Why the world's two biggest countries may soon be in conflict - We Are The Mighty
MIGHTY TRENDING

Why the world’s two biggest countries may soon be in conflict

At the end of August, 2017, India and China backed away from a 73-day standoff on the Doklam Plateau, high in the eastern Himalayas.

In the year since, both sides have sought to mend ties, especially after a summit between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Xi Jinping in the eastern Chinese city of Wuhan in April, 2018.

The two countries are engaged in a kind of “recalibration” of their relationship, even though deeper-rooted issues that divide them persist, according to Faisel Pervaiz, a South Asia analyst at geopolitical-intelligence firm Stratfor.


The appointment of Vijay Gokhale, who was ambassador to China during the Doklam crisis and helped resolve the dispute, to foreign secretary was “an indication that India wants to take … a less confrontational posture,” Pervaiz said.

China, too, has come to believe it needs “a bit more calm” with its neighbors, including India, in part because of contentious relations with the US, Pervaiz added, though he stressed that Beijing’s change in thinking was likely temporary. China has also made overtures to India about a potential partnership in trade disputes with the US.

In October 2018, New Delhi and Beijing launched a joint program to train Afghan diplomats, and China’s ambassador to the country predicted more cooperation there in the future. In late October 2018, they are to sign a long-discussed internal-security agreement expected to cover cooperation on intelligence sharing, disaster mitigation, and other issues.

Despite the apparent rapprochement, the two countries are keeping a close eye on each other.

While India has largely pulled back from positions it took during the Doklam standoff, imagery reviewed by Stratfor in January 2018 showed that in late 2017 and early 2018, Delhi increased its deployments of combat aircraft to bases near the disputed area.

Those images showed even more activity around Chinese bases in Tibet, north of the disputed area, including airfield upgrades and a large aircraft presence. (China puts more assets at those bases because it does not have bases closer to the border area.)

In October 2018, officials told Hindustan Times that Delhi was concerned about construction at the Chinese air base in Lhasa, which included bomb-proof bunkers for aircraft and expanded surface-to-air missile batteries.

“You need blast- or bomb-proof hangars for fighters only if there is a possibility of hostilities,” one official said.

Any activity with military hardware or other assets that could have military applications around the eastern end of India and China’s shared border was likely to attract scrutiny, Pervaiz said.”

If you are India or China and you are seeing any sort of moves that either military is making, you view that almost through the lens of paranoia — that if you’re making that move, how can that be used against us in a potential conflict?” he told Business Insider.

The Doklam Plateau

(Google Maps)

The Doklam Plateau sits at the southern edge of the Himalayan mountain range, where the elevation is on average close to 15,000 feet. High altitudes and rough terrain put considerable limitations on military operations.

While the higher elevation gives China an advantage in surveillance and physiological acclimatization, lower air density hinders jet aircraft engines and limits the weaponry and fuel that aircraft can carry. China’s air force is larger than India’s, but it only has five air bases in Tibet — though upgrades at the Lhasa base described by Hindustan Times include special helicopter bases that allow them to take off and land with full payloads.

India’s air power in the region would offer it some advantages. Indian air bases, including those that received more aircraft in 2018, are closer to the area in question than China’s bases. India counts 20 air bases within range of the Line of Actual Control, which separates Indian- and Chinese-claimed territory.

India has also also practiced with transport planes at forward landing areas in the region.

But China’s air defenses are more effective and reliable than India’s. And China has more artillery that can fire farther and is more mobile.

Thin air at higher elevations hinders traditional rocket propulsion, but Chinese officials claimed in August 2018 they were progressing on a type of electromagnetic propulsion that would give rocket artillery longer range and more accuracy.

Both countries can be expected to use land-attack cruise missiles — the Indian Su-30MKI jets deployed to the area are capable of firing India’s Brahmos missile. But China has a larger inventory of them, and the paucity of Chinese targets in the area north of the border would likely mean Beijing would have the edge.

Much of the fighting in a conflict around Doklam would likely be done on the ground, even though the terrain would limit quick strikes and mass movement of troops.

Both countries are among the most largest militaries in the world. China’s 2.1 million active-duty troops are far more than India’s 1.3 million, though Indian troops may bring more experience to bear.

Indian fought its last war, with Pakistan, in 1999 and has been involved in sporatic clashes with Pakistan, as well as counterterror and counter-insurgency operations for years. (Delhi was developing a special Mountain Strike Corps for the northern border, but it was shelved in summer 2018.)

An Indian Air Force Su-30 MKI

(Aeroprints.com)

China fought its last war in 1979 — a three-week incursion into Vietnam that ended with China’s withdrawal, though both sides claimed victory. Xi has ordered China’s military to increase readiness and launched reforms to the force.

Along the Line of Actual Control, however, China may gain an edge through superior command, control, and communications and through its unified command structure in the region, whereas India divides the region among three combatant commands.

India is aware that it would likely lose a military confrontation with China, Pervaiz said, as it did in 1962. (Mao later said China invaded essentially to teach India a lesson.)

A conflict now is not in the interest of either country, he added, but “they both are going to continue to sharpen their capabilities in the event that there ever is a conflict [in order] to be able to fight and execute on that conflict, no doubt about it.”

Since the end of the Doklam standoff, China has kept the assets it deployed there — tents, bunkers, and vehicles, Pervaiz said — in place, even as Indian forces withdrew.

Questioned about that change in parliament in 2018, the Indian Defense Ministry tacitly admitted “China has actually altered those facts on the ground” and India had to accept the change, Pervaiz said.

India too has pursued a longer-term shift in its strategy toward the disputed border.

Delhi tried to minimize the number of roads in the border area after the 1962 war in order to deprive future enemies of transportation routes.

Indian Army Soldiers of the Madras Regiment (left) and Chinese People’s Liberation Army during the Moscow Victory Day Parade (right)

Since the 1990s, however, India has switched to what Pervaiz called “an offensive-defense posture, meaning that we’re not just going to deny the Chinese access to roads in our region. We’re actually going to start building more roads and infrastructure so that our military can be better positioned.”

Amid the recalibration, the broader strategic issues driving tensions between India and China — the border dispute or China’s partnership with India’s rival, Pakistan — have not dissipated, suggesting the current period is one in which both sides are trying to manage their disputes, which Pervaiz analogized to treating a chronic illness.

