Army holds large exercise of tanks in Lopburi

[Psimbo]

Any way, it's good to see their getting their moneys worth out of the old M48 tanks!

Must be well made tanks, they were produced between 1953 and 1959!!!

B-52s first started flying in 1953, some Brit APCs in use since the 60- if it works why mess with it. M-48s are adequate for any perceived threat in Thailand so why update? I can remember in 1989 an M3 half track (WW2 vintage) rumbling past at Utapao- it was immaculate.

Edited May 8, 2016 by Psimbo

[marcusd]

Who would want to invade Thailand?For what? The Oil? The vast mineral resources? The partly filled dams? The bureaucratic expertise of the Thai civil service? It's only usefulness is as a strategic partner to the US against possible Chinese domination of the region, and that's doubtful.

The ONLY thing Thailand has ever been good at is HOSPITALITY. that's why pattaya became famous and everywhere else followed

[3NUMBAS]

Strange and outdated futility ...juntas need to whip up some enemies to justify their existence.

[Snig27]

An army which never fought a war has more than 1400 generals. Bravo.....

Did you forget about WW1 when the Thais were on the allied side?

WW2 when they weren't?

Korea when they were?

Vietnam when they were?

Too easy to make sarcastic remarks and not think about what you wrote.

3/4 losses, or 4/5 if you count the war with Laos. More generals needed perhaps?

What do you classify as a loss?

WW1 was a win for that allies and Thailand.

WW2 was a loss for the Japanese and Thailand.

Korea was a stalemate (no win or loss) and is still technically at war.

Vietnam was a loss for Vietnam but a negotiated peace for the US and it allies.

There is some interesting information on Wikipedia about Vietnam here giving a list of the countries on both side, the number of military involved and their casualties. Thailand had the 4th largest military forces there and the 5th largest casualty list.

here is a link to Facts, stats and myths for the US Forces in Vietnam.

http://www.uswings.com/about-us-wings/vietnam-war-facts/

Thailand has also been involved in UN actions in Kuwait, Iraq, Cambodia, East Timor, Darfur.

http://www.providingforpeacekeeping.org/2015/03/30/peacekeeping-contributor-profile-thailand/

It is so easy to slag off Thailand's military when you are too lazy, don't bother to do any research at all and basically have no idea what you are talking about.

Still never mind I am sure that many people will believe you.

I for one don't.

I have no connection with the Thai military or the government but as an ex-serviceman of the UK for 25 years it annoys me when people get things wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

Your version of the result in Vietnam is somewhat at odds with perceived and taught history.

I come from a military family and my father and the fathers of all my childhood friends all fought in Vietnam and have a slightly different view of the Thai military's abilities in the war. From what I was told, and my dad still repeats it, Thais had a horrific friendly fire casualty rate and the US largely regarded them as militarily incompetent, so much so, they were increasingly kept as far away from the sharp end as possible as time passed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the British had no troops there.

[baboon]

An army which never fought a war has more than 1400 generals. Bravo.....

Did you forget about WW1 when the Thais were on the allied side?

WW2 when they weren't?

Korea when they were?

Vietnam when they were?

Too easy to make sarcastic remarks and not think about what you wrote.

3/4 losses, or 4/5 if you count the war with Laos. More generals needed perhaps?

What do you classify as a loss?

WW1 was a win for that allies and Thailand.

WW2 was a loss for the Japanese and Thailand.

Korea was a stalemate (no win or loss) and is still technically at war.

Vietnam was a loss for Vietnam but a negotiated peace for the US and it allies.

WW1 - A win.

WW2 - A loss.

Korea - The DPRK gained territory (Kaesong) so advantage to them in my book.

Vietnam - A loss to South Vietnam and their sponsors, despite the spin.

Laos - A loss.

[ttthailand]

On May 28th there is to be a major currency devaluation throughout the world. They say the U.S. Dollar will fail. Maybe they are getting ready for the craziness.

[billd766]

3/4 losses, or 4/5 if you count the war with Laos. More generals needed perhaps?

