Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Share

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  nemrod on Thu Jun 02, 2016 12:45 pm

    higurashihougi wrote:
    And recently Zaloga began to say bullshit about Russian small sizes. I can't believe in my eyes when I read such comments in his T-64 article (2015), I can't believe there is such stupidity like that.

    Zaloga's stupidities are famous. As him nothing could penetrate the M1 Abrams. Nothing or almost, I don't know what could he say when he sees this image



    As I said, to have a better informations, it is better to stay away of these institutional propagandists agents. We won't learn something with them.

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  nemrod on Sat Jun 04, 2016 12:37 am

    Few words about F-15.
    OminousSpudd wrote:...or if any F-15s have actually been shot-down in an A2A engagement...

    A thing is sure US lie, because the lie is an important part of the war, as any belligerents lie, US have rights to lie, hence I could not reproach US DoD to hype its propaganda. It is normal.
    Moreover, the Mig-23, Mig-21, and Mig-29 are very very effectives aircrafts. Among the best of the world. As the T-72, the AT-3 Sagger, the RPGs, AK-47 I don't see why the Mig are not effectives. Because soviets had a strong technology, and strong know-how.

    Furthermore, I forgot to mention this element


    The initial night’s work played out better than Coalition air planners had hoped. Instead of the 20–25 aircraft losses some had expected, the early morning air attacks of 17 January suffered the loss of a single F-18, to a Mig-25. 32 Those attacks destroyed Iraq’s integrated air defense system.33 This does not mean the Iraqis were unable to fire unguided surface-to-air missiles at the attackers, or even to turn on their radars occasionally—there simply was no air defense system after the morning of 17 January.

    Well if we think as americans, there were no air defense system.


    ...that attacking aircraft no longer had to fly at low levels to avoid Iraqi missile defenses and radars, but instead where Iraqi anti-
    aircraft guns were dangerous...

    US acknowledged that anti aircraft guns are very lethal. I was told a couple of years ago that US air fighter bombers had to fly at higher altitude. Because there are no fear of SAM, but the fear of AAA, as US views.
    However US DoD admit that at least -I insist on at least-

    2 F-15 E
    2 F-18
    3 F-16 C
    1 F-14
    1-F-4
    few F-111
    few Tornado


    Were downed by... SAMs those that were supposed to be obliterated, except if they were unguided  lol!
    I was not there to identify or confirm F-15 E by C. In my view several F-15 C/E, F-18, F-16 -likely more than severa dozens-, F-14, F-111, F-4, and at least one B-52 were downed by Iraqi air force. As for the supposed gladiator M1 Abrams, the hoax around the F-15 C seems to not resist against the scrutiny of the facts. I could not confirm if the C did not be replaced by E
    . A matter of letter!  lol!  Accept or not this war was not intended only against the arab' "Unter manner" but mostly, and chiefly  against soviet know how, and ...russian know how too .


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_combat_losses_of_United_States_military_aircraft_since_the_Vietnam_War
    http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA44530


    Last edited by nemrod on Sat Jun 04, 2016 12:49 am; edited 1 time in total

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  nemrod on Sat Jun 04, 2016 12:48 am


    A very last word about that, iam not here to change the course of the history, Iraq indeed lost the war. Most of its army was obliterated, but...not in the way as US asserted. Moreover the soviet hardware in normal situation gave good results, as it was expected. Soviet hardware was effective. Iraqi soldiers behaved like very well.
    If the M1 Abrams seems to be not a bad tank, there is no longer the best, and was never the best, in spite of the US's hype, and brainwashing.

    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4816
    Points : 4863
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Militarov on Sat Jun 04, 2016 12:52 am

    nemrod wrote:To Militarov
    First of all I did not insult you, I respect your pov. I believe in something, you believe in other thing, after all it is not the end of the world. We don"t have the same POV, it is not necessary a bad thing, this a forum to exchange. And it is a simple point of view. I mock mostly of US propaganda, and not you.  welcome

    Militarov wrote:Actually Williamson Murray is great author, he is an actual military historian not random guy writing blog on blogspot, he was teaching on few military schools and actually served himself in Air Force Smile. Try finding his War in the Air: 1914-1945, very nicely written piece, just for an example.
    The US system is by its essence a dictator. More your have a high responsibilities, more it is hard to criticize.  