“It may be that the physician says that you’re not going to get rid of this,” he said. “This is something you’re going to have to live with for the rest of your life, but we can manage it … and then the symptoms can stay under control.”

Even though neither side sees conflict as in their interest, deep-seated disputes that persist raise the chances one may occur.

“In the long run, because the strategic drivers are still there, and they’re building up their assets, the roads, the bunkers,” Pervaiz said, “that that does mean in the future, there’s actually a heightened probability there’s going to be some sort of confrontation, even if it’s a small one.”

This article originally appeared on Business Insider. Follow @BusinessInsider on Twitter.

MIGHTY TRENDING

Army wants to know how a soldier was shot during expert test

Army officials at Fort Polk, Louisiana, are trying to determine how a soldier was shot during training in October 2018 since the incident did not occur during a live-fire event.

The soldier from 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, was shot accidentally while going through Expert Infantryman Badge (EIB) testing at 2 p.m. Oct. 26, 2018, according to Kim Reischling, a spokeswoman for Fort Polk.


The Army did not release the soldier’s name, but Reischling said he is in stable condition.

Infantry soldiers participate in testing each year to show they have mastered their core infantry skills and to earn the EIB, a distinctive badge consisting of a silver musket on a blue field.

Expert Infantryman Badge candidates wait at the start of the 12-mile foot march before the sun rises, April 3, 2014.

The testing requires soldiers to pass a day-and-night land navigation course; complete a 12-mile road march with their weapon, individual equipment and a 35-pound rucksack within three hours; and pass several individual tests involving weapons, first aid and patrolling techniques.

Soldiers are required to have their weapons with them during EIB testing, but there “shouldn’t have been live rounds” present when the soldier was shot, Reischling said.

The incident remains under investigation, she said.

This article originally appeared on Military.com. Follow @militarydotcom on Twitter.

MIGHTY MOVIES

The 15 meanest and best family movie insults

No matter how calm, cool, and collected you are, fighting is an unavoidable part of life. And while you’re sure to take your share of insults from friends, coworkers, and strangers, we all know deep down that nobody can tear you a new one quite like your flesh and blood. And this universal truth is constantly shown onscreen, as nearly every great family movie features an iconic family fight that includes a variety of insults that are hilarious or heartbreaking or, in some instances, both at the same time. So, in honor of Family Fight Week, Fatherly decided to round up the 15 meanest insults in movie family history. Enjoy the beautiful brutality.


www.youtube.com

E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (Brother vs. Brother)

Elliot (To his brother Michael): “It was nothing like that, penis breath!”

When Elliot has finally had enough of his older brother teasing him, he busts out this hilarious insult to shut him up. It’s such an unexpectedly solid burn that Elliot’s mom has to stifle laughter while she tries to reprimand her son’s foul mouth.

www.youtube.com

Step Brothers (Stepbrother vs. Stepbrother)

Dale: “You and your mom are hillbillies. This is a house of learned doctors.”
Brennan: “You’re not a doctor. You’re a big, fat, curly-headed fuck.”

The first 45 minutes of this insane family comedy pretty much revolves around Brennan (Will Ferrell) and Dale (John C. Reilly) seeing who can sling the most vicious insult at the other. And none hit harder than when Brennan drops this perfect diss on his new fully grown stepbrother to make it clear that he is the furthest thing from a doctor.

www.youtube.com

War of the Roses (Husband vs. Wife)

Oliver: “I think you owe me a solid reason. I worked my ass off for you and the kids to have a nice life and you owe me a reason that makes sense. I want to hear it.”

Barbara: “Because. When I watch you eat. When I see you asleep. When I look at you lately, I just want to smash your face in.”

Oliver Rose (Michael Douglas) likely did not realize how blunt Barbara (Kathleen Turner) would be when he asked her to explain why she wanted a divorce. Sometimes the truth sets you free and other times it kicks you right in the groin over and over.

www.youtube.com

Knocked Up (Wife vs. Husband)

Debbie (To her husband Pete): “I know we’re supposed to be nice with each other right now but I’m having a really hard time with it. I’m struggling with it right now. I want to rip your head off because you’re so fucking stupid.”

When Debbie (Leslie Mann) tries to convince Pete (Paul Rudd) to take his parenting responsibilities more serious, he continues to make jokes, leading her to not-so-subtly threaten him while letting him know that she thinks he’s a total moron. Because nobody knows how to tear you apart more than your soulmate, am I right?

www.youtube.com

Thor (Father vs. Son)

Odin: You are a vain, greedy, cruel boy.
Thor: And you are an old man and a fool.

When Odin (Anthony Hopkins) reprimands his son Thor (Chris Hemsworth) for his immature and self-centered attitude, it quickly devolves into a Shakespearean battle of the wits, with both letting the other know what they really think of them in the most creative and mean-spirited way possible.

www.youtube.com

Home Alone (Uncle vs. Nephew)

Uncle Frank (To his Nephew Kevin): “Look what you did, you little jerk!”

Poor Kevin receives his fair share of verbal abuse from family members but this insult from his uncle sticks out because it comes from a real place. That palpable sense of frustration and disdain cuts far deeper than any clever French insult ever could.

www.youtube.com

Dan In Real Life (Daughter vs. Father)

Cara (To her dad): You are a murderer of love!

On the surface, this might seem less vitriolic than most of the other insults on the list but once you see the pure passion and hatred coming from Cara (Britt Robertson), you can see why Dan seemed a little scared watching her scream from the front yard.

www.youtube.com

Zoolander (Father vs. Son)

Larry Zoolander (To his son Derek): “You’re dead to me, boy. You’re more dead to me than your dead mother. I just thank the Lord she didn’t live to see her son as a mermaid.”

When Derek (Ben Stiller) returns home to rediscover who he is, he finds that his dad Larry (Jon Voight) doesn’t take too kindly to his vain, superficial lifestyle. And things really come to a head when a commercial comes on that features Derek as a dimwitted mermaid (MERMAN!). In a fit of shame and rage, Larry tells Derek the extremely harsh truth that he is dead to him and that his dead mother would be ashamed of him.

www.youtube.com

Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (Father vs. Son)

Denethor: Is there a captain here who still has the courage to do his lord’s will?
Faramir: You wish now that our places had been exchanged… that I had died and Boromir had lived.
Denethor: Yes, I wish that.
Faramir: Since you are robbed of Boromir… I will do what I can in his stead. If I should return, think better of me, Father.
Denethor: That will depend on the manner of your return.

