US getting back into Iraq fight

[norseamd]

I know much more about this than dirt cars.

All it takes to deal with tanks are mobility kills and I believe that even rpgs are sufficient to do that. IEDs are another possible way to fuck up tank tracks or even destroy the tanks outright. You can also use sniper rifles to destroy the optics and equipment on the outside of the tank. Add to that the US is now running air support over there and I doubt you have anything to fear from a few tanks the ISIS might have captured. The tanks are only as powerful as the greater military operations they are used with.

 

[kage69]

Care to explain?

Not really, but I will summarize it: you don't know what you are talking about in regards to tanks. Pretty straight forward really.

I'd say the explaining is actually up to you, as you're the one making assertions that run contrary to historical, physical and tactical data known to be true about the Abrams. Maybe you should hit google as I suggested, get an idea of what I'm talking about, then let us know what it is about the M1's performance you consider anemic and not worthy of the respect that infantry gives armor.

 

[kage69]

All it takes to deal with tanks are mobility kills and I believe that even rpgs are sufficient to do that. IEDs are another possible way to fuck up tank tracks or even destroy the tanks outright. You can also use sniper rifles to destroy the optics and equipment on the outside of the tank.

Quite so, which is why the fedayeen saddam walked all over our armored cavalry back in 2003.








Oh wait

 

[norseamd]

Not really, but I will summarize it: you don't know what you are talking about in regards to tanks. Pretty straight forward really. I'd say the explaining is actually up to you, as you're the one making assertions that run contrary to historical, physical and tactical data known to be true about the Abrams. Maybe you should hit google as I suggested, get an idea of what I'm talking about, then let us know what it is about the M1's performance you consider anemic and not worthy of the respect that infantry gives armor.

You want me consider every other element of warfare is insignificant compared to how well M1 tanks deal with T-72s? You know I think there is someone who is as wise about war as you are. You and Donald Rumsfeld would probably seem like amazing pals. You seem to not understand the general theories and current thought of warfare. Nevermind that tanks are specifically instructed not to operate without the cover of friendly infantry.

 

[alcoholbob]

I think this post is a great example of why people unfamiliar with modern weapons and warfare shouldn't try to opine on modern weapons and warfare.

There's a lot of info out there on the Abrams, I suggest you check it out. You can start by googling the Battle of 73 Easting.

A lot has changed since 1991.

73 Easting was a tank battle between 65 ton tanks with DU armor and some 30-35 ton import versions of really old tanks with 105mm cannons with HEAT rounds.

Today many of the insurgents have wire-guided RPGs that can score a direct kill on the frontal glacias of M1A2 with the DU package. The M1 tank hasn't been "invincible" to infantry since about the mid 1990s. Also in asymmetric Infantry warfare the Israeli Merkava tank is far superior to the M1, with nearly all-around coverage with over >500mm RHA protection. All somebody needs to do against an M1 is fire against the side or rear armor and its an automatic kill.

And these M1 tanks that were given to the Iraqis are old M1A1s without the DU package in the frontal glacias.

 

[norseamd]

Today many of the insurgents have wire-guided RPGs that can score a direct kill on the frontal glacias of M1A2 with the DU package. The M1 tank hasn't been "invincible" to infantry since about the mid 1990s. Also in asymmetric Infantry warfare the Israeli Merkava tank is far superior to the M1, with nearly all-around coverage with over >500mm RHA protection. All somebody needs to do against an M1 is fire against the side or rear armor and its an automatic kill.

And even insurgents in Lebanon were able to sometimes destroy the Merkervas. They used some very huge IEDs against the Merkervas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkava#Combat_history

 

[MongGrel]

Greatest Tank Battles - 1973 Yom Kippur War - Sinai - Documentary

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-v1Vg1J3A_c

 

[MongGrel]

M1 Abrams Fast Attacks | Greatest Tank Battles

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOCSJftXPTc

 

[MongGrel]

*shrug*

 

[MongGrel]

It's just too late here to find serious argument I guess.

 

[shortylickens]

If it was policing, then we'd be all over Africa where such terrible atrocities have been happening for so long

Do they have oil?

 

[Nebor]

I think this post is a great example of why people unfamiliar with modern weapons and warfare shouldn't try to opine on modern weapons and warfare.

There's a lot of info out there on the Abrams, I suggest you check it out. You can start by googling the Battle of 73 Easting.

When in the hands of trained, capable soldiers supported by an enormous logistics tail, they're practically unstoppable. They can take a direct hit from most other MBTs, as well as air strikes and still remain combat effective. But IS can't use them effectively or keep them running long. Even the Iraqis couldn't really use them well (and abandoned them to IS.) Ever seen the Saudis train with theirs? They're a joke.

 

[Nebor]

A lot has changed since 1991.

73 Easting was a tank battle between 65 ton tanks with DU armor and some 30-35 ton import versions of really old tanks with 105mm cannons with HEAT rounds.

