> Power on the battlefield does not equate historic or modeling interest.
>
It does in this case...the Pacific Theater of war was one where very few
combats occurred where AFVs on either side met each other face-to-face
like happened in the Europian Theater.
The island-hopping tactics meant that neither the Japanese or Allied
forces used tanks in any large numbers during combat, as they all had to
get to a point of combat by sea transport.
This also favored the use of infantry and fairly light artillery....why
do you need a cannon with a twenty-mile range on a island that's around
ten-by-ten miles on a side?
That was field of combat perfect for howitzers and mortars with added
naval gunnery support on both sides.
If the US actually had done an invasion of the Japanese home islands,
things would have been different; but that never happened.
> I'll built a nice looking, ineffective oddball before considering a bland
> winner. Both nations had (to my eyes at least) odd and interesting looking
> vehicles, that would be prime candidates if I were into building armour.
>
You sound like me; I like the stuff that didn't work, and the crazy-a.s
ideas.
That's why I have my model He-177 and Ba-349 Natter.
Everyone else would have a diorama of the battleship Bismarck firing its
guns; I'd have a diorama of the battlecruiser Hood being straddled by
Bismarck's shells just before it all went bye-bye. :-)
Beautiful ship, interesting concept....didn't pan out quite right though.
>
>> 2.) Japanese model companies may equate Japanese ground troops with
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Why don't/didn't the European and especially American companies pick up
> the Japanese subjects?
It took them approximately forever to realize the interest in Japanese
Kamikaze weapons.
First time that happened was the Hasegawa "Betty" with the Ohka in 1/72
scale around... although Hawk Model Company had a Ohka out around thirty
years before that in 1/48th scale.
> Atrocities never stopped them from putting out one
> German set after the other, even making up loads of luft46 stuff when real
> subjects run out. Even ROG has plenty of WWII German stuff kicking around.
>
Hell, tell me about it - Ive got around forty Luft 46 models in 1/72
scale sitting in my bedroom; a lot of them due to Huma Models of Germany.
> As for putting their past behind them, as long as there are those who can
> use the past for their own political or financial gain, neither Japan nor
> Germany will ever be allowed to do so. This will be made to fester long
> after all those involved have died. The sins of the ancestors will be
> visited upon the decendants as long as it remains profitable.
>
Trying to forget the truth of what happened in the past leads to future
disasters for the nation that tries it.
Once, the US set out to bring the blessings of democracy to Vietnam at
the point of a gun.
It didn't work.
...but around forty years later, it seemed like a doable thing again.
It would all have worked if only we had had Rambo with us.
In the movies, you always can win.
Pat
crw59@earthlink.net - 11 Mar 2008 20:04 GMT
> >> 2.) Japanese model companies may equate Japanese ground troops with
> >> things like the rape of Nanking, and would prefer to put the whole
> >> "unfortunate historical incident" as they refer to that and the Korean
> >> "comfort girls" behind them, ASAP.
I guess that means not to expect anything soon from Trumpeter.....
Craig
someone@some.domain - 11 Mar 2008 20:38 GMT
>> Power on the battlefield does not equate historic or modeling interest.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 70 lines]
>
>Pat
don't forget to show a jarhead demonstrating how NOT to use a japanese tree
mortar. ouch!
Pat Flannery - 12 Mar 2008 11:22 GMT
> don't forget to show a jarhead demonstrating how NOT to use a japanese tree
> mortar. ouch!
>
I don't know about a "tree mortar" but the "Knee Mortar" was good for a
quick trip to the hospital.
Pat
someone@some.domain - 12 Mar 2008 18:55 GMT
>> don't forget to show a jarhead demonstrating how NOT to use a japanese tree
>> mortar. ouch!
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>Pat
same thing. the japanes called it a tree mortar because you were supposed to
use the bowl of a tree to anchor.
i cite ian hogg and my uncle.
Pat Flannery - 13 Mar 2008 01:37 GMT
> same thing. the japanes called it a tree mortar because you were supposed to
> use the bowl of a tree to anchor.
> i cite ian hogg and my uncle.
>
In case anyone doesn't know what we are talking about, it's this odd
little weapon:
http://members.shaw.ca/nambuworld/t89pix.htm
It proved to be a fairly effective weapon capable of being carried by a
individual troop.
The grenade it fired seems more like a rocket/shell hybrid than a
conventional mortar round, as it carries its propellants internally,
with the gas exiting through holes in the base of the projectile.
Pat
someone@some.domain - 13 Mar 2008 02:54 GMT
>> same thing. the japanes called it a tree mortar because you were supposed to
>> use the bowl of a tree to anchor.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
>Pat
and it could be aimed really well by an expirienced user.
i've read marines saying some japs could drop them on a dime.
soldiers carrying one were the high priority target value of a flamethrower.