the best ways to use US Army against Russia

[c_of_red]

"Which attack do you mean? You mean Sptember 11? But Iraq had nothing to do with that (and despite attempts of persons with Bush Derangement Syndrome GWB never said so and did not justify action in Iraq as a response to Sept 11, just as a means to prevent possible future attacks), Afghan-based Osama's group did, that's also why A-stan is a NATO mission."

You might be correct that Saddam had nothing to do with the WTC attack ( jury is still out, there is a considerable amount of circumstantial evidence that Saddam may have unwittingly provided training, papers and funding for the mission but there is no smoking gun and if there ever was it has been buried too deep to find or been destroyed), but Bush II was correct about the WTC attack being part of a larger picture.
Between 1980 and 2000, the Dept of State listed over 4700 attacks on US property or persons by Islamic affiliated groups.
So to just go after Al Qaeda would be like England declaring war on the 9th Panzer division. 9th Panzer was PART of the German Army. Al Qaeda is PART of the terrorists that have been waging war on the USA for the last 40 years or so. Since 1979 when the Embassy in Tehran was captured.
What makes it difficult for the naive to comprehend is that terrorist groups do not work directly for nations or states. Hezz-bo-Allah (Arm of God, roughly translated) works for whoever wants to pay them to kill members of the Dar al-Harb (House of War, which is anyone and everyone not a Muslim). While Hezzbollah are enemies of Al Qaeda, they will both work together to kill Infidels. Sort of like Protestants and Catholics taking a break from killing each other to kill Muslims or 7th day Adventists.
So to say Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism is wrong and evidence of a total misunderstanding of the problem. To say that the current WoT ( War on Terror, a really bad choice for names by Bush II) is a response to the WTC attack is just as wrong. The WTC attack was just the straw that broke the camel's back.
The real issue and the reason why the Left in America and the Euros of both sides were against Iraq is it brought home the fact that we ARE at war.
Clinton and the Euros want to treat terrorism as a crime. It isn't, it's war, but wars are nasty and require sacrifice while a crime is something you can leave to the police, who like doing that stuff. So the average citizen can go back to watching a football game and not be bothered.
At least until guys with rags around their head and automatic weapons kick in his door and ask him to quote Suran 9.18 or be put in jail. He then tells them to leave or he'll call the police. They tell him they ARE the police and if he gives them any more trouble, jail is out and he'll get the old one in the gut two in head roadside execution treatment.

We wandered waaaaay OT here and I apologize for my part in that.
I still fail to understand how where the tank driver was born affects the ratings of the front hull armor. Maybe I'm just slow, but could you 'splain that over agains lucy. ;-)

[DRG]

Originally Posted by c_of_red

I still fail to understand how where the tank driver was born affects the ratings of the front hull armor. Maybe I'm just slow, but could you 'splain that over agains lucy. ;-)

I'm not going to wade through all this dreck to figure out where this came from so just tell me who is suggesting that experience and morale "affects the ratings of the front hull armor"


Don

[Marek_Tucan]

Originally Posted by c_of_red

I still fail to understand how where the tank driver was born affects the ratings of the front hull armor. Maybe I'm just slow, but could you 'splain that over agains lucy. ;-)

Fraid you are the only one who suggests such a thing, for neither me nor anyone else made such a statement. After all the birthplace of the tank crew is also of no effect - I bet large part of IDF tankers in all wars was born in Russia or even in Arab countries.
However what you fail to grasp is that a skilled crew might utilise their tank so well that thinner armor does maybe bother them, but does not doom them to your apocalyptic images of fields of burning wrecks. You want an example? What about the scores of T-34 vs PzKpfw IV? The latter tank got thinner armor and worse mobility.
You also can take a non-tank matter of say the Winter War. Finnish army, desperately outnumbered in manpower, airpower and artillery, managed to deal good enough blows to the Soviets that the plan to get a puppet govt to Helsinki failed.
What about IDF AMX-13s and M50 Shermans vs. T-55 and IS-3? Not only the Israeli tanks got significantly thinner armor (nearing paper-thin on AMX), not only AMX was really weird vehicle not all that suitable for a maneuver battle, but the 75mm French gun was too weak to penetrate T-55 from the front and IS-3 turret from all aspects... Yet the IDF won. Why is that? Was it because they grew extra two feet of armor on their tanks and used APFSDSDU? Or was it because IDF doctrine led the crews to aggressive maneuvering and initiative, as opposed to rigid Arab units led by not too brilliant officers and with bad overall knowledge about their equipment (search for an article "Why Arabs lose wars").
Or take the battle of Khafji: the only Coalition tanks fighting there were AMX-30, with guns rougly comparable with at most the 115mm of T-62s encountered and armor weaker than T-55. By your "weak armor" theory the USMC was even more pathetic as the heaviest vehicle used there was LAV-25. Yet the Coalition prevailed, and not only in defense, but also in assault.

Now let's just make a mind experiment - 1991, Kuweit, US forces have T-72M and M1 as their prime battle tank, Iraq has M1A1(HA). What will you see? Again a Coalition victory. With heavier losses of course, as the matchup of old model T-72 with 1960s ammo (Remember, Iraq used BM-15 APFSDS at best, AFAIK mostly BM-12 - that is roughly on par with M735A1 and M735 105mm) against M1A1(HA) is really pretty poor ('bout as poor as between Sherman M50 and T-55 I would say), but based on historical record of Iraqi army, the crucial difference will be in following areas:
-Iraqi M1A1s will hit desert mostly due to lack of regular boresighting
-Their electronics would not work and even if it does, the crews are not trained to do so.
-A third of M1A1s will be broken down by bad maintenance
-A third would be abandoned in panic
-The rest will either fight from stationary positions, will try to charge in parade groun d formations or will blunder aimlessly around the battlefield. Republican Guards might pose a problem, but then not unbeatable.
-The C3I structure of Iraqi army will crumble just as fast.
In the end you'll have lots of burning M1A1s and few destroyed US T-72s.

What am I basing this on? On experience of an US tanker who trained the Kuwaitis with M1A2s. And the Kuwaitis are still a bit better in this regard than Iraqi army was. What did he say (or rather write)? That the Kuwaitis neglected such petty unwarlike things as boresighting. That none of the crews fulfilled US gunnery standards and the single crew in the battalion that hit the target on 3rd try already was treated as wondermen and sharpshooters.
Similar things were also reported by our instructors teaching the new Iraqi army how to operate T-72. They said the Iraqis treated them with despect at first "What are you going to teach us, eh? We're combat veterans with war experience!". A quick demonstration incl. gunnery between Czech and Iraqi crew did effectively shut them up.
So here you can see enough examples, how where the crew was trained can mean pretty big shift in combat value of a vehicle, not by means of adding it armor or so, but by means of rising its combat effectiveness (or downgrading it).

To sum it all up: The best tanks in the world will do you no good if the crew and their commanders do not know what to do with it.
Or, to paraphrase one important military saying: Bad tanks and good tactics are the slowest and hardest path to victory. Superb tanks and bad tactics means just a lot of noise before the defeat.