Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armor Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Kornet Clobbers Abrams
SYSOP    11/26/2014 5:50:28 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
avatar3    You'r telling me!   11/26/2014 3:25:29 PM
"But what many Arab officers ignored were American admonitions that crew quality and leadership were the key to success. For a number of cultural reasons the Arab nations do not emphasize lots of training for troops ." That's not all, PMCS, Field Expedient Repairs, Fix It Forward, Maintenance Log Book's, Crew Drill are all "beneath" an officers status level. They don't do them, make them happen or supervise them. Like children, they like racing the vehicle and shooting the gun, everything else is ignored. Sergeants are not much better, lowly conscripts do what they are told and not one iota more.
 
Quote    Reply

joe6pack       11/26/2014 4:19:40 PM
"Most of the M1 damage was done to M1s captured by ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) and then attacked by American aircraft."
 
Oh..  for f&*# sake..  and this is precisely why we shouldn't be shipping weapons to that region that are any more complicated than an AK-47..   
 
"The Iraqi troops using the M1s did not, as they were taught by the Americans .."
 
As seen in their complete route by IS.. it not only tanking they ignored or forgot the how to's on..
 
Quote    Reply

Mountaintroll       11/26/2014 6:10:56 PM
"The Iraqi M1A1s had no depleted uranium armor, no ERA (Explosive Reactive Armor), and no additional protection against anti-tank missiles."
 
Sort of like the 'monkey model' T-72s the Soviets sold them back in the '80s?  The more things change... 
 
Quote    Reply

trenchsol       11/26/2014 6:49:14 PM
I am not surprised that Iraqi M! did not have ERA. They were meant to deal with insurgents armed with RPG-7 or similar. I doubt that Iraqi soldiers would have been deserting their tanks any less if they had ERA or extra armor. Perhaps even more, because extra armor makes them slower, which is not practical when you are running away.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Nate Dog    I used to argue with Joe about this one   11/26/2014 6:55:21 PM
But he's brought me around to his way of thinking,
We should export nothing to those fucktards. Enough is enough.
After wasting several hours watching footage out of Syrian civil war, all the later stuff from this year includes US supplied weapons, and by what i can see, its far more lethal. TOW's living up to their reputations, seem to have a near universal kill ratio, as opposed to the French and Russian stuff which looks to cause cookoffs in less than 20% of cases.
While theres the odd vid of some fairly competent users handling the weapons, most are monkeys that fire because they missed the 4th of July fireworks or simply like the noise.
The amount of ATGM's I've seen shot off while user isn't in sights is purely the work of the retarded masses. Rifles being shot at the enemy whom apparently have the amazing ability to hover at an altitude of anywhere from 30 meters to over 200 meters in the air judging by the angle most rifles and machine-guns are fired at. Out of sights, from behind cover.
Up to the US civil war it was very, very hard to kill 10,000 people. With modern ordnance its very simple.
Simple answer. Stop sending it to them, once they're out of all the really effective stuff, they'll be down to sticks and rocks, about the level of tech that part of the ME is capable of producing.
As to Kornet clobers Abrahams, demonstrably nonsense, Moderator, this sight doesn't need click bait. 
 
Quote    Reply

trenchsol       11/27/2014 10:52:08 AM
Nate Dog, from purely business standpoint, it is not so bad.
 
US sold some tanks, which were payed for, I suppose. Then US destroyed tanks commandeered by IS from the air. In the end, US will sell more tanks. Sounds like a good business model. Sell - destroy - sell again. I bet car manufacturers would love to bomb second hand car dealers.
 
Seriously, moderate Syrian rebels, whatever that means, are toast, so that part is over. They will soon be receiving no equipment, simply, because they are not going to exist any more. As for Iraqi state, if US don't supply the hardware, someone else will.
 
Considering both, the article and the comments, it provides solid selling point for Russian equipment. It is cheaper, so when it gets destroyed because of improper handling, untrained crews, etc. there is less damage.
 
Considering discharging weapons into the air, I remember an old Iraqi video from the beginning of the First Gulf War. Saddam Hussein was delivering a speech and one of the bodyguards, standing next to him, was repeatedly firing his AK rifle, aiming vertically upwards. It is not uncommon for such rounds to injure or even kill someone on their way back, although the velocity is reduced significantly. We had some cases here during Christmas and New Year, in the years after the war.
 
 
Quote    Reply

joe6pack       11/27/2014 5:18:27 PM
 "US sold some tanks, which were payed for, I suppose"
I'd like to see the sales receipt..  I heavily suspect they were paid for (or heavily subsidized) by the U.S. tax payer. I can't see the Iraqi government paying full list price for a 6+ million dollar tank.. 
 
Buying tanks, giving them to a country that can't utilize them properly and then being forced to blow them up using expensive tax payer funded aircraft and bombs.. seems like a poor use of funds (if you ask me).
 
 
Quote    Reply

trenchsol       11/27/2014 6:23:29 PM

 
 
Quote    Reply

trenchsol       11/27/2014 6:25:39 PM

 
Here we go again. Editor is eating text....
 
 
Quote    Reply

trenchsol       11/27/2014 6:27:26 PM

A fight between man and the wild editor...
 
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics