User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 7:25:07 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They were developing the tank, WAY back in 1973, and it entered service in 1979. 1 year later than the Abrams. And the tank is basically an upgraded Chieftan which entered service in 1966 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There is Army testing footage of Abrams shrugging off Hellfire missiles. If that ain't a ATGM, I dont know what is. There is also ISIS testing footage of Iraqi Abrams getting their turrets sent into the next county. If I had to be stuck in a steel box when things were going boom around me I'd prefer to be in a Challenger 2 or Leopard 2, but we're stuck with what we got. Somehow the richest country on earth must use 30 year old designs for most everything. Oh bullshit. Abrams is every bit as good as those two and maybe better. And all the Western tanks are as old as the Abrams are pretty damn . You don't need to invent a new tank every 5 years to stay up to date. 
The Merkava Mk4 is considerably newer than the Abrams...
They were developing the tank, WAY back in 1973, and it entered service in 1979. 1 year later than the Abrams. And the tank is basically an upgraded Chieftan which entered service in 1966 ... You do realize that the Merkava MkI and the Merkava Mk4 are totally different animals, right? I mean they kinda share a few things... But the Mk4 has completely new armor (does't even mount the same way, all modular and fast swap and shit), digital electronics that are late 2000's vintage now, new (twice over) engine and trans, the turret has been redesigned so much it's basically a completely new turret with a similar external shape, huge changes to the chassis, a metric shitfuckton of new crew protection systems, new gun (twice over)... Crawling around on MkIs, MkIIIs and a Mk4 in person makes clear the fact they aren't the same tank, they just share features which didn't need to be changed. The Merkava Mk4 is probably the most modern tank to have seen combat at this point, if we differentiate tank types by significant structural changes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 7:31:14 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ... You do realize that the Merkava MkI and the Merkava Mk4 are totally different animals, right? I mean they kinda share a few things... But the Mk4 has completely new armor (does't even mount the same way, all modular and fast swap and shit), digital electronics that are late 2000's vintage now, new (twice over) engine and trans, the turret has been redesigned so much it's basically a completely new turret with a similar external shape, huge changes to the chassis, a metric shitfuckton of new crew protection systems, new gun (twice over)... Crawling around on MkIs, MkIIIs and a Mk4 in person makes clear the fact they aren't the same tank, they just share features which didn't need to be changed. The Merkava Mk4 is probably the most modern tank to have seen combat at this point, if we differentiate tank types by significant structural changes. Ahhh. Well thanks for clearing that up then. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 7:34:28 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
[, that the US military is heavily involved in Combined Arms warfare. And that is the concern of the service chiefs we have been too busy preparing to fight and than fighting asymmetric operations that we have given short shrift to combined arms that we could not do operations like Desert Storm or OIF 1 again not just because of a lack of forces but also lack of training in those types of operations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 7:37:02 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He chose well, it's a good MOS. Hopefully he gets a tank. One point to drive home to him. NEVER GET OFF THE TANK You eat on it, you bathe on it, you shit and piss from it. Dirt is gross, why leave the tank to touch it with your feet? Everything you need is on that tank. Never leave it and you will be ok. Tankers are strange people, we do strange things. We have one of the smallest units in the Army. There are very few jobs in the Army where a four man crew has that much mobile power. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
As the father of a young man that just finished his 19K OSUT training, I'm not liking this video or most of the conversation in this thread.  As long as he's not a part of a Saudi squad he should be fine. +1 Even during the height of insurgent activity in OIF, very few 19K / 1812s were WIAs or KIAs. Most tank crewmen are injured while outside the tank, not behind the protection of its armor. I've been a school trained infantryman, Anti-Tank TOW critter / section leader, M60A1 / M1A1 tank crewman, and even a motor vehicle operator (only for 1.5 years though, so don't hold it against me). By far, the safest, most motivating MOS of all was a tanker. You have more ammo, more electro-optical sensors to see the enemy with before he can see you, and more armor (two feet to your front, and a foot on your sides) than you could ever hope to have in any other combat arms MOS. Tankers aren't usually repurposed for provisional infantry missions, either. Your son chose well. He chose well, it's a good MOS. Hopefully he gets a tank. One point to drive home to him. NEVER GET OFF THE TANK You eat on it, you bathe on it, you shit and piss from it. Dirt is gross, why leave the tank to touch it with your feet? Everything you need is on that tank. Never leave it and you will be ok. Tankers are strange people, we do strange things. We have one of the smallest units in the Army. There are very few jobs in the Army where a four man crew has that much mobile power. Tankers are strange people and do strange things. They live like kings in the field though. I was in the TOW platoon that was attached to 2nd tank battalion, 2nd Marine Division, during the first Gulf War. The tankers had cots and other kinds of stuff I was jelly of. They didn't have to dig the holes to park their tank in when we sat for week or so, ever dig a hole for a hummer that only the TOW system was visible on with a shovel? It sucked balls. I thought being a TOW gunner was gonna be the greatest MOS ever, then I seen the tankers FML.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 7:37:25 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Monkey model. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That missile looked like it was going awfully slow. Does the Saudi Army get the same Abrams our guys get or the monkey model? Monkey model. Looks like the ammo blow out hatch don't do shit on the "monkey model"... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 7:38:19 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is this ATGM comparable to what engaged our tanks in Iraq? Isn't the RPG-29 a credible threat against our current tanks? Killed Abrams in my sector during the surge 2008. We were losing tank crews to them and advanced explosive penetrators .. Personally I felt bad for those tankers.. They developed a false sense of security First two videos are American kills and were classified and debriefed by the Brits when I saw them - ps supplied by our friends in IRAN 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 8:15:59 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why does the missile knuckle ball and not fly straight? I got to fire a live M47 Dragon at a Conex once. When you fire it, there's a big BOOM, which affects your point of aim for a second. Then, while the missile is in flight, it's in the field of view of your sight, same as the target is. It's a bit distracting, because as I remember it, there's like little rocket motors around the edge of it that fire to keep it on course. It's a bit distracting, because you're trying to stay on target, but you're also trying to check out this really cool little missile that you're flying. 
