the squad leader might accompany; this fell from use as all riflemen are actually scouts, and the scout team often got pinned down if deployed forward. The US Marine Corps had informally adopted a fire team concept, of 3 or 4 men centred on an automatic weapon, during the 1930s 'Banana Wars'. They did not accept the squad as the lowest manoeuvre element, and the USMC platoon began the war with three 9-man rifle squads, each with a Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR), plus a separate 8-man BAR squad with two weapons. In April 1943 they went to three 12-man squads each with two BARs capable of operating as two 6-man teams. In April 1944 they adopted a 13-man squad of a leader and three 4-man fire teams, each with a leader, a BAR man, his assistant and one rifleman. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial"><a target=blank href="http://rapidshare.com/files/150038334/World_War_II_Infantry_Assault_Tactics.pdf">Download (rapidshare.com)</a></font></td></tr></table></p></p></font></font>HistoryThu, 02 Oct 2008 19:51:18 +0800Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1576Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1576http://www.military-machine.com/feed.aspfeedsky/Superbase/~7125132/120532584/5233831http://item.feedsky.com/~feedsky/Superbase/~7125132/120532585/5233831/1/item.htmlhttp://www.military-machine.com/feed.asp?q=comment&id=1575<table height="218"><tr><td vAlign="top"> <h1><img src="../uploads/History/The Texas War of Independence 1835-1836.jpg"></h1> </td> <td vAlign="top"> <p class="introText"><br/><font face="Arial" size="2">Mexico negotiated with more empresarios and the population on the land between the Rio Colorado and Rio Brazos increased. North American settlers were lured by the prospect of cheap, fertile land, and by 1831 the settler and slave population of Texas was 20,000, far outnumbering the Mexicans. In just ten years Stephen F. Austin, through skill and determination, had accomplished what over a century of Spanish colonization attempts had failed to do. With this rapid population growth came a perceived danger to the Mexican authorities. The Anglos brought their own ways, including the belief that the rights they had held under the U.S. constitution, were God-given and were just as applicable in Mexico. Largely Protestant, few could speak much Spanish and they felt no loyalty to the Mexican state. Austin described the Mexican character, "Dios castga el escandalo mas que ef crimen" ("God punishes the exposure more than the crime."); unlike the less flamboyant Mexicans, the Texian colonists did everything with as much exposure and posturing as possible, arousing the disapproval and dismay of the Mexican authorities. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial"><a target=blank href="http://rapidshare.com/files/150033909/The_Texas_War_of_Independence_1835-1836.pdf">Download (rapidshare.com)</a></font></td></tr></table></p></p></font></font>HistoryThu, 02 Oct 2008 19:47:46 +0800Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1575Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1575http://www.military-machine.com/feed.aspfeedsky/Superbase/~7125132/120532585/5233831http://item.feedsky.com/~feedsky/Superbase/~7125132/120532586/5233831/1/item.htmlhttp://www.military-machine.com/feed.asp?q=comment&id=1574<table height="218"><tr><td vAlign="top"> <h1><img src="../uploads/History/The British Reconnaissance Corps in World War II.jpg"></h1> </td> <td vAlign="top"> <p class="introText"><br/><font face="Arial" size="2">British experience early in World War II led to many new regiments and corps being added to the Army List; and it was analysis of the performance of the British Expeditionary Force (BFF) in France in 1940 — by a committee under MajGen Bartholomew - that led to the creation of the Reconnaissance Corps. Among the committee's findings was that there were insufficient cavalry regiments to perform the traditional role of reconnaissance for major formations other than the armoured divisions. After considering several means of providing reconnaissance for infantry divisions, the final decision was to create an Infantry Reconnaissance Corps. This new corps - in the event styled simply the Reconnaissance Corps - was born on 14 January 1941 under Royal Warrant, and the War Office published a Special Army Order eight days later. (However, several Reconnaissance units are shown as having come into being on 8 January, with at least one dating its inception to 1 January in its war diary.)