The Dogs of War

[Guest]

1 post deleted. Please keep this area free of politics. Including WW2 politics.

[Maraudeur 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 01 2003,10:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">One of the nasty features that tanks have isn't modeled in OFP. The turret on a tank automatically turns in the direction of where it has been hit. So you have your shot but expect to have a very pissed tank aiming at your position within seconds.<span id='postcolor'>

Don't know about pressure systems, reacting to impacts.

I believe you refer at the active alert systems.

They react to laser stimulation from others MBT's range finders. They present commonly as two small boxes, one each side of the turret. A glassed piece, in V form to cover wider azimut, in front of those boxes.

Will try to find links, as my english severly sucks. Pictures will be better.

The task is to face the turret front of the immediate danger ( penetrator is fired very short time after the rangefinder laser impulse )

First used in Merkava Mk1, then now common in Russian tanks, STRV's122 and a few others retrofited T series tanks from russian and israelis tanks.

Begins to be widely used, even with old design but modernised tanks.

In the Merkava, another feature is to hold on suddenly the brakes, to stop and stabilize the tank, giving crews more chances to spot the threat and reply.

As far as I know, Abrams various series of tanks do not use any.

[PitViper 0]

Don't like Swedish military history Denoir?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ April 01 2003,18:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Don't like Swedish military history Denoir?<span id='postcolor'>

Post it in the other thread, as I said. There we can discuss Swedish military history, the Vietnam war, Somalia, the slavery, what ever you want baby

[Tydium 0]

Latest russian military intel report from iraqwar.ru

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

During the night of March 30-31 the situation on the US-Iraqi front became increasingly more critical. All indications are that the coalition has launched a new attack.

Following a three-hour-long artillery barrage and several nighttime aviation strikes the coalition forces came in contact with the Iraqi troops near Karabela and attempted to move around the Iraqi defenses from the east.

For now the coalition is limiting its actions to probing the forward layer of the Iraqi defenses, attempting to assess its density and organization after nearly five days of artillery and aerial bombardment. There have been no reports of any coalition breaks through the Iraqi defenses in this area. At the same time morning radio intercepts uncovered a large US military convoy moving around the Razzaza Lake. At the moment it is unclear whether the purpose of this movement is to get to the town of Ar-Ramdia or a wider maneuver leading to the town of Al-Falludja.

Another [coalition] convoy numbering up to 100 combat vehicles was seen near the town of Al-Hillah moving in the southeaster direction 30 kilometers from the strategic Baghdad-Basra highway. Given there is no Iraqi resistance this coalition force will be able to reach the highway by today?s night. So far there were no reports of any losses in this area.

The US forces resumed attacking Iraqi defenses near An-Najaf. The US group of force in this area has been reinforced with at least three reserve Marine battalions and now Americans are trying once again to capture this key town. According to the US intelligence Iraqi defenses in this area number up to 3,000 troops aided by around 1,500 volunteers and [ba'ath] party activists. The Iraqis here are armed with around 30 T-55 and T-62 tanks, up to four artillery batteries and more than 300 various anti-tank weapons. The town is being stormed by the elements of the 1st Marine Division numbering up to 6,000 troops assisted by 80 tanks and 60 artillery systems. Additionally, aerial support is provided by up to 40 helicopters. So far the Americans were unable to push the enemy. Early today morning an American tank was destroyed near An-Najaf. At least two of its crew were killed.

Intensive exchange of fire is continuing in the vicinity of An-Nasiriya. The US Marines have so far been unable to side nth staging area they captured seven days ago on the left bank of Euphrates. The bridge connecting this staging area with the main coalition forces is nearly destroyed and is under constant fire from the Iraqi defenses located in the riverside city blocks. This is the reason why the [coalition] troops holding the staging area can only be reinforced by small and lightly-armed units and only during nighttime. During the past night alone the Marines holding the staging area sustained 2 killed and 5 wounded.

The situation [for the coalition] is complicated by the fact that the residential blocks occupied by the defending Iraqis come to the very edge of the river, giving a significant advantage to the defenders who control the river and all approaches to the river. Currently the coalition artillery and aviation is methodically destroying these blocks in an attempt to push the Iraqis away from the shoreline.

Intercepted radio communications indicate that the Marines engineering units are ordered to build a pontoon crossing up the stream from An-Nasiriya and move up to three battalions of Marines and troops from the 82nd Airborne Division to the left bank of the Euphrates for a future strike in the rear of the An-Nasiriya garrison. The coalition command would have been ready to bypass other defended crossings on the Euphrates if it wasn?t for one problem: the entire group of forces has only two pontoon units. Any new pontoon units will arrive not sooner than in mid-April.