Anyway, I was the last of three people to fire a live one that day. The first two malfunctioned, but I got a direct hit on the Conex at like 900 meters. I was kind of a hero for a few minutes. Young dumb PFC grunt kills a Conex. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 8:28:14 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Killed Abrams in my sector during the surge 2008. We were losing tank crews to them and advanced explosive penetrators .. Personally I felt bad for those tankers.. They developed a false sense of security First two videos are American kills and were classified and debriefed by the Brits when I saw them - ps supplied by our friends in IRAN  http://youtu.be/H3CgI-trzh4Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Is this ATGM comparable to what engaged our tanks in Iraq? Isn't the RPG-29 a credible threat against our current tanks? Killed Abrams in my sector during the surge 2008. We were losing tank crews to them and advanced explosive penetrators .. Personally I felt bad for those tankers.. They developed a false sense of security First two videos are American kills and were classified and debriefed by the Brits when I saw them - ps supplied by our friends in IRAN http://youtu.be/H3CgI-trzh4The second Abrams : saw that on live leak years back. Someone in the comments(seemed very credible) claimed to be a crewman on the tank and said it didn't penetrate and they killed the guys who did it. True? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 9:47:09 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Tankers are strange people and do strange things. They live like kings in the field though. I was in the TOW platoon that was attached to 2nd tank battalion, 2nd Marine Division, during the first Gulf War. The tankers had cots and other kinds of stuff I was jelly of. They didn't have to dig the holes to park their tank in when we sat for week or so, ever dig a hole for a hummer that only the TOW system was visible on with a shovel? It sucked balls. I thought being a TOW gunner was gonna be the greatest MOS ever, then I seen the tankers FML.Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
As the father of a young man that just finished his 19K OSUT training, I'm not liking this video or most of the conversation in this thread. As long as he's not a part of a Saudi squad he should be fine. +1 Even during the height of insurgent activity in OIF, very few 19K / 1812s were WIAs or KIAs. Most tank crewmen are injured while outside the tank, not behind the protection of its armor. I've been a school trained infantryman, Anti-Tank TOW critter / section leader, M60A1 / M1A1 tank crewman, and even a motor vehicle operator (only for 1.5 years though, so don't hold it against me). By far, the safest, most motivating MOS of all was a tanker. You have more ammo, more electro-optical sensors to see the enemy with before he can see you, and more armor (two feet to your front, and a foot on your sides) than you could ever hope to have in any other combat arms MOS. Tankers aren't usually repurposed for provisional infantry missions, either. Your son chose well. He chose well, it's a good MOS. Hopefully he gets a tank. One point to drive home to him. NEVER GET OFF THE TANK You eat on it, you bathe on it, you shit and piss from it. Dirt is gross, why leave the tank to touch it with your feet? Everything you need is on that tank. Never leave it and you will be ok. Tankers are strange people, we do strange things. We have one of the smallest units in the Army. There are very few jobs in the Army where a four man crew has that much mobile power. Tankers are strange people and do strange things. They live like kings in the field though. I was in the TOW platoon that was attached to 2nd tank battalion, 2nd Marine Division, during the first Gulf War. The tankers had cots and other kinds of stuff I was jelly of. They didn't have to dig the holes to park their tank in when we sat for week or so, ever dig a hole for a hummer that only the TOW system was visible on with a shovel? It sucked balls. I thought being a TOW gunner was gonna be the greatest MOS ever, then I seen the tankers FML.Ah, so you probably knew Gunny Brown. (45 minutes of personnel and weapons inspections by his section leaders in front of his tent. Then he strolls out to pass the word for the day) "TODAY IS WEDNESDAY. DON'T FUCK IT UP!!! Platoon sergeants, take charge of your platoons and carry out the plan of the day". |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 9:55:42 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The second Abrams : saw that on live leak years back. Someone in the comments(seemed very credible) claimed to be a crewman on the tank and said it didn't penetrate and they killed the guys who did it. True? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is this ATGM comparable to what engaged our tanks in Iraq? Isn't the RPG-29 a credible threat against our current tanks? Killed Abrams in my sector during the surge 2008. We were losing tank crews to them and advanced explosive penetrators .. Personally I felt bad for those tankers.. They developed a false sense of security First two videos are American kills and were classified and debriefed by the Brits when I saw them - ps supplied by our friends in IRAN http://youtu.be/H3CgI-trzh4The second Abrams : saw that on live leak years back. Someone in the comments(seemed very credible) claimed to be a crewman on the tank and said it didn't penetrate and they killed the guys who did it. True? There were pics floating around back during that time period of an Abrams that was penetrated by something. I don't recall anyone being injured, but "RPG-29" came up when speculating what could penetrate the hull of an M1A1. It was also said to be a "lucky shot", that hit the tank at just the right angle, and as such was able to penetrate the weakest armor on the tank. Tanks are not immune from mobility or even catastrophic kills, but the heaviest armor is placed where it's statistically most likely to protect the crew (turret and hull front, and the sides). Bear in mind that enemy gunners are trained to place the retical center mass on the target, not in some perceived weak link where the armor is too thin or ineffective to prevent damage.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 9:58:25 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Even during the height of insurgent activity in OIF, very few 19K / 1812s were WIAs or KIAs. Most tank crewmen are injured while outside the tank, not behind the protection of its armor. I was wounded in the loaders hatch. Half in, half out. What does that mean? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 9:58:50 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I got to fire a live M47 Dragon at a Conex once. When you fire it, there's a big BOOM, which affects your point of aim for a second. Then, while the missile is in flight, it's in the field of view of your sight, same as the target is. It's a bit distracting, because as I remember it, there's like little rocket motors around the edge of it that fire to keep it on course. It's a bit distracting, because you're trying to stay on target, but you're also trying to check out this really cool little missile that you're flying.
