Maraudeur

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ April 10 2003,22:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Maraudeur @ April 10 2003,21:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What appears is that coalition forces used a storm of fire to make the defenders enclosed in selected parts of the town without mobility to feel any resistance is futile and desesperate, would result in a complete detruction of the town and enormous Iraqui civilians deads. Iraquis, for which civilians are not only civilians as for us who are just external observators, but their own nation : wifes, childs, parents, etc.<span id='postcolor'> Are you saying that the Iraqi military hasn't fought effectively because they're concerned for the welfare of Iraqi civilians? Apologies in advance if I misinterpreted. Semper Fi<span id='postcolor'> Sure no. But, about the two days I spoke for the fights in that residential quarter of the town, this had to let the Iraquis to think that this time the coalition would use a tactic absolutely less discriminating than before, to say the last. Giving no chance for anyone standing at the battleplace. Even if the Iraquian leaders were ready to completely sacrifice civilians, I doubt the common soldier thought that way. Previously, civilians casualties were considering as an acceptable part of the warfare by Iraquis. But by now it was question to erase completely the place where the problem stands to solve it. And this meant for the defenders : useless sacrifice because they would not have been able to return fire and civilian tragedy. So they gave it up. The coalition did it right. One little short, but very clear " strong message " by giving an example. Actually some reports from red cross tell 500 to 1000 civilian casualties in that quarter of the town for the considered dates. The area is completely in ruins, Iraquis could not do anything to avoid it and it cost nothing except ammo for the coalition. The defenders were litteraly swept from the place without having the possibility to do anything in the time they were bombed and died. The method is may be not not clean, it's war and it's never clean but it's valid and effective. Finally, the town was taken with a less human cost for both sides than if it turned like in Bassorah, Um Qasar or other cities on an bigger scale. Coalition played a poker trip and it worked well. On another hand, if the Iraqui commanders had been really good at urban warfare, as for thee grunts and if the soldiers did not regard at the too high civilian cost, good thing would have been to let small mobile groups of soldiers to drive the coalition to level down the blocks, then infiltrate and continue fighting in the ruins, go back, wait be patient, infiltrate again etc. But the Iraquis showned previously they were not capable to do that, they lacked command structure, small unit leaders and guerilla like tactics, general urban warfare spirit, abilities. So, there was a card to play without too much risks... Also, at the same time, driving armored raids by the big city avenues was an effective psychological intoxication, meaning for the defenders that they would not be able to stop the armored moves and that their own mobility in the city was compromised. Hope I'm clear, sorry my english is not that good to put my means on the board as I would like to. Edit : I mean : The average military and militia PEOPLE gave it up because of the risk of a complete civilian disaster and the refusal of a useless sacrifice. I am not talking about the politicians and high ranked military commanders.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 10 2003,21:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ April 10 2003,21:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also, I believe using it as an insult for the Iraqis requires an upward motion of the hand (as in "up yours"). Â That's what it seems to me at least.<span id='postcolor'> Yes it does. The insult form has an upward motion and an angle backwards.<span id='postcolor'> No. Just like in europe, the insult form using the mayor finger of the hand, may be done with that motion and angle backwards, or not. I discuss this with a friend of mine some days ago. She is Iranian, and lost many members of her familly while she left her country after the islamic revolution. And she absolutely dislike Saddam Hussein, as this one was supporting a Iranian dissident organisation, that is politicaly against actual Iranian regim but also made of religious fundamentalists. We were reading the press, and as I was telling her I was surpised by the use of that " thumb up " while the faces meant something like " hum, we are really disturbed by your presence ". In the same manner the Iraqui people didn't look really honnest and happy while singing for Saddam's loyalty. I thought that those faces expressed anxiety because of war and the remember of Baas oppression, liberty need to be learnt in more than a day, but I had still a doubt. She looked carefully at those people faces and attitudes on the pictures. She then explained the Arab meaning of the thumb up, and that she had no doubt of the actual meaning.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 10 2003,20:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Suicide Attack Kills 'Some' Soldiers in Baghdad, US Says On a lighter note from a similar report, this thing caught my eye: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Drivers zipping by the Interior Ministry honked their horns, waved and gave the thumbs-up sign to Marine combat engineers guarding the Interior Ministry complex. "My thumb is getting tired," said one Marine, Kurt Gellert, 27, of Atlantic City, N.J. "It's actually pretty cool. It's like all this was worth something now." <span id='postcolor'> LOL. (For those that don't know, the thumbs-up is the Arab equivalent of flipping the bird).<span id='postcolor'> Correct. Problem is that Iraqui fighters prooved to be courageous and determinated, but absolutely not able to conduct an effective defensive warfare. Many reports from coalition soldiers are that defenders were disorganized, attacked frontaly and not stealthy, were shoot at before beeing able to fire. Lack of military training, of correct tactics and knoledwedge of basics urban warfare, lack of command and synchronisation for resistance actions. The " battles " of the sixth and seventh of May, in Baghdad south east suburbans, after agressive armoured recons to cut the town in parts using tank raids to separate and isolate various quarters and destabilize defenders moral, were caracterised by HUGE preventive use of artillery and airborne firepower. That part of the town had been litteraly erased from the map. The CentCom and D. Rumsfeld commented this as " a strong message to the defenders ". It is very clear. What appears is that coalition forces used a storm of fire to make the defenders enclosed in selected parts of the town without mobility to feel any resistance is futile and desesperate, would result in a complete detruction of the town and enormous Iraqui civilians deads. Iraquis, for which civilians are not only civilians as for us who are just external observators, but their own nation : wifes, childs, parents, etc. Humanly, militarily and psychologically this explains perfectly how and why the Iraqui defenders including Baas partisans of Baghdad really vanished after a couple of days, unlike in Bassorah for example. Because of that " strong message ". This explains perfectly how the coalition acted to avoid an urban war in Baghad. This do not mean that coalition was welcome. Saddam Hussein departure from the country lead is surely lived happily by a vast majority, and this is vastly commentated by western medias. But, after ten years of an embargo wich directly harrassed the civilians, last weeks showned that there is a real ressentement against the " coalitions invasion ". Baas militia is not here to push Iraquis to fight, but they are not there also to tell people to do the " flipping the bird sign ". Iraq is made not of an unique nation, but of a multiplicity of ethnics and cultural groups. Some may be occident friendly, some will never. Whose of those are shown on TV smiling at coalition troops ? Are those thumbs up to welcome coalitions forces ? Do the Iraquis copy the western maneers *only* ?? May be it is just a " strong message " ?? Related to this, It is interesting but not really a surprise to see that in Afghanistan, by now, that *some* guerilla actions raise up in a similar form the soviet union knew at the biginning of the resistance, some groups driven by surviving Talibans and muslim fanatics, some others...not. This is not really commentated by medias....not enough " thumbs up " maybe ?? Future smells shitty.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (110 @ April 08 2003,23:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Another .308 battle rifle (not assault rifle like AKM) that we forgot is the Sig 240. <span id='postcolor'> Damn, you're right on. How could we forget it ? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> what about the hk 51?? Is it just a cut down g3 or is its internals different ?? <span id='postcolor'> Not a HK product. Cut down HK91 ( G3 for civilian market ) by north armerican armorers.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Shadow @ April 07 2003,13:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 07 2003,11:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's however also too heavy and difficult to clean.<span id='postcolor'> Hehe I was expecting that answer from you I recently saw a picture of your P99 hmmm maybe the G3 is'nt so difficult to clean after all eh <span id='postcolor'> Same here