A standoff between the Basra garrison and the British marine infantry is continuing in the area of Basra. Using localized attacks the British are attempting to ?lean? on Basra as closely as possible and to tighten the blockade, but so far they were unsuccessful. Thus, during the last night the British attempted to take the town of Al-Hasib located 7 kilometers southeast of Basra. The British plan was to reach the Al-Arab River and to slice the local Iraqi defenses in half, separating Basra from the defending Iraqi forces on the Fao peninsula. Up to a battalion of the British marine infantry supported by armored vehicles entered the town of Al-Hasib from south but in less than an hour they were stopped by Iraqi fire and requested aviation and artillery support.

Fighting for the control of the town is continuing. At least two British soldiers were killed and three were wounded in this battle. One British armored personnel carrier was destroyed. British commanders are reporting killing 50 Iraqis and capturing 10. In the area of the As-Zubair River port, which was declared to be under full coalition control just a week ago, a British patrol boat was attacked. The boat was carrying its crew and a marine infantry unit. As the result of the attack at least 4 British soldiers were killed and 9 were wounded.

The official coalition losses are, to put it mildly, "falling behind" the actual figures. The 57 dead acknowledged by the coalition command reflect losses as of the morning of March 26. This information was provided to a BBC correspondent by one of the top medical officials at a field hospital in Al Kuwait during a confidential conversation. "We have standing orders to acknowledge only those fatalities that have been delivered to the hospital, identified and prepared to be sent back home. The identification process and the required standard embalming takes some time - occasionally up to several days. But only the command knows how many casualties we sustained today and you will learn about it in about three days" [Reverse-translated from Russian] This conversation was taped by the journalist and sent to the editor via a cellular phone network.

Based on the radio intercepts and internal information networks of the US field hospitals as of this morning the coalition losses include no less than 100 killed US servicemen and at least 35 dead British soldiers. Additionally, some 22 American and 11 British soldiers are officially considered to be missing in action and the whereabouts of another 400 servicemen are being established. The number of wounded has exceeded 480 people.

US experts at the coalition command headquarters studied the cases of destroyed and damaged M1A2 tanks and various APCs. The conclusion was that without a doubt the Iraqis do possess modern anti-tank weapons but so far use them on a "very limited scale." Only three tanks have been hit by guided weapons which destroyed these tanks with the first hit. The rest of the tanks were destroyed with more standard weapons. Some of the most common causes [of destroyed armor] include: anti-tank guns (about 40% of all hits), man-portable rocket-propelled grenade launchers (25% of hits), and landmines (25% of hits). Effectiveness of anti-tank artillery has been particularly high. "Impacts by high-velocity projectiles do not always destroy the tank and its crew. However, in 90% of all cases the tank is disabled and the crew is forced to abandon the tank on the battlefield" says the report that was distributed to the commanders of the forward units for analysis.

Russian military analysts are advising the Iraqi military command against excessive optimism. There is no question that the US "blitzkrieg" failed to take control of Iraq and to destroy its army. It is clear that the Americans got bogged down in Iraq and the military campaign hit a snag. However, the Iraqi command is now in danger of underestimating the enemy. For now there is no reason to question the resolve of the Americans and their determination to reach the set goal ? complete occupation of Iraq.

In reality, despite of some obvious miscalculations and errors of the coalition's high command, the [coalition] troops that have entered Iraq maintain high combat readiness and are willing to fight. The losses sustained during the past 12 days of fighting, although delivering a painful blow to the pride and striking the public opinion, are entirely insignificant militarily speaking. The initiative in the war remains firmly in the hands of the coalition. Under such circumstances Iraqi announcements of a swift victory over the enemy will only confuse its own troops and the Iraq's population and, as the result, may lead to demoralization and a reduced defensive potential

Russian military analysts believe that the critical for the US duration of the war would be over 90 days provided that during that time the coalition will sustain over 1,000 killed. Under such circumstances a serious political crisis in the US and in the world will be unavoidable.

<span id='postcolor'>

[Guest]

At least 11 members of one family - including six children - killed in a coalition air raid in Hilla area, south of Baghdad, western news reports say. -BBC

I guess my counter is going up

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 01 2003,19:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">At least 11 members of one family - including six children - killed in a coalition air raid in Hilla area, south of Baghdad, western news reports say. -BBC

I guess my counter is going up <span id='postcolor'>

And it will go up more, unfortunately. Know any serious wars where it wouldn't have?

