Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+33
Podlodka77
Arrow
flamming_python
Hole
PapaDragon
LMFS
kvs
lyle6
Isos
Zhar666
Anonymous Fighter
JohninMK
Gunfighter-AK
User 1592
OminousSpudd
Book.
AlfaT8
higurashihougi
KiloGolf
KoTeMoRe
nemrod
Werewolf
George1
rtech
Zivo
Cyberspec
magnumcromagnon
collegeboy16
BlackArrow
GarryB
Mindstorm
TR1
Austin
37 posters

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    TR1
    TR1


    Posts : 5435
    Points : 5433
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 2 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  TR1 Sat Apr 12, 2014 12:31 am

    Really this just points further to the importance of APS development vs all types of threats.

    Taking large ATGMs is no fun for any tank, even if it happens to hit a part it cannot penetrate.
    Cyberspec
    Cyberspec


    Posts : 2904
    Points : 3057
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 2 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Cyberspec Sat Apr 12, 2014 1:15 am

    A few more pics of the Iraqi Abrams

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 2 Th_264826317_IraqiM1A1Hit11_122_334lo M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 2 Th_264829896_IraqiM1A1Hit12_122_487lo


    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 2 Th_265183954_IraqiM1A1Hit21_122_30loM1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 2 Th_265186188_IraqiM1A1Hit22_122_404lo
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38695
    Points : 39191
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 2 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  GarryB Sat Apr 12, 2014 7:58 am

    To be fair it was an export version of the Abrams tank bought by the Iraqi army (I think it's the same kind that the Egyptians have) which doesn't include depleted uranium slabs in th

    Sorry... Abrams strong crew wont accept that the T-90s and T-80s they faced in Desert Storm might have been downgraded export models so we can't make the same allowances for the Abrams here either.

    Looks to me like there is a strong orange plume coming out of the turret after the hit which says to me there was an ammo fire.

    Not all Abrams ammo is stored in the turret bustle... 8 rounds are carried in the crew compartment near the driver...

    Crew survival outside the tank is generally pretty good... lots of tank crews made it back to their lines during WWII and lived to fight another day.
    collegeboy16
    collegeboy16


    Posts : 1135
    Points : 1134
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 27
    Location : Roanapur

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 2 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  collegeboy16 Sat Apr 12, 2014 9:47 am

    TR1 wrote:Really this just points further to the importance of APS development vs all types of threats.

    Taking large ATGMs is no fun for any tank, even if it happens to hit a part it cannot penetrate.
    also that monkey models suck monkey b@lls. at least a monkey model t-72 costs half the original, this one is almost like buying the real deal.
    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    I'm surprised with all the Pentagon R&D funding towards drones, that they haven't thought of just going with a drone Abrams tank, it could be made 20-25 tons lighter with lighter ground pressure, superior mobility and speed and probably could be designed to carry more ammo internally. Makes rather more sense than having a 70 ton tank with high ground pressure, that can still be knocked out by a Kornet.
    simple, UGVs are not that mature of a tech yet. First we will see unmanned trucks, then APCs and then finally IFVs and MBTs.
    Also, if they are going that route they would have to prepare a lot of ECM equipment- its easy to adapt jammers, etc. from aircraft to ground use.
    Zivo
    Zivo


    Posts : 1487
    Points : 1511
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 2 Empty Abrams is invincible!

    Post  Zivo Sat Apr 12, 2014 3:46 pm

    When you take away the military support structure that usually accompanies our MBT's, the M1 is just like any other tank.

    Looking through the BMPD link TR1 posted, these two images grabbed my attention.

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 2 1099453_original

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 2 1100237_original

    Assuming this is the same M1, both images show the left side of the vehicle. There doesn't appear to be damage to the storage bin. IIRC the M1's thickest turret armor extends back to were the smoke launchers are situated, just about were the tarp covers on the second picture. It looks as though the Kornet entered through quite a bit of armor.
    rtech
    rtech


    Posts : 21
    Points : 23
    Join date : 2014-12-11

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 2 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  rtech Tue May 19, 2015 8:51 pm

    This is the first time i see M1 ammo detonation. I suspect the Iraqis were carrying ammo in hull (marked in red)

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 2 M1_abrams_ammo_placement


    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 2 396149_original
    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 2 396421_original

    Source Tarsenko


    Last edited by rtech on Tue May 19, 2015 8:58 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : added source)
    George1
    George1


    Posts : 18257
    Points : 18754
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 2 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  George1 Tue Oct 13, 2015 7:48 am

    Tank Abrams M1A2 SEP v3

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 2 2463559_original

    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1520326.html
    Werewolf
    Werewolf


    Posts : 5913
    Points : 6102
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 2 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Werewolf Tue Oct 13, 2015 4:47 pm

    Funny, the tank recieves a new designation for just a few additional rounds and RWS? I thought that would come up with something good, but still anient and archaic design, no fix of flaws, not even attempt.

