The Dogs of War

[Badgerboy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well if the rumour about them taking out several Challenger 2's is true I wouldn't discount them too quickly. I can't see how they'd manage it though. Possibly arty hitting from above?<span id='postcolor'>

It wouldn't have been Challenger 2's. The Royal Marines had Scimitar tanks with them (Light recon tanks). Challengers would not have entered an area like that without considerable support (Too big a target! )

[hellfish6 7]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ Mar. 21 2003,20:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">(In other news, I got arrested tonight! )<span id='postcolor'>

What happened? Protesting?

[hellfish6 7]

Yeah, what did happen with those British tanks getting hit? I haven't heard a thing about it anywhere on the net or TV.

Can whomever heard that post a link or provide some details?

[Badgerboy 0]

Nah, police incompetence....

They thought I was drink driving, when I had only drunk coke all night.

Pulled over, gave a breath test (Failed! ), and they took me to the station. (While I protested my innocence all the way)

Placed under arrest, asked if I wanted a solicitor, and locked up!

Gave a blood test, which revealed I had no alcohol in my system.

Bitch about shoddy police equipment, and get a lift home. Grrrr!

(I was actually pulled over for taking a roundabout on 2 wheels! Doh! Thankfully I wasn't speeding)

[munger 25]

LOL Badgerboy. Taking a roundabout on two wheels WITHOUT speeding? How the heck did you manage that?

Back on topic, regarding the British "tanks", it would make far more sense if the losses had been Scimitar's as they're very lightly armoured. When I heard someone mention tanks I just assumed they were talking about MBT's.

Speaking of which, two questions for anyone interested:

-how come the US is using M1A1's? I thought they had nearly all been upgraded to M1A2's by now. And even if they haven't, surely the US Army would use the A2's they have instead of old A1's?

-I saw some footage of a Challenger 2 on the news earlier and it looked like it was covered in reactive armour blocks. I didn't think NATO used reactive armour? Not that I'm complaining; A Challenger 2 with ERA must be almost indestructible.

[Badgerboy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">LOL Badgerboy. Taking a roundabout on two wheels WITHOUT speeding? How the heck did you manage that?  <span id='postcolor'>

50mph speed limit! I was 'testing my new tyres'. Crap excuse I know!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">-how come the US is using M1A1's? I thought they had nearly all been upgraded to M1A2's by now. And even if they haven't, surely the US Army would use the A2's they have instead of old A1's?<span id='postcolor'>

The US stores hardware and other equipment all over the world in big sheds. When they need it, they simply drag it out and start it up. It's possible they are using pre-positioned material, which would be unlikely to be upgraded with the US Armies current M1's.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">-I saw some footage of a Challenger 2 on the news earlier and it looked like it was covered in reactive armour blocks. I didn't think NATO used reactive armour? Not that I'm complaining; A Challenger 2 with ERA must be almost indestructible. <span id='postcolor'>

Challenger 2's don't use depleted uranium armour, but are equipped with the latest Chobham. (Generation 3 I believe).

I don't think they carry reactive (at least offically), but its possible that the crew juststuck spare tracks and other odd bits around the turrets, to provide a extra crude defense barrier.

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

This Turkish news is a worry.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Munger @ Mar. 22 2003,04:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">-how come the US is using M1A1's? I thought they had nearly all been upgraded to M1A2's by now. And even if they haven't, surely the US Army would use the A2's they have instead of old A1's?<span id='postcolor'>

I believe the 3rd Infantry is indeed using A2's (since they are the tip and have always been considered the lead element of ANY attack). I am not sure about the other units though.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Munger @ Mar. 22 2003,04:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">-I saw some footage of a Challenger 2 on the news earlier and it looked like it was covered in reactive armour blocks. I didn't think NATO used reactive armour? Not that I'm complaining; A Challenger 2 with ERA must be almost indestructible. <span id='postcolor'>

NATO uses ERA but it's rare because it's worthless. The US ERA technology is on the level of Russian Kontakt-1 from the 60's and is only good against ligth HEAT rounds. The latest Russian Kontakt-5 is on the other hand scary. It can without any problems stop a 120mm M829 APFSD DU penetrator. The coalition forces better hope that Iraq doesn't have Kontakt-5 because then they are in the shites.