Anyway, I was the last of three people to fire a live one that day. The first two malfunctioned, but I got a direct hit on the Conex at like 900 meters. I was kind of a hero for a few minutes. Young dumb PFC grunt kills a Conex.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why does the missile knuckle ball and not fly straight? I got to fire a live M47 Dragon at a Conex once. When you fire it, there's a big BOOM, which affects your point of aim for a second. Then, while the missile is in flight, it's in the field of view of your sight, same as the target is. It's a bit distracting, because as I remember it, there's like little rocket motors around the edge of it that fire to keep it on course. It's a bit distracting, because you're trying to stay on target, but you're also trying to check out this really cool little missile that you're flying.
Anyway, I was the last of three people to fire a live one that day. The first two malfunctioned, but I got a direct hit on the Conex at like 900 meters. I was kind of a hero for a few minutes. Young dumb PFC grunt kills a Conex.
There were small retro rockets that helped steer the missile to target as the gunner tracked it target, hence the "pop...pop...pop..." sound as it went downrange. IIRC, it was wire guided like the TOW BGM-71. A Dragon ATGM was live-fired for us when I was at ITS at MCB CamPen in the Fall of 1984, and that was one of the memories that sticks out in my mind. I can remember it like it was yesterday. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 9:59:24 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The high ground they launched the missile from? You'd have to send a minimum of a platoon of dismounts to secure the hill, for what? Then they get hit by mortars and snipers, which means they have to move the tank closer, or dig in and build a COP, and whatever supply route between them and nearest larger force turns into a black road because of IEDs. All that just to secure the edge of the town that you can see in the upper portion of the video, which is most likely the reason the tank was parked where it was in the first place. So the mission just changed from securing the village to force protection, which is basically how we almost lost Iraq '03-'06. The reality is that there is no right tactical answer to this scenario. Welcome to the wonderful world of COIN, where completing the mission and doing the job ( like securing the town from Houthi insurgents) means either a tank is going to have to eat a ATGM, dismounted infantry will have to get sniped or mortared, or a resupply truck gets hit by an IED. Damned either way. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
1. Export model or not, for the crews sake, I hope the ammunition compartment doors and blow-out system worked. 2. Where the heck is their infantry? 2. That's what I was thinking. Tank in a field, all by its lonesome? Sagger bait. Judging by the distance and flight time of the missile, it looks like the ATGM took the shot from a few kilometers out. How could infantry have helped? If infantry was on that high ground...of course an infantryman could probably hear the shot and hopefully warn the tanks or at least hose the launch site with lead. The high ground they launched the missile from? You'd have to send a minimum of a platoon of dismounts to secure the hill, for what? Then they get hit by mortars and snipers, which means they have to move the tank closer, or dig in and build a COP, and whatever supply route between them and nearest larger force turns into a black road because of IEDs. All that just to secure the edge of the town that you can see in the upper portion of the video, which is most likely the reason the tank was parked where it was in the first place. So the mission just changed from securing the village to force protection, which is basically how we almost lost Iraq '03-'06. The reality is that there is no right tactical answer to this scenario. Welcome to the wonderful world of COIN, where completing the mission and doing the job ( like securing the town from Houthi insurgents) means either a tank is going to have to eat a ATGM, dismounted infantry will have to get sniped or mortared, or a resupply truck gets hit by an IED. Damned either way. Why do tanks have to be used in a COIN fight? You believe there is no right tactical answer in that scenario. How about not employing them in that scenario. If we have to secure the town as the mission, then how is a lone tank sitting out in the open part of the that Op Order?. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 10:00:57 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Looks like the ammo blow out hatch don't do shit on the "monkey model"... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That missile looked like it was going awfully slow. Does the Saudi Army get the same Abrams our guys get or the monkey model? Monkey model. Looks like the ammo blow out hatch don't do shit on the "monkey model"... A former 19K on the previous page speculated that the crew left the ready ammo door open to facilitate faster reloading. Ooops-incineration time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 10:02:10 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The second Abrams : saw that on live leak years back. Someone in the comments(seemed very credible) claimed to be a crewman on the tank and said it didn't penetrate and they killed the guys who did it. True? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is this ATGM comparable to what engaged our tanks in Iraq? Isn't the RPG-29 a credible threat against our current tanks? Killed Abrams in my sector during the surge 2008. We were losing tank crews to them and advanced explosive penetrators .. Personally I felt bad for those tankers.. They developed a false sense of security First two videos are American kills and were classified and debriefed by the Brits when I saw them - ps supplied by our friends in IRAN http://youtu.be/H3CgI-trzh4The second Abrams : saw that on live leak years back. Someone in the comments(seemed very credible) claimed to be a crewman on the tank and said it didn't penetrate and they killed the guys who did it. True? It sure didn't look like a kill. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 10:05:25 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So Al Qaeda versus Rev guard led tribals? And both sides now have first world weapons? I hope they dont ever decide to kiss and make up. We will just come in with Apaches and fast movers and blow them up As fast as they can man them They never win in a stand up fight with AC vrs Armour |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 10:16:19 PM EDT
[#17]
Had a Abrams hit by hundreds of pounds of HME burried under the MSR. The bodies we pulled out looked like white ghosts with frozen expressions. Blood and brain matter coming out of the ears and nose. The EFPs were worse. Tore off arms, legs , faces and skin and bones into liquid . that armor didn't hold up to the copper |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 10:16:23 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And that is the concern of the service chiefs we have been too busy preparing to fight and than fighting asymmetric operations that we have given short shrift to combined arms that we could not do operations like Desert Storm or OIF 1 again not just because of a lack of forces but also lack of training in those types of operations. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