Poor, Faramir. All he ever wants to do is make his dad proud and how does Denethor treat him in return? Like a waste of time and space. Even when Faramir offers to essentially ride to his death to please his father, Denethor still throws shade.

www.youtube.com

Donnie Darko (Brother vs. Sister)

Donnie: You’re such a fuck-ass!
Elizabeth: What? Did you just call me a “fuck-ass”? You can go suck a fuck.
Donnie: Oh, please, tell me, Elizabeth, how exactly does one suck a fuck?
Elizabeth: You want me to tell you?

There is an anger that exists between siblings that can’t be found anywhere else. It’s an anger that is raw and causes all sense of propriety to fade away in favor of pure, unadulterated rage. And when Donnie (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Elizabeth (Maggie Gyllenhaal) begin sniping at each other during family dinner, it’s not too long before they begin battling over who can find the most ridiculous way to tell the other to go fuck themselves. And yes, bonus points because they’re actually siblings.

www.youtube.com

Jersey Girl (Daughter vs. Father)

Gertie: “I hate you! I hate you! I wish you died, not mommy!”
Ollie: “I hate you right back, you little shit. You and your mom took my life away from me. I just want it back!”

Every parent has that moment where they are pushed to the edge and say something to their kid they will regret later but Ollie (Ben Affleck) went about nine steps too far by telling his daughter Gertie (Raquel Castro) he hates her and blames her for his lack of success in life. Even when you know it’s coming, it’s still hard to watch.

www.youtube.com

Talladega Nights (Father-in-Law vs. Son-in-Law)

Chip: You’re gonna let your sons talk to their grandfather that way? I’m their elder.
Ricky: I sure as hell am, Chip. I love how they’re talking to you cause they’re winners. Winners get to do what they want. Hell, you’re just a bag of bones. The only thing you’ve ever done is make a hot daughter. That’s it. That’s it. THAT IS IT!

The relationship between a spouse in their in-laws is never easy but it is especially difficult when a son-in-law has no problem letting his wife’s husband know he believes he is entirely useless, beyond the fact that he made his wife.

www.youtube.com

Warrior (Son vs. Father)

Paddy: Come on, kiddo. I’ve been there. I’ve done it. I’ve seen it. You can trust me. I’ll understand.
Tom: Spare me the compassionate father routine, Pop. The suit don’t fit.
Paddy: I’m really trying here, Tommy.
Tom: You’re trying? Now? Where were you when it mattered? I needed this guy back when I was a kid. I don’t need you now. It’s too late now. Everything’s already happened. You and Brendan don’t seem to understand that. Let me explain something to you: the only thing I have in common with Brendan Conlon is that we have absolutely no use for you.

This entire movie is about estranged relatives who are forced to interact with each other, so it should come as no surprise that Warrior is filled with some of the cruelest familial insults in cinematic history, including a devastating exchange between Tom (Tom Hardy) and his dad Paddy (Nick Nolte). Tom doesn’t just hurt his dad; he destroys him.

www.youtube.com

Nine Months (Wife vs. Husband)

Gail (To her husband Marty): I hate you! You did this to me you miserable piece of dick-brained, horseshit slime-sucking son of a whore bitch!

It’s no secret that giving birth is a painful experience and that as much as dads try to sympathize, they’ll never really know what that pain is like. But that doesn’t keep Gail (Joan Cusack) from trying to unleash her pain onto Marty (Tom Arnold) as she is about to give birth, as she uses her agony to create a string of poetic vulgarities directed at her husband.

Walk The Line (Father vs. Son)

Ray Cash (To his son Johnny): “Mister big shot, mister pill poppin’ rock star. Who are you to judge? You ain’t got nothing. Big empty house? Nothing. Children you don’t see? Nothing. Big old expensive tractor stuck in the mud? Nothing.”

If this list proves anything, it’s that fathers have the ability to hurt kids in a way that nobody else can. Look no further than this excruciating moment where Ray Cash (Robert Patrick) lets his son Johnny (Joaquin Phoenix) know how pathetic he finds his entire existence. (Note: we could not find this clip online anywhere, guess you’re just going to have to watch the movie!)

This article originally appeared on Fatherly. Follow @FatherlyHQ on Twitter.

MIGHTY HISTORY

These are the 7 rules for fighting a ‘just war’

Countries go to war for a lot of reasons these days. Turkey invaded Syria to keep the Kurds from declaring it to be their homeland. The United States and The United Kingdom almost went to war over a pig. Some 2,000 people died in the fighting between two Italian states because someone stole a bucket. While those are all dumb, there are some good reasons to fight a war, and that’s what the “Just War” philosophers have been working on forever.


Over the years, a number of principles have been boiled down from the world of philosophy addressing the subject, as everyone from Saint Thomas Aquinas to NPR have produced their thoughts on the ethics of killing in uniforms. See if your favorite war fits the criteria!

Get in losers, we’re gonna go liberate Kuwait.

It has to be a last resort.

The only way to justify the use of force is to exhaust all other options. If the enemy could be talked down from doing whatever it is they’re doing instead of fighting them to stop them by force, the war can’t be justifiable. In Desert Storm, for example, President Bush gave Saddam Hussein a time limit to remove his forces from Kuwait before bringing down the thunder, that just didn’t persuade Hussein.

It must be declared by a legitimate authority.

Some countries have very specific rules about this. A war cannot be declared by just anyone. What may be egregious to one person or group may not apply equally to the country as a whole, and the rest of the world needs to recognize the need and the legitimacy of the actions taken as well as the authority of those who send their people to war.

A just war is fought to right a wrong.

If someone attacks you out of the blue, you are completely within your right to defend yourself by any means necessary. If a country is seeking to redress a wrong committed against it, then war is justifiable. When the Japanese Empire attacked the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor in 1941, it was sufficient enough to send the United States to war.

You have to have a shot at winning it.