Pointless counter.

[theavonlady 2]

Meanwhile, east of the Jordan............................

[hellfish6 7]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 01 2003,03:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">One of the nasty features that tanks have isn't modeled in OFP. The turret on a tank automatically turns in the direction of where it has been hit. So you have your shot but expect to have a very pissed tank aiming at your position within seconds.<span id='postcolor'>

I've heard of tanks swerving their turrets to point at where lasers are targeting them, like thew Russian and Chinese variants of the ARENA systems, but I've never heard of an automatic reaction system that deals with actual hits.

[Maraudeur 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PFC_Mike @ April 01 2003,04:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">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.<span id='postcolor'>

You bet ??

Every time an Abrams will be destroyed, AT-14 is responsible ?

Just like in WWII, every tank was a tiger, every gun an '88, every soldier a SS.

This is a true joke.

All of this to say that I doubt AT14 are available in significant numbers, if at all.

Yes, if at all.

Rumors, politics involved, fog of war.....

Future will bring sooner or later the final word, but, by now...

Imagine that weapon is able to penetrate and destroy the frontal armour of all known MBT's.

AT a range of, 5000 meters, eh.

Delicious menu for tanks hunters.

Be sure latests Abram's frontal armor can be penetrated by AT-14.

The side turret, top turret, rear hull panel, rear hull deck, cannot stop the classical single shape charge of the RPG.

If the Iraqui's would own the dual shape warhead rockets from RPGs, nightmare for the up-armoured Bradleys and others British IFV's.

Actually, not so much are reported lost. ( except by A-10 thunderbolt fire, just kidding )

May be Iraquis own a few AT7, at last AT13.... coalitions forces will not cross theyre fire until fights for Baghdad I believe, with Republican Guard.

No RPG29,  27, anymore.

And even, yes, even if Iraqui's would own some more single RPG's, there would be more coalitions losses.

This is my guess, of course.

But, because of this, just think one second :

What if, what if people able to apply that guerrilla warfare, so motivated, used to continuous ferocious warfare for 20 years know, are able to approach the so heavy, modern, prudential, alerted, heavy volume of fire and easy trigger armoured US units in coherent combat groups at 100 meters or less, to fire distinctively at the rear, searching for the weak point....

...What if those fighters would have some of the modern and powerfull weapons listed above ??

There would not be only two abrams down today....

My bet is that Iraq just got first gen RPGs, and not enough.

I saw and practiced enough to be sure, sure as hell ,of that.

[Schoeler 0]

A little humor for Warin and our Canadian brethren:

The Canadians have pledged to help America with the war against Iraq. They

have pledged two of their biggest battle ships, 6000 ground troops and six

fighter jets.

Unfortunately, after the exchange rate conversion, we end up with two canoes,

one Mountie, and some flying squirrels.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 01 2003,19:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A little humor for Warin and our Canadian brethren:

The Canadians have pledged to help America with the war against Iraq. They

have pledged two of their biggest battle ships, 6000 ground troops and six

fighter jets.

Unfortunately, after the exchange rate conversion, we end up with two canoes,

one Mountie, and some flying squirrels.<span id='postcolor'>

Just would like to point out, we've all heard that one so often I'm starting to think it dates back to GW1

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 01 2003,19:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A little humor for Warin and our Canadian brethren:

The Canadians have pledged to help America with the war against Iraq. They

have pledged two of their biggest battle ships, 6000 ground troops and six

fighter jets.

Unfortunately, after the exchange rate conversion, we end up with two canoes,

one Mountie, and some flying squirrels.<span id='postcolor'>

Ha. Ha. Ha.

Been told on here before. But neglects the fact that one of our ships is doing picket duty in the gulf to help keep shipping going smoothly, and we've got 1000 men headed for Afghanistan to try to keep the peace while crazy americans blow the hell out of everything. Maybe we'll be lucky and not have any KIA from friendly fire this time

If you are going to slam my country, at least make it a slam that has a little rationality to it

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ April 01 2003,20:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you are going to slam my country, at least make it a slam that has a little rationality to it <span id='postcolor'>

Is it hockey season?

[Maraudeur 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hellfish6 @ April 01 2003,18:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 01 2003,03:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">One of the nasty features that tanks have isn't modeled in OFP. The turret on a tank automatically turns in the direction of where it has been hit. So you have your shot but expect to have a very pissed tank aiming at your position within seconds.<span id='postcolor'>

I've heard of tanks swerving their turrets to point at where lasers are targeting them, like thew Russian and Chinese variants of the ARENA systems, but I've never heard of an automatic reaction system that deals with actual hits.<span id='postcolor'>

What I said above.