Today many of the insurgents have wire-guided RPGs that can score a direct kill on the frontal glacias of M1A2 with the DU package. The M1 tank hasn't been "invincible" to infantry since about the mid 1990s. Also in asymmetric Infantry warfare the Israeli Merkava tank is far superior to the M1, with nearly all-around coverage with over >500mm RHA protection. All somebody needs to do against an M1 is fire against the side or rear armor and its an automatic kill.

And these M1 tanks that were given to the Iraqis are old M1A1s without the DU package in the frontal glacias.

The "DU package" is hardly the pinnacle of modern tank armor. And no man portable anti-tank weapon can penetrate the front armor of a current M1A2.

 

[piasabird]

I question where being on one side or the other of an Islamic Head Chopping frenzy will help anyone in the USA.

 

[kage69]

You want me consider every other element of warfare is insignificant compared to how well M1 tanks deal with T-72s? You know I think there is someone who is as wise about war as you are. You and Donald Rumsfeld would probably seem like amazing pals. You seem to not understand the general theories and current thought of warfare. Nevermind that tanks are specifically instructed not to operate without the cover of friendly infantry.

Typical of many arm chair experts here, you are now trying to back track and divert by trying to liken me to a man I loathe and share nothing in common with. Shows what you know about either of us. Forget providing something that supports your view, just move right on to character assassination, eh?

Weak sauce dude.

Spare us what you think others know, you still have yet to grasp some basics concerning the topic so I think telepathy may be beyond your abilities. Speculation from guys like you means absolutely jack shit, if you want to argue that Abrams aren't powerful and really no big deal, let's see the sources that led you to this opinion. Otherwise, you're just spouting off again. I've never heard anyone knowledgeable on modern warfare make the comments you did regarding the Abrams tank. I guess you'll have to excuse my interest in you backing your opinion up. Put up or shut up as they say. If that's an unreasonable request in your eyes, that you have no burden of proof in stating you're right and others are wrong, then maybe this whole forum debate thing isn't for you.

 

[hal2kilo]

I question where being on one side or the other of an Islamic Head Chopping frenzy will help anyone in the USA.

Holy crap. I agree with you.

 

[kage69]

A lot has changed since 1991.

Did someone tell you that military research and development stops when the war is won? It's called an example, one that seemed appropriate given his dismal view of the Abrams. It's an effective combat design, and has the track records to prove it. 73 Easting is one of the more noteworthy events on that track record. I hope I don't have to explain the disconnect between downplaying and dismissing a vehicle design that has been used to annihilate numerically superior forces.

73 Easting was a tank battle between 65 ton tanks with DU armor and some 30-35 ton import versions of really old tanks with 105mm cannons with HEAT rounds.

I'm quite familiar with the Battle of 73 Easting, thanks. In case you missed it, I said to start with 73 Easting, not 'please limit the focus of your search to this one event, then use it to judge all other issues.'

Today many of the insurgents have wire-guided RPGs that can score a direct kill on the frontal glacias of M1A2 with the DU package.

I can't agree with that. Never heard of a wire guided rocket propelled grenade, I do believe you are confusing them with dramatically more expensive and powerful anti-tank missiles. The only RPG that Abrams really needs to worry about as far as I know is the RPG-29 (which has been out since '89 btw) and it's more modern variants. I know a Challenger II got disabled by a Milan back in 2003, after being pelted with a dozen or so normal RPG rounds, but have never heard about any insurgents or infantry ever punching thru the front armor on an Abrams.

The M1 tank hasn't been "invincible" to infantry since about the mid 1990s.

Who told you they thought the M1 was invincible?

Also in asymmetric Infantry warfare the Israeli Merkava tank is far superior to the M1, with nearly all-around coverage with over >500mm RHA protection.

Why are you acting like this is a Merkava / Abrams debate? Have you already forgotten what I quoted and was replying to?

All somebody needs to do against an M1 is fire against the side or rear armor and its an automatic kill.

Absolutely, and hilariously, false.

And these M1 tanks that were given to the Iraqis are old M1A1s without the DU package in the frontal glacias.

I would assume so, but I think you are confusing my response to another poster regarding extra DU alloy as some sort of claim that the Iraqis were given latest version models. No such claim was made.

 

[K1052]

I question where being on one side or the other of an Islamic Head Chopping frenzy will help anyone in the USA.

The Kurds will end up with de facto control of a major amount of Iraq's oil, share a border with an important regional ally (and NATO member) who they are forging economic links with, and possibly posses the only fighting force preventing (or at least slowing down) the total collapse of Iraq. As a bonus they are relative moderates in a part of the world that could definitely use a lot more moderation.

I am generally untroubled by US support for them as long as Turkey remains cool and it looks like they sure would rather deal with the Kurds than ISIS.

 

[kage69]

When in the hands of trained, capable soldiers supported by an enormous logistics tail, they're practically unstoppable. They can take a direct hit from most other MBTs, as well as air strikes and still remain combat effective. But IS can't use them effectively or keep them running long. Even the Iraqis couldn't really use them well (and abandoned them to IS.)

Exactly. Hard to reconcile with norseamd's dismal view on the Abrams, which is why I asked him to elaborate or clarify.

Ever seen the Saudis train with theirs? They're a joke.

