The Dogs of War

[ralphwiggum 6]

PV, if you haven't noticed, this thread is about OIF, not about politics. politics goes to another Iraq thread.

[Transfunsel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ April 01 2003,01:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">funny how our "friends" have nothing to say when the Iraqi's are killing civilians wholesale.<span id='postcolor'>

I thought they were supposed to be killing them anyway  

[ralphwiggum 6]

and others too. no politics on this thread please.

[interstat 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Have to agree with Badgerboy, fraging and wasting civilians aint gonna win the Iraqi's hearts over is it?

That goes for both sides. At least with us it's unintentional.

Semper Fi

funny how our "friends" have nothing to say when the Iraqi's are killing civilians wholesale.

<span id='postcolor'>

did I say the Iraqia weren't killing civilans?

I think not.

As to the American soldiers killing civilainas unintantionally that's a debate which one should not get into.

[turms 0]

2 Abrams destroyed.First time destroyed in combat,i wonder when we will get something official from this? Atleast I havent heard anything official yet...

LINK

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (interstat @ April 01 2003,01:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As to the American soldiers killing civilainas unintantionally that's a debate which one should not get into.<span id='postcolor'>

I agree, unless the person trying to argue that point enjoys being made to look like an idiot.

Semper Fi

[interstat 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

I agree, unless the person trying to argue that point enjoys being made to look like an idiot.

<span id='postcolor'>

No comment

[Warin 0]

Stop the bickering now. Take it to PM, or if the conversation wants to continue on a political discussion of FF incidents take it to the other Iraq thread. If it continues, I'll cleanse the entries and start handing out 48 hour PR's. I am freaking tired of having to point it out over and over again. LEAVE THE POLITICS OUT OF THIS THREAD. You are all supposedly adults, you can surely figure out where to post!

[Badgerboy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2 Abrams destroyed.First time destroyed in combat,i wonder when we will get something official from this? Atleast I havent heard anything official yet...<span id='postcolor'>

That can't be right. I know at least 1 Abrams was lost in '91. One of the crew members was doing a interview about how the blowout panels saved his life.

But its the Army website!

Crazy!

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ April 01 2003,01:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2 Abrams destroyed.First time destroyed in combat,i wonder when we will get something official from this? Atleast I havent heard anything official yet...<span id='postcolor'>

That can't be right. I know at least 1 Abrams was lost in '91. One of the crew members was doing a interview about how the blowout panels saved his life.

But its the Army website!

Crazy!<span id='postcolor'>

I think the one lost in the Gulf War was to friendly fire, not to enemy fire.

[bn880 5]

This is going to be pretty bad for the coalition if they poke around the sand much longer, the average temperature now increases over 1 degree celsius every 6 days around Baghdad. Soon it will start having a compounded effect on troops and vehicles together with the sand.

[Cloney 0]

Yep, it was disabled in a ditch after fighting off two Iraqi T-55s. To prevent it from falling into enemy hands, another M1 came along and destroyed it. (After the crew got out, ofcourse. However, if it was a British M1, it might have gone differently   )

Badgerboy, I guess you pride yourself in personally insulting people that are trying to make a point. I'll get some perspective when you learn how to make your point without insulting someone. It's also funny how you said "we're used to dealing with FSpilot" as an excuse for you being such a knob polisher to PV.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Cloney @ Mar. 31 2003,20:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Badgerboy, I guess you pride yourself in personally insulting people that are trying to make a point. I'll get some perspective when you learn how to make your point without insulting someone. It's also funny how you said "we're used to dealing with FSpilot" as an excuse for you being such a knob polisher to PV.<span id='postcolor'>

Oh yes, and you are now shining of example!

[Warin 0]

Right. BN880 and Cloney. Both of you are now PR'd for 48 hours!

Leave off with the freaking personal attacks!

[ralphwiggum 6]

for god fucking sakes stop name calling. if one side throws the bait, don't take it.

[Othin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Mar. 31 2003,17:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">for god fucking sakes stop name calling. if one side throws the bait, don't take it.<span id='postcolor'>

Man sucks to be this "one side" character...

I wonder why the Iraqis fired the RPGs at the rear of the tank? Do they think there's too much armor everywhere else, so they were just hoping for a disabling shot and got lucky?