    Still use ineffecient HEMP rounds.
    nemrod
    nemrod


    Posts : 839
    Points : 1333
    Join date : 2012-09-11
    Age : 59

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 2 Empty B-1B against the T-72

    Post  nemrod Mon Apr 04, 2016 9:26 pm


    Another proof that the M1 Abrams could be destroyed by RPG. Unfortunetly we don't know in this article if it was by RPG-7, or RPG-16 ? It would be interresting to know. I don't know if in 2003 Iraq army had got RPG-29, but as you can see no need necessary of AT-14 Springham aka Kornet to destroy a western tank. If someone among has more info about this event.




    http://gurkhan.blogspot.fr/2016/03/b-1b-72.html

    B-1B against the T-72
    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 2 046805475935994

    Not so long ago, in Irkutsk, was published book: Ilya Topchiy "second Iraq war: events, facts, results". Noteworthy is the fact that this is probably the first and only at the moment publication summarizes the disparate materials on this topic and drawing a complete picture. Unfortunately, this book describes are not many concrete examples of individual battles and battle scenes, as might be desired. The more interesting case is described:
    " In Al Mandir two tanks of the Ml 'Abram c ", separated from the main force, were destroyed by hitting shells from RPGs in poorly protected housing areas (initially it was assumed that they destroyed from ATGM 9M133 "Cornet", but these data have not been confirmed). Along the way, Iraqis shot down one armored vehicle "Bradley." In response, Americans have a few blows with the bomber B-1B "Lancer" burned two T-72. " Simply delicious!

    No, I do not want to say that T-72 was so impregnable that it took to destroy them to use strategic aviation. Moreover, I inclined to think that it was just a random hit a bomb, or else bobmёry already "in progress" had been retargeted to the area in which they operate tanks. But by itself this fact, agree, beautiful! Yankees chase with Diego Garcia, for tyschschi keme strategy to ukandybobit two old tractors, which cost less than the cost of jet fuel burnt ... Direct advertising "semdesyatdvoykam"!

    Werewolf
    Werewolf


    Posts : 5913
    Points : 6102
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 2 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Werewolf Mon Apr 04, 2016 9:35 pm

    nemrod wrote:
    Another proof that the M1 Abrams could be destroyed by RPG. Unfortunetly we don't know in this article if it was by RPG-7, or RPG-16 ? It would be interresting to know. I don't know if in 2003 Iraq army had got RPG-29, but as you can see no need necessary of AT-14 Springham aka Kornet to destroy a western tank. If someone among has more info about this event.




    http://gurkhan.blogspot.fr/2016/03/b-1b-72.html

    B-1B against the T-72
    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 2 046805475935994

    Not so long ago, in Irkutsk, was published book: Ilya Topchiy "second Iraq war: events, facts, results". Noteworthy is the fact that this is probably the first and only at the moment publication summarizes the disparate materials on this topic and drawing a complete picture. Unfortunately, this book describes are not many concrete examples of individual battles and battle scenes, as might be desired. The more interesting case is described:
    " In Al Mandir two tanks of the Ml 'Abram c ", separated from the main force, were destroyed by hitting shells from RPGs in poorly protected housing areas (initially it was assumed that they destroyed from ATGM 9M133 "Cornet", but these data have not been confirmed). Along the way, Iraqis shot down one armored vehicle "Bradley." In response, Americans have a few blows with the bomber B-1B "Lancer" burned two T-72. " Simply delicious!

    No, I do not want to say that T-72 was so impregnable that it took to destroy them to use strategic aviation. Moreover, I inclined to think that it was just a random hit a bomb, or else bobmёry already "in progress" had been retargeted to the area in which they operate tanks. But by itself this fact, agree, beautiful! Yankees chase with Diego Garcia, for tyschschi keme strategy to ukandybobit two old tractors, which cost less than the cost of jet fuel burnt ... Direct advertising "semdesyatdvoykam"!


