Tanks In The Current War

Vetkin · Post by **Vetkin** » Sun Apr 06, 2003 10:50 pm

Wow...

Never actually thought I'd see an M1A1/2 disabled/destroyed by Iraqis...

What's funny though is that it's usually side hits to the tracks that force the crews of these usually invincible tanks to abandon their vehicles...

I guess they don't wanna get captured by the Iraqis and be tortured like in the movie 3 Kings hehehehe:

"What's wrong with Michael jackson?" - Iraqi interrogator
"What?!" -National Guard POW
"What's WRONG with Michael jacksoN? You know? Hoo hoo! Hee Hee!" - Iraqi Interrogator
Proceeds to shock Mark Walhberg hehehehe

Belisarius · Post by **Belisarius** » Mon Apr 07, 2003 12:35 am

Even the strongest armor has its weak points... they've lost a number of tanks down there. It's not only having the best equipment - you gotta know how to use it.

Here's what we're talking about:

An example can be taken from the Swedish Army; they had a field tryout some years ago between the new Leopard 2S (which arguably is better than even the M1A2) and a smaller number of old Centurion tanks. The Centurion, although heavily upgraded and retrofitted, is in essence a 50 year old tank quite similar to the T-55.

Result: Centurions beat Leopard 2S, inflicting 10 destroyed tanks for 4 own casaulties. The Centurion crews had a better knowledge of their own limitations and capabilities.

Not that I'm saying that the crews are untrained, far from it. But still, no tank is invincible.

tracer · Post by **tracer** » Mon Apr 07, 2003 12:43 am

I heard on the news (whatever that's worth!) that this tank was disabled during a probe into Baghdad and had to be destroyed by its crew.

Belisarius · Post by **Belisarius** » Mon Apr 07, 2003 10:14 am

I had that option in mind, looking at the extensive damage to it. It's not just knocked out, it's wrecked! :p Then again, news media is not something to be taken for their word these days.

Btw, saw a news reel this morning on a destroyed tank with "El Cohone" painted in army style letters on the barrel. I assume it's the same one?

And that leads to another question; I've seen similar markings (army template style lettering) on tank barrels - is it a common practice for the crews to name their tanks à la WWII bombers?

Goblin · Post by **Goblin** » Mon Apr 07, 2003 10:34 am

Yes, just about every tank that is shown on television is labeled like that.

Goblin

tracer · Post by **tracer** » Mon Apr 07, 2003 5:00 pm

I noticed even they arty crews were doing this: I spotted a howitzer with the name '$ Shot' stenciled on its barrel.

Irinami · Post by **Irinami** » Mon Apr 07, 2003 6:39 pm

Originally posted by Belisarius
I had that option in mind, looking at the extensive damage to it. It's not just knocked out, it's wrecked! :p Then again, news media is not something to be taken for their word these days.

Uh, Belisarius, I'll grant that it's early and you may not have had your coffee.

The era we live in is a veritable paragon of truth in the media... but only when compared to former eras' media. When compared to a crack junkie, it's about even on the honesty scale.

About these tanks, I'll show you another view. I was watching the news the other night and they showed the turret of an M1-series tank that had been hit by an RPG. The RPG hit on the turret armour. There was a spot there, about the size of a big meaty fist. The paint had been burnt off and there was a black scorch on the armour. There was no dent (save of course the depth of the paint and dust/sand), no hole, no warp or run, no melting of metal. The damage was about as extensive as if I'd taken a can of hairspray and a long match, and put them to task against a sheet of 10-guage steel.

I know we all know that an RPG against the turret of a modern MBT has an alpaca's chance in a supernova of doing any more than this, but it's different when you actually see the proof. ^___^;

Originally posted by Belisarius

Btw, saw a news reel this morning on a destroyed tank with "El Cohone" painted in army style letters on the barrel. I assume it's the same one?

And that leads to another question; I've seen similar markings (army template style lettering) on tank barrels - is it a common practice for the crews to name their tanks à la WWII bombers?

Constantly, from what I see and hear. Remember the old quote, "The Army is just like the Boy Scouts... only without adult supervision."

Belisarius · Post by **Belisarius** » Mon Apr 07, 2003 6:44 pm

Originally posted by Irinami
Uh, Belisarius, I'll grant that it's early and you may not have had your coffee. The era we live in is a veritable paragon of truth in the media... but only when compared to former eras' media. When compared to a crack junkie, it's about even on the honesty scale.

Uh...I didn't think of that it could be read that way. :p Eh, at least you know what I meant.

Wolfleader · Post by **Wolfleader** » Tue Apr 08, 2003 6:25 am

Where they deployed into the city itself? Isn't there some rule that you should never deploy armour in cities and built up areas?

fireball · Post by **fireball** » Tue Apr 08, 2003 7:05 am

Originally posted by Wolfleader
Where they deployed into the city itself? Isn't there some rule that you should never deploy armour in cities and built up areas?