Also, I've heard that no crew has ever died in an Abrahms during battle (not sure about training etc) in any country that deploys them. Has anyone else heard this?

[turms 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I wonder why the Iraqis fired the RPGs at the rear of the tank?  Do they think there's too much armor everywhere else, so they were just hoping for a disabling shot and got lucky?

<span id='postcolor'>

I dont think that u can take 2 Abrams out with "some luck"

I suspect that they were at-14 kornets....

oh btw 1 Abrams tankcrew has drowned in this war,in Tigris i believe. Will try to dig the article..

edit: Found the link to the drowning accident link

[Othin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (turms @ Mar. 31 2003,17:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I wonder why the Iraqis fired the RPGs at the rear of the tank?  Do they think there's too much armor everywhere else, so they were just hoping for a disabling shot and got lucky?

<span id='postcolor'>

I dont think that u can take 2 Abrams out with "some luck"

I suspect that they were at-14 kornets....

oh btw 1 Abrams tankcrew has drowned in this war,in Tigris i believe. Will try to dig the article..<span id='postcolor'>

I didn't mean to infer that they were lucky shots, I meant that if they were trying to disable the tanks and blew the shit out of them instead, that would be "lucky".

[Badgerboy 0]

I think after encounters with M1's in '91, I would think they would consider themselves lucky!

[PFC_Mike 2]

I doubt that was an RPG that killed the Abrams, more likely a Kornet our dear, UN-resolution-respecting friends in Moscow sold to Saddam.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ April 01 2003,06:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is going to be pretty bad for the coalition if they poke around the sand much longer, the average temperature now increases over 1 degree celsius every 6 days around Baghdad.  Soon it will start having a compounded effect on troops and vehicles together with the sand.<span id='postcolor'>

And what, the Iraqis are supermen? Won't they get exhausted with their already low food and water supplies and their vehicles, which are more often than not in worse condition than ours, have the same if not worse effects?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ April 01 2003,05:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ April 01 2003,06:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is going to be pretty bad for the coalition if they poke around the sand much longer, the average temperature now increases over 1 degree celsius every 6 days around Baghdad.  Soon it will start having a compounded effect on troops and vehicles together with the sand.<span id='postcolor'>

And what, the Iraqis are supermen?  Won't they get exhausted with their already low food and water supplies and their vehicles, which are more often than not in worse condition than ours, have the same if not worse effects?<span id='postcolor'>

There is 10-20 times more of them, they have the support/can coherce the local population. It's their terrain. They don't have long supply lines to worry about, they're in their home country where they have food and water storages. The situation is not comparable.

----------------------------------

Latest Robert Fisk report.

Good last paragraph:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The ghastly Saddam, the most revolting dictator in the Arab world, who does indeed use heinous torture and has indeed used gas, is now leading a country that is fighting the world's only superpower and that has done so for almost two weeks without surrendering. Yes, General Tommy Franks has accomplished one "truly remarkable achievement''. He has turned the monster of Baghdad into the hero of the Arab world and allowed Iraqis to teach every opponent of America how to fight their enemy.

<span id='postcolor'>

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 01 2003,06:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They don't have long supply lines to worry about, they're in their home country where they have food and water storages.<span id='postcolor'>

I don't think this part of your answer is so simple. Yes, I'm speculating but it's not far-fetched.

If they're taking a lot of casualties, they're losing men and weapons and can't get reinforcements in.

Food and water may also be problematic for them.

And supplies on the coalition side seem to be coming through, despite the disruptions and delays.

[Guest]

Yes, I was just pointing out to FSPilot that the Iraqis had some intrinsic advantages without them having to be supermen.

 U.S.: Troops Killed at Least 7 Civilians

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">DOHA, Qatar - U.S. troops shot and killed seven Iraqi civilians — including women and children — in a van at checkpoint Monday in southern Iraq (news - web sites) when the driver did not stop as ordered, U.S. Central Command said.

An American journalist who was at the scene said 10 Iraqis were killed, including five young children.

The soldiers were from the 3rd Infantry Division, which lost four soldiers Saturday at another checkpoint when an Iraqi soldier dressed as a civilian detonated a car bomb in a suicide attack.

Elsewhere, the Central Command said, an Iraqi prisoner was shot to death after he reached for a Marine's weapon while being questioned. Lt. Cmdr. Charles Owen, a spokesman for the command, said Tuesday he had no other details.