    We already knew that since 2006 of first circulating pics of Abrams that is also why they had to apply TUSK with ARAT ERA which is according to quite a few based on Kontakt-1 from NII Stali.
    KoTeMoRe
    KoTeMoRe


    Posts : 4212
    Points : 4227
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 2 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  KoTeMoRe Mon Apr 04, 2016 10:00 pm

    Fat shia militiaman shooting RPG 29 at Abroomz in improbable social shenanigans is the staple of any Abroomz bashing fixture.
    nemrod
    nemrod


    Posts : 839
    Points : 1333
    Join date : 2012-09-11
    Age : 59

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 2 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  nemrod Tue Apr 05, 2016 10:36 am

    KoTeMoRe wrote:Fat shia militiaman shooting...
    Fat shia maybe, but this fat shia as you said it is a guy who has balls....and big. It is highly possible that US forced to withdraw from Iraq because of fat guys like him.
    KoTeMoRe
    KoTeMoRe


    Posts : 4212
    Points : 4227
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 2 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  KoTeMoRe Tue Apr 05, 2016 11:00 am

    Jesus guys chill. Wtf is going on here. Abroomz Hunter is a meme from the Sadr/Quds era vs USA. He was the ultimate troll and gave his life for it. No one belittles his balls (god forbid), just saying that the guy was a notoriety from 2005 to 2008 (when they got him).


    This man is responsible for the TUSK update on his own. Vampyr salutes and kicks ass.
    nemrod
    nemrod


    Posts : 839
    Points : 1333
    Join date : 2012-09-11
    Age : 59

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 2 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  nemrod Tue Apr 05, 2016 7:31 pm

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    This man is responsible for the TUSK update on his own. Vampyr salutes and kicks ass.

    This man is chiefly responsible of US withdrawal from Iraq, they fled like a dog with its dick between its legs. Until -a part of- this video appeared in Youtube -around 2005/2006-, I used to consider that M1 Abrams was invulnerable. Nothing could stop this tank. After I started to realize that US could lie too. I was far to realize how I was cheated. In that time I used to consider that russian/soviet hardware were mere ironsmith. And this Ironsmith could match with modern western hardware. I was very far to realize the huge scale of US lies, and its propaganda.
    Furthermore, I don't know what Shia is, what Sunni is, what Xtian is etc...I see a mere iraqi that standed against the illegal occupation of his country by Oligarchy. He was a resistant against US empire, that's all.
    Incredible man, incredible video. Thx for adding these images. If you have others, please....
    Werewolf
    Werewolf


    Posts : 5913
    Points : 6102
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 2 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Werewolf Tue Apr 05, 2016 9:46 pm

    nemrod wrote:
    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    This man is responsible for the TUSK update on his own. Vampyr salutes and kicks ass.

    This man is chiefly responsible of US withdrawal from Iraq, they fled like a dog with its dick between its legs. Until -a part of- this video appeared in Youtube -around 2005/2006-, I used to consider that M1 Abrams was invulnerable. Nothing could stop this tank. After I started to realize that US could lie too. I was far to realize how I was cheated. In that time I used to consider that russian/soviet hardware were mere ironsmith. And this Ironsmith could match with modern western hardware. I was very far to realize the huge scale of US lies, and its propaganda.
    Furthermore, I don't know what Shia is, what Sunni is, what Xtian is etc...I see a mere iraqi that standed against the illegal occupation of his country by Oligarchy. He was a resistant against US empire, that's all.
    Incredible man, incredible video. Thx for adding these images. If you have others, please....

    An ISU-152 will kill any tank today with its concrete projectiles, no penetration but a destroyed tank. Nothing is indestructable, not even fanboys dreams. I love to see them destroyed, it is the most magical thing in this world.
    nemrod
    nemrod


    Posts : 839
    Points : 1333
    Join date : 2012-09-11
    Age : 59

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 2 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  nemrod Tue Apr 05, 2016 11:17 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    I love to see them destroyed, it is the most magical thing in this world.
    Very Happy If a thing is sure, your point of view is shared by 4/5 of this world.

