Picture of the Day - "Progress" in Iraq / Update

[Dr_V]

QUOTE

I know the M1 is far from perfect (1 mile to the gallon  ), but it is one hell of a tank. Have you ever seen and been on one? It is truly intimidating, a beast. I would love to see the combat experienced U.S. armored divisions go up against the world's so called best tanks.

Spoke kile a true American.


Now, I think you're right when you say that Abrams M1A1 is a good tank. It did pove usefull in the limited war situatios it saw action and is indeed a scary machine. Only the fact that the US Army uses it proves that it has some qualitys, your army is known to use only good technology, no matter the price, it's normal when it has a rich echonomy behind.

But I must also underline a few things that can be weak points for this tank. And I don't mean its fuel consumption, I'm sure your army can afford it. The fact that it is hard to mantain in combat shape (mechanically) is more important. In a war like the one in Irak, US forces were able to deploy their forces with all the supplyes and logistics they needed. And the campaign was well organised and planned, plus the enemy was not a very disciplined army, was easy to disorientate.
I think the limitations of the M1 will become obvious if it will ever be involved in a major conflict that is taking place in an area that does not allow a good deplyment of supplyes and takes more than a few weeks. A M1 can probably destroy 10 T-72s when it's deployed and supplyed proprly, but a T-72 can fight with a lot of malfunctions and need little mantaining to fight and not least it's many times cheaper (so the enemy might have thousands, grately outnumbering the US troops). A Russian tank can be resonably fixed without much technical knowledge or equippment and has a reliable engine. It can burn low quality fuel if needed and does not rely on much electronics to fight.

I hope you won't be offended by this, but I believe that the American armed forces are exagerating the advantage of the high-tech equippment. Who else would build a plane that costs 1 bilion dollars apiece? (I mean the B1 bomber) It looks like an UFO and it's almost perfect, but there are how many? 5? 10? The Russians in sted built thousands of less powerfull planes at the same price. In Yugoslavia you've deployed the ultra-high-tech undetectable F111 stealth that can't be shot down by any missile. But the Serbs shoot one down with the AAA cannons, WW2 flack technology. In the same war, America used the cutting-age unmanned spy aircraft (that funny looking robots) that flyes too low to be detected and targeted by RADAR. But the Serbs saw it with their own eyes and shoot it down with the kalashnikov.
I wonder haw good the M1 will be against some fanatic pioneers that don't have AT rockets or better tanks, but burn it down with Molotov cocktails. :twisted:

[PanzerKing]

Well you're not offending me, because I'm not one of those "are army is the best" type guys, or don't think I'm a typical American. I was just saying that the M1 is more than a handful in combat and proven. It's true it is an expensive tank to maintain and function, but as long as we are not in World War III it will not matter. The US can expand the tank force and resources tremendously if needed.

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

No problem, they already have in the Tank Olympics down in Greece. The Leopard has won. And according to Mr. Greg Fetter, a Senior Defense Analyst employed by Forecast International (an analysis company also employed by the US DoD) Leopard 2 is the best tank at the moment. Link here: http://www.forecast1.com/press/press1.htm

Well the Germans didn't completely loose their technical edge since WWII hehe. Now hardware is one thing but using it is another. The superior T34 was not a deciding factor for the Soviets during Barbarossa and even later.

I would venture to say (and I know that I'm going to take some flak for this) that the best tank in the world in desert environment is the Merkava. It's build with that specific terrain in mind by some of the finest tank designers and engineers you can find and it's constantly battle tested right from the begining. You can hardly get more fined tuned tool than this.

[cuski]

QUOTE

I would venture to say (and I know that I'm going to take some flak for this) that the best tank in the world in desert environment is the Merkava. It's build with that specific terrain in mind by some of the finest tank designers and engineers you can find and it's constantly battle tested right from the begining. You can hardly get more fined tuned tool than this.

Not quite true... you have to keep in mind the purpose for which the Merkava has been built, which is mainly defense and urban combat. It is more of a static gun emplacement, that's why on the mobility front it is lacking. However, it does have a very advanced FCS and good armour. But it is mainly intended as an infantry support weapon (M4 Sherman comes to mind, and we all know how well they fared against german armour).

[mabadesc]

I agree that the West, especially America has a history of building bad tanks. The Sherman, the Stuart, the M60 are all examples of that.
However, this has nothing to do with today's tanks, and specifically with the Abrams.
The Abrams has proven itself *in battle* as the world's most reliable and most lethal tank. Keep in mind, though, that I'm not talking about tank prototypes, or future productions. I'm talking about a country's main battle tank.
It destroyed hundreds/thousands of T-72's in head-to-head tank battles, and I think no more than 5 - 10 M1A1's were destroyed by T-72's. Once again, I'm talking about tank-to-tank battles, not tanks hit by mines, AT guns, etc....
And, let's keep in mind, the T-72 is still Russia's MAIN battle tank, with many thousands being active in Russia's armed forces.