Even if one country sucker-punches another or has good intentions in its decision to go to war, it’s not a justified war if that country cannot win it. If fighting a war is a hopeless cause, and the country is just going to send men to their deaths for no end, it cannot be morally justified.

It’s also kind of dickish to do that to your population.

The goal of the war should be to restore peace.

If you’re going to war, the postwar peace you seek has to be better than the peace your country is currently experiencing. Of course, Germany thought going to war in World War II was a just cause. The Treaty of Versailles was really unkind to them. Does it mean they were allowed to kill off the population of Eastern Europe for living space? Absolutely not.

You should only be as violent as you have to be to right the wrongs.

Remember, if you’re going to start a just war, you’re fighting to right a wrong, to redress a grievance. If you start the wholesale slaughter of enemy troops, that’s not a just war by any means. The violence and force used by one country against another have to be equal.

Only kill the combatants.

It seems like a foregone conclusion that an invading force shouldn’t murder enemy civilians, but looking at history – especially recent history – it looks like that’s what it’s come to. A legitimate warrior only kills those on the enemy’s forces who are lawful combatants.

MIGHTY HISTORY

The 10 most important tank battles in history

The tank is one of the most important weapon systems on the battlefield. Few weapons strike enemy soldiers with the fear that a fully loaded tank rolling towards them does.

After their trial by fire on the fields of Europe in World War I, tanks have become a necessity for any army that wants to be considered a serious foe.

In the one hundred years since its invention, tanks have been the winning factor in a number of battles. Entire wars have depended on their successful use.


Take a look at how 10 of the biggest tank battles in history went:

Battle of Cambrai: November 20 – December 8, 1917

A Mark IV (Male) tank of ‘H’ Battalion, ‘Hyacinth’, ditched in a German trench while supporting 1st Battalion, Leicestershire Regiment near Ribecourt during the Battle of Cambrai, 20 November 1917.

The Battle of Cambrai was the first time tanks were used on a large scale for a military offensive. The objective was to take the commune of Cambrai, an important supply point for the Germans at the heart of the Hindenburg Line, in order to reduce the pressure on the French.

Nineteen British divisions were assembled for the battle, including 476 tanks and five horsed cavalry divisions.

The initial attack on November 20th was met with huge success. The British had torn through four miles of German defenses and captured up to 7,500 prisoners with low casualties.

But by the end of the day, more than half of the tanks were out of action due to mechanical failure. The German Army launched a massive counterattack, and brutal trench warfare ensued.

By the end of the battle, almost all the British gains were lost, over 100 tanks were lost or destroyed, and both sides suffered around 40,000 casualties each.

Battle of Hannut: May 12 – 14, 1940

Two destroyed French SOMUA S35s and an artillery piece being inspected by German soldiers, May, 1940.

The Battle of Hannut was fought during the Battle of Belgium, Nazi Germany’s invasion of the Low Countries. It was part of the Wehrmacht’s thrust into the Ardennes region, and was meant to tie down the French First Army.

It was both the largest tank battle of the campaign, and the largest battle in armored warfare history at the time. Over 600 German tanks and 25,000 soldiers squared off against 600 French and Dutch armored vehicles and around 20,000 soldiers.

The battle was technically inconclusive. Some of the French First Army was able to fight their way through the Germans to reunite with their British comrades at Dunkirk, but they had lost well over 100 of their tanks and armored vehicles.

German losses were much lighter, with only around 50 tanks lost. While the French SOMUA S35 tank was considered as one of the best at the time, German tactics and communication technology made the Wehrmacht better.

Battle of Raseiniai: June 23 – 27, 1941

An abandoned Soviet A KV-2 tank, June, 1941.

The Battle of Raseiniai was a large tank battle fought at the beginning of Operation Barbarossa, Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union. The battle was fought in Lithuania, then part of the Soviet Union’s Northwestern Front.

Some 240 German tanks from the 4th Panzer Group were tasked with destroying almost 750 Soviet tanks of the 3rd and 12th Mechanized Corps.

Despite their numerical advantage over the Wehrmacht, the result of the battle was an utter catastrophe for the Soviets. Some 700 Soviet tanks and their crews — almost the entirety of the Soviet Union’s deployed mechanized units on the Northwestern Front — were destroyed, damaged, or captured.

A large part of the German victory was due to their use of airpower. The Luftwaffe was unchallenged during the battle, and the close tank formations of the Soviets were easy targets for Ju 88 aircraft.

Battle of Brody: June 23 – 30, 1941

A German infantryman near a burning Soviet BT-5 tank, June, 1941.

The Battle of Brody is the largest tank battle in history, according to some historians.

Also fought during the beginning stages of Operation Barbarossa, the battle saw some 1,000 German panzers of the 1st Panzer Group’s III Army Corps smash into 3,000 Soviet tanks from the six mechanized corps of the Soviet 5th and 6th Armies.

Again outnumbered, the Wehrmacht proved that superior training, tactics, communication technology, and air support make all the difference.

The exact number of casualties is not known, but estimates put Soviet tank losses at somewhere between 800 to over 1,000. The Wehrmacht also suffered heavy casualties, with anywhere between 200 to 350 tanks destroyed.

“This, in fact, is the biggest tank battle in World War II, and sparsely a word has been written on it,” according to David Glantz, a historian of the Eastern Front and Soviet military.

Second Battle of El Alamein: October 23 – November 11, 1942

A mine explodes close to a British artillery tractor as it advances through enemy minefields and wire to the new front line, October 1942.

The Second Battle of El Alamein saw two legendary generals, Britain’s Bernard Montgomery, and Germany’s Erwin Rommel — who was nicknamed the “Desert Fox” — fight for the fate of North Africa.

North Africa had been a battleground since Fascist Italy’s invasion of Egypt in 1940. Germany’s Afrikakorps had to step in to prevent their defeat in 1941, and were able to push the British all the way into Egypt.

They were stopped at the First Battle of El Alamein, which, though technically a stalemate, did prevent the Afrikakorps from rolling through the rest of Egypt, and by extension the Middle East.

Montgomery assembled a force for a counterattack, including around 190,000 men and over 1,000 tanks. Rommel commanded a force of 116,000 German and Italian soldiers, and 540 tanks.

After days of hard fighting in the Egyptian desert, Montgomery was victorious. Five hundred German and Italian tanks, almost all of Rommel’s force, were destroyed or captured.

