Tactics beat Technology

[JackandBlood 10]

Probably could of. Not sure what 1992 Iraq was using, but the munitions didnt do much. Now, a matter of engineering... was the DU armor at all moved along the stress-strain curve by the Iraqi rounds? Thats probably something we'll never know (until they declassify it). I'm going to take an edjucated guess and say there was no change in elasticity at all in DU armor and thusly the tank could have taken many more shots. Yep, i do believe an Abrams heavy commons could have taken on quite a few (>10) Iraqi T-72s.

Oh ya this was about tactics. Of course there was no tactical consideration in using extensive technology (superior airpower, superior armor, stealth tech, guided munitions, fuck i could go on, but I'd consider it a mercy if you didnt make me) to win the war, exacting a clear defeat for Saddam and with the most minimal of casualties on our side. No that was all tactics, hell we could'va done it with tactics and Sherman MBTs and bolt action rifles. We are just that good tactically...Yes?

[bogdanm 0]

They weren't terrorist back then. Just Iraqis. ;) Axis of evil and weapons of mass destruction sounds much meaner than Iraqis.

That was just innocent sarcasm. But hey everyone knows that arab=terrorist so I'm sure they were already plotting how to kill the infidels and planing world domination. Thank God for people like Bush who came to save the day. (sarcasm again)

EDIT: 1992? WTF? What that has to do with anything?

[JackandBlood 10]

I hear say the Grease gun (0.45) was made in numbers. Lets use them tactically, and defeat T-72s and IFVs.

[bogdanm 0]

I hear say the Grease gun (0.45) was made in numbers. Lets use them tactically, and defeat T-72s and IFVs.

Whas that sarcasm? Because with your way of thinking I start to believe you are serious.

[JackandBlood 10]

Woops I was off by a year. Latch onto that, by all means, it illustrates your point.

[bogdanm 0]

Woops I was off by a year. Latch onto that, by all means, it illustrates your point.

Please tell me what did you understood from everything I said so far? I'm starting to believe we are not on the same wavelength.

[JackandBlood 10]

Ah its nothing dude, im just being drunk and belligerent. Fact is im not too sure what we're arguing about:D. I still do believe an equivalent Abrams HC will defeat a T-90 but I dunno if the TC was even arguing that point!

[Baff1 0]

Probably could of. Not sure what 1992 Iraq was using, but the munitions didnt do much. Now, a matter of engineering... was the DU armor at all moved along the stress-strain curve by the Iraqi rounds? Thats probably something we'll never know (until they declassify it). I'm going to take an edjucated guess and say there was no change in elasticity at all in DU armor and thusly the tank could have taken many more shots. Yep, i do believe an Abrams heavy commons could have taken on quite a few (>10) Iraqi T-72s.

Oh ya this was about tactics. Of course there was no tactical consideration in using extensive technology (superior airpower, superior armor, stealth tech, guided munitions, fuck i could go on, but I'd consider it a mercy if you didnt make me) to win the war, exacting a clear defeat for Saddam and with the most minimal of casualties on our side. No that was all tactics, hell we could'va done it with tactics and Sherman MBTs and bolt action rifles. We are just that good tactically...Yes?

20 Abrams were destroyed by enemy fire in the Gulf War.

Front on they might not get penetrated, but from the sides and rear they do.

10 enemies in Shermans will defeat 1 Abrams, let alone T72's.

Just form a line and at the tanks on at least one end of those lines will have flanking fire.

It's no suprise that out numbered 8:1 the M1 did the samething to Iraqi T55'/T72's. But it cuts both ways.

[MehMan 0]

20 Abrams were destroyed by enemy fire in the Gulf War.

Where'd you get that figure?

[Shadow NX 1]

Ah its nothing dude, im just being drunk and belligerent. Fact is im not too sure what we're arguing about:D. I still do believe an equivalent Abrams HC will defeat a T-90 but I dunno if the TC was even arguing that point!

Drunk posting on the interwebs, the fun sport of the new millenium, thumbs up :)

[Baff1 0]

Where'd you get that figure?

Wikipedia.

It lists them individually with what they were knocked out by too.

[MehMan 0]

And it also states that they weren't all destroyed and not all from enemy fire. Lots of blue on blue and a few tanks getting stuck in mud.

I wouldn't be on your ass with this if you weren't so cock sure about it.