Having said that, I don't deny the Leopard II's technical specs and trial results. I'm sure it's one fine tank. But I can't say which one of the two is better because the Leopard has not been proven in battle, while the Abrams has.

[mabadesc]

Dr_V said,

QUOTE

In Yugoslavia you've deployed the ultra-high-tech undetectable F111 stealth that can't be shot down by any missile. But the Serbs shoot one down with the AAA cannons, WW2 flack technology.

You can't evaluate the efficiency of a plane by one casualty. The stealth fighters have flown *thousands* of missions in Gulf War I, Gulf War II, Afghanistan, and Serbia. I would say that one kill out of thousands of missions is a good result.
Just to give an example, the first night of bombings in Baghdad during Gulf War I was done with Stealth fighters alone. At that time (in 1991), Baghdad had sophisticated and massive amounts of modern radar equipment and anti-air artillery. In fact, all their equipment was imported from countries like France and Russia, among others. The F111's flew hundreds of missions that night under heavy flak. Once again, no hits, no kills.

[johnny_bi]

Do not forget about the crews... You can not compare the crews of T72 in Irak with the crews of Abrams (even if they rely a lot on hi-tech equipment that could overcome the skills of a tanker)...

[inahurry]

Yugoslav army was left practically intact after 50 days of bombing. The NATO air supremacy was total but the Serbs managed to hide their weapons so well they were barely scratched. True, they lost Kossovo but politically, not militarily. And they will get it back or at least those areas that mean so much for them. Digressing, what I wanted to say was, what’s the use of thousand air sorties if you hit nothing of significance, electrical power plants (forbidden targets by Geneva agreements), bridges or other non-moving targets aside.

[mabadesc]

You must be joking. How do you think 1 (One) American armored brigade was able to reach Baghdad within 7-10 days of the start of Gulf War 2? True, partially it's because their tanks kicked ass, but in great part because of those "thousands of air sorties" who destroyed at least 7 Iraqi Republican Guard divisions surrounding Baghdad. That means thousands of tank kills, destroyed supplies lines, and putting enough fear into Iraqi soldiers that a lot of them just ran.
Don't forget, though, these air sorties don't include only stealth fighters and bombers. They also include the venerable, older A-10 Warthog tank killer plane, gunships, Apache helicopters - all close-combat aircraft.

So I don't know how you can talk about US air sorties hitting only non-moving targets. Most Iraqi tanks were destroyed by A-10's and Apaches, for instance.

[inahurry]

I haven't noticed I mentioned Iraq anywhere in my previous post. We can talk Iraq if you want but my point (in fact is not mine only but others I happened to read) is pure air-to-ground action can be very well nullified (as long as mobile targets are involved) if you know what to do. It is also very little told about the real heroes, special services troops, who risk their lives and often lose them, even if it's not reported, to set the targeting system for the birds in the sky.
The war in Iraq just began, I don't suppose anyone expected the regular army and the conventional methods of warfare to have any chance against US invasion. The biggest disadvantage for US compared with Vietnam is they have no south vietnamese army to catch lots of the hits and casualties. It's now Americans who are in the open there, both militarily and politically.
The real efficiency of their aircrafts remains yet to be seen against more difficult opponents. We could have a Syrian show next spring but I doubt we'll have an Iranian one, probably exactly because playing in Iran is risky business.
The armored division reached Baghdad quickly because it avoided all resistance points, that is the cities. The fight could have lasted longer. I'm not sure if the Iraqis decided beforehand they will put n open fight for obvious propaganda gains and then turn to guerilla war when Americans reach Baghdad or they changed their mind and decided the supplimentary costs in blood and destruction couldn't justify the increase in worldwide sympathy. Fact is the hundreds of kilos of explosives needed to blow targets like in the latest Italian tragedy aren't brought from abroad, they have them there and they planned for this. If Americans like to fool themselves with the idea Iraq was Saddam and once Saddam removed Iraq is theirs I think they have a problem. The message of the latest press conference general Sanchez held, even if wrapped in a lot of propaganda sheets, was pretty clear and was addressed to the political actors in US - solve the mess you brought us into, we're not dealing with rogue elements and a handful of foreign fundamentalists here.