With the Americans launching Operation Torch in November 1942, the tide against the Germans began to turn in North Africa.

Battle of Prokhorovka: July 12, 1943

Panzer IIIs and IVs on the southern side of the Kursk salient at the start of Operation Citadel, July 1943.

The Battle of Prokhorovka took place during the larger Battle of Kursk. It was long thought to be the largest tank battle in history, but according to the book Demolishing the Myth: The Tank Battle at Prokhorovka, Kursk, July 1943 by Valeriy Zamulin, a Russian military historian, that is not the case.

But that is not to say it was small or insignificant. The battle saw over 600 Soviet tanks from the 5th Guards Tank Army smash head on into around 300 German tanks from the II SS-Panzer Corps.

The fighting was some of the most intense in the history of armored warfare. The Soviets lost around 400 tanks, more than half of their force. German tank losses were smaller by comparison, up to 80 tanks and assault guns destroyed.

The Germans were unable to take Prokhorovka, and although it was not destroyed (the original goal of the Soviets), the II SS-Panzer Corps was exhausted, and prevented from continuing their offensive.

Thus, the momentum swung to the side of the Soviets, who eventually won the Battle of Kursk

Operation Goodwood: July 18 – 20, 1944

Sherman tanks carrying infantry wait for the order to advance at the start of Operation ‘Goodwood’, 18 July 1944.

Operation Goodwood was a British offensive that was part of the Battle for Caen, one of the main inland targets that was part of Operation Overlord, the Allied invasion of Normandy. The goal was to break through to Caen so that it could be liberated.

The British had mustered as many as 1,100 tanks for the battle. The Wehrmacht had only around 370 tanks at their disposal, but they included the fearsome Tiger and Tiger II tanks.

The battle did not go the way the British intended. Their casualties were 5,000 men and 250 to 300 tanks destroyed. German losses were 75 tanks destroyed, mostly by airstrikes.

Operation Goodwood did cause some controversy. Montgomery claimed that all the objectives were achieved and that the mission was a success. But the British had only managed to penetrate roughly seven miles or so East of Caen.

But Goodwood did draw valuable German tanks away from the Western part of Caen, where the Americans were making their push to the city.

Battle of Chawinda: September 17 – 22, 1965

Indian soldiers in front of a destroyed Pakistani Sherman tank during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965.

The Battle of Chawinda was one of the largest tank battles fought since World War II. It was part of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, fought over control of Jammu and Kashmir.

After the Pakistani Army’s attempt to foment an insurgency (Operation Gibraltar) was discovered and subsequently foiled, India retaliated with an outright attack along the Pakistani border.

The Indian military had planned to take the city of Sialkot, an important railway hub and central part of the Grand Trunk Road, so that they could use it as a beachhead for further operations into Pakistan.

But the Indian force of 80,000 to 150,000 soldiers and 230 tanks was met outside of their objective at Chawinda by a Pakistani force of 30,000 to 50,000 men and 132 tanks.

After more than a day of intense fighting, a UNSC resolution was signed and an unconditional ceasefire was implemented. India lost anywhere between 29 to 129 tanks, whereas Pakistan lost up to 44 tanks.

Battle of the Valley of Tears: October 6 – 9, 1973

Israeli troops fight off Syrian soldiers in the Golan Heights, the area was later named the Valley of Tears

The Battle of the Valley of Tears was fought between Israel and Syria during the Yom Kippur War of 1973. The war had started on the holiest day in Judaism, when Syrian soldiers supported by 1,400 tanks crossed the border and invaded the Jewish state.

Just one Israeli armored brigade, roughly 100 or so tanks and armored vehicles stood in the way of the Syrian 7th Division, a force of 1,400 tanks, including 400 T-62s, at the time the most modern Soviet tank in the field.

The Israelis were manning British and American-made Centurion tanks, known for their good gunner sights. Unable to call in effective air support, the Israeli defenders dug in and fought off wave after wave of Syrian tank attacks.

Some Syrian tanks broke through, causing the Israeli tanks to turn their turrets backwards to destroy them. But one by one, the Israeli Centurions were knocked out.

But on the fourth day of the fighting, Israeli reinforcements arrived, and the Syrians were forced to withdraw. Almost all of Israel’s tanks were destroyed, but they gave far more than they got — Syrian armored vehicle losses were around 500, around 250 of which were tanks.

Battle of 73 Easting: February 26 – 27, 1991

An Iraqi Type 69 main battle tank burns after an attack by the 1st United Kingdom Armored Division during Operation Desert Storm, February 28, 1991.

The Battle of 73 Easting saw American and British tanks go up against Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi Republican Guard Tawakalna Division. Saddam had been warning his people that the “mother of all battles” was on the horizon, and the battle of 73 Easting was certainly part of it.

The main part of the battle was fought between the US 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment and Iraq’s 18th Mechanized Brigade and 37th Armored Brigade.

The ensuing battle saw the Iraqi forces be completely decimated. Over 160 tanks and armored personnel carriers were destroyed, damaged, or captured by US forces. Up to 1,000 Iraqi soldiers were killed or wounded, and over 1,000 more were taken prisoner.

US losses were just six killed, 19 wounded, and one Bradley infantry fighting vehicle destroyed. Historian and author Rick Atkinson described the battle:

“Here could be seen, with almost flawless precision, the lethality of modern American weapons; the hegemony offered by AirLand Battle doctrine, with its brutal ballet of armor, artillery, and air power; and, not least, the élan of the American soldier, who fought with a competence worthy of his forefathers on more celebrated battlefields in more celebrated wars.”

This article originally appeared on Business Insider. Follow @BusinessInsider on Twitter.

Articles

Army ground-launched Hellfire missiles destroys drone target

The U.S. Army destroyed a flying drone target with a Hellfire missile fired from a truck-mounted launcher designed to protect ground troops from enemy rockets, mortars, artillery fire, cruise missiles and aircraft, service officials explained.


The live-fire test, which took place at White Sands Missile Range, N.M., a Multi-Mission Launcher shot the Hellfire out of one of 15 rotating launch tubes mounted onto a mobile tactical truck.