[, that the US military is heavily involved in Combined Arms warfare. And that is the concern of the service chiefs we have been too busy preparing to fight and than fighting asymmetric operations that we have given short shrift to combined arms that we could not do operations like Desert Storm or OIF 1 again not just because of a lack of forces but also lack of training in those types of operations. The service chiefs are correct, and I'm happy that they're thinking about it. Too many otherwise intelligent officers have tunnel vision when it comes to planning and training for the next war. Plan for the most complex, adapt to everything else as needed. Were you there in Blackburn when I spoke with the XO (a Major, but I can't remember his name) for one of the arty battalions from 10th Marines during a face-to-face brief for an upcoming TACP (EWTGLANT?) in 06 or 07, and he said that the effects of GWOT would be felt in the arty community for years because of all the provisional missions that young Marine arty officers were being tasked with in Iraq? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 10:20:34 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was wounded in the loaders hatch. Half in, half out. What does that mean? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Even during the height of insurgent activity in OIF, very few 19K / 1812s were WIAs or KIAs. Most tank crewmen are injured while outside the tank, not behind the protection of its armor. I was wounded in the loaders hatch. Half in, half out. What does that mean? Was the wounded part of your body outside the turret, above the turret roof? Also, I said "most". Indeed, armor crewmen do get wounded or killed while completely inside the turret and hull, but statistically speaking, being inside the tank is the safest place to be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 10:23:55 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Was the wounded part of your body outside the turret, above the turret roof? Also, I said "most". Indeed, armor crewmen do get wounded or killed while completely inside the turret and hull, but statistically speaking, being inside the tank is the safest place to be. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Even during the height of insurgent activity in OIF, very few 19K / 1812s were WIAs or KIAs. Most tank crewmen are injured while outside the tank, not behind the protection of its armor. I was wounded in the loaders hatch. Half in, half out. What does that mean? Was the wounded part of your body outside the turret, above the turret roof? Also, I said "most". Indeed, armor crewmen do get wounded or killed while completely inside the turret and hull, but statistically speaking, being inside the tank is the safest place to be. I was being facetious,but yeah, i was hit in the neck and arm outside the hatch. I had plenty of buddies who got everything from amputations to acceleration injuries while inside though. To be fair, it was happening to everyone in every vehicle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 10:24:58 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
[ Why do tanks have to be used in a COIN fight? You believe there is no right tactical answer in that scenario. How about not employing them in that scenario. If we have to secure the town as the mission, then how is a lone tank sitting out in the open part of the that Op Order?. I agree, leave the armor back at base, other vehicles are better and cheaper for COIN. In an environment that has a credible ATGM threat, sitting any type of vehicle it in a stationary place means it might get hit. Since any ol gun truck can pull security, why use the tank? Saudi Arabia should have learned the squadrons of armor won't do shit to crush an insurgency. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 10:26:48 PM EDT
[#22]
To USMCtanker yes I served with Gunny Brown. That salty fuk fired up a trench line on the first day of the ground war with a MK-40. He has his driver pull up to the trench and then all hell brakes loose, shoots from the trench, the Gunnys hummer backs up and he lets them have it. He said he was the only with enough experience to scout ahead. I think about it now and he was right, he seen more action then our whole TOW platoon put together.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 10:27:41 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why do tanks have to be used in a COIN fight? You believe there is no right tactical answer in that scenario. How about not employing them in that scenario. If we have to secure the town as the mission, then how is a lone tank sitting out in the open part of the that Op Order?. From what I understand, the Marines used armor as a sort of "ground based CAS" during the fight in Iraq. It seems to have worked without the kinds of losses the Russians experienced in Chechnya when they tried to employ MBTs in Grozny. Then again, the USMC is infantry-centric, with MBTs tasked with supporting the infantry, as opposed to armor being the maneuver element with infantry supporting armor. Doctrine makes a difference. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 10:32:02 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was being facetious,but yeah, i was hit in the neck and arm outside the hatch. I had plenty of buddies who got everything from amputations to acceleration injuries while inside though. To be fair, it was happening to everyone in every vehicle. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Even during the height of insurgent activity in OIF, very few 19K / 1812s were WIAs or KIAs. Most tank crewmen are injured while outside the tank, not behind the protection of its armor. I was wounded in the loaders hatch. Half in, half out. What does that mean? Was the wounded part of your body outside the turret, above the turret roof? Also, I said "most". Indeed, armor crewmen do get wounded or killed while completely inside the turret and hull, but statistically speaking, being inside the tank is the safest place to be. I was being facetious,but yeah, i was hit in the neck and arm outside the hatch. I had plenty of buddies who got everything from amputations to acceleration injuries while inside though. To be fair, it was happening to everyone in every vehicle. Understood. The Abrams wasn't designed to fight that war, and it was less than ideal. Against Soviet / Russian armor, it has been and would again demonstrate incredible overmatch, but it wasn't designed to protect the crew against a triple layer IED blowing up under the hull. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 10:42:20 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Like the Saudi Armor lieutenants I went to Armor school with at Knox? Welp, their money bought me lots of Yeager bombs Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Don't like to see that, even if it is an export model. I doubt the crew survived. I don't get too torn up over dead bad guys. Like the Saudi Armor lieutenants I went to Armor school with at Knox? Welp, their money bought me lots of Yeager bombs One of my instructors today was just talking about a cross-country he went on with either a Saudi or Kuwaiti pilot (can't remember) that stopped in Vegas. He pulled out a few hundred dollars to gamble, and the Saudi/Kuwaiti busted out $10k for "have some fun" money. Must be nice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 10:45:47 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
To USMCtanker yes I served with Gunny Brown. That salty fuk fired up a trench line on the first day of the ground war with a MK-40. He has his driver pull up to the trench and then all hell brakes loose, shoots from the trench, the Gunnys hummer backs up and he lets them have it. He said he was the only with enough experience to scout ahead. I think about it now and he was right, he seen more action then our whole TOW platoon put together. You fellers were right next to us at Camp 15 after we retrograded back to Saudi Arabia. My platoon used to sit on the benches in front of our tent next to yours, waiting for his formations. The man was an absolute fucking riot
