[OT] Military (non-political) discussion of Iraq war

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Actually it is that hopeless. The T-72 could puncture the Abrams armor from that range, but it can't effectivly hit a moving target the speed that an M1A1 can go. And the Abrams can hit and knockout the T-72 from around 2000 meters with it's better fire control.

Obviously you didn't read my post to the end.
I said city enviroment, where the short ranges and inside houses cover would practically nulified the Abrams range advantage.
City enviroment would allow the defending army to pre-range killing pits lasing the entry locations.
.
.
.

[Alpha Kodiak]

Originally posted by geoschmo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aloofi:
T-72
Its not that hopeless. It can penetrate the Abrams composite armor at 1000 meters, so if those punks in the Iraki army had learn basic tank warfare tactics instead of wasting their time in rethorics, they could have put some rather powerful defense in a city eviroment.
Amazing stupidity by default.

Actually it is that hopeless. The T-72 could puncture the Abrams armor from that range, but it can't effectivly hit a moving target the speed that an M1A1 can go. And the Abrams can hit and knockout the T-72 from around 2000 meters with it's better fire control. That's not to mention the Bradley TOW missle which has a range of 4 miles. In Gulf War I the Bradley's took out more Iraqi tanks than the Abrams did.

The only way a T-72 is gonna get an Abrams is if the US crew gets sloppy or falls asleep and runs right up to them and then sits and waits for the Iraqi's to shoot. Not very likely. I'd be very suprised to hear we lost any tanks to Iraqi tanks. More likely any losses will be to RPG's, mines or lucky artillary.

Geoschmo

---

The Abrams definitely outclasses the T-72. The item that shows how poor the Iraqi's are fighting is that Bradleys can get close enough for gun kills on dug-in T-72s. Although, I suppose that perhaps the fact that the Bradleys can move fast and fire on the move might explain some of it.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Obviously you didn't read my post to the end.
I said city enviroment, where the short ranges and inside houses cover would practically nulified the Abrams range advantage.
City enviroment would allow the defending army to pre-range killing pits lasing the entry locations.
.
.
.

No, I read your post. I just think that for your scenario to play out would require more than just good tactics on the part of the Iraqis. It would also require a monumental level of stupidity from the US tank to blunder blindly into such a "kill-zone". But strager things have happened I suppose. On balance though I think our tanks have more to fear from our aircraft then they do from the enemy tanks.

Geoschmo

[tesco samoa]

The Bradleys performed fantastic.

Now that it is proven they can take on a t-72 , this really opens up some interesting senero's for the US forces.

[tesco samoa]

And I also must say that the logistics train should be proud of their work. A lot of ground was covered quickly and effectively and supplied. Very good planning and very good men and woman who completed the jobs to keep the machine running smoothly.

[rextorres]

Originally posted by geoschmo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Obviously you didn't read my post to the end.
I said city enviroment, where the short ranges and inside houses cover would practically nulified the Abrams range advantage.
City enviroment would allow the defending army to pre-range killing pits lasing the entry locations.
.
.
.

No, I read your post. I just think that for your scenario to play out would require more than just good tactics on the part of the Iraqis. It would also require a monumental level of stupidity from the US tank to blunder blindly into such a "kill-zone". But strager things have happened I suppose. On balance though I think our tanks have more to fear from our aircraft then they do from the enemy tanks.

Geoschmo

---

This argument leads to a question I have. Air power not with standing - If the Iraqis had had better training could they have put up more of a fight or was the technology so overpowering that training was a moot question?

I was listening to a report were a Marine was "thanking the lord" that the Iraqis could not shoot straight.

[Krsqk]

I was listening to a report were a Marine was "thanking the lord" that the Iraqis could not shoot straight.

That doesn't necessarily mean the Iraqi's would have fared much better if they could have shot straight. I would take it to mean that he was relieved they had so relatively few casualties, not that he was worried about being outclassed.