“The MML is mounted on a medium tactical vehicle. The launcher can rotate 360 degrees and elevate from 0 to 90 degrees. It consists of fifteen tubes, each of which can hold either a single large interceptor or multiple smaller interceptors,” an Army statement said.

With ISIS rocket fire killing a U.S. Marine at a firebase in Iraq recently, this emerging ground-based troop protection is the kind of system which could quickly make and operational difference for forces in combat situations.

The firing represents an adaptation of the Hellfire missile, a 100-pound tank-killing weapons typically fired from aircraft such as Gray Eagle, Predator and Reaper drones and Apache attack helicopters, among others.

The Hellfire was fired as part of a development force protection technology called “Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 2-Intercept (IFPC Inc. 2-I).” The live fire exercise demonstrated the ability to fire a second interceptor type because the Multi-Mission launcher has also fired a ground-launched Stinger anti-aircraft missile and a AIM-9X missile, an air-to-air attack weapon adapted for ground-fire troop protection.

US Army photo by John A. Hamilton

“We are fully integrated with AIM-9X and Longbow (Hellfire). This is a monumental effort by our PEO family,” Col. Terrence Howard, Project Manager, Cruise Missile Defense Systems Project Office, PEO Missiles and Space told Scout Warrior.

The Multi-Mission launcher works in tandem with radar and fire-control software to identify, track, pinpoint and destroy approaching enemy air threats with an interceptor missile.

IFPC Inc 2-I is a joint collaborative effort between the Army’s Program Executive Office for Missiles and Space’s Cruise Missile Defense Systems Project Office and the Army Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center, an Army statement said.

“This is a capability that, when fully matured and fielded, will match and counter a very wide variety of sophisticated airborne threats. MML will greatly help protect our ground troops from harm’s way under the most stressing battlespace operating conditions,” James Lackey, Director of AMRDEC, told Scout Warrior in a statement.

The IFPC Inc 2-I System will use a technology called Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System for its command and control along with a Sentinel radar system to provide 360-degree protection with the ability to engage simultaneous threats arriving from different angles of attack, Army officials said.

“MML (Multi-Mission Launcher) gives me confidence we can do more of these types of efforts when it comes to future prototyping,” Lackey added.

The live-fire demonstration involved Army subject matter experts, industry participants and international partners interested in the systems’ development.

“This is a marked achievement that proves the open systems architecture of the IFPC capability works as designed.  We have demonstrated the ability to offer a multiple interceptor solution to defeat multiple threats. True multi-mission capability” Lt. Col. Michael Fitzgerald, IFPC Product Manager.

Weapons development experts are now using telemetry and data collection systems to assess the results of the live fire with a mind to quickly preparing the system for combat use. The weapon should be ready for combat within three to five years.

MIGHTY TACTICAL

F-35s train in ‘beast mode’ in response to China’s ‘carrier killers’

US Marine Corps F-35B pilots aboard the USS Wasp, an amphibious assault ship, took off with externally stored missiles in the Philippine Sea, which suggests they trained for all-out aerial combat with China.

The move came just days after China deployed its DF-26 missiles that experts say can take down US aircraft carriers from thousands of miles away.


The Wasp regularly patrols the western Pacific and became the first ship to host combat-ready F-35s, the first-ever carrier-launched stealth jets. The F-35B is a short-landing and short-take-off version of the aircraft designed for Marine pilots.

An F-35B Lightning II makes the first vertical landing on a flight deck at sea aboard the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp

(U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Seaman Natasha R. Chalk)

Because of the F-35’s stealth design, it usually stores weapons in an internal bay to preserve its radar-evading shape.

So when the F-35 flies with weapons outside the bay, it’s flying in what Lockheed Martin calls “beast mode.”

The F-35 holds only four air-to-air missiles on combat-focused air missions, and just two when it splits the mission between air-to-ground and air-to-air.

But with weapons pylons attached, Lockheed Martin has pitched the F-35 as an all-out bomb truck with 18,000 pounds’ worth of bombs and missiles in and under the wings.

While the F-35 has never actually tested this extensive loadout, the F-35Bs aboard the Wasp in January 2019 took off with two weapons pylons and at least one dummy air-to-air missile.

A fully loaded F-35A.

(Frank Crebas via YouTube)

Other pictures of the F-35s on the Wasp showed guided bombs being loaded up into the jets.

Flying with dummy missiles and pylons under the wings trains F-35 pilots on how the aircraft handles under increased strain, and demonstrates what it’s like to have a deeper magazine in combat scenarios.

Lockheed Martin previously told Business Insider that F-35s are meant to fly in stealth mode on the first day of a war when the jets need to sneak behind enemy defenses and take out surface-to-air missiles.

After the initial salvos, F-35s can throw stealth to the wind and load up on missiles and bombs, Lockheed Martin said.

“When we don’t necessarily need to be stealthy, we can carry up to 18,000 pounds of bombs,” Jeff Babione, general manager of the F-35 program, told Business Insider in 2017.

Marines load a Captive Air Training Missile (CATM) 9X onto an F-35B Lightning II aircraft.

(U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Sean Galbreath)

China is seeking air-to-air dominance

But the theoretical implications of the F-35’s loadout take on a new importance in the Pacific, where China has increasingly sought to impose its will on international waters.

China has increasingly threatened US ships in the region, with one admiral even calling for the sinking of US aircraft carriers.

China has responded to US stealth fighters with a stealth jet of its own, the J-20, a long-range platform with the stated goal of winning air superiority.

But experts recently told Business Insider that the J-20, as designed, would likely lose in air-to-air combat to almost any US or European air superiority fighter.

While the US may be able to contain China’s air power for now, Beijing recently deployed “carrier-killer” missiles to the country’s northwest. The US, in its recent Missile Defense Review, suggested F-35s could shoot down these missiles in flight.

This article originally appeared on Business Insider. Follow @BusinessInsider on Twitter.

Articles

Marine vet’s inspirational New Year’s Eve post turned out to be his last

(Photo: Matthew DeRemer’s Facebook page)


On New Year’s Eve millions turned to social media to share final thoughts for the year. Marine Corps veteran Matthew DeRemer was no different – except his last post of the year would also turn out to be the last post of his life.