[mabadesc]

Inahurry,
You're changing the topic in order to avoid acknowledging the US's huge military force. I wasn't referring to the *politics* of the US post-war in Irak.
And your comment about the US forces avoiding all Iraki towns is just plain not true. The best example is the brigade I mentioned (I believe it was the 3/7 Cavalry) who marched straight through the center of Baghdad.
If you want proof of the fighting that took place, just look at all the thousands of destroyed Iraki tanks and military vehicles just lying on open fields. Do you think these vehicles just auto-exploded by spontaneous combustion?

So let's keep it simple: it's completely within your right (and normal) to be anti-US politically speaking (although I don't agree with you and I think I can change your mind).

But, *militarily* speaking, I find it hard to understand how anyone can deny the US's military strength today. Except for Serbia, when politicians like Clinton and UN officials did not let them "do their job", the modern US army (post 1990) has proven they can kick ass anytime, anywhere.

[inahurry]

In Baghdad there were practically no major fights. 2 days after the withdrawal of the Russian embassy all classical resistance ended. Most of the significant cities seen heavy fights, not one of them was completely occupied when the, as I said, classical resistance ended. I didn’t say the outcome would have been different but whenever the conditions allowed it a bit, despite the technological discrepancy, the Iraqian army put up a good fight.

US is the first military power of the world, is in fact its only card now, but they are not, by far, as powerful as you believe. They can’t, right now, I repeat, they simply can’t involve themselves into 2 simultaneous Iraq scale conflicts. I suppose you didn’t notice the, almost, panic expressed in the media, “leaked” actually, in the last few days. US is abruptly abandoning the neo-con policy, at least for Iraq, they prepare a hurried pull out, they need the forces there somewhere else or they simply foresee the nightmare if they stay.

If I understand correctly, you believe Clinton was a pussycat and only that prevented a full scale invasion of Serbia ? You’re very wrong, American led NATO attacked the Serbs since 1994, first in Bosnia, helping the Muslim, Izetbegovic’ forces to escape annihilation. Then, as now, US ignored UN, only less blatantly because there was no 911 to lean on. But it is their military who warned the politicians it is not wise to invade Serbia.

I don’t know what would happen in a full scale world war, how US military and economic power would perform, but there isn’t much they could brag about after Afghanistan and Iraq campaign. Feel free to think otherwise, I’m not sure what you’ve expected, an Iraqi victory? You must judge the performance on the possibilities the 2 forces had at their disposal, since the terrain doesn’t allow a good defense and especially since the Iraqis planned exactly a limited resistance before switching to pre-planned guerrilla. No need to believe me, check the CIA latest assessment. The source of recent panic attack.

[Der Maresal]

Let's see - maybe more picture will convince the those who think the us army is something special.. :roll:


Hmm, 'crowd controll' - the 'people' and the 'opressors' face to face.


Two thumbs up for the tough Abrams thank! - all the depleated uranium armor and high-tech equipment in the world did not protect this one from loosing it's turrent



....it looks as though the pieces flew quite a distance...haven't they? :shock:


A new form of transportation for the US military.. - some kind of "tri-cycle"? Hell, the germans who conquered Poland and France used bicycles!-and even they looked better then that!


Finding "Terrorists" can be difficult sometimes - Fishing is much better!


Let the inquisition beginn! -No wonder arabs see this as a 'crusade'!
This one looks more like a hangman and exectutioner then a military priest. There's nothing 'holy' about this one...

[Geto-Dacul]

Oh my god! Horrible to see what remained of the "invincible" Abram!

[Victor]

QUOTE

US is the first military power of the world, is in fact its only card now, but they are not, by far, as powerful as you believe. They can’t, right now, I repeat, they simply can’t involve themselves into 2 simultaneous Iraq scale conflicts.

And Russia or China can? Hell, they cannot even deploy a similar force even closer to their own territory and in the same time supply it properly. You should also consider the fact that the US has not gone to war officially since WWII. In case of a true necessity they can mobilize more forces than anyone else right now. The fact that you dislike America should not cause you to lose objectivity here, should it?

Showing pictures of a knocked out Ambrams proves what? That there are no indestructible tanks? We know that. What comfort does it bring to the Iraqis that they destroyed several of them? None. It is the same as if you managed to knock out a T-34 with your Panzerfaust and the other 30 wiped out your entire battalion. Some people seem to be obsessed with this hate of the US, that even small things like this over joy them. Childish, IMO. The fact remains that the US are in control in Iraq and I doubt that they will leave soon, despite the guerilla war ahead.

I do not like US politics very much either and I sure do not buy all the fight for democracy propaganda. But if you will look to the past, you will see that even the regimes that some of you admire so much, be it Communist, Fascist etc, etc used a fight for democracy kind of BS to justify their wars. Why the double standards then gentlemen, why?