19Kilo30K4

I only reverted back to the start of Badlands and not only were all the vehicle explosions during cutscenes fixed, but Prizrak was not immortal. Makes me kinda happy.

Bayonets in video games? Good idea. Bayonets in real life? In 3 years plus in Iraq, I have never found the need to fix a bayonet one time. I really don't know why Brits are so for them. I carry an M203 on my rifle these days (mostly for non lethal rounds like crowd dispersal) so I can no longer fix one anyway. I just have never really seen an advantage to getting close enough to your enemy where you could be locked in a hand to hand struggle for your weapon. Yeah, maybe I might be in the middle of a mag change, but my whole squad? Come on. If I did get that close, I have a pistol on my side to start blasting away with, but don't get me started on the CQB shortcomings of the M9. If you are close enough to touch the enemy, they are close enough to touch you. With the proliferation of suicide vests/belts, and grenades in Iraq I just don't get it. You Brits can blame it on the American gun culture if you want to, but I like living. If I try to maintain standoff, I can win with skill of arms and employ my team to maximum effect. If I close the distance other factors could hamper me (i.e. my squad can't shoot a guy if I'm in physical contact with him). I think it's a good idea in game, but don't tell me how useful they are in combat unless you yourself have actually engaged in a small unit action where you have stabbed someone. Leave the warfighting to the warfighters and.... well, I play games too, so nevermind :P

Is it too late to appologize? I think I misread some of your statements and I appologize. I never meant to offend or try to make myself seem more knowledgeble than I am. I'm sorry if I came off arrogant or anything, it was not my intent to attack your point of view.

Well, that's not true. Every single Bradley Fighting Vehicle in the Army has a 2 shot TOW launcher on them and even newer, the ATGM version of the Stryker is a dedicated TOW launcher, so I'm not sure why you thought they were gone. Additionally, new versions of the TOW (bunker busting) have been widely issued since the OIF started. ---------- Post added at 11:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:54 AM ---------- Apparently you are not paying attention to all the information people are saying about ammo. Since you have absolutely NO way of knowing the capabilities of the ammo I shoot, you cannot claim to know more about it than me. Downrange feedback from actual observed impacts is something I doubt you have. Now, I've already admitted that I don't have all the answers, and I really have no clue how far new Russian ammo would penetrate my tank. Saying that as a civilian you have all the same resources at your disposal as I do is just not true. I make no claims to know the exact capabilities of Russian rounds, and I've already admitted my appreciation for Russian designs. Additionally, First Cav uses the M1A2 SEP V2. The thing just came out, do you really think that every single piece of information on it is out there? I'm willing to admit that I don't know as much as Russian tankers about their tanks, but apparently you seem to beleive you know as much or more than American tankers about ours. As for telling you what not to say, I have never and will never do that. Say whatever you like, I just figured you'd care for some perspective of how the tank in question works. Apparently not though, since you are convinced that all the information is already available to you. And why the hell would I have not brought up tactics? The OP was "tactics vs technology" not "2 tanks remotely operated fire at eachother". If you don't want to discuss the tactics and drills that we use, then why not make a thread that discusses the rounds used and the penetration of them on the specific armor.... oh yeah, because none of that info is available to the public.

Well, certain doctrine related items are most certainly not disseminated to the public. A quick search will tell you that you cannot download the updated gunnery manuals and drills without an AKO login, and the manuals for tank platoon ops are also not approved for release. The ARTEP manuals for the tanks are not approved for release, nor are the MOS 19K Soldier's manuals, so you are incorrect on that. To say that a person who has seen actual BDA on rounds whose characteristics are not released to the public is "wrong" for claiming to be more familiar with them.... are you serious? I won't go into what I do or do not know, but let me clarify. I'm not claiming to have all the answers, nor am I claiming that I would absolutely destroy any Russian armor. What I am claiming is that there seems to be a lot of bogus info on both sides and that as a tanker I read some of the stuff and wonder where people come up with it. I have nothing but respect for Russian technology, and as an American tanker, it's part of my job to stay current on foreign military vehicles (both to help understand their capabilities, and to increase vehicle recognition). I'm not sure if some of the people on here (not you) are tracking that the cold war is over, and that NATO just restarted joint training with the Russians. I think it unlikely (i hope it is anyway) that I will ever face a cutting edge Russian tank in combat, but if it happens I can tell you that my crew will be ready. I'm sure the Russian tankers feel the same way. I definately did not mean to attack anyone or direct my statements at anyone in a negative way, so please don't anyone take it that way. I only meant to contribute, not attack. Thank you. ---------- Post added at 12:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:41 AM ---------- No my earlier post was not directed at that other guy, and yes we still use the TOW on the Bradley. TOW2B has a top attack mode, just like the missile you described, and is effective. TOW2A is direct attack, but has a forward probe to touch off ERA plates making them effective in direct attack.

