Tanks In The Current War

Tanks In The Current War (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns

Message

Vetkin -> Tanks In The Current War (4/7/2003 1:50:11 AM)
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 -> (4/7/2003 3:35:27 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: [IMG]http://wwwi.reuters.com/images/2003-04-06T161412Z_01_BAG52D_RTRIDSP_2_IRAQ.jpg[/IMG] 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 -> (4/7/2003 3:43:18 AM)
I heard on the news (whatever [I]that's[/I] worth!) that this tank was disabled during a probe into Baghdad and had to be destroyed by its crew.

Belisarius -> (4/7/2003 1:14:13 PM)
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 -> (4/7/2003 1:34:43 PM)
Yes, just about every tank that is shown on television is labeled like that. Goblin

tracer -> (4/7/2003 8:00:53 PM)
I noticed even they arty crews were doing this: I spotted a howitzer with the name '$ Shot' stenciled on its barrel.

Irinami -> (4/7/2003 9:39:18 PM)
[QUOTE]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. ;) [/quote] 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. ^___^; [QUOTE]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? [/QUOTE] Constantly, from what I see and hear. Remember the old quote, "The Army is just like the Boy Scouts... only without adult supervision." ;)

Belisarius -> (4/7/2003 9:44:18 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Irinami [B]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. ;)[/B][/QUOTE] Uh...I didn't think of that it could be read [I]that[/I] way. :p Eh, at least you know what I meant. :D

Wolfleader -> (4/8/2003 9:25:37 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 -> (4/8/2003 10:05:01 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wolfleader [B]Where they deployed into the city itself? Isn't there some rule that you should never deploy armour in cities and built up areas? [/B][/QUOTE] 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 -> (4/8/2003 10:42:00 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 -> (4/8/2003 3:14:16 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 -> (4/8/2003 3:43:05 PM)
You might want to check this site: http://www.aeronautics.ru/ Slightly different reports than in western media. Voriax

Alexei -> (4/8/2003 4:25:15 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by bigtroutz [B] 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. [/B][/QUOTE] Do you mean "Milan" ? I thought the Roland was a SAM ?? :confused:

tracer -> (4/8/2003 8:28:38 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Voriax [B]You might want to check this site: http://www.aeronautics.ru/ Slightly different reports than in western media. Voriax [/B][/QUOTE] 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 -> (4/8/2003 8:42:32 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by tracer [B]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. [/B][/QUOTE] '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 -> (4/8/2003 10:40:03 PM)
V, IMO the Pentagon certainly is [I]omitting[/I] 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 [I]omissions[/I] 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 -> (4/8/2003 10:44:00 PM)
Tracer, how true. Voriax.

Vetkin -> (4/9/2003 12:47:08 AM)
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 -> (4/9/2003 1:52:22 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Alexei [B]Do you mean "Milan" ? I thought the Roland was a SAM ?? :confused: [/B][/QUOTE] 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"

Belisarius -> (4/9/2003 1:54:37 AM)
Just because we haven't seen them doesn't mean they're not there. The Republican Guard might hold them within Bagdad, which is reasonable seeing as everything that moves into open ground is dead meat. Not that living is easy in Baghdad either. :rolleyes: Yeah, I heard that a lone B-1 dropped 4 2000-pound bombs on a building. A reporter for one of our national channels said "well, if they really got Saddam, they won't be able to tell"...

bigtroutz -> (4/9/2003 1:58:02 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vetkin [B]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: [/B][/QUOTE] There have been a number of T-72s shown on CNN, etc, mostly brewing up, like those used in the Bagdad Intl Airport counterattack and some others encountered by the Marines from Al KUT to Bagdad. I have heard some interesting speculation from analysts that those so-called "surrender" talks early in the war were in fact executed by the Iragi brass having the units walk away from their equipment. Others say that the vast majority of the 900 approx tanks left in their inventory were simply bombed before they could be used against US troops. You pick.

tracer -> (4/9/2003 2:12:46 AM)
This story: [URL=http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20030408/ts_usatoday/5045372]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20030408/ts_usatoday/5045372[/URL] quotes a Pentagon source and says out of their pre-war inventory of 800 tanks the Republican Guard has 'a handful' left. I saw another story this morning that put that number at 19, almost all of which are north of the city. Seems to me that infantry-AT weapons would yeild better results on the current (urban) battlefield.

tracer -> (4/9/2003 2:18:17 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Belisarius [B] Yeah, I heard that a lone B-1 dropped 4 2000-pound bombs on a building. A reporter for one of our national channels said "well, if they really got Saddam, they won't be able to tell"... [/B][/QUOTE] Too true! Two had hardened penetrators and the other 2 had delayed fuses...4 tons :eek: ...if he [I]was[/I] there they'll be lucky if they find his moustache intact.

