I think the m1a1 did okay in iraq in 1990 to 1991, but for me i loved the m88 heavy wrecker for us mechanics. the apc 113 & bradleys got bogged down to much.

Course the Abrams did good, the Monkey Model T-72's couldnt fire on the move and didnt have GPS. Infact some of the T-72's used training rounds in combat.

Now or in the first go round?

A good tank is a dead tank.

The M1 did more then ok. It ran over all and any resistance in Desert Storm. The Republican Guards armor was utterly smashed. They could punch through a line destroying everything witout even stopping. Our armor was tearing through the enemy so fast they would have to stop so supply lines could catch up. They would run untill their gas tanks hit E.

Yeah, that might be because of the reasons I pointed out in the post I made earlier on..

Even a Sherman would be able to take on one of those Iraqi T-72's.

I heard the Abrams was vulnerable to short range anti tank rifle to the rear and top. Several others have been disabled by IEDs and anti tank mines.

Challenger 2 has been penetrated on three occasions, although one of these was by another Challenger 2.

The BBC quotes a British MoD spokesman as saying Challenger 2 was:

Well armoured but in an operational theatre it's not the case that you can have absolute protection. This was not in any way new technology - the device involved was the same type of shaped charge that we have seen used very regularly. No-one has ever said Challenger tanks are impenetrable. We have always said that a big enough bomb will defeat any armour and any vehicle.

—http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/6583607.stm

To help prevent incidents of this nature happening again, Challenger 2s have been upgraded with a new passive armour package. When deployed on operations the Challenger 2 is now normally upgraded to TES (Theatre Entry Standard), this includes a number of modifications including armour and weapon system upgrades.

Even a Sherman would be able to take on one of those Iraqi T-72's.

I heard the Shermans performed poorly against the T34s in Korea!

The Sherman and the M24 both had problems engaging the T34 in Korea, wasn't until the M26 was deployed in numbers that things evened out.

Originally Posted by josmcgonigal

I think the m1a1 did okay in iraq in 1990 to 1991, but for me i loved the m88 heavy wrecker for us mechanics. the apc 113 & bradleys got bogged down to much.

I thought the question was about tanks? Only one of those is a tank. The M88A1 isn't categorized as a "heavy wrecker", it's a medium recovery vehicle (unless you mean the A2, but that wasn't there in 90-91). The Bradley has more kills against Iraqi armored vehicles in the first Gulf war than the M1 did, so I'm wondering what source you are quoting when you say they got "bogged down". The Bradley has been a very capable vehicle in Iraq, and still is to this day.

Bradleys are beasts. I envy the scouts and grunts who have them. We have gun trucks and..... More gun trucks.