    Militarov wrote:
    So where exactly F15 was shot down in air to air encounter? I might be missing something but all documented loses were either due to ground fire or mechanical failures.
    I've never said an F-15 C was shot down, but I never said it could not exist. US have the monopole of media, they could tell us what they want.

    Militarov wrote:
    And its not really easy in the US especially to hide losing a fighter aircraft,...

    The US system could hide what they want, when they want, and how they want.

    Militarov wrote:
    ...ppl there love to ask questions and add how they are "voting and paying taxes" and "what to know where their tax money is going".

    Everywhere people love to ask question, and love the truth. For example I supposed the US taxpayers were very happy of the Bailout, decided H. Paulson, and the establishment to save at first the banks instead of US taxpayers, and US public's interrests. More than anyone in the world the US system is dictator..

    Militarov wrote:
    Let alone fact how Military likes to say how they are being underfunded, so losing fighters is what they love the most, so they can cry for more money.

    US adminstration is able to do what they want if it serves the interrests of the militaro-industrial complex, and the banks. They avoid as long as it is possible to say that a fighter was downed by an enemy fighter. We will discuss Desert Storm air war in another topic. It is exciting too. But just to know, there were a Mig-25 that avoid nearly 20 air to air missiles. The Mig are far to be inferior than US aircrafts.


    I never said you insulted me, so dw.

    Wars in Iraq were very extensively covered by media, we would know, there are always leaks. People leaked far less important happenings than famed F15 being shot.

    US administration can do alot about media coverage of certain stuff but even they are not miracle workers.

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  nemrod on Sat Jun 04, 2016 12:56 am

    Militarov wrote:

    I never said you insulted me, so dw.

    Wars in Iraq were very extensively covered by media, we would know, there are always leaks. People leaked far less important happenings than famed F15 being shot.

    US administration can do alot about media coverage of certain stuff but even they are not miracle workers.
    thumbsup

    Just to tell you, I appreciate your contribution too, your ideas, even though we have not always the same POV.

    Regards.

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  nemrod on Thu Jun 30, 2016 12:24 pm

    A friend of mine that knows very well the situation that is prevailing in Middle East told me that a syrian army's T-62 took out an M1 Abrams belonging to the terrorists dubbed "DAECH".





    This news did not surprised me, as I know that the powerful gun -115 mm/ smoothbore- of the T-62 could largely destroy any western tank in a fair combat.

    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1149
    Points : 1162
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  AlfaT8 on Thu Jun 30, 2016 3:31 pm

    nemrod wrote:A friend of mine that knows very well the situation that is prevailing in Middle East told me that a syrian army's T-62 took out an M1 Abrams belonging to the terrorists dubbed "DAECH".





    This news did not surprised me, as I know that the powerful gun -115 mm/ smoothbore- of the T-62 could largely destroy any western tank in a fair combat.

    Wouldn't be surprised, armor of export M1s is a joke, SA lost quite a few in Yemen, there was also that time when Iraq tested Kornet against M1 the thing was hauled away with tarp covering the frontal armor so it didn't look good.

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  nemrod on Thu Jun 30, 2016 5:23 pm

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    Wouldn't be surprised, armor of export M1s is a joke, SA lost quite a few in Yemen,
    Whatever it is export version, or authentic US marines' M1 Abrams, the faite might be the same.

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    ...there was also that time when Iraq tested Kornet against M1 the thing was hauled away with tarp covering the frontal armor so it didn't look good.
    Even if you admit that the T-62's gun is inefective, let's admit just a few seconds, the soviet/russian its embedded AT-10 Stabber or or  AT-12 Swinger are largely enough to burn any western tank. But I think the U-5TS is largely enough against any western tank nowadays.

    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3565
    Points : 3600
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Thu Jun 30, 2016 10:32 pm

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    nemrod wrote:A friend of mine that knows very well the situation that is prevailing in Middle East told me that a syrian army's T-62 took out an M1 Abrams belonging to the terrorists dubbed "DAECH".