    Werewolf wrote:
    Nothing is indestructable, not even fanboys dreams.
    In fact I was jarred by the book of Zaloga -M1 Abrams vs T-72 Ural OPERATION DESERT STORM 1991-, that cheated me.
    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 2 B26113476136947
    Available here
    https://ospreypublishing.com/m1-abrams-vs-t-72-ural
    He presented the M1 as something nearly invulnerable, far better than the T-72. In his ugly presentation he omit -we understand why- to present the battle of Phase Line Bullet, where iraqi T-72 performed very well against coalition's tanks . Moreover, the T-72 performed very well too in 1982 against the israeli's Merkava. If we add the recent videos occured in Yemen, where an old 60's era AT-4 Spigot burned an saudi's M1 A2 Abrams, then, there were enough proofs against Zaloga's fantaisies. US won the battle of Kuwait in 1991, because there were no battles. Iraqis were retreating when US cowardly attacked, and slaughtered an army in retreat. Take a look this link :
    http://www.countercurrents.org/lagauche280210.htm
    During the war in 1999 against Serbia, serbian army expected a ground battle vs US. But US did not dare! They did not dare, because US high responsibles were freightened, they knew very well how a such battle might ended in nightmare meaning a real humiliation for US, worse than Khe Sahn in 1968. Because they were very well aware what is the reality of the US so called superiority. And now, you have many western books that claimed without any proofs the superiority of West against russian's hardware.

    Saying this, about the M1, what could I say. Is the T-72 superior than the M1 ? I could not assert it. M1 better than the T-72 ? I could answer regarding electronic area slightly better, maybe the M1's gun -?-. But tell me what is the the usefulness of GPS, in a real ground battle ? U can easily jam it, except if the US attack a stone age army.
    Range 4.000 meters for the M1, and 1.800 for the T-72 ? In the ground battle most of the fights occured at less than 1.000 meters. Above, there are the effectives anti tank missiles like the AT-4 Spigot, Tow 2, AT-5 Spandrel. Below 500 meters another nightmare for the tanks are the RPG. In the paper we could say that the M1 seems -not sure- to be slightly superior to the T-72, or T-90, but in the paper only. After that it relies on the team inside the tanks, the context, the motivation, the logistic etc.... More you are trained, better it is. But all tanks are vulnerable including the new Armata. Hence the question is becoming more complex, and it is hard to assert who is better than who, because it depends of several very complex parameters. Let's tell the editors, we do not need propaganda, or fanstaisies, we only expect objectives point of views, not ugly fantaisies for commercial, geopolical purposes whatever it is.

    KiloGolf
    KiloGolf


    Posts : 2481
    Points : 2461
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 2 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  KiloGolf Wed Apr 06, 2016 12:49 am

    nemrod wrote:US won the battle of Kuwait in 1991, because there were no battles. Iraqis were retreating when US cowardly attacked, and slaughtered an army in retreat. Take a look this link

    Coalition won all battles in KSA, Iraq and Kuwait. Khafji and Medina Ridge come to mind. Many more on the list incl. as you mentioned, Phase Line Bullet, where Iraqis were massacred on the field by Meigs' and Riley's boys (Iraq pretty much lost a creme de la creme division in 24 hrs).
    KoTeMoRe
    KoTeMoRe


    Posts : 4212
    Points : 4227
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 2 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  KoTeMoRe Wed Apr 06, 2016 7:09 am

    Once again, we're talking something Irrelevant here. In Desert Shield/Storm the goal, from the US WAS to obliterate Iraq with all they got. IF you want it was really the perfect set up. Almost no vegetation, no need to get into cities, overwhelming aerial and intelligence superiority and all the time in the world to deploy troops (about 700K in total). And a UN resolution to boot.

    Everything that "failed" in desert Storm was made to fail. It had nothing to do with the qualities of the hardware or weapons. Many say, that most night fighting capabilities of the Iraqis were obsolete. Well even if they weren't, the capabilities of the US in electronic surveillance were truly ahead of their time then. The chances were stacked against Iraq, so basically the people put everything against Iraq and its stock, while everyone, bar maybe the Soviet Union would falter to such an onslaught.

    higurashihougi
    higurashihougi


    Posts : 3000
    Points : 3087
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 2 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  higurashihougi Wed Apr 06, 2016 12:52 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    nemrod wrote:US won the battle of Kuwait in 1991, because there were no battles. Iraqis were retreating when US cowardly attacked, and slaughtered an army in retreat. Take a look this link

    Coalition won all battles in KSA, Iraq and Kuwait. Khafji and Medina Ridge come to mind. Many more on the list incl. as you mentioned, Phase Line Bullet, where Iraqis were massacred on the field by Meigs' and Riley's boys (Iraq pretty much lost a creme de la creme division in 24 hrs).