This is me in front of our GP with a dog one of your Corpsmen (a heavy set black Sailor) was sort of half-assed taking care of until he became bored with him. There was one more tent next to this one between your GPs and ours. We probably ran into each other. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 10:46:19 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree, leave the armor back at base, other vehicles are better and cheaper for COIN. In an environment that has a credible ATGM threat, sitting any type of vehicle it in a stationary place means it might get hit. Since any ol gun truck can pull security, why use the tank? Saudi Arabia should have learned the squadrons of armor won't do shit to crush an insurgency. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
[ Why do tanks have to be used in a COIN fight? You believe there is no right tactical answer in that scenario. How about not employing them in that scenario. If we have to secure the town as the mission, then how is a lone tank sitting out in the open part of the that Op Order?. I agree, leave the armor back at base, other vehicles are better and cheaper for COIN. In an environment that has a credible ATGM threat, sitting any type of vehicle it in a stationary place means it might get hit. Since any ol gun truck can pull security, why use the tank? Saudi Arabia should have learned the squadrons of armor won't do shit to crush an insurgency. Because they are dumb and think 2 tanks can go on solo patrol without light infantry or they have them doing route clearance for what ever assinine reason. Then they get hit and ambushed .. But tracks are always a good sound to hear when your in a fucked up situation |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 10:47:59 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There were small retro rockets that helped steer the missile to target as the gunner tracked it target, hence the "pop...pop...pop..." sound as it went downrange. IIRC, it was wire guided like the TOW BGM-71. A Dragon ATGM was live-fired for us when I was at ITS at MCB CamPen in the Fall of 1984, and that was one of the memories that sticks out in my mind. I can remember it like it was yesterday. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why does the missile knuckle ball and not fly straight? I got to fire a live M47 Dragon at a Conex once. When you fire it, there's a big BOOM, which affects your point of aim for a second. Then, while the missile is in flight, it's in the field of view of your sight, same as the target is. It's a bit distracting, because as I remember it, there's like little rocket motors around the edge of it that fire to keep it on course. It's a bit distracting, because you're trying to stay on target, but you're also trying to check out this really cool little missile that you're flying.
Anyway, I was the last of three people to fire a live one that day. The first two malfunctioned, but I got a direct hit on the Conex at like 900 meters. I was kind of a hero for a few minutes. Young dumb PFC grunt kills a Conex.
There were small retro rockets that helped steer the missile to target as the gunner tracked it target, hence the "pop...pop...pop..." sound as it went downrange. IIRC, it was wire guided like the TOW BGM-71. A Dragon ATGM was live-fired for us when I was at ITS at MCB CamPen in the Fall of 1984, and that was one of the memories that sticks out in my mind. I can remember it like it was yesterday. LOL, I can't remember yesterday like it was yesterday. But I remember firing that missile. First one was fired from an M113. Wire must've broke immediately, because it dropped to the ground a couple dozen meters past the firing line.
Second one was a guy firing it prone or from a foxhole. I don't remember. Anyway, it went out a couple hundred meters, went straight up about 20 meters, then nosedived into the ground and blew up. That might have been operator error or a broken wire, I'm not sure. But man, my shot. Kneeling and right on target. BLAM! Best 10 grand or so of the taxpayers' money I ever spent.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 11:06:46 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You fellers were right next to us at Camp 15 after we retrograded back to Saudi Arabia. My platoon used to sit on the benches in front of our tent next to yours, waiting for his formations. The man was an absolute fucking riot
This is me in front of our GP with a dog one of your Corpsmen (a heavy set black Sailor) was sort of half-assed taking care of until he became bored with him. There was one more tent next to this one between your GPs and ours. We probably ran into each other. http://i391.photobucket.com/albums/oo359/Gunny1812/Scan0055_zps5cac7582.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
To USMCtanker yes I served with Gunny Brown. That salty fuk fired up a trench line on the first day of the ground war with a MK-40. He has his driver pull up to the trench and then all hell brakes loose, shoots from the trench, the Gunnys hummer backs up and he lets them have it. He said he was the only with enough experience to scout ahead. I think about it now and he was right, he seen more action then our whole TOW platoon put together. You fellers were right next to us at Camp 15 after we retrograded back to Saudi Arabia. My platoon used to sit on the benches in front of our tent next to yours, waiting for his formations. The man was an absolute fucking riot
This is me in front of our GP with a dog one of your Corpsmen (a heavy set black Sailor) was sort of half-assed taking care of until he became bored with him. There was one more tent next to this one between your GPs and ours. We probably ran into each other. http://i391.photobucket.com/albums/oo359/Gunny1812/Scan0055_zps5cac7582.jpg Sadly I didn't make it that far, my brother. I got hit by artillery on the first night. There were some 155s set up behind us about 300 meters and the bad guys are bad at math or can't counter battery fire for shit. This is what was left of my vehicle. Like I was saying tankers have it good. I was so jelly of you guys.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 11:10:46 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sadly I didn't make it that far, my brother. I got hit by artillery on the first night. There were some 155s set up behind us about 300 meters and the bad guys are bad at math or can't counter battery fire for shit. This is what was left of my vehicle. Like I was saying tankers have it good. I was so jelly of you guys.
http://i1032.photobucket.com/albums/a405/jabrownii/f440fa81-5327-41d4-9f7d-7093c63ad8db_zpswi8mch3o.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
To USMCtanker yes I served with Gunny Brown. That salty fuk fired up a trench line on the first day of the ground war with a MK-40. He has his driver pull up to the trench and then all hell brakes loose, shoots from the trench, the Gunnys hummer backs up and he lets them have it. He said he was the only with enough experience to scout ahead. I think about it now and he was right, he seen more action then our whole TOW platoon put together. You fellers were right next to us at Camp 15 after we retrograded back to Saudi Arabia. My platoon used to sit on the benches in front of our tent next to yours, waiting for his formations. The man was an absolute fucking riot
This is me in front of our GP with a dog one of your Corpsmen (a heavy set black Sailor) was sort of half-assed taking care of until he became bored with him. There was one more tent next to this one between your GPs and ours. We probably ran into each other. http://i391.photobucket.com/albums/oo359/Gunny1812/Scan0055_zps5cac7582.jpg Sadly I didn't make it that far, my brother. I got hit by artillery on the first night. There were some 155s set up behind us about 300 meters and the bad guys are bad at math or can't counter battery fire for shit. This is what was left of my vehicle. Like I was saying tankers have it good. I was so jelly of you guys.
http://i1032.photobucket.com/albums/a405/jabrownii/f440fa81-5327-41d4-9f7d-7093c63ad8db_zpswi8mch3o.jpg
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 11:19:31 PM EDT
[#31]
Thank you, troops, for all you did and continue to do.