    This news did not surprised me, as I know that the powerful gun -115 mm/ smoothbore- of the T-62 could largely destroy any western tank in a fair combat.

    Wouldn't be surprised, armor of export M1s is a joke, SA lost quite a few in Yemen, there was also that time when Iraq tested Kornet against M1 the thing was hauled away with tarp covering the frontal armor so it didn't look good.

    Export M1 armour is far from a joke. Especially the post IAP ones.

    KSA lost quite of them due to its crews being little more than baboons with the gift of speech. All tanks would have faltered in those circumstances. Take the T90's in Syria, great workhorse, definitely not enough for garbage crews.

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  nemrod on Thu Jun 30, 2016 10:58 pm

    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    Export M1 armour is far from a joke. Especially the post IAP ones.

    KSA lost quite of them due to its crews being little more than baboons with the gift of speech. All tanks would have faltered in those circumstances. Take the T90's in Syria, great workhorse, definitely not enough for garbage crews.

    What I wanted to mean, if a teenager with an RPG-7 could disable an M1 Abrams whatever the crews are marines, or GI's, a fortiori a tank could do more.  It is well known that KSA's M1 Abrams are far to be obsolete as Saudi paid a very expensive price to give enough protection to its crews. The version of KSA's tanks are M1-A2/A3 this is the standard that prevails in US. Saudi Arabia is not a mere ally, this is not Belgium, Poland, or even South Korea. Saudi Arabia more than any other US allies, is among the most important for US, it is a critical issue. Hence US give to Ryadh all state of the arts US hardware, as it was during the Shah's era for Iran.
    We know and assume a all russian anti tank missiles are able -at least- to disable any armoured vehicles in the world. This is not what I wanted to highlight.
    I assume that terrorists in Iraq have kind of slightly downgraded M1 Abrams, nevertheless the Hull is still M1 Abrams, this is not an M-60. what I wanted to highlight here is the fact that a T-62 is able to take out an M1 Abrams. If the RPG-7 could disable a state of art's western tank, the T-62 or even the T-55 could do more. This is what I wanted to mean.

    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3565
    Points : 3600
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Fri Jul 01, 2016 2:48 pm

    nemrod wrote:
    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    Export M1 armour is far from a joke. Especially the post IAP ones.

    KSA lost quite of them due to its crews being little more than baboons with the gift of speech. All tanks would have faltered in those circumstances. Take the T90's in Syria, great workhorse, definitely not enough for garbage crews.

    What I wanted to mean, if a teenager with an RPG-7 could disable an M1 Abrams whatever the crews are marines, or GI's, a fortiori a tank could do more.  It is well known that KSA's M1 Abrams are far to be obsolete as Saudi paid a very expensive price to give enough protection to its crews. The version of KSA's tanks are M1-A2/A3 this is the standard that prevails in US. Saudi Arabia is not a mere ally, this is not Belgium, Poland, or even South Korea. Saudi Arabia more than any other US allies, is among the most important for US, it is a critical issue. Hence US give to Ryadh all state of the arts US hardware, as it was during the Shah's era for Iran.
    We know and assume a all russian anti tank missiles are able -at least- to disable any armoured vehicles in the world. This is not what I wanted to highlight.
    I assume that terrorists in Iraq have kind of slightly downgraded M1 Abrams, nevertheless the Hull is still M1 Abrams, this is not an M-60. what I wanted to highlight here is the fact that a T-62 is able to take out an M1 Abrams. If the RPG-7 could disable a state of art's western tank, the T-62 or even the T-55 could do more. This is what I wanted to mean.

    It's an inanimate object. It will falter because of its use, not of its intrinsic values. There are less people killed on M1114/M1151's than on T72's. That's not because the M1114/1151 are better protected, just they're employed correctly by better trained personnel and according to their doctrine.

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  nemrod on Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:48 pm

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    ... just they're employed correctly by better trained personnel
    Or just because they this supposed trained personnel did not take risks, because of their cowardices ?