    We can't expect Iraqi army to stand against the combined arms of U.S. and some other European countries.

    Not to mentioned that most of Iraqi weapons were old stuffs, and Iraqi troops morale/training were not extremely good.
    Werewolf
    Werewolf


    Posts : 5913
    Points : 6102
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 2 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Werewolf Wed Apr 06, 2016 7:51 pm

    KoTeMoRe wrote:Once again, we're talking something Irrelevant here. In Desert Shield/Storm the goal, from the US WAS to obliterate Iraq with all they got. IF you want it was really the perfect set up. Almost no vegetation, no need to get into cities, overwhelming aerial and intelligence superiority and all the time in the world to deploy troops (about 700K in total). And a UN resolution to boot.

    Everything that "failed" in desert Storm was made to fail. It had nothing to do with the qualities of the hardware or weapons. Many say, that most night fighting capabilities of the Iraqis were obsolete. Well even if they weren't, the capabilities of the US in electronic surveillance were truly ahead of their time then. The chances were stacked against Iraq, so basically the people put everything against Iraq and its stock, while everyone, bar maybe the Soviet Union would falter to such an onslaught.


    Horse shit, not everything was planed to fail that failed, retarded and non existent discipline among soldiers is one of the reasons of the constant fuck ups. They certainly did not plan to get over 100 abrams wrecked or over 20 Apaches wrecked not to mention the actual death/destruction count of all tanks and helicopters and what not. Despite fighting such an easy war with no problems involved. Flat desert is a dessert.
    AlfaT8
    AlfaT8


    Posts : 2446
    Points : 2437
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 2 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  AlfaT8 Wed Apr 06, 2016 8:11 pm

    KoTeMoRe wrote:Once again, we're talking something Irrelevant here. In Desert Shield/Storm the goal, from the US WAS to obliterate Iraq with all they got. IF you want it was really the perfect set up. Almost no vegetation, no need to get into cities, overwhelming aerial and intelligence superiority and all the time in the world to deploy troops (about 700K in total). And a UN resolution to boot.

    Everything that "failed" in desert Storm was made to fail. It had nothing to do with the qualities of the hardware or weapons. Many say, that most night fighting capabilities of the Iraqis were obsolete. Well even if they weren't, the capabilities of the US in electronic surveillance were truly ahead of their time then. The chances were stacked against Iraq, so basically the people put everything against Iraq and its stock, while everyone, bar maybe the Soviet Union would falter to such an onslaught.

    Maybe??Suspect

    You mean definitely, the SU would tear apart this so-called onslaught like it was nothing, and i am excluding nukes here. attack
    nemrod
    nemrod


    Posts : 839
    Points : 1333
    Join date : 2012-09-11
    Age : 59

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 2 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  nemrod Wed Apr 06, 2016 10:08 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    Horse shit, not everything was planed to fail that failed, retarded and non existent discipline among soldiers is one of the reasons of the constant fuck ups. They certainly did not plan to get over 100 abrams wrecked or over 20 Apaches wrecked not to mention the actual death/destruction count of all tanks and helicopters and what not. Despite fighting such an easy war with no problems involved. Flat desert is a dessert.
    I searched for several years about the real scale of US losses. But now for evident geopolitical reasons it is classified. The losses -in 1991- must be far higher than announced. Nevertheless US had benefited  real strategic errors of Saddam Hussayn and its staff. This is the most explanation of US success. Iraqi soldiers wanted to resist, but iraqi's high officials did not want.
    We could notice from US DoD a certain toast of humour listen :


    A total of 23 M1A1s were damaged or destroyed during the war. Of the nine Abrams tanks destroyed, seven were destroyed by friendly fire, and two were purposely destroyed to prevent capture after being damaged.[20] Some others took minor combat damage, with little effect on their operational readiness. Very few M1 tanks were hit by enemy fire, which resulted in no fatalities and only a handful of wounded.
    Best than Jerry Lewis's Joke! lol!
    Another excerpt
    Battle of Phase Line Bullet -involving several hundreds of US tanks, beside several hundreds of IFV Bradley-

    Another Bradley (A-36) was first disabled by a 12.7 mm round from an NSVT heavy machine gun...
    Hummm interresting news, a simple 12.7 could at least disable an IFV like the Bradley...but just three IFV? Only three ? There were several hundreds, if not more than thousand others were taking part in the combat.... Shocked Yes, but impossible is not american lol! !