Well, the US has been breaking it often recently with a good deal of success.

I'm sure we'd do things differently against a competent and cohesive opponent.

fireball

Vetkin · Post by **Vetkin** » Tue Apr 08, 2003 7:42 am

I think experience of the crew really counts. If you're fresh out of tank school and suddenly get hit to the side with an RPG, and the turret jams or the computers are knocked out, there is a real chance that you will panic and abandon your vehicle even for that bit of damage. A more prudent & experienced crew would back up steadily and leave the front for repairs to fight again

bigtroutz · Post by **bigtroutz** » Tue Apr 08, 2003 12:14 pm

As tracer has said, that particular tank was reportedly disabled (tread thrown) and had to be destroyed, since recovery was not possible.

Two other Abrams were damaged during the battles around Al Najaf by Kornet/Roland wire guided missiles fired from the back of pick-up trucks. They were later 'recovered' and may well be back in action by now.

In both of the above actions, the crews reportedly took no casualties.

Also reported, another Abrams was fired on by small arms fire, the driver was hit and lost control while crossing a Tigress River bridge, and all crewmembers were drowned after the tank carreened off the bridge into the river.

A cache of unused Roland antitank missiles was recovered when the Bagdad Intl airport was over-run. It would appear that the Iraqi's just do not have the widespread training/fortitude to properly use antitank tactics which would allow the proper use of these weapons.

From what has been reported, the Abrams would seem to have been performing pretty **** well.

Voriax · Post by **Voriax** » Tue Apr 08, 2003 12:43 pm

You might want to check this site: http://www.aeronautics.ru/

Slightly different reports than in western media.

Voriax

Alexei · Post by **Alexei** » Tue Apr 08, 2003 1:25 pm

Originally posted by bigtroutz

A cache of unused Roland antitank missiles was recovered when the Bagdad Intl airport was over-run. It would appear that the Iraqi's just do not have the widespread training/fortitude to properly use antitank tactics which would allow the proper use of these weapons.

Do you mean "Milan" ? I thought the Roland was a SAM ??

tracer · Post by **tracer** » Tue Apr 08, 2003 5:28 pm

Originally posted by Voriax
You might want to check this site: http://www.aeronautics.ru/

Slightly different reports than in western media.

Voriax

These reports seem far from objective; I think they're getting their figures from Al-Jazeera.

Of course the Pentagon may not be giving us the complete 'box scores' either.

Voriax · Post by **Voriax** » Tue Apr 08, 2003 5:42 pm

Originally posted by tracer
These reports seem far from objective; I think they're getting their figures from Al-Jazeera. Of course the Pentagon may not be giving us the complete 'box scores' either.

'may not'??? You mean 'will not', right?

Although these russian reports feel much more reliable than the official pentagon or western news agency reports, the truth is somewhere in between. I'd say.

I personally wouldn't be surprised if eventually these russian reports are more accurate...

For example, during the previous Iraq war about 85% of CNN's 'hot news' items were wrong and they usually didn't send any corrections...the need to be 'first' overrode the need for accurate reporting.

Voriax

tracer · Post by **tracer** » Tue Apr 08, 2003 7:40 pm

V,
IMO the Pentagon certainly is omitting things, but when they give hard numbers I'm inclined to give them more creedence than most of the other sources. And yes, I realise these omissions are likely to be 'the bad news'.

I agree wholeheartedly that the truth lies somewhere in the middle ground. But IMO there aren't any 'uninterested observers' in this war; everyone has a position and either intentionally or unintentionally their views/opinions/reports will convey this position.

Only time will tell. Peace bro

Voriax · Post by **Voriax** » Tue Apr 08, 2003 7:44 pm

Tracer, how true.

Voriax.

Vetkin · Post by **Vetkin** » Tue Apr 08, 2003 9:47 pm

Why haven't we seen any Iraqi T-72s? Shouldn't they have been deployed to block the highway to Baghdad?

The T-72s have AT-8 missiles which have a much longer range than handheld AT missiles. Not even BMPs or a single BRDM... where is all the Iraqi armor??

BTW the building where Saddam and his sons and all high ranking officers are staying was bombed with 8,000 pounds of bombs...

I don't think we'll be seeing the information minister giving out rallying speeches anymore... :rolleyes:

bigtroutz · Post by **bigtroutz** » Tue Apr 08, 2003 10:52 pm

Originally posted by Alexei
Do you mean "Milan" ? I thought the Roland was a SAM ??

You are probably correct. I was just repeating the reports given by the media news correspondents; obviously I wasn't there nor would I know a Roland from a Milan even if it hit me in the face with its tail-fin.

I suppose the point I was making is that the abrams appears to function very well but that it is still vulnerable to a "golden-BB"