LOL Fubar, aint those pure airsofts ?

I vote for the G3, but this is biased, I am a complete HK nut. BTW, AR10/SR25 are fine rifles and close second choice, but they are something like handmade rifles coumpared to G3s, so a G3 with little custom to reach same level of preparation beat them easely. And if its 7.62, not 7.62x51 only, then AK107, or even old 47 is choice of mine also, depends of the warfare and where it takes place.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ April 07 2003,01:23)</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">small gun for weeners<span id='postcolor'> well... Anybody shot with a Desert Eagle already ? I never had the chance.<span id='postcolor'> I did, when the 50 AE model hit the market 10 years ago. Very surprising. The recoil is HUGE, but not violent. I mean, first thought is, " damn, that will shock me ", but not at all. It is great but not fast recoil effect, pushing, not hitting ( sorry, lack the words to tell my means in english ). The forces are important, but acts in a great movement, but quite soflty. The best is to handle the gun in single hand, stand a short moment to make the aim before the heavy weight of the gun ruins this possibility, and then release the trigger pull. Do not try to control the gun, let it free of moves, as you were shooting an air pistol. Then the gun climbs vertically or so and you realise the gun is that high in the air above your shoulder when you also realise the big " WHAM " noise. Go to the resulsts : very good and surprising accuracy. Interest of that monster is very limited, but funny. The only unusual gun that left me with a so unexpected feeling, enough for me to buy one was the Coonan in .357 mag for its trigger mechanism and accuracy.