    The contact lasted for about two hours, until the Bradleys, battered by enemy and friendly fire and running out of ammunition, were forced to withdraw.
    Two hours only ? the cow boys retreated ? Battle with several hundreds of tanks ? Where were the A-10 ? AH-64 ? F-15 E ? well let's continue...
    The losses -amercan hollywood happy end version-

    4 Bradley IFVs destroyed and 10 damaged 2 killed 12 wounded...
    Obviously, there were all destroyed by this damn of "Friendly fire".  lol!  If I remember, in porn convention they have the same expression meaning....But in this case it came from US DoD.


    higurashihougi wrote:

    We can't expect Iraqi army to stand against the combined arms of U.S. and some other European countries.

    Not to mentioned that most of Iraqi weapons were old stuffs, and Iraqi troops morale/training were not extremely good.

    In my view, the M1 Abrams is not a bad tank, but it suffers as most the US hardware by an excessive hype. The M1 Abrams could be compared with the T-72, T-80, T-90, Leopard A2, Challenger. But it is not better.  A T-62, or even a T-55 -modernized- could destroy an M1. In my view the M1 has the same problem as the F-15, F-16, F-35, F-22, this hardware in order to win must be engaged in outnumber way in order to win.  I suspect  RPG and Sagger took a toll of US M1, and Saudi, egyptian M-60 in Iraq. In 1991, there were no battles in Kuwait, there were a simple massacre of iraqi soldiers retreating called as "Batlles", except Phase Line Battle where some Iraqi divisions were not in position of retreating, as you can see US could no longer sustain their high losses. But this kind of behaviour, is like a joker, U could use just once.
    The battle of Falludjah in 2004 took the first prelude of western rout. 2006 Israelis tanks Merkava IV were decimated -at least 100- by simple anti tank tactics of a mere militia. Sure, the next is following.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38695
    Points : 39191
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 2 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  GarryB Thu Apr 07, 2016 11:16 am

    Heavy machine gun fire will DISABLE any armoured vehicle... even if it cannot penetrate its armour from any direction it can blind the vehicle, damage its weapons and means of communication and also immobilise it by damaging tracks and wheels.
    nemrod
    nemrod


    Posts : 839
    Points : 1333
    Join date : 2012-09-11
    Age : 59

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 2 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  nemrod Sat Apr 09, 2016 11:04 am

    GarryB wrote:Heavy machine gun fire will DISABLE any armoured vehicle... even if it cannot penetrate its armour from any direction it can blind the vehicle, damage its weapons and means of communication and also immobilise it by damaging tracks and wheels.

    Garry I never doubted this, I try only highlight the stupid arguments of US DoD. U engage several hundreds of tanks, beside several hundreds other armoured vehicles in a very great battle disguised -as US DoD's terminology- in a simple skirmish. At the end U admit that heavy machine could damage your armoured vehicles, but only 3 ? Only 23 M1 Abrams destroyed, and most of them were due to friendly fires, the rest were destroyed by US themselves. What a Face With that only few deaths ? Shocked It looks like a Zaloga's fantaisies, no ? In fact US DoD take us for fools. The ridicule of the propaganda.
    George1
    George1


    Posts : 18257
    Points : 18754
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 2 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  George1 Tue Apr 19, 2016 8:35 am

    U.S. Marine Corps plans to buy Trophy active protection systems for its M1 Abrams tanks

    The Marine Corps plans to buy or lease existing active protection systems (APS) for its M1 Abrams tanks that are vulnerable to proliferating anti-tank guided missiles.

    Specifically, the Marine Corps will test the Trophy APS system developed by Israeli defense firm RAFAEL and sold in the United States by DRS Technologies, Lt. Gen. Robert Walsh, deputy commandant of the Marine Corps for combat development and integration, told members of the Senate Armed Services subcommittee on seapower April 13.

    Trophy (also known as ASPRO-A)
    is a military active protection system (APS) for vehicles. It intercepts and destroys incoming missiles and rocketswith a shotgun-like blast. Trophy is the product of a ten-year collaborative development project between the Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and Israel Aircraft Industries’ Elta Group. Its principal purpose is to supplement the armour of light and heavy armored fighting vehicles.

    http://defence-blog.com/army/u-s-marine-corps-plans-to-buy-trophy-active-protection-systems-for-its-m1-abrams-tanks.html

    Sponsored content


    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 2 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Mar 19, 2024 9:44 am