Here's a short article from Jane's on the subject:

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

Jane's International Defence Review 7/1997, pg. 15:  

"IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION  

"Claims that the armour of Russian tanks is effectively impenetrable, made on the basis of test carried out in Germany (see IDR 7/1996, p.15), have been supported by comments made following tests in the US.  

"Speaking at a conference on Future Armoured Warfare in London in May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US tests involved firing trials of Russian-built T-72 tanks fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour (ERA). In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy' Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles.  

"When fitted to T-72 tanks, the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU penetrators of M829 APFSDS, fired by the 120 mm guns of the US M1 Abrams tanks, which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles.  

<span id='postcolor'>

Edit: On challangers: They're truly massive machines. A T-72 looks like a toy in comparison. I got an offer to drive a challanger in Kosovo, but I didn't have time just then. I regret like hell that I didn't take the opportunity. Must be fun driving something that massive.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 22 2003,04:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Munger @ Mar. 22 2003,04:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">-how come the US is using M1A1's? I thought they had nearly all been upgraded to M1A2's by now. And even if they haven't, surely the US Army would use the A2's they have instead of old A1's?<span id='postcolor'>

I believe the 3rd Infantry is indeed using A2's (since they are the tip and have always been considered the lead element of ANY attack). I am not sure about the other units though.<span id='postcolor'>

Are they actually using A1's, or is it just moronic CNN reporters saying M1A1 because thats what they hear 'somewhere, once..'?

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Mar. 22 2003,04:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 22 2003,04:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Munger @ Mar. 22 2003,04:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">-how come the US is using M1A1's? I thought they had nearly all been upgraded to M1A2's by now. And even if they haven't, surely the US Army would use the A2's they have instead of old A1's?<span id='postcolor'>

I believe the 3rd Infantry is indeed using A2's (since they are the tip and have always been considered the lead element of ANY attack). I am not sure about the other units though.<span id='postcolor'>

Are they actually using A1's, or is it just moronic CNN reporters saying M1A1 because thats what they hear 'somewhere, once..'?<span id='postcolor'>

I would guess news ignorance. Ted Koppel (I highly trained and reliable reporter) repeatedly used the generic term "tanks" for any armored vehicle.

But I also think there might still be some units with A1's. But undoubtedly the units in the fore have A2s.

And speaking of reactive armor....I've seen video of M2's with ERA plates.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 22 2003,04:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Here's a short article from Jane's on the subject:

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

Jane's International Defence Review 7/1997, pg. 15:  

"IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION  

"Claims that the armour of Russian tanks is effectively impenetrable, made on the basis of test carried out in Germany (see IDR 7/1996, p.15), have been supported by comments made following tests in the US.  

"Speaking at a conference on Future Armoured Warfare in London in May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US tests involved firing trials of Russian-built T-72 tanks fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour (ERA). In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy' Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles.  

"When fitted to T-72 tanks, the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU penetrators of M829 APFSDS, fired by the 120 mm guns of the US M1 Abrams tanks, which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles.  

<span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'>

Damn. That's some serious stuff. Of course, I imagine the limiting factor is the cost- no way Russia can afford to outfit alot of tanks with something like this. But if they could (or if they got it in their heads to sell it around...), then... well, I don't really need to say it, do I?

[Akira 0]

Just came out that Saddam is telling the US and UK that he will respect POW rights.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 22 2003,06:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Just came out that Saddam is telling the US and UK that he will respect POW rights.<span id='postcolor'>

lol. I love it. The Iraqi army has trouble seeing an American flag without coming down with a case of the French syndrome, let alone taking Coalition forces prisoner. Also, according the the Iraqi government, Dubya deserves to "Be hit with a shoe". Obviously we killed their best propaganda hacks, as a North Korean grade-schooler could come up with better stuff than this.