 I'm just an old Treadhead from the Cold War days and going into the Fulda Gap would have sucked royally, with a tank crew's life expectancy rated at 6 minutes or less, but we would have known that every target was the enemy. Our country has asked so much more from you guys with COIN/Winning Hearts & Minds "warfare." You have my utmost respect. 
Thank you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 11:23:55 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
From what I understand, the Marines used armor as a sort of "ground based CAS" during the fight in Iraq. It seems to have worked without the kinds of losses the Russians experienced in Chechnya when they tried to employ MBTs in Grozny. Then again, the USMC is infantry-centric, with MBTs tasked with supporting the infantry, as opposed to armor being the maneuver element with infantry supporting armor. Doctrine makes a difference. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why do tanks have to be used in a COIN fight? You believe there is no right tactical answer in that scenario. How about not employing them in that scenario. If we have to secure the town as the mission, then how is a lone tank sitting out in the open part of the that Op Order?. From what I understand, the Marines used armor as a sort of "ground based CAS" during the fight in Iraq. It seems to have worked without the kinds of losses the Russians experienced in Chechnya when they tried to employ MBTs in Grozny. Then again, the USMC is infantry-centric, with MBTs tasked with supporting the infantry, as opposed to armor being the maneuver element with infantry supporting armor. Doctrine makes a difference. From what I've read, your tribe did it right in Fallujah. In a street fight, I think your tactics need to be Infantry centric with Armor in support....Need a way in the building for an Infantry squad... One heat rd coming inbound... Notice how the Army took the field phones off the backs of the M1's.. Div 86 and Airland doctrine was all about fast Armored thrust.... No Doggies were going to be hoofin it behind a track talking the TC onto a target in a city.... And then along comes the GWOT, and what are Gyrenes and Doggies needing to do... Hoof behind a track and talk the crew into bringin on the pain... The TUSK kit was the means to bring back things like a Field Phone and to allow the crew to fight the tank in a close in Urban centric battlefield. Look how long it took to field a Canister rd.... Everybody loves the Mk 4 Merkava's... but they will never have to sweep across a battlefield at break neck speed with there only Op order of Move North.. kill everything. They have that luxury to play in one and one only sand box... take that tank out of its element... you may be surprised... It amazes me how we have to keep relearning over and over again... Human nature I guess... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 11:40:13 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
From what I've read, your tribe did it right in Fallujah. In a street fight, I think your tactics need to be Infantry centric with Armor in support....Need a way in the building for an Infantry squad... One heat rd coming inbound... Notice how the Army took the field phones off the backs of the M1's.. Div 86 and Airland doctrine was all about fast Armored thrust.... No Doggies were going to be hoofin it behind a track talking the TC onto a target in a city.... And then along comes the GWOT, and what are Gyrenes and Doggies needing to do... Hoof behind a track and talk the crew into bringin on the pain... The TUSK kit was the means to bring back things like a Field Phone and to allow the crew to fight the tank in a close in Urban centric battlefield. Look how long it took to field a Canister rd.... Everybody loves the Mk 4 Merkava's... but they will never have to sweep across a battlefield at break neck speed with there only Op order of Move North.. kill everything. They have that luxury to play in one and one only sand box... take that tank out of its element... you may be surprised... It amazes me how we have to keep relearning over and over again... Human nature I guess... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why do tanks have to be used in a COIN fight? You believe there is no right tactical answer in that scenario. How about not employing them in that scenario. If we have to secure the town as the mission, then how is a lone tank sitting out in the open part of the that Op Order?. From what I understand, the Marines used armor as a sort of "ground based CAS" during the fight in Iraq. It seems to have worked without the kinds of losses the Russians experienced in Chechnya when they tried to employ MBTs in Grozny. Then again, the USMC is infantry-centric, with MBTs tasked with supporting the infantry, as opposed to armor being the maneuver element with infantry supporting armor. Doctrine makes a difference. From what I've read, your tribe did it right in Fallujah. In a street fight, I think your tactics need to be Infantry centric with Armor in support....Need a way in the building for an Infantry squad... One heat rd coming inbound... Notice how the Army took the field phones off the backs of the M1's.. Div 86 and Airland doctrine was all about fast Armored thrust.... No Doggies were going to be hoofin it behind a track talking the TC onto a target in a city.... And then along comes the GWOT, and what are Gyrenes and Doggies needing to do... Hoof behind a track and talk the crew into bringin on the pain... The TUSK kit was the means to bring back things like a Field Phone and to allow the crew to fight the tank in a close in Urban centric battlefield. Look how long it took to field a Canister rd.... Everybody loves the Mk 4 Merkava's... but they will never have to sweep across a battlefield at break neck speed with there only Op order of Move North.. kill everything. They have that luxury to play in one and one only sand box... take that tank out of its element... you may be surprised... It amazes me how we have to keep relearning over and over again... Human nature I guess... Correct. Some people have an insatiable lust to leave their mark as a sort of legacy, regardless of the predictable results. It's all about ego. ETA: You can't replace infantry with armor in MOUT-it's where "the poor, bloody infantry" are irreplaceable. Total respect. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2015 12:51:06 AM EDT
[#34]
Interesting post. On the mout deal when I was there in 07 we had a company of tanks in our AO. The area was flooded with Iranian shit and efp's, heard they recovered some 29's as well. Our tankers lost two from what I remember was some sort of stack of Iranian land mines, any idea if that was legit? I know they lost the tanks and some crew for fact unfortunately.