</font></p> <p><font face="Arial"><a target=blank href="http://rapidshare.com/files/150057403/The_British_Reconnaissance_Corps_in_World_War_II.pdf">Download (rapidshare.com)</a></font></td></tr></table></p></p></font></font>HistoryThu, 02 Oct 2008 19:40:05 +0800Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1574Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1574http://www.military-machine.com/feed.aspfeedsky/Superbase/~7125132/120532586/5233831http://item.feedsky.com/~feedsky/Superbase/~7125132/120525372/5233831/1/item.htmlhttp://www.military-machine.com/feed.asp?q=comment&id=1573<table height="218"><tr><td vAlign="top"> <h1><img src="../uploads/History/Monmouth Courthouse 1778 - The Last Great Battle in the North.jpg"></h1> </td> <td vAlign="top"> <p class="introText"><br/><font face="Arial" size="2">Through the winter of 1775, Lord George Germain, the new Secretary of State for the American Colonies, organized and dispatched an imposing armada of almost 100 warships and hundreds of transports, carrying 13,000 sailors and 32,000 soldiers. It was led by Rear Admiral Lord Richard Howe and his younger brother, Lieutenant-General Sir William Howe, both favorites of King George III. However, a secondary expedition, a combined naval and land assault on Charleston, was repulsed, further demoralizing the Loyalists. More encouraging was the news from Canada, where Carleton had all but expelled the ''Separate Army" and was preparing to recapture the Lake Champlain forts. By August, the Howes had concentrated their forces off Statin Island, ready to capture New York City and cut off New England - still considered the seat of rebellion. Ordered by Congress to defend New York City, Washington suffered a series of defeats at the hands of Sir William Howe's forces. The latter proved unwilling (or unable) to follow-up his initial successes, and a peace conference on Staten Island in September came to nothing. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial"><a target=blank href="http://rapidshare.com/files/150052914/Monmouth_Courthouse_1778_-_The_Last_Great_Battle_in_the_North.pdf">Download (rapidshare.com)</a></font></td></tr></table></p></p></font></font>HistoryThu, 02 Oct 2008 19:32:26 +0800Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1573Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1573http://www.military-machine.com/feed.aspfeedsky/Superbase/~7125132/120525372/5233831http://item.feedsky.com/~feedsky/Superbase/~7125132/120130393/5233831/1/item.htmlhttp://www.military-machine.com/feed.asp?q=comment&id=1572<table height="218"><tr><td vAlign="top"> <h1><img src="../uploads/History/US Marine Corps Tank Crewman 1965-70 Vietnam.jpg"></h1> </td> <td vAlign="top"> <p class="introText"><br/><font face="Arial" size="2">In World War II the divisional tank battalions provided armored firepower in amphibious assaults, protection against enemy armored counter-attacks, and served as assault guns in protracted infantry battles at places like Iwo Jima and Okinawa. The Pacific campaigns also demonstrated the value of tanks in jungle warfare. The tanks further proved themselves in Korea, and by the 1960s were a fundamental part of the Corps' combined arms team. The Marines routinely deployed tanks with expeditionary units to places like the Lebanon and the Dominican Republic, so when the Marines were ordered to Vietnam in March 1965, they took along their tanks. That decision created a political furor. The presence of the tanks became a lightning rod for accusations of an "escalation" of the war. The Marine Corps operated in I Corps area, the extreme northern part of the Republic of Vietnam. There they faced not just the indigenous Viet Cong (VC) guerrillas, but conventional units of the North Vietnamese Army (NVA), a highly trained and motivated foe. In the Tet Offensive of early 1968 the VC and NVA seized control of major urban centers, including the cultural and spiritual center of the nation, the ancient capital at Hue. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial"><a target=blank href="http://rapidshare.com/files/149549233/US_Marine_Corps_Tank_Crewman_1965-70_Vietnam.pdf.html">Download (rapidshare.com)</a></font></td></tr></table></p></p></font></font>HistoryTue, 30 Sep 2008 09:42:55 +0800Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1572Admin <null@null.com>http://www.military-machine.com/article.asp?id=1572http://www.military-machine.com/feed.aspfeedsky/Superbase/~7125132/120130393/5233831