What do you classify as a loss?

WW1 was a win for that allies and Thailand.

WW2 was a loss for the Japanese and Thailand.

Korea was a stalemate (no win or loss) and is still technically at war.

Vietnam was a loss for Vietnam but a negotiated peace for the US and it allies.

There is some interesting information on Wikipedia about Vietnam here giving a list of the countries on both side, the number of military involved and their casualties. Thailand had the 4th largest military forces there and the 5th largest casualty list.

here is a link to Facts, stats and myths for the US Forces in Vietnam.

http://www.uswings.com/about-us-wings/vietnam-war-facts/

Thailand has also been involved in UN actions in Kuwait, Iraq, Cambodia, East Timor, Darfur.

http://www.providingforpeacekeeping.org/2015/03/30/peacekeeping-contributor-profile-thailand/

It is so easy to slag off Thailand's military when you are too lazy, don't bother to do any research at all and basically have no idea what you are talking about.

Still never mind I am sure that many people will believe you.

I for one don't.

I have no connection with the Thai military or the government but as an ex-serviceman of the UK for 25 years it annoys me when people get things wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

Your version of the result in Vietnam is somewhat at odds with perceived and taught history.

I come from a military family and my father and the fathers of all my childhood friends all fought in Vietnam and have a slightly different view of the Thai military's abilities in the war. From what I was told, and my dad still repeats it, Thais had a horrific friendly fire casualty rate and the US largely regarded them as militarily incompetent, so much so, they were increasingly kept as far away from the sharp end as possible as time passed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the British had no troops there.

But was what your Dad and his friends say, the truth. Do you have any links or facts to back it up?

Did you read the US wings link about how many people in the US actually fought in Vietnam against those who claim to have fought there. Quite a large difference in numbers there.

That was one of the few wars that the US didn't invite the UK too, fortunately. There were rumours, but unconfirmed that the UK SAS/SBS troops were involved in Vietnam but nothing official. I am sure that down on the barstools in Pattaya you may be able to find ex UK special forces who claim to have been there but many bar stool owners would say anything for a free beer.

[Artisi]

3/4 losses, or 4/5 if you count the war with Laos. More generals needed perhaps?

What do you classify as a loss?

WW1 was a win for that allies and Thailand.

WW2 was a loss for the Japanese and Thailand.

Korea was a stalemate (no win or loss) and is still technically at war.

Vietnam was a loss for Vietnam but a negotiated peace for the US and it allies.

There is some interesting information on Wikipedia about Vietnam here giving a list of the countries on both side, the number of military involved and their casualties. Thailand had the 4th largest military forces there and the 5th largest casualty list.

here is a link to Facts, stats and myths for the US Forces in Vietnam.

http://www.uswings.com/about-us-wings/vietnam-war-facts/

Thailand has also been involved in UN actions in Kuwait, Iraq, Cambodia, East Timor, Darfur.

http://www.providingforpeacekeeping.org/2015/03/30/peacekeeping-contributor-profile-thailand/

It is so easy to slag off Thailand's military when you are too lazy, don't bother to do any research at all and basically have no idea what you are talking about.

Still never mind I am sure that many people will believe you.

I for one don't.

I have no connection with the Thai military or the government but as an ex-serviceman of the UK for 25 years it annoys me when people get things wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

Your version of the result in Vietnam is somewhat at odds with perceived and taught history.

I come from a military family and my father and the fathers of all my childhood friends all fought in Vietnam and have a slightly different view of the Thai military's abilities in the war. From what I was told, and my dad still repeats it, Thais had a horrific friendly fire casualty rate and the US largely regarded them as militarily incompetent, so much so, they were increasingly kept as far away from the sharp end as possible as time passed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the British had no troops there.

But was what your Dad and his friends say, the truth. Do you have any links or facts to back it up?

Did you read the US wings link about how many people in the US actually fought in Vietnam against those who claim to have fought there. Quite a large difference in numbers there.