Never really stopped to think about what those guys where doing but seems like the two options where to stay on the fields outside of the cities/towns then roll in like gang busters if needed or tuck in somewhere limiting avenue of attack and scanning the shit out of potential avenues. Y'all are a quirky bunch became good friends with one of our guys. I swear he never had to wash uniforms because he was in his boxer shorts 90% of the time lol. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2015 7:02:57 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It sure didn't look like a kill. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is this ATGM comparable to what engaged our tanks in Iraq? Isn't the RPG-29 a credible threat against our current tanks? Killed Abrams in my sector during the surge 2008. We were losing tank crews to them and advanced explosive penetrators .. Personally I felt bad for those tankers.. They developed a false sense of security First two videos are American kills and were classified and debriefed by the Brits when I saw them - ps supplied by our friends in IRAN http://youtu.be/H3CgI-trzh4The second Abrams : saw that on live leak years back. Someone in the comments(seemed very credible) claimed to be a crewman on the tank and said it didn't penetrate and they killed the guys who did it. True? It sure didn't look like a kill. Im pretty sure the second one happened to my unit. No kills, the driver only broke his jaw. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2015 7:13:32 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
ETA: You can't replace infantry with armor in MOUT-it's where "the poor, bloody infantry" are irreplaceable. Total respect. The Army feels it can have its cake and eat it too. I spent 15 months in an Infantry company in Iraq in 2007. We had tanks, but only very selectively used them, and had M1151's as well, and also got two Maxxpros in the platoon when they came out halfway through. We just bounced back and forth between roles constantly. A large multi-day engagement? Probably taking tanks. Standard battlespace patrols, humvees or feet. Early in the surge we could use main gun all over Baghdad, so we used that most, with the tank use falling back as more of the city was secured. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2015 9:17:06 AM EDT
[#37]
COIN is warfare and warfare is violence. Tanks are very good at violence. They have a place. But you have to balance that with the infrastructure of the country, logistics footprint, and nature of the enemy.
Canadians had LEO IIs in Kandahar and they were fucking worthless. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2015 9:28:31 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
1. Export model or not, for the crews sake, I hope the ammunition compartment doors and blow-out system worked. 2. Where the heck is their infantry? Saudis don't walk lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2015 12:16:03 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
COIN is warfare and warfare is violence. Tanks are very good at violence. They have a place. But you have to balance that with the infrastructure of the country, logistics footprint, and nature of the enemy. Canadians had LEO IIs in Kandahar and they were fucking worthless. The Soviets employed both light and heavy armor throughout their war in Afghanistan. In fact, they seemed to really like the BMP 2 with its 30 mm auto cannon that could be elevated to a useful degree. Not sure if an MBT is really suitable for anything but convoy escort for that type of war, but a lighter, tracked, armored vehicle up to the 30-ton class was identified early on in GWOT as a possible future procurement item. The ability of a more air-transportable IFV to engage dismounts from several thousand meters away may have more utility. I really wish the Army had fielded the M8 AGS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2015 12:16:52 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Saudis don't walk lol Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
1. Export model or not, for the crews sake, I hope the ammunition compartment doors and blow-out system worked. 2. Where the heck is their infantry? Saudis don't walk lol They barely train, let alone fight. They are LAZY. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2015 12:21:48 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In fact, they seemed to really like the BMP 2 with its 30 mm auto cannon that could be elevated to a useful degree. Afghans like them too, they make good walls. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2015 12:25:11 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Army feels it can have its cake and eat it too. I spent 15 months in an Infantry company in Iraq in 2007. We had tanks, but only very selectively used them, and had M1151's as well, and also got two Maxxpros in the platoon when they came out halfway through. We just bounced back and forth between roles constantly. A large multi-day engagement? Probably taking tanks. Standard battlespace patrols, humvees or feet. Early in the surge we could use main gun all over Baghdad, so we used that most, with the tank use falling back as more of the city was secured. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
ETA: You can't replace infantry with armor in MOUT-it's where "the poor, bloody infantry" are irreplaceable. Total respect. The Army feels it can have its cake and eat it too. I spent 15 months in an Infantry company in Iraq in 2007. We had tanks, but only very selectively used them, and had M1151's as well, and also got two Maxxpros in the platoon when they came out halfway through. We just bounced back and forth between roles constantly. A large multi-day engagement? Probably taking tanks. Standard battlespace patrols, humvees or feet. Early in the surge we could use main gun all over Baghdad, so we used that most, with the tank use falling back as more of the city was secured. If the Army is putting more emphasis on armor, than infantry, then they're doing it right IMHO. Heavy armor wins wars in a stand-up fight. That said, the Israelis found out the hard way in 1974 that there are times when the tank-infantry team works better than just pure armor. What you went through shows how capable the US Army is when it needs to adapt to the fight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2015 12:26:05 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Afghans like them too, they make good walls. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
In fact, they seemed to really like the BMP 2 with its 30 mm auto cannon that could be elevated to a useful degree. Afghans like them too, they make good walls. They're an odd lot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2015 12:29:10 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Soviets employed both light and heavy armor throughout their war in Afghanistan. In fact, they seemed to really like the BMP 2 with its 30 mm auto cannon that could be elevated to a useful degree. Not sure if an MBT is really suitable for anything but convoy escort for that type of war, but a lighter, tracked, armored vehicle up to the 30-ton class was identified early on in GWOT as a possible future procurement item. The ability of a more air-transportable IFV to engage dismounts from several thousand meters away may have more utility. I really wish the Army had fielded the M8 AGS. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
