80 M1's destroyed in Iraq - Page 3




 
--
 
April 6th, 2005  
Whispering Death
 
 
AlexKall - at least in our American culture it makes all the difference in the world if the tank was just knocked out and the crew survived or if the crew was killed and the tank destroyed. Our robust economy can afford to buy a few more tanks but it can't afford to lose many of the top-trained tank crews who've spent more time with their vehicles than most Americans do in any one civilian job.

Knightraptor - It is my understanding that every M1 damaged or destroyed in Iraq has been recovered and either repaired or sent back to America to be scrapped. The 80 number seems to refer to the 80 tanks that where demed unrepairable.
April 6th, 2005  
Whispering Death
 
 
TBA Paki - I agree with you 100% and I've said for the past 6 years that the millitary has not been effectively planning for MOUT warfare. The Army has been training the infantry for MOUT but when it comes to the armor and IFVs it seems that instead of adapting the force for the job they've just been hopeing they wouldn't have to put the square peg in the round hole.

I really really think we need a medium or light battle tank that is better suited to the 360 degree close-quarters restricted-mobility field of battle.
April 7th, 2005  
Kilgore
 
Something like a tunguska, armed with a light cannon or rockets and 20mm-30mm guns would do the trick in the urban environment i think. It needs to be able to fire at the highest roof tops to things that are only a couple of metres in front of it.
--
April 7th, 2005  
gladius
 
I agree with Whispering Death that we need a vehicle especially made for city fighting not only that but infantry with heavy or powered armor if thats posible. And also its the armor crews that are really important, the difference between veteran and recruit is alot.

But I also heard rumors that a new Russian anit-tank weapons was being used by the insurgents that why so many tanks were knocked out. It propbably given to them to test it, anyone heard anything about this?
April 7th, 2005  
Knightraptor
 
Knightraptor - It is my understanding that every M1 damaged or destroyed in Iraq has been recovered and either repaired or sent back to America to be scrapped. The 80 number seems to refer to the 80 tanks that where demed unrepairable.[/quote]


Er.. I mean, like, say if they just got disabled, and the crew had to abandon the tank, and WE destroyed/disabled it with a hellfire or some other such thing. how many did WE actually take out ourselves just to prevent capture?
April 7th, 2005  
Kozzy Mozzy
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladius
I agree with Whispering Death that we need a vehicle especially made for city fighting not only that but infantry with heavy or powered armor if thats posible. And also its the armor crews that are really important, the difference between veteran and recruit is alot.

But I also heard rumors that a new Russian anit-tank weapons was being used by the insurgents that why so many tanks were knocked out. It propbably given to them to test it, anyone heard anything about this?
There have been NO kornet missiles found or fired in Iraq. So you're probably speaking of the RPG-29 or it's warhead. No one knows if that's true, it's possible the insurgents got weapons from well equipped chechens.
April 7th, 2005  
rOk
 
 
I'd say 80 is a low figure...although either damaged or destroyed is all the same for the current situation...point being that there are 80 tanks missing or 80 more have to be hauled back to Iraq.

Considering the organizational skills of the insurgents I'd say they are doing pretty well...I'm sure taking out an abrams makes you a hero in the evening...let's not forget the abrams is nearly an icon of the US military.
April 7th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
Blowing up little kids and women in the marketplace makes them "heroes" amongst their own too.
April 7th, 2005  
AussieNick
 
Quote:
I dont see how a third world country could take out that many M1s but I guess there is a possiblity.
That's a pretty narrow minded thing to say. Hasn't history taught you anything. Military "might" doesn't mean invincibility. Just look at WW2 and Vietnam for examples. I won't go into to detail, because it should be blindingly obvious.

Quote:
So there have been a total of 770 tanks have been attacked. 80 of them have been taken out of action, that's a loss rate of 10.4%. There have been 15 crew deaths, that's a loss rate of .5%. If you take into account that the tanks are being used in urban enviroments where tanks have always been at a disadvantage and that there has been a complete breakdown of the logistics system in Iraq, it isn't bad.
10.4% is an awful percentage. It should be, god willing, much closer to 0%, at least in single figures. 10% of anything is a lot, and when your talking people and machinery, it has a huge knock on effect throughout the entire organisation, namely in morale and esprit de corp.
April 7th, 2005  
Kozzy Mozzy
 
If you take in the fact that it's over 2 years, it's not that bad. There hasn't been any decline in the morale of tankers as far as I know.