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    ...and according to their doctrine.

    Doctrine that relies on powerful aerial support, and numerical superiority, else they pass up any risks 'combats. Meanwhile, the T-55, or T-62's teams did not hesitate to take risks.

    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1149
    Points : 1162
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  AlfaT8 on Fri Jul 01, 2016 6:51 pm

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:
    nemrod wrote:A friend of mine that knows very well the situation that is prevailing in Middle East told me that a syrian army's T-62 took out an M1 Abrams belonging to the terrorists dubbed "DAECH".





    This news did not surprised me, as I know that the powerful gun -115 mm/ smoothbore- of the T-62 could largely destroy any western tank in a fair combat.

    Wouldn't be surprised, armor of export M1s is a joke, SA lost quite a few in Yemen, there was also that time when Iraq tested Kornet against M1 the thing was hauled away with tarp covering the frontal armor so it didn't look good.

    Export M1 armour is far from a joke. Especially the post IAP ones.

    KSA lost quite of them due to its crews being little more than baboons with the gift of speech. All tanks would have faltered in those circumstances. Take the T90's in Syria, great workhorse, definitely not enough for garbage crews.

    Lets agree to disagree then, and IAP which variant is that, also the KSA had the A2S export variant of the A2 SEP so now i am laughing harder. Laughing

    And that T-90 the "rebels" got is useless, i have yet to see them turn that turret much less use it in combat, good for PR, but not much else.

    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3565
    Points : 3600
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Sat Jul 02, 2016 2:26 am

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:
    nemrod wrote:A friend of mine that knows very well the situation that is prevailing in Middle East told me that a syrian army's T-62 took out an M1 Abrams belonging to the terrorists dubbed "DAECH".





    This news did not surprised me, as I know that the powerful gun -115 mm/ smoothbore- of the T-62 could largely destroy any western tank in a fair combat.

    Wouldn't be surprised, armor of export M1s is a joke, SA lost quite a few in Yemen, there was also that time when Iraq tested Kornet against M1 the thing was hauled away with tarp covering the frontal armor so it didn't look good.

    Export M1 armour is far from a joke. Especially the post IAP ones.

    KSA lost quite of them due to its crews being little more than baboons with the gift of speech. All tanks would have faltered in those circumstances. Take the T90's in Syria, great workhorse, definitely not enough for garbage crews.

    Lets agree to disagree then, and IAP which variant is that, also the KSA had the A2S export variant of the A2 SEP so now i am laughing harder. Laughing

    And that T-90 the "rebels" got is useless, i have yet to see them turn that turret much less use it in combat, good for PR, but not much else.

    Nope we won't agree on anything. Especially on disagreeing on something as evident as the fact that you are well protected in an export M1A1/A2. IAP/AIM stands for Integrated managment Abrams Program/Abrams Integrated Managment. These tanks are well protected for front use. What they can't overcome, is poor crews, poor leadership and idiotic tactics.

    Same for the T90.

    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1149
    Points : 1162
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  AlfaT8 on Sat Jul 02, 2016 2:42 am

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:
    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:
    nemrod wrote:A friend of mine that knows very well the situation that is prevailing in Middle East told me that a syrian army's T-62 took out an M1 Abrams belonging to the terrorists dubbed "DAECH".





    This news did not surprised me, as I know that the powerful gun -115 mm/ smoothbore- of the T-62 could largely destroy any western tank in a fair combat.

    Wouldn't be surprised, armor of export M1s is a joke, SA lost quite a few in Yemen, there was also that time when Iraq tested Kornet against M1 the thing was hauled away with tarp covering the frontal armor so it didn't look good.

    Export M1 armour is far from a joke. Especially the post IAP ones.

    KSA lost quite of them due to its crews being little more than baboons with the gift of speech. All tanks would have faltered in those circumstances. Take the T90's in Syria, great workhorse, definitely not enough for garbage crews.

    Lets agree to disagree then, and IAP which variant is that, also the KSA had the A2S export variant of the A2 SEP so now i am laughing harder. Laughing

    And that T-90 the "rebels" got is useless, i have yet to see them turn that turret much less use it in combat, good for PR, but not much else.