That day he wrote this:

Last day of 2015!!!! For me I’ll be meditating through all I do, on this entire year. I’ve lost, I’ve gained, family is closer and tougher than ever before, loved ones lost, and new friends found. There has been many times where I’ve been found on my knees in prayer for hours (relentless) and other times leading a group of people in prayer, my faith (that I love to share) is an everyday awakening (to me) that people, lives, and circumstances can change for the better OVER TIME. I look back at 2015’s huge challenges that I’ve overcome, shared with others, and have once again found myself … To say thank you and BRING ON 2016, much works to be done!

And I really don’t know where I’ll end up tonight but I do know where I wind up is where I’m meant to be.

Matthew paired his words with a meme of author Gayle Foreman’s quote: “We are born in one day. We die in one day. We can change in one day. And we can fall in love in one day. Anything can happen in just one day.”

Hours later, while riding his motorcyle, the 31-year-old surgical technologist was struck and killed by an alleged drunk driver.

Since his death, DeRemer’s post has been shared over 15,000 times inspiring hundreds of comments:

“RIP, my condolences go out to his family an friends, this post is amazing an says a lot,” one wrote. “I don’t know you but this post definitely has me thinking…”

Another wrote: “This is both disturbing yet incredibly poignant and beautiful.”

During his time in the Corps DeRemer served in Iraq and was stationed in California.

“We called him “Jiff.” He had an incredible love for peanut butter,” said close friend Line Bryde Lorenzen. “He was a sergeant-at-arms, and he took that role very seriously. He helped me a lot with my faith, and was always there when I needed him.”

A GoFundMe campaign has been established to help the family with their funeral expenses.

Articles

The 13 funniest military memes this week

Another week, another memes list. A lot of these came from the Facebook page Military Memes, so thanks to them and their users for keeping us laughing.


1. Same feeling applies to questions at Friday formation.

It’s never a good question, it’s always something that’s been answered already, and it’s usually embarrassing for the rest of the unit.

2. Thank the heavens that drill sergeants aren’t carrying change.

Though drill sergeant typically has plenty of rocks and sand, so he can always use those instead.

3. Almost all the accessories.

Where the Hell is his PT Belt?

4. The infantry believes in corporal punishment.

If you’re a big boy, don’t worry. They have some 7.62 and .50 belts that should fit you just fine.

5. The Coast Guard is serious, you guys.

You better be wearing either a flotation device or body armor.

SEE ALSO: 27 Incredible Photos of Life On A US Navy Submarine

6. “Hey! I’m here just in time to be ‘That Guy!'”

And, yeah, we know, but we’re not fixing the spelling.

7. This is why you never hear infantry say, “Every Marine a rifleman.”

Pretty fancy optics for a guy who can’t put an upper and lower receiver together.

8. Of course, not all soldiers are intellectual rockstars either.

Might want to take the cover off the site there, genius.

9. Shoot ’em up, cowboy.

10. You may want to focus the beam a little tighter. (via Sh-t My LPO Says)

Just a suggestion.

11. Hey, finding work after separation can be hard.

Tip generously.

 12. At least they know to deny it.

13. They’re just so polite.

I want to see what the rest of the rounds say.

NOW: 11 Insider Insults Sailors Say To Each Other

OR WATCH: Predator in Under 3 Minutes | Hurry Up and Watch 

MIGHTY TRENDING

Art and Other Tactics

We Are The Mighty’s August Dannehl showcases the “Art and Other Tactics” exhibit at the Museum of Craft and Folk Art in Los Angeles, California. Generations of veteran artists showcase and discuss their work.

MIGHTY TRENDING

Iran-backed fighters ‘killed’ in Syria air strikes after Iraq base attack

Air strikes in eastern Syria have killed 26 fighters from an Iran-backed Iraqi paramilitary group following a deadly attack on U.S.-led coalition forces in neighboring Iraq.


The British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the March 12 strikes near the Syrian border town of Albu Kamal were probably carried out by the coalition.

But a spokesman for the coalition said in an statement to AFP that it “did not conduct any strikes in Syria or Iraq last night.”

Later in the day, U.S. Defense Secretary Mike Esper blamed Iranian-backed Shi’ite militia groups for the attack on the coalition at the Camp Taji military base, located less than 30 kilometers north of Baghdad.

But he did not confirm whether the U.S. or its allies had carried out the eastern Syria attack.

However, Esper said that “all options are on the table” as Washington and its allies try to bring those responsible for the attack, which killed two U.S. troops and one British soldier and wounded a dozen others when a barrage of Katyusha rockets were launched from a truck later discovered several kilometers from Camp Taji.

Syrian state media reported that in the attack in eastern Syria, unidentified jets hit targets southeast of Albu Kamal with only material damage.

However, the Observatory said camps of the Popular Mobilization Forces, an umbrella grouping of Iran-backed Shi’ite militias, were hit in the strikes, which came after a rocket attack on the Camp Taji military base, located less than 30 kilometers north of Baghdad.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab “underscored that those responsible for the [Camp Taji] attacks must be held accountable,” the State Department said of a phone call between the two.

Iraq’s military said caretaker Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi ordered an investigation into what he called “a very serious security challenge and hostile act.”

No-one claimed responsibility for the rocket attack, but the United States has accused Iran-backed militias of previous attacks on Iraqi bases hosting coalition forces.

U.S. Marine General Kenneth McKenzie, the head of Central Command, told a Senate hearing that the attack was being investigated.

But he noted that Iran-backed Kataib Hezbollah “the only group known to have previously conducted an indirect fire attack of this scale against U.S. civilian and coalition forces in such an incident Iraq.”

upload.wikimedia.org

U.S. President Donald Trump on March 12 said it had not been fully determined whether Iran, which has backed a number of anti-U.S. militia groups in neighboring Iraq, was responsible for the Katyusha attack.

Washington blamed that militia for a strike in December that killed a U.S. contractor and triggered a round of violence that led U.S. President Donald Trump to order the killing of a top Iranian general, Qasem Soleimani, in a drone strike in Baghdad the following month.

In retaliation, an Iranian ballistic missile strike on an Iraqi air base left some 110 U.S. troops suffering from traumatic brain injuries.

This article originally appeared on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Follow @RFERL on Twitter.

MIGHTY TRENDING

European court rules in favor of Russian opposition leader

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that Russia violated opposition politician Aleksei Navalny’s rights over numerous arrests and jailings, calling them “unlawful and arbitrary” and “politically motivated.”