Monday's fatal shooting at the checkpoint happened along Route 9 near Najaf, about 20 miles north of the site of Saturday's suicide bombing.

The Central Command said initial reports from the confrontation indicated the soldiers followed the rules of engagement to protect themselves.

"In light of recent terrorist attacks by the Iraqi regime, the soldiers exercised considerable restraint to avoid the unnecessary loss of life," the statement said. However, Monday's deadly shooting near the southern Iraqi city of Najaf is likely to stoke opposition to the U.S.-led invasion among Iraqis in the Shiite Muslim region, where Washington had hoped for a popular uprising against President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).

Instead, U.S. forces have faced stubborn resistance by Saddam's forces in Najaf and other cities in southern Shiite strongholds. According to an account by the Central Command, the van approached the U.S. Army checkpoint Monday afternoon. Soldiers motioned for the driver to stop but were ignored. They then fired warning shots but the vehicle moving toward the checkpoint. Troops then shot into its engine. As a last resort, the military said, soldiers fired into the passenger compartment.

Two other civilians were wounded at the checkpoint on a highway near Karbala, according to a Pentagon (news - web sites) official and Central Command. The military is investigating. "They tried to warn the vehicle to stop, it did not stop," Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace said on PBS-TV's "The News Hour with Jim Leherer." "And it was unusual that that vehicle would be full of only women and that the driver was a woman. So we need to find out why it was that they were acting the way they did."

The military statement said 13 women and children were in the van. But The Washington Post, whose reporter is embedded with the 3rd Infantry, said 15 people were in the vehicle and 10 were killed, including five children who appeared to be younger than age 5. One of the wounded was a man not expected to live, the Post reported on its Web site.

The newspaper described the vehicle as a four-wheel-drive Toyota crammed with the Iraqis' personal belongings.

In its description of the shooting, the Post quoted a 3rd Infantry Division captain as saying the checkpoint crew did not fire warning shots quickly enough.

The Post describes the captain watching through binoculars and ordering the soldiers by radio to fire a warning shot first and then shoot a 7.62 mm machine-gun round into the vehicle's radiator. When the vehicle kept coming, the captain ordered the soldiers to "stop him!"

About a dozen shots of 25 mm cannon fire were heard from one or more of the platoon's Bradley fighting vehicles, the Post said.

The captain then shouted over the radio at the platoon leader, "You just expletive killed a family because you didn't fire a warning shot soon enough!" according to the Post.

"It was the most horrible thing I've ever seen, and I hope I never see it again," Sgt. Mario Manzano, 26, an Army medic with Bravo Company of the division's 3rd Battalion, 15th Infantry Regiment, told the Post.

U.S. medics evacuated survivors of Monday's shooting to allied lines south of Karbala, according to the Post. One woman was unhurt. Another, who had superficial head wounds, was flown by helicopter to a U.S. field hospital when it was learned she was pregnant, the Post said. U.S. troops gave three survivors permission to return to the vehicle and recover the bodies of their loved ones, the newspaper said.

Medics gave the group 10 body bags, the newspaper reported, and U.S. officials offered an unspecified amount of money to compensate them.

<span id='postcolor'>

[Assault (CAN) 1]

I'm going to correct some factual errors here, regarding the M1A1 in GW1

From FAS.org, which lists this reference to a book.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">During the Gulf War only 18 Abrams tanks were taken out of service due to battle damage: nine were permanent losses, and another nine suffered repairable damage, mostly from mines. Not a single Abrams crewman was lost in the conflict. There were few reports of mechanical failure. US armor commanders maintained an unprecedented 90% operational readiness for their Abrams Main Battle Tanks.

<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I wonder why the Iraqis fired the RPGs at the rear of the tank? Do they think there's too much armor everywhere else, so they were just hoping for a disabling shot and got lucky?<span id='postcolor'>

Rear end of an Abrams.

The Abrams series of tanks aren't as indestructable as some people think, yes they are among the best tanks in the world but like every piece of Armour, there are always weak spots. At the rear of the Abrams is the engine grill, this is where the armour is thinnest, so a couple of shots from an RPG might be able to do the trick of taking out the engine, turning the tank into a 70 ton pill-box. Shots at the engine grill, tracks, and optics on top of the turret can be made to disable the tank or reduce it's effectiveness.

So there.

Tyler