Because DU is heavy as hell, and is only viable to place in frontal areas. ERA is effective and can basically cover any spot on the tank that you can place it. Additionally if one is struck, you can just remove the destroyed panel and replace it instead of having to overhaul the tank. Obviously the US Army agrees. Have you seen a Bradley or M1 in Iraq lately? We obviously agree that ERA is effective and useful. The downfall of ERA is that panels take one round and then explode. This does not produce an "impenetrable" armor package as some people (who are obviously convinced Russian vehicles are superior and will not be persuaded otherwise) would like you to beleive. ERA is good as part of a system, but it's only so effective. Say as the gunner is bringing the main gun to bear, I rain some .50cal API at your front slope. Panels detonate and all your defense against my main gun is erased. See what I'm getting at? I can tell you from PERSONAL EXPERIANCE that .50 API will penetrate the rear of an Iraqi T-72 turret by itself, without even main gun. For those of you who have never crewed a tank in combat, you probably think you know a lot about this subject. I urge you to get the facts, and be realistic. Being a tanker is more than just statistics on APFSDS rounds, I assure you.

Completely inaccurate. The MOS 63A's entire job is to fix M1 series tanks. I'm a former 63T, then 63M (Brad mechanic with years of tank mechanic time) and currently am on my third tour of Iraq as a 19Kilo (Abrams tanker) with 1st Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division. We have forward repair points that refurbish engines in Kuwait. The majority of military vehicles are on a strict "pacing item" time schedule. It gets the tank back into the fight faster if the mechanics in the field simply replace the engine as opposed to trying to repair it in the field. It's not that you can't, you just don't because it would degrade combat power. During the 2003 push to Baghdad 2nd Brigade, 3rd ID kept 85% of their tanks opperational even under 16 days of sustained fighting. The only tank in the world that can even make the case for being better than the Abrams is the Leopard 2A6 since it has bested the Abrams in direct gunnery competitions. The T-90 is an upgraded T-72 and the only reason it is not called a T-72 A(insert whatever) is because they didn't want the tank assosicated with the T-72 after all the bad press from the Gulf War. The Abrams vs T-90 argument will never be settled unless they meet on the battlefield. In my opinion (being an Abrams tanker), I have the better tank. Saving 14 tons of weight, means you have 14 less tons of protection. I applaud the Russian innovations in ERA and I have always been fascinated by the different ways Russians can make effective vehicles while keeping cost and weight down. I beleive this is especially apparent in the BMP series of vehicles where Russian designers shocked the world by basically inventing the entire concept of an infantry fighting vehicle. The fact is that not every Army in the world can support an armored assault with M1s. They place a high burden on your logistics capability. The US has proved that it can do this however by assaulting over 700 kilometers accross hostile country with a fleet of M1s in 2 weeks. Everyone hates on the gas guzzling turbine engine but it was Russians who started that trend with the T-80. The T-80 (in the form the Ukranians use it) is superior to the T-90 in all respects. The only reason the Russians don't use it as much is cost. The Ukranians even have a version that can shoot NATO main gun 120mm ammo and still fire guided missiles. Here's something else you might not know... the we just sold 140 M1A1 tanks to the Iraqi Army and are currently training them in thier useage... shocking. As far as that "impenetrable" article on Russian ERA, to say that it would stand up to sustained Apache or A-10 fire is laughable. ERA only lasts through one hit per panel, and when is the last time you ever saw an A-10 fire without saturating it's target? Absolutely an absurd notion.

Your grasp of combat is severely flawed. In Bastogne the 101st didn't retreat because they were surrounded. When you are surrounded, you have no choice but to defend and wait for help. American doctrine is to always attack with 3 times the number of defenders. You must also take into account your support available and the composition of your forces and your enemy. I'm currently serving my third year of combat in Iraq, and your 50/50 and 100 to 20 comments are completely inaccurate. Since you started off by talking about "real war", it is quite possible to attack a 20 man force with 100 and come away with no casualties at all, just as it is possible to attack an even force in enemy territory and completely destroy them. I'm not even just refering to this war. Look at the Battle of the 73rd Easting in the first Gulf War. Completely dug in T-72s in their home country, on the defense against the 2nd Armored Cav. The Iraqis were decimated even though they had numbers, the local terrian, and a prepared defense going for them. Sheer numbers doesn't tell the full story and you are forgetting that American commanders are capable of making decisions for themselves. If you are ordered to take a town, and then your scouts report high enemy activity, you don't just blindy rush in and die "unless you have reinforcements to take your place". You would adjust your plan, and either obtain additional forces, or procure attack aviation or lay on indirect fire assets to tip the balance towards you. But hey, what do I know, I just lead armored forces in combat on a daily basis. Oh, and when I'm given a mission, I figure out a way to get it accomplished, not how to throw my soldiers lives away by adhering to the letter of the order. That is not the decision making progress that people pay the military to implement, they pay us to get the mission done. Nobody is more capable to make an assesement about how to do that than the guy in command on the site, not the general in his office. Mission planning is a fluid process and is revised at all levels, at all times, as long as the commander's intent is carried out (i.e. village seized, bridge destroyed, etc). I could care less how well "the locals know the area" if it's dark and he has no night vision assets, then my victory is halfway won. See how the equipment and situation can change things?