Unfolded ? http://www.hkpro.com/g36k.jpg Sorry, couldn't resist Got a kidding spirit today The red dot focus is 20 cm distance very max, after, no way of seeing through. That's why some use reflex sights maybe http://www.hkpro.com/action7afghanksk36k.jpg

Balschoiw </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Maraudeur </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ahem, do you often fire " ŕ la Libanaise ", and aiming doing this ?? <span id='postcolor'> Well sure. Imagine entering a room with eye on regular scope and shoulderpiece unfolded. It makes more sense to fold it and shoot on sight. That´s what the second visor is for.  <span id='postcolor'> Balschoiw </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Maraudeur </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> sling tense and full auto <span id='postcolor'> Never. Kind of stupid. Don´t think I would do it. <span id='postcolor'> Isn't " firing the Lebanon way " ( called like that because popularized by medias during Beyrouth fights with people firing blindly at buildings corners blindly for example ) holding the rifle arms tensed, far from the body, firing full auto and even without any sling Doesn't matter, must be a language barreer

Great ! While most units use current doctrin, high ready position to walk in buildings using fixed sights weapon shouldered in semi auto ; some rebels practice front stockless carry, sling tense and full auto, hey, that's not so accurate and safe but more reactive... you wild beast, Balschoiw !

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ April 05 2003,23:12)</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">Do you mean the standart G-36 stock is not foldable ??<span id='postcolor'> Yes for sure it is but it doesnt cope with it when the shoulderpiece is folded in. The K version is designed for CC when it comes to the point:</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> The G36K with single reticle 1.5X weaponsight. Â Note four prong flash hider reminiscent of the HK53 series. Â Very effective at mitigating muzzle flash. What is not obvious from this photo is the rough pistol sights that can be used at close range instead of the reticle. Â They are molded into the carrying handle. Â These sights cannot be used on the gun below, which has the optional red dot sight piggybacked on the handle. Â It blocks the rough open sights.<span id='postcolor'> This text was taken from the great HK pro website. I couldnt explain it better. So you see what I meant with foldable. The regular g36 is not designed for combat with folded shoulderpiece, the K version is.<span id='postcolor'> Oah... The G36k talked about at HKPRO page is fitted with the 1.5X red dot only, while regular issued German Army are with the dual system including both this red dot and 3.5X optic. ( Of course, not all units are " regular issued ", but the subject is not here, but how it is related to an use ) The only thing that differs, is that the first system include classical mechanical sights in the carrying handle's top, but I dont see how it is related to the folding stock. I personnaly own an SL8 retrofited with a true G-36 stock and handguard, magazine system and pistol grip group . ( some little work is necessary because design voluntarily differs to prevent this ) and re-barelled with a Lothar Walther polygonal bore in K style lenght. I use both dual optic system on it and the G36C rail, to fix others optics and lower line of sight. So I do not really see the point sorry. The only way in close combat where I can see where the use of folded stock is considered along presence of mechanical sights would be.... Ahem, do you often fire " Å• la Libanaise ", and aiming doing this ??

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The K version is designed for Mountain units and paratroopers. It is basically the same as the G36 but the shoulder piece is foldable. <span id='postcolor'> Do you mean the standart G-36 stock is not foldable ??