[beno_83au 1369]

Dang, I'm away for less than 24hrs and the topic size nearly doubles. Lotsa catching up I just had to do. Is there any point finding a live webcam of Baghdad on a 56k modem? I was watching the one on MSNBC but all I could see was a grey blur with some brownish colouring at the bottom

*** Coalition forces have taken Umm Quasr (spelling??) and are on the outskirts of Basra

[Wires 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 22 2003,16:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also, according the the Iraqi government, Dubya deserves to "Be hit with a shoe". Obviously we killed their best propaganda hacks, as a North Korean grade-schooler could come up with better stuff than this.<span id='postcolor'>

They aren't ones for inteligent insults are they? Maybe it sounds better in Arabic (or whatever they speak?)?

[Col. Kurtz 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Beno @ Mar. 22 2003,14:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">*** Coalition forces have taken Umm Quasr (spelling??) and are on the outskirts of Basra<span id='postcolor'>

A while ago a BBC correspondent in Umm Qasr said that there were still pockets of resistance in the main town despite the fact that Donald Rumsfield had declared the towm captured. Don't know if those pockets have been quashed yet.

[beno_83au 1369]

Two RN Sea Kings have been involved in a mid-air collision over the Gulf!!! They (BBC) saying more in a moment.

[beno_83au 1369]

Ok, here's what. Two Royal Navy Sea Kings have collided with each other over international waters in the northern part of the gulf, or north of Iraq (geeez I suck, I heard it about 30 seconds ago:angry:) Seven people currently being searched for.

[beno_83au 1369]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Mar. 22 2003,06:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Beno @ Mar. 22 2003,14:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">*** Coalition forces have taken Umm Quasr (spelling??) and are on the outskirts of Basra<span id='postcolor'>

A while ago a BBC correspondent in Umm Qasr said that there were still pockets of resistance in the main town despite the fact that Donald Rumsfield had declared the towm captured. Don't know if those pockets have been quashed yet.<span id='postcolor'>

Yep, thats true. They just had that up on one of their update flashes.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

BBC is saying that the commander of the Iraqi 51st Division has surrendered, not the entire division like had been reported. Some of the brigades within the 51st appear to be preparing to surrender, but not all.

[beno_83au 1369]

I guess having your commander surrender would sort of dim your spirits. I'm surprised he didn't surrender the entire division, or that the division hasn't followed suit.

BBC is now saying that they doubt there are any surviviours from the Sea Kings. Poor guys.

[FSPilot 0]

Mohammed Al-Sahaf is speaking.

Man this guy is in denial.

He says the Iraqis still hold Um Qasar and have defeated several US offensives.  That the POWs are actually Iraqi civilians that the US is saying are military.  Methinks this guy is listening to the wrong radio frequency.  

edit - he also claims that 250 civilians are wounded. and he's inviting the media to go visit the civilians that were wounded. I don't know about you but I wouldn't get into a car with that guy.

[beno_83au 1369]

British Group Commander Al Lockwood has just said that both helos collided over international waters somewhere in the northern Arabian Gulf. He also said that there are no survivours...

[Col. Kurtz 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Beno @ Mar. 22 2003,15:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">British Group Commander Al Lockwood has just said that both helos collided over international waters somewhere in the northern Arabian Gulf. He also said that there are no survivours...<span id='postcolor'>

It's been a bad war for helicopters

With the amount of helicopters flying and the wheather conditions, its to expected, but still not good.

[hellfish6 7]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 21 2003,21:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Munger @ Mar. 22 2003,04:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">-how come the US is using M1A1's? I thought they had nearly all been upgraded to M1A2's by now. And even if they haven't, surely the US Army would use the A2's they have instead of old A1's?<span id='postcolor'>

I believe the 3rd Infantry is indeed using A2's (since they are the tip and have always been considered the lead element of ANY attack). I am not sure about the other units though.<span id='postcolor'>

Having been to Camp Doha, I can safely say that none of the pre-positioned tanks there were M-1A2s. I don't know about the stuff pre-poed on the Navy ships at Diego Garcia or at the HUGE depot in Qatar, though. That Qatar depot (I'm pretty sure it's Qatar - might be Oman) is only two years old, and may have M-1A2s there. I don't know for sure.