fireball -> (4/9/2003 8:34:39 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Voriax [B]'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 [/B][/QUOTE] The data on that site is from [url]www.iraqwar.ru[/url] , which is widely regarded by the serious as propaganda coming from a fellow named Venik. The same guy claimed that Allied forces had lost hundreds of aircraft in 1999 over the FRY, when in fact two were lost. There is absolutely nothing to back up his claims. fireball

Irinami -> (4/9/2003 9:59:51 AM)
True, fireball. Would anyone be terribly surprised if Russia--with the rather hefty debt owed to them by Iraq--would want this war to turn out in the proverbial history books to be worse than it is? Sure they won't get their money back, but there is a satisfaction and vengeance.

fireball -> (4/9/2003 10:36:19 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Irinami [B]True, fireball. Would anyone be terribly surprised if Russia--with the rather hefty debt owed to them by Iraq--would want this war to turn out in the proverbial history books to be worse than it is? Sure they won't get their money back, but there is a satisfaction and vengeance. [/B][/QUOTE] It's not that so much as the rest of the world seeing their military equipment is, for the most part, ****. The Iraqis payed (or at least agreed to pay) billions of dollars for those mighty Russian tanks and airplanes and you can see what they got for it: depleted uranium enemas. All the military equipment that they produced is a matter of pride really for the Russians, and to some extent the Ukranians. fireball

tohoku -> (4/9/2003 11:40:15 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by fireball It's not that so much as the rest of the world seeing their military equipment is, for the most part, ***. [/QUOTE] That's unfair. They've not been supplied with proper parts for years, the crews receive awful training and they are stuck using domestically produced rounds. I'd be surprised if they managed to do anything with them. Hell, during the first war in Kuwait they were reduced at one point to firing practice rounds instead of proper live rounds; it's not wonder they're doing so poorly after twelve years of sanctions. But don't disrespect the equipment just because it came from Russia. In good hands it should make anything else on the battlefield (if it has the sense) pause for thought. The 125mm is* a powerful gun. BTW, since when did the T72 start using missles?! You're all thinking of later (T80BD/U and T90 etc) models - ones the Iraqis simply don't have IIRC.

Vetkin -> (4/9/2003 11:41:05 AM)
I'm wondering what if Russia suddenly decides to back Iraq in some way, now that US troops has attacked the Russian ambassador & consul that were fleeing from Baghdad... It's far-fetched but you never know. BTW does anybody here know if the T-95 is already in use? It's rumored to have a 135mm gun that has the range of the M1's 120mm but have better penetration. It also has enough armor to stop an APFSDS round (supposedly, or at least make it bounce off) Imagine if the US and Russia goes to war (theoretical) Not that I would want them to.. M1A2 vs T-95 Mi-28 Havoc vs Ah-64D Apache MiG-29/Su-27 vs F-18/F-16/F-15 M2A2 vs BMP-3 It's gonna be crazy :eek: BTW, why haven't I seen a single F-16 Falcon in the news? Favorite fighter-bomber of mine :D

fireball -> (4/9/2003 12:01:58 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by tohoku [B]That's unfair. They've not been supplied with proper parts for years, the crews receive awful training and they are stuck using domestically produced rounds. I'd be surprised if they managed to do anything with them. Hell, during the first war in Kuwait they were reduced at one point to firing practice rounds instead of proper live rounds; it's not wonder they're doing so poorly after twelve years of sanctions. But don't disrespect the equipment just because it came from Russia. In good hands it should make anything else on the battlefield (if it has the sense) pause for thought. The 125mm is a powerful gun. BTW, since when did the T72 start using missles?! You're all thinking of later (T80BD/U and T90 etc) models - ones the Iraqis simply don't have IIRC. [/B][/QUOTE] They've not been supplied with the right parts BECAUSE they chose to buy from Russia. When you buy from the Russians, don't expect anything but the tank itself. Getting training on it, spair parts, and ammo after the purchase from the Russians is iffy unless you keep throwing money at them or you're a (former)Warsaw Pact member. Even then... And if they had had all these things, seriously, what would they have done with those T-72s? We dominated the air and with JSTARS and other assets we could see wherever they were the MOMENT they moved and direct ground/air forces to deal with them before the Iraqis figured out they had any idea we knew where they were. We had the Iraqis beaten before the war started, they just didn't know it. Once we had massed our forces in Saudi there was nothing they could do. And about Russian equipment. Even the latest Russian tanks are trash when compared to modern western stuff. Not because they are worse platforms, they just don't have the whole system backing up their armed forces like the U.S. Army does. No matter how powerful that gun is on your MBT, you still have to find the enemy, communicate it your forces, and maneuver for the kill. All preferably without the other guy knowing what 'you' are doing and how many of 'you' there are. fireball

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

6.390625