The human rights court in Strasbourg, France, on Nov. 15, 2018, delivered its ruling, rejecting an appeal filed by Russia over a previous judgment favoring Navalny.

The court upheld its previous decision that found Navalny’s seven arrests and two instances of pretrial detentions by Russian authorities between 2012-14 violated his rights, “lacked a legitimate aim,” and “had not been necessary in a democratic society.”


He immediately hailed the decision, writing on Twitter, “Won. Fully. The government is crushed…Hooray!”

He also told reporters that the ruling was an example of “genuine justice” and was “very important not just for me but for other people all over Russia who are arrested every day.”

As part of the ruling, the court ordered Russia to pay Navalny about 64,000 euros in compensation, costs, and expenses and said its decision was final and binding.

Moscow did not immediately comment on the court’s ruling.

Navalny, one of President Vladimir Putin’s most prominent critics, attended the hearing, along with his brother Oleg, and posted a photograph of the two of them at the ECHR on Instragram.

Russia’s Constitutional Court has previously ruled that officials can ignore judgments by the ECHR if they are found to contravene the Russian Constitution.

Russia has lost a number of high-profile cases in Strasbourg and been ordered to pay out hefty compensation in scores of politically embarrassing cases.

Navalny was originally prevented from boarding a flight out of Moscow on Nov. 13, 2018, to attend the hearing.

The Federal Bailiffs Service (FSSP) said he was barred from leaving due to what it said was debt he owed Kirovles, a state timber company at the center of a politically charged criminal case in which he has now been convicted twice.

The FSSP later said the fine was paid and that restrictions on Navalny’s travel abroad had been lifted.

He said he would sue the FSSP over what he called “illegal activities” and demand compensation for the 29,542 rubles (6) in financial losses he said he and his lawyer sustained due to the FSSP’s decision to bar him from leaving.

The ECHR ruling was on an appeal filed by Russia over a court decision in February 2017 that ruled in favor of Navalny, but Russia filed an appeal to challenge the decision.

Navalny, 42, has organized large street protests on several occasions since 2011 and has published a series of reports alleging corruption in Putin’s circle.

He has repeatedly been jailed for periods ranging from 10 days to a few weeks, usually for alleged infractions of laws governing public demonstrations.

Navalny had spent nearly 200 days in jail since 2011, including 140 days since the start of his attempt to challenge Putin in the March 2018 presidential election, his spokeswoman has said.

Electoral authorities barred Navalny from the ballot, citing convictions in two financial-crimes cases he and his supporters contend were Kremlin-orchestrated efforts to punish him for his opposition activity and for the reports alleging corruption.

Navalny was convicted in 2013 of stealing money from Kirovles and was sentenced to five years in prison. But the sentence was later suspended, sparing him from serving time in prison.

In 2016, the ECHR ruled that the Kirovles trial was unfair and that the two men had been convicted of actions “indistinguishable from regular commercial activity.”

The Russian Supreme Court then threw out the 2013 convictions and ordered a new trial.

In February 2017, the lower court again convicted the two men and handed down the same suspended prison sentence.

This article originally appeared on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Follow @RFERL on Twitter.

MIGHTY CULTURE

7 acronyms the military should use, but doesn’t

It’s no secret the military is full of soup. Even an FNG could tell you that. There are even more specific alphabet soup acronyms within each branch: the Air Force has OTP, and the Marines have OSM (semi-respectively).

Here’s a couple of acronyms we made up that aren’t in use, but should be.


S.R.O.O.R.T

“Sergeant ran out of real tasks.”

This acronym is used to explain why you are: measuring the length of floor tiles, power washing a lawn chair, or cleaning an actual pile of garbage with Windex. We don’t ask why. We know.

Example: I know we’re outside in the desert, but S.R.O.O.R.T. so now we all have to sweep the dirt.

Images From The Korengal Outpost – The Far Side.

O.D.T.W.O.D.

“Only dipping tobacco while on deployment.”

This acronym is the lie you tell yourself while on deployment. It soon warps into the closely related acronym “O.D.T.B.O.D.” which is “Only dipping tobacco because of deployment.”

Example: Yeah, I never used to chew Cope, but I’m O.D.T.W.O.D.

G.P.O.G.

“Good piece of gear.”

This acronym is used to describe a fully functional piece of gear in the military.

Example: *N/A, no plausible use*

“Dinner” aboard the USS Green Bay.

(Sgt. Branden Colston/ USMC)

W.D.I.E.G.A.F

“Why did I even grab a fork?”

This acronym is used to describe the fine delicatessen cuisine service members enjoy on a ship. It’s food so sparse, so understated, so daringly simple, it begs the question: why did I even grab a fork?”

Example: Welcome aboard, today we will be serving delectable items from the W.D.I.E.G.A.F. cuisine: our first course is a handful of hard white rice, followed by two triangles of cardboard garlic bread, accented with a chalice of warm water. Served sea side. Bon Appetit.

N.O.E.F.B.O.F.A.C

“Not old enough for beer, only for armed combat.”

This is a much needed acronym for the millions of 18-to 21-year-olds in our military who cannot legally buy beer but can legally be trusted with billions of dollars of equipment and the lives of men who are old enough to buy beer. Granted, this one doesn’t really roll off the tongue—but neither does explaining the ancient logic behind this law.

Example: I’ll take an automatic rifle, a crate of C-4 explosives, and a Shirley Temple to drink, sorry I’m N.O.E.F.B.O.F.A.C.

Y.M.C.A

“You make comm awful.”

This is for anybody who never shuts the hell up over comm. They add useless information, make bad jokes, clog up the line, and all kinds of other annoying things.

Example: You don’t have to mouth breath for 3 seconds before saying what you need to say. Y.M.C.A. Over.

B.O.O.B.S

“Boy, our operation’s boring, Sgt.”

Sometimes you have said all you need to say. You’ve been in a foreign place with the same 6 dudes for months. You can only talk about how bad the Cleveland Browns are, or what kind of food you wish you could eat, for so long… Sometimes, when you’ve been away for months and don’t have anything to talk about, you just talk about B.O.O.B.S.

Example: …Ahem…*idle whistling*….*clearing throat cough*…B.O.O.B.S…