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ April 05 2003,19:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 05 2003,10:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It must be several layers of explosions, since Kontakt-EDZ ERA (second generation ERA 20+ years old) already dealt with tandem warheads I don't doubt however that they've developed countermeasures to that and that the Russians have already developed countermeasures to that etc etc <span id='postcolor'> The way I described it was minimalist at best. Â Obviously I'm not going to go into more depth on here. Â Go to http://www.chinalake.navy.smil.mil/vx9/cobra on SIPRnet if you want to read more. And you're right, I'm not saying it's the end all, just that it works against the newer generation of reactive armor. Â But as you pointed out, the Russians are probably already working on their follow on. It seems in armor and anti armor development that it's a reactionary process, and not evolutionary.<span id='postcolor'> Thanks for the link Othin. The new generation of reactive armor is not Kontak5. This one is more than 10 years old in design, and so for its use. The new one, is the Kaktus. Russian tanks immune again ? Well, nobody outside Russia could test it, so, and as long as westerner are just speaking about the K5 while it's already old story for russian armoured tech.... What's funny,for example, is that in west, we just realized last year that an early 80's T72s variant widely diffused in red army ( only red army ), had more than just cast steel front turret armour, else than a layer of DU inside, but a complete box of composite plates. And that it was in early '80s, at that part of the armour, immune to NATO ammo available in early '90 only.... Same sort of storys goes for ATGMS tech, artillery and, very important, all sectors of electronic warfare including airborne, for wich westerners thought they were more advanced. That's what we learned yesterday for the material 20 years old. Imagine about actual armour, the surprises some may have ... Eastern culture, entire spirit is completely differnet from western side. Thoughts and ways to go so. Actually we already can consider differences beetween europeans, so imagine. I can assure you that regarding this and some other subjects, processes are evolutionists and not reactionists.

Anyone having access to the Washinghton Post archives please ? I would need that article : Vernon Loeb Washington Post Staff Writer  March 27, 2003; Page A27 Section: A Word Count: 851 Or first answer for " Coronet " search key word. Thanks

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USMC Sniper @ April 03 2003,03:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Renagade @ April 03 2003,03:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I WANT ONE !! heh heh i used to think the spas 12 was french but its actually italian  <span id='postcolor'> Lol yeah, I thought this too, because of the name "Franchi". <span id='postcolor'> If it would have been French, it would have been called Freedom SPAS 12, not Franchi Actually it is not used to " free " anybody, unlike the universally called freedom fighter's gun : the AK 47 Italians Bersaglieri and Carabinieris used it, but Carabinieris replaced it by the mag fed SPAS 15. Potuguese military police - do not recall the exact name - use it also for escorting dangerous common rights prisonners, anti drug raids and stuff like that. I believe some naval Greek special units used it, I have seen some in the French 1er RPIMA, and the company of the 2Äme REP ( the one specialised in urban warfare, not sure it's the 2nd, Ran help me ). It is widely difused, but not largely used ie you may find it quite everywhere, but not in regular use or in great numbers, for example security forces of the Venezuella showned one on a picture, but not more since )

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 01 2003,21:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't know how you can compare "killing off" a few pixels with killing real people. I don't see any moral problem there. A war game is just as the name implies, a game. Also there are few total pacifists in the world. Not liking this current war does not necessarily mean excluding all forms of armed response to other situations as a solution.<span id='postcolor'> Precisely, I can see where is, for some, not the comparison, but the mix. It is just a game, but gaming is exporting ourself in an own created virtual world, sphere of contacts and feelings. Look at children. And adults...mostly have a virtual life ! Do I mean they lack a true one ? YES ! That's everyday seen by : -" Oh, I really put my child in the micro wave oven to dry it, did I ?? " -" Oh, do you mean I became a murderer, just by driving my car ?? " -*On a sofa * " I can't sleep, life downtown is everyday more expensive, It'll be better if I work harder to earn more money, and go at rest whre true life is, at countryside, you know doctor Freud " - *later* " If I win the big lotery, i'll buy this, and this, and that sexy xxx, and that...." And finally : " What sort of life did that stranger had ? Mechanic ? He suffered what he his, what happens to the pixels I kill, that's destiny ! I'm not guilty ! I'm pacifist and ecologist deep inside me, don't throw me in a jail, IT'S NOT ME ! It's THE SYSTEM ! " LOL. * Finally I ask to myself... is it really a murder ?? *

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ April 01 2003,21:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A court martial can be held at any time under military law.<span id='postcolor'> Yes, but the charges ? how to explain them ? Disobeing order during war time ?? See what I look at ? First example of legal and political complications for that expedition ?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 01 2003,21:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Saddam's Iraqi henchmen at what they do best.<span id='postcolor'> Anyone heard of that UK soldier beeing sent off the line and back up to Britain. He will be under martial court trials, he claims he disobeid orders to shot at civilians. Saw this on TV, searching for links. BTW I'm asking to myself, whatever he did or not, the reasons he claims true or false, how will military open a martial court, as accordingly to the UN fundamental act GB signed, they are not in state of war ?

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.

</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

</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 ??

</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 .

</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, Â 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.

</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.