    Nope we won't agree on anything. Especially on disagreeing on something as evident as the fact that you are well protected in an export M1A1/A2. IAP/AIM stands for Integrated managment Abrams Program/Abrams Integrated Managment. These tanks are well protected for front use. What they can't overcome, is poor crews, poor leadership and idiotic tactics.

    Same for the T90.

    Fine by me charly, your views wont change and neither will mine.

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  nemrod on Sat Jul 02, 2016 11:18 am

    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    Nope we won't agree on anything. Especially on disagreeing on something as evident as the fact that you are well protected in an export M1A1/A2. IAP/AIM stands for Integrated managment Abrams Program/Abrams Integrated Managment. These tanks are well protected for front use. What they can't overcome, is poor crews, poor leadership and idiotic tactics.
    With or without their gadgets like IAP/AIM, or you can bring the most well trained personnel -that rarely exist in KSA's ground forces-, the best tactics, that implies a very skills high commands -that does not exist KSA's ground forces- any M1 will be crushed by any russian anti tank missiles.

    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1205
    Points : 1223
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  KiloGolf on Sat Jul 02, 2016 2:28 pm

    nemrod wrote:
    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    Nope we won't agree on anything. Especially on disagreeing on something as evident as the fact that you are well protected in an export M1A1/A2. IAP/AIM stands for Integrated managment Abrams Program/Abrams Integrated Managment. These tanks are well protected for front use. What they can't overcome, is poor crews, poor leadership and idiotic tactics.
    With or without their gadgets like IAP/AIM, or you can bring the most well trained personnel -that rarely exist in KSA's ground forces-, the best tactics, that implies a very skills high commands -that does not exist KSA's ground forces- any M1 will be crushed by any russian anti tank missiles.

    I don't think your statement makes much sense. The fist part is the exact opposite of the second part. I haven't heard of any armored formation deciding to carelessly drive and park their MBTs towards enemy ATGM traps and so on. Saddam's IQ Army and Assad's Seflie Arab Army are exceptions.

    Export or US M1s are pretty solid tanks.

    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3565
    Points : 3600
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Sun Jul 03, 2016 12:00 am

    I'd say that a protracted war will always cost assets, there's no question about it.

    It's also probably an unical setting. The "rebels" have fired more ATGM's than some armies have in inventory.

    User 1592
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 13
    Points : 25
    Join date : 2016-07-08

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  User 1592 on Wed Aug 17, 2016 2:09 am

    M1 TTB : http://warfaretech.blogspot.com/2015/05/m1-tank-test-bed-ttb-with-unmanned.html

    Gunfighter-AK
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 21
    Points : 21
    Join date : 2012-12-10

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Gunfighter-AK on Tue Sep 13, 2016 6:18 pm

    May or may not being the wrong thread to ask in, but I've heard that the Saudis have lost 6 M1A2Ss, as of March. Has that number increased any?

    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1149
    Points : 1162
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  AlfaT8 on Tue Sep 13, 2016 10:58 pm

    Gunfighter-AK wrote:May or may not being the wrong thread to ask in, but I've heard that the Saudis have lost 6 M1A2Ss, as of March. Has that number increased any?

    In the last discussion about this, we believed they lost around 20 and those are the ones that can be verified, some believe the actual lost is over 100.
    http://www.russiadefence.net/t4766p500-yemeni-conflict-news-2

    Gunfighter-AK
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 21
    Points : 21
    Join date : 2012-12-10

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Gunfighter-AK on Wed Sep 14, 2016 1:29 am

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    Gunfighter-AK wrote:May or may not being the wrong thread to ask in, but I've heard that the Saudis have lost 6 M1A2Ss, as of March. Has that number increased any?

    In the last discussion about this, we believed they lost around 20 and those are the ones that can be verified, some believe the actual lost is over 100.
    http://www.russiadefence.net/t4766p500-yemeni-conflict-news-2

    Cheers! Will take the discussion there.

    Sponsored content

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 1:04 pm


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 06, 2016 1:04 pm