No I haven't, but I've never been terribly impressed with Saudis in most of their endeavors, save perhaps training horses. For the most part every Saudi I've met, while polite and educated, struck me as being more at home in a shopping mall than outdoors or working on something. It's hard for me to consider someone a warrior when they wear more perfume than a French whore and have handshakes that tell you the hardest and heaviest thing they've ever handled was a bar of soap. Opulent lifestyles tend to do that.

To be fair though, I have heard that Saudi light infantry and recon aren't too shabby, but that may have involved our guys trying to placate Saudi egos at the time, and less to do with fighting Iraqi and Yemeni forces. Not sure.

 

[norseamd]

Exactly. Hard to reconcile with norseamd's dismal view on the Abrams, which is why I asked him to elaborate or clarify.

When did I ever say that M1s were shit. I said that a few captured tanks are not that much to worry about compared to what else is going on.

Typical of many arm chair experts here, you are now trying to back track and divert by trying to liken me to a man I loathe and share nothing in common with. Shows what you know about either of us. Forget providing something that supports your view, just move right on to character assassination, eh?

I was going to add something after that but was forgot about it. What I mean is that you act like the Iraq and Afghanistan wars never happened and that all the lessons we can draw are worthless.

I can't agree with that. Never heard of a wire guided rocket propelled grenade, I do believe you are confusing them with dramatically more expensive and powerful anti-tank missiles. The only RPG that Abrams really needs to worry about as far as I know is the RPG-29 (which has been out since '89 btw) and it's more modern variants. I know a Challenger II got disabled by a Milan back in 2003, after being pelted with a dozen or so normal RPG rounds, but have never heard about any insurgents or infantry ever punching thru the front armor on an Abrams.

Well not counting mobility kills RPG-7s are not able to destroy most western tanks. But the new rpgs like the RPG-29 you mentioned are able to penetrate the armor of western tanks.

 

[werepossum]

I approve of this, insofar that it is limited to bringing the pain to the appropriate fundie assholes bent on terror and ethnic cleansing. Was nice to hear Obama specifically state that American military power is not a solution to an Iraqi political problem.

I hope we do everything we can to help the Kurds, they're time has come. Might make things messy with the Turks for awhile, but they've proven themselves as reliable allies and represent a lot of potential for region IMO.

This, exactly. For years we refused to support a Kurdish state because we were courting Turkey as an ally. We could not get Turkey into the EU and now Turkey is becoming a much more fundie Islamic state, so none of that applies. I say better by far to protect and arm the Kurds. Better a civil war than another Rwanda.

 

[kage69]

When did I ever say that M1s were shit. I said that a few captured tanks are not that much to worry about compared to what else is going on.

Actually, what you said was: "M-1 are not that much power on their own. Just a tank."


Pardon me if I took that as a less than flattering description of one of the world's most effective killing machines. It seemed to be a comment completely detached from the design philosophy of Abrams, and certainly it's none too shabby operational history on the battlefield. Abrams was born from the concept of a heavier armored, heavier armed MBT that would go up against numerically superior forces, get in their faces, and kill them.
Be it splitting open T-72s with a single round at 2,000 meters, or using 120mm powered tungsten grape shot to shred entire buildings full of Chechnyan jihadi, or any of the other methods in which they've been deployed to great effect, I just don't get your dismissal.

Make no mistake, anyone who has ever had the misfortune of being on the business end of that smoothbore is either dead, or under no illusions that Abrams is "just a tank."

It's not just a tank. It's an exceptional tank. Would you call the F-15 "just a plane" ?

Ok guys, I have to hang it up now. The wife and I are going to watch Good Morning Vietnam and try not to cry.

 

[norseamd]

Most weapons today can be countered by anything else. About the only thing today that is pure power are nuclear ICBMs. And ICBMs still need to be kept safe until you need to fire them. Even satellites are becoming vulnerable to ground based weapons and there is research into space based weapons.

 

[Nebor]

Most weapons today can be countered by anything else. About the only thing today that is pure power are nuclear ICBMs. And ICBMs still need to be kept safe until you need to fire them. Even satellites are becoming vulnerable to ground based weapons and there is research into space based weapons.

Alongside combat engineer obstacle breaching teams, anti-armor soldiers have always had notoriously short life expectancy in combat. Their easily recognized weapons have always made them a vulnerable, high priority target. The advancement of on-board optics and ISR (tanks go nowhere alone) have only made their prospects more grim. Throw in cage armor, reactive armor, electronic guided missile countermeasures and (hopefully soon) active protection like Israel's Trophy and you've got a nearly unstoppable, untouchable war machine.

 

[bshole]

This, exactly. For years we refused to support a Kurdish state because we were courting Turkey as an ally. We could not get Turkey into the EU and now Turkey is becoming a much more fundie Islamic state, so none of that applies. I say better by far to protect and arm the Kurds. Better a civil war than another Rwanda.

Disagree. Better to not get involved at all. The more we arm people over there, the more those weapons are used for purposes that we did not intend. For instance, ISIS getting its hands on modern American tanks.