That was one of the few wars that the US didn't invite the UK too, fortunately. There were rumours, but unconfirmed that the UK SAS/SBS troops were involved in Vietnam but nothing official. I am sure that down on the barstools in Pattaya you may be able to find ex UK special forces who claim to have been there but many bar stool owners would say anything for a free beer.

As for UK SAS, it is possible as I know an Aussie guy who was in Vietnam as a commando of sorts of which he cannot speak of and his military records do not acknowledge him ever leaving Australia. So behind the scenes who knows what was going on.

[JAG]

3/4 losses, or 4/5 if you count the war with Laos. More generals needed perhaps?

What do you classify as a loss?

WW1 was a win for that allies and Thailand.

WW2 was a loss for the Japanese and Thailand.

Korea was a stalemate (no win or loss) and is still technically at war.

Vietnam was a loss for Vietnam but a negotiated peace for the US and it allies.

There is some interesting information on Wikipedia about Vietnam here giving a list of the countries on both side, the number of military involved and their casualties. Thailand had the 4th largest military forces there and the 5th largest casualty list.

here is a link to Facts, stats and myths for the US Forces in Vietnam.

http://www.uswings.com/about-us-wings/vietnam-war-facts/

Thailand has also been involved in UN actions in Kuwait, Iraq, Cambodia, East Timor, Darfur.

http://www.providingforpeacekeeping.org/2015/03/30/peacekeeping-contributor-profile-thailand/

It is so easy to slag off Thailand's military when you are too lazy, don't bother to do any research at all and basically have no idea what you are talking about.

Still never mind I am sure that many people will believe you.

I for one don't.

I have no connection with the Thai military or the government but as an ex-serviceman of the UK for 25 years it annoys me when people get things wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

Your version of the result in Vietnam is somewhat at odds with perceived and taught history.

I come from a military family and my father and the fathers of all my childhood friends all fought in Vietnam and have a slightly different view of the Thai military's abilities in the war. From what I was told, and my dad still repeats it, Thais had a horrific friendly fire casualty rate and the US largely regarded them as militarily incompetent, so much so, they were increasingly kept as far away from the sharp end as possible as time passed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the British had no troops there.

But was what your Dad and his friends say, the truth. Do you have any links or facts to back it up?

Did you read the US wings link about how many people in the US actually fought in Vietnam against those who claim to have fought there. Quite a large difference in numbers there.

That was one of the few wars that the US didn't invite the UK too, fortunately. There were rumours, but unconfirmed that the UK SAS/SBS troops were involved in Vietnam but nothing official. I am sure that down on the barstools in Pattaya you may be able to find ex UK special forces who claim to have been there but many bar stool owners would say anything for a free beer.

As for UK SAS, it is possible as I know an Aussie guy who was in Vietnam as a commando of sorts of which he cannot speak of and his military records do not acknowledge him ever leaving Australia. So behind the scenes who knows what was going on.

Forgive my cynicism, but the vast majority of veterans who " did something special but still can't talk about it" were probably employed cooking early breakfasts for those who actually did some fighting!

And no, the British SAS did not operate in Vietnam. The only British involvement in SE Asia outside of the garrisons in Singapore and Brunei, was a squadron of Royal Engineers who built an airfield somewhere in Issan.

[Artisi]

3/4 losses, or 4/5 if you count the war with Laos. More generals needed perhaps?

What do you classify as a loss?

WW1 was a win for that allies and Thailand.

WW2 was a loss for the Japanese and Thailand.

Korea was a stalemate (no win or loss) and is still technically at war.

Vietnam was a loss for Vietnam but a negotiated peace for the US and it allies.

There is some interesting information on Wikipedia about Vietnam here giving a list of the countries on both side, the number of military involved and their casualties. Thailand had the 4th largest military forces there and the 5th largest casualty list.

here is a link to Facts, stats and myths for the US Forces in Vietnam.

http://www.uswings.com/about-us-wings/vietnam-war-facts/

Thailand has also been involved in UN actions in Kuwait, Iraq, Cambodia, East Timor, Darfur.

http://www.providingforpeacekeeping.org/2015/03/30/peacekeeping-contributor-profile-thailand/

It is so easy to slag off Thailand's military when you are too lazy, don't bother to do any research at all and basically have no idea what you are talking about.