COIN is warfare and warfare is violence. Tanks are very good at violence. They have a place. But you have to balance that with the infrastructure of the country, logistics footprint, and nature of the enemy. Canadians had LEO IIs in Kandahar and they were fucking worthless. The Soviets employed both light and heavy armor throughout their war in Afghanistan. In fact, they seemed to really like the BMP 2 with its 30 mm auto cannon that could be elevated to a useful degree. Not sure if an MBT is really suitable for anything but convoy escort for that type of war, but a lighter, tracked, armored vehicle up to the 30-ton class was identified early on in GWOT as a possible future procurement item. The ability of a more air-transportable IFV to engage dismounts from several thousand meters away may have more utility. I really wish the Army had fielded the M8 AGS. If you want destruction, a ground Hellfire version or some more TOWs can do 90% of what you need in a decentralized fight. the problem with armor is your entire mission revolves around the tank. where you go, what fords you use, how fast you move, recovery capabilities, etc. so the locals know exactly what they can do and where. You lose your flexibility and like the semi annual marine CALFEX in helmand, they just leave if it gets too scary while leaving mines behind. the largest problem with tanks is the tactical flexibility you lose. AGS would have been OK. But you are still dealing with a mobility limited wheeled vehicle without much armor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2015 12:36:18 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If the Army is putting more emphasis on armor, than infantry, then they're doing it right IMHO. Heavy armor wins wars in a stand-up fight. That said, the Israelis found out the hard way in 1974 that there are times when the tank-infantry team works better than just pure armor. What you went through shows how capable the US Army is when it needs to adapt to the fight. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
ETA: You can't replace infantry with armor in MOUT-it's where "the poor, bloody infantry" are irreplaceable. Total respect. The Army feels it can have its cake and eat it too. I spent 15 months in an Infantry company in Iraq in 2007. We had tanks, but only very selectively used them, and had M1151's as well, and also got two Maxxpros in the platoon when they came out halfway through. We just bounced back and forth between roles constantly. A large multi-day engagement? Probably taking tanks. Standard battlespace patrols, humvees or feet. Early in the surge we could use main gun all over Baghdad, so we used that most, with the tank use falling back as more of the city was secured. If the Army is putting more emphasis on armor, than infantry, then they're doing it right IMHO. Heavy armor wins wars in a stand-up fight. That said, the Israelis found out the hard way in 1974 that there are times when the tank-infantry team works better than just pure armor. What you went through shows how capable the US Army is when it needs to adapt to the fight. IN 1973 it was more bad tactics and simple mistakes that assraped the israelis rather than their armor/infantry mix. like everyone else you take away some good lessons, you take away some bad. The 60mm mortar on the merk was an interesting adjustment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2015 12:49:11 PM EDT
[#46]
The M8 was tracked, and weighed less than 20 tons in its most stripped-down configuration, although even upgraded to the level II armor package, it could still be transpo'd in a C-130. It would have had more mobility over rough terrain than a wheeled vehicle, and could provide an accurate, long range, stabilized 105 mm main gun and coaxial weapons system with various electro-optical sensors (thermals, FLIR, magnified optics, etc.). Unlike the M551 Sheridan, the M8 FCS could handle the recoil of the main gun being fired.
As far as losing tactical flexibility, they aren't the all-singing, all-dancing answer to a rifleman's war in mountainous terrain by any means, but they can be another tool in the box when time and terrain allow for it. I believe they'd be more useful than a 70 ton MBT which is air-transportable *only* by C-17 or C5B. The M8, with it's diesel engine and less than half the weight of the Abrams, would have been less of a logistical burden to support in such a country. Also, "....the semi annual marine CALFEX in helmand...." 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2015 12:55:38 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IN 1973 it was more bad tactics and simple mistakes that assraped the israelis rather than their armor/infantry mix. like everyone else you take away some good lessons, you take away some bad. The 60mm mortar on the merk was an interesting adjustment. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
ETA: You can't replace infantry with armor in MOUT-it's where "the poor, bloody infantry" are irreplaceable. Total respect. The Army feels it can have its cake and eat it too. I spent 15 months in an Infantry company in Iraq in 2007. We had tanks, but only very selectively used them, and had M1151's as well, and also got two Maxxpros in the platoon when they came out halfway through. We just bounced back and forth between roles constantly. A large multi-day engagement? Probably taking tanks. Standard battlespace patrols, humvees or feet. Early in the surge we could use main gun all over Baghdad, so we used that most, with the tank use falling back as more of the city was secured. If the Army is putting more emphasis on armor, than infantry, then they're doing it right IMHO. Heavy armor wins wars in a stand-up fight. That said, the Israelis found out the hard way in 1974 that there are times when the tank-infantry team works better than just pure armor. What you went through shows how capable the US Army is when it needs to adapt to the fight. IN 1973 it was more bad tactics and simple mistakes that assraped the israelis rather than their armor/infantry mix. like everyone else you take away some good lessons, you take away some bad. The 60mm mortar on the merk was an interesting adjustment. It's the best of both worlds; an indirect fire weapon to cover deadspace (we really need a Mk19 on the Abrams) primarily in the defense, combined with the direct-fire capabilities of the main gun. The Merkava is a tanker's tank. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2015 12:57:52 PM EDT
[#48]
Forgive me if this has been answered already, but why is one tank just sitting in the middle of a field, asking to get shot down on from higher ground?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2015 12:59:34 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Forgive me if this has been answered already, but why is one tank just sitting in the middle of a field, asking to get shot down on from higher ground? Cause Inshallah. Or HerpDerpDerr. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2015 1:11:38 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cause Inshallah. Or HerpDerpDerr. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Forgive me if this has been answered already, but why is one tank just sitting in the middle of a field, asking to get shot down on from higher ground? Cause Inshallah. Or HerpDerpDerr. Alan Snackbar decided it must be so. But seriously, I am grateful for all the service and sacrifice by everyone in this thread. It's very humbling and enlightening to learn from your experiences and anecdotes. COIN really is different from turkey shooting a plague of Soviet locusts in Fulda. Very eye opening |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