But actually the Chinese do not use the laser passive alert systems, they are more vicious, lol, and effective

Theyr last gen MBT is using a system which is basically a low frequency laser, large aray.

Using the " cat's eye effect " which is that any glass reflect lights ( armour optics, ATGM sights, sniper scopes, etc etc ).

The laser low intensity is checking around the MBT ( widenness of tracking and others parameters are adjustable of course to ease use and tactical integration ) and if laser returns, this means a glass panel is by here.

Immediately, laser focuses on a thick but powerfull ray, aimed at the return signal direction.

This high energy blacken all mineral and synthetic glass, definitely blind the crew eye.

Every optical system is out. - tanks, anti tanks systems, etc, no limits-

It works very well, Chinese are the first to use this at a large scale.

They got the tech, and they put it in order of battle, while western countrys just use some similar systems with spec ops for sniper hunting, at very limited scale.

Innovation is not always home resident, by very far

Terrific, isn't it ?

Maybe Saddam bought some, during embargo, along AT-14 ATGM's... just kidding.

Sorry for the OT.

Back on tracks.

Arena, is an active counter measure to destroy incoming theats. Ultra short wave radar detects incoming missiles and penetrators ( at more than 3000 meters/sec :o ), then activate fire of a pre fragmented brick that will explode meters between the tank and the threat, destroying it.

Previous system is Drozd, different tech, used effectively in Afghanistan since mid '80s against afghanis RPG.

Maybe US Army should have bought some of those old systems for theyr Abrams

Or the Brits, Kontakt 5 ERA bricks, US trials prooves they resist tanks 120mm rounds / M829A2 DU penetrators, that would protect from friendly fire

Sorry, couldn't resist, damn.

I promise, I will not do it again. * oups *

LOL

Best regards .

[Badgerboy 0]

The Chinese also came up with a handheld laser system. It's designed to be fired in the general direction of enemy troops. Result? It blinds them permanently.

Charming eh? Also illegal as hell.

[Maraudeur 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also illegal as hell<span id='postcolor'>

Illegal ?

Use of directed energy, at war ? EH ??

[Badgerboy 0]

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

Use of directed energy, at war ? EH ??<span id='postcolor'>

Its covered in the Geneva Convention. You can shoot the bastard with a bullet, but your not allowed to blind them with lasers, it's not very sporting you see.

[Maraudeur 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ April 01 2003,20:27)</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">Illegal ?

Use of directed energy, at war ? EH ??<span id='postcolor'>

Its covered in the Geneva Convention. You can shoot the bastard with a bullet, but your not allowed to blind them with lasers, it's not very sporting you see.<span id='postcolor'>

LOL

War is not nice.

Geneva Convention caught up by modern age lol

[Guest]

Aha! Finally: documentation of turret rotation

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The sector of the MBT protection in azimuth is enough to provide front, side and top protection. It moves together with the turret and overlaps the range of firing angles against tanks during their attack of the enemy's deep echeloned defensive positions. <span id='postcolor'>

I assume that Drozd and Drozd-2 had a similar function.

[theavonlady 2]

Saddam's Iraqi henchmen at what they do best.

[Badgerboy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraqis at what they do best.<span id='postcolor'>

Isn't that a bit of a generalisation? Shouldn't it be 'crazed Saddam loyal Iraqi nutcases' doing what they do best. I know if I made sweeping statements like that about certain people I would get pounced on.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ April 01 2003,22:04)</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">Iraqis at what they do best.<span id='postcolor'>

Isn't that a bit of a generalisation? Shouldn't it be 'crazed Saddam loyal Iraqi nutcases' doing what they do best. I know if I made sweeping statements like that about certain people I would get pounced on.<span id='postcolor'>

Your right! It should read something like what you said, just that I wouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt of being nutcases.

[Badgerboy 0]

Hooray! Plus I like the word 'Henchmen'

[Maraudeur 0]

Ah !

Vassily Fofanov tank's page.

From a man that state ( with reason ) that Military Parade is biased.

Open minded, fair, complete infos.

He wrote a book, accordingly to many people it is excellent, but I can't read russian

And here is Drozd

http://armor.vif2.ru/Tanks/EQP/drozd.html

Both Arena and Drozd are active -physical- coutner measure/ threat intercept.