Still never mind I am sure that many people will believe you.

I for one don't.

I have no connection with the Thai military or the government but as an ex-serviceman of the UK for 25 years it annoys me when people get things wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

Your version of the result in Vietnam is somewhat at odds with perceived and taught history.

I come from a military family and my father and the fathers of all my childhood friends all fought in Vietnam and have a slightly different view of the Thai military's abilities in the war. From what I was told, and my dad still repeats it, Thais had a horrific friendly fire casualty rate and the US largely regarded them as militarily incompetent, so much so, they were increasingly kept as far away from the sharp end as possible as time passed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the British had no troops there.

But was what your Dad and his friends say, the truth. Do you have any links or facts to back it up?

Did you read the US wings link about how many people in the US actually fought in Vietnam against those who claim to have fought there. Quite a large difference in numbers there.

That was one of the few wars that the US didn't invite the UK too, fortunately. There were rumours, but unconfirmed that the UK SAS/SBS troops were involved in Vietnam but nothing official. I am sure that down on the barstools in Pattaya you may be able to find ex UK special forces who claim to have been there but many bar stool owners would say anything for a free beer.

As for UK SAS, it is possible as I know an Aussie guy who was in Vietnam as a commando of sorts of which he cannot speak of and his military records do not acknowledge him ever leaving Australia. So behind the scenes who knows what was going on.

Forgive my cynicism, but the vast majority of veterans who " did something special but still can't talk about it" were probably employed cooking early breakfasts for those who actually did some fighting!

And no, the British SAS did not operate in Vietnam. The only British involvement in SE Asia outside of the garrisons in Singapore and Brunei, was a squadron of Royal Engineers who built an airfield somewhere in Issan.

Be as cynical as you want, but at the time under discussion he wasn't a veteran, he was still active military as it was only a couple of years after Vietnam and he certainly wasn't a cook doing early breakfasts.

[HiSoLowSoNoSo]

Any way, it's good to see their getting their moneys worth out of the old M48 tanks!

Must be well made tanks, they were produced between 1953 and 1959!!!

B-52s first started flying in 1953, some Brit APCs in use since the 60- if it works why mess with it. M-48s are adequate for any perceived threat in Thailand so why update? I can remember in 1989 an M3 half track (WW2 vintage) rumbling past at Utapao- it was immaculate.

With a defence budget of 207 Billion THB you would expect modern weapons, not 50 year old tanks. Has there ever been a transparent auditing of how they spend the taxpayers money?

[phycokiller]

If by foreign forces he refers to a person from Dubai, or where ever he is, his statement all makes perfect sense

[cpofc]

I can almost smell the cordite.

[Thechook]

Apart from staging coups, what purpose does the Thai military serve? The appear to be a band of Rebels who answer to no one not even their country or government.

[JAG]

And to think the US decommissioned those years ago one bradley would make mince meat of them.

I don't think so. Bradley carries two TOW Anti Tank Guided Missiles. These have to be fired while it is stationary. They would certainly destroy an M48 or M60. The other weapon system on Bradley, the 25mm Chain Gun, could destroy a tank if it got close enough and could put multiple rounds into a vulnerable area, in the case of M48/M60 the rear end, where the engine is.

Conversely, the M48A5s and M60s the Thais have are fitted with the 105mm rifled Tank Gun (a British design), still a very effective and accurate gun. One round from that would eviscerate the lightly armoured Bradley.

So, a well handled Bradley would get two tanks with TOW in a surprise attack, and one or possibly two mobility kills with its 25mm gun if it were able to get close enough. It wouldn't last long.

M48A5 and M60s remain an effective Main Battle Tank in this part of the world, if properly handled, with well trained crews and good logistical, engineer (mobility)and mechanical support.

Edited May 9, 2016 by JAG