[Baff1 0]

My point stands.

Everyone knows the M1 is vulnerable at the sides and rear mate.

Hence the ERA upgrade on the TUSK.

Even RPG 7 penetrates it.

Two small shaped charges February 26

Assault on Tawakalna Division

Small penetration of the left rear side of the hull. Impact on the turret defeated by armor

Three conventional KE rounds from an Iraqi T-72 Unknown date/location Two partial penetrations on the rear turret right side (possible fire in the storage area). Cosmetic damage on the turret front DU left armor plate.

I think that last one specifically demonstrates my point, the T72 hits from the side penetrated, but the one to the front didn't.

Same for the RPG, didn't penetrate the turret, did penetrate the side.

This is pretty standard tactical stuff for tanks I think.

As for being stuck in the mud, that identifies another shortcoming of the M1, it has greater mobility issues because of it's weight. I'd love to see this modelled for bridges in game.

Edited August 29, 2009 by Baff1

[bogdanm 0]

It doesn’t matter how the M1A1 performed against the Iraqi T-72s, at least not when you want to prove its better than the T-90(or any other modern Russian MBTs). The suppremacy of the Abrams against the Iraqi tanks was expected because lets admit it, the Abrams was fighting against many tanks that were not more advanced than the T-34(exept for a bigger gun). Most of the Iraqi tanks didn’t have laser range finder, thermal imaging, many didn’t even have night vision which results in poor aiming. Also the effective range of the Abrams was 3km while the T-72s range was no more than 1,5-2km. In a head-on battle, in that 1 minute the T-72 travels 1km at full speed, The Abrams can fire 10 rounds.

Anyway the T-90 doesn’t have any of the Iraqi T-72 issues so its inaccurate to say that these two tanks are similar.

[USSRsniper 0]

JackandBlood If you don't like ArmA 2 T-72 try playing Steel beasts pro PE, T-72's there can easily destroy Leopard 2 and M1.

[GGTharos 10]

Funny, T-72 rounds tend to ping right off my M-1's armor in SB PRO ...

[USSRsniper 0]

It would be impossible to create realistic T-72 anyway, because all the info about Russian APFSDS rounds is classified. No armor penetration info available at all. Creators of SB PRO probably sued Wikipedia as their source :rolleyes:

[TangoRomeo 10]

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/ARM/apfsds/ammo.html

As with any stats on the internet, take it with a grain of salt. I think it's safe to assume that in a hypothetical engagement involving state of the art equipment, the crew who sees and shoots first, hitting the target, will have a high kill propability.

[Mr. Cheese 0]

mine is 12 inches and i am a tactical master

[Mike84 1]

13 inch here

[walker 0]

Well mine is 1.5 inches

Wide

[xclusiv8 10]

mine is 23 inches! what are we talking about again?

[Second 0]

technology is noty always good for example M1's engine can't be repaired in the field, most of the time the M1's are shipped back to the US for the repairs. You can't simply bust out wrench and a hammer to fix M1 :)

Well at least between T-72 and Leopard2 there is clear difference. With Leo engine change is much faster, maybe hour or so. With T-72 it's been said to take almost day (probably meaning almost 8 hours). Don't know for sure been years i've heard about it, but i was astonished that it's this way around as i was sure that Soviet tanks are quicker to repair.

On topic: I have small, was half inch last time i saw it.

[MehMan 0]

technology is noty always good for example M1's engine can't be repaired in the field, most of the time the M1's are shipped back to the US for the repairs. You can't simply bust out wrench and a hammer to fix M1 :)

lol wut. That's not how things work. They don't ship tanks anywhere for a busted engine. It's a simple swap, they just take out the old component and put in a new one:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/AGT1500_engine_and_M1_tank.JPEG

Jeez. And no, you can't do field repairs on a turbine engine, but neither can you on a Leo2 engine or T72 engine.

Tanks have become modularish.

My point stands.

Everyone knows the M1 is vulnerable at the sides and rear mate.

Hence the ERA upgrade on the TUSK.

Even RPG 7 penetrates it.

Your point that 20 abrams tanks were destroyed by enemy fire doesn't stand. That's what's wrong with your post.

Edited August 29, 2009 by MehMan

[Baff1 0]

Although you have corrected it twice now, the exact numbers were never my point.

The tanks capabilities were and the tactics required to counter them.