Why the Iraqis had a problem with US tanks at night

[Skybird]

Okay, not just at night. :) It is about the infrared sights - not to be mistaken for the thermal sights or NVGs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DFKZsmxzng

Although SBP is a sim, I read the night sight visuals here are quite realistic, and it gives you an idea of what it was like when you were sitting in a tank on the receiving end of the fight. Those infrared sights are simply - masochistic, compared to modern thermal sights. Nice representation - but you are left chanceless against a modern tank.

These T-72s are really rolling coffins.

This visuals from the infrared illustrate also why tanks at night could get so hilariously close to each other in the 60s and 70s.

[Karle94]

Even if they had seen the Abrams tanks moving in, there is absolutely no way those T-72s could have damaged, musch less destroyed as much as a single Abrams. The armor of an Abrams is extremely difficult at best to penetrate. The only place an Abrams can penetrate another Abrams with a DU enhanced sabot round is the aft armor. That says a lot as one of those shells could easily go through two or three Iraqi T-72s.

[Oberon]

The Whispering Death.

It can see you, you can't see it, you can't hear it, and then it reaches out and touches you.

M1A2 Abrams, soiling Middle Eastern underpants since 1991.

[Skybird]

Well, I would throw in some variables into the formula: like range, angle, ammo, vehicle version, and part of the tank that gets hit. If you want to tell me an Abrams is immune to a T-72 at any range, then I would have difficulties to believe that. From some range on and below, Western tanks are inside kind of an overkill zone of Russian guns, and thus it is recommendable to stay out of such close-range infights, so to make use of the advantage Western tanks have in the medium and medium-long range witrhout compromising their advantages due to allowing russian guns to have penetrationn power nevertheless.

But Chally-2s, Abrams and Leo-2s are very tough bugs to crack, no doubt. But invulnerable - they are not, though. While apparently no Abrams got lost in Iraq to direct fire by a T-72 tank gun, several were damaged, some so severly that they were left behind. They survived because the enemy was not capable to gain superiority of the battlefield and roll over them.

Also: T-72 is not the same like T-72. There are many versions, and ammo types fielded, and the ones the Iraqis had , were export versions with weaker armour for the most, and even greater manufacturing tolerances (although the T-72 already has unbelievably high manufacturing tolerances) and old, very less potent ammunition types. The small red dot in the sight you see in the video, is the lasing point for that sight and tank - and in every T-72, it is set diffrent, because every sight has so great tolerances that you need to aim with another poart of the overall sight to correctly lase from different tanks. And clearances (=Spaltmaße) - these also are greater in Russian equipment at least of the past then in Western platforms: tanks, ships, airplanes, it doesn't matter.

Even by Eastern standards, the Iraqis were armed with pretty sub-mediocre platforms. And then the training standard of their crews... A Russian army probbaly also would hav ebeen wiped out, but it would have perforemed better: with tougher T-72, better ammuntiioon, and better rtained crews. The onyl thing the Iraqis really had on theri side was that some of their unit commanders in 91 were said to have been able to set up some really nasty tactical surprises - which speaks for them considering the equipement they had.

So, it is all a bit more complex and there are more variables in the formula.

[Karle94]

I did`t say it`s impossible to destroy an Abrams, just that Iraqi tanks could`t do it. There were one case where an Abrams engaged three-four Iraqi T-72s at point-blank-range without any damage at all. Also, American forces could and can call in close air support, which is something very few militaries in the world can. And the best thing one can possible imagine is the A-10. Nothing can survive that, no tank, American, British, German or Russian.

[Skybird]

Nothing can survive that, no tank, American, British, German or Russian.
You can. By downing it first. ;)

And there are some systems capable to do that, from Tunguskas to Gepards, plus many shoulder-launched missiles.

However. Infrared sights. That's why I posted that video, and not just in the tank forum.

[Stealhead]

The Whispering Death.

It can see you, you can't see it, you can't hear it, and then it reaches out and touches you.

M1A2 Abrams, soiling Middle Eastern underpants since 1991.

The M1A2 must be pretty wicked then because it did not enter service until 1992.

They had no problem taking a few out with powerful IEDs though lot of good the thermal vision did then.Every weapon has an Achilles heel.There was a thread a while back that mentioned this.In some cases crewman where killed.

Another huge factor in 1991 is that the Americans had far far superior training and had trained to fight a very determined foe.The IRG was the best of Iraq but nothing compared to the skill of the US Army tank crews who had been trained to be highly accurate and rapid in order to attempt to deal with masses of Warsaw Pact tanks.No tank is invisible and if you took an M1A2 and put people that had little training they would perform very poorly in combat and likely allow a T-72 even to get near enough that it could disable or destroy an Abrams.

In 1991 an Abrams did get disabled by a T-72 on 73 Easting it did not get noticed and laid in wait and fired into the back rear of an M1A1 it destroyed the engine and the ammo storage as it burned the crew was able to get out unharmed.The T-72 got killed by other M1A1s as soon as it had fired its main gun but it did pretty much destroy the Abrams.The Abrams was designed to have high mobility high accuracy and high crew survivability those things it does have but there are men that served as crewman in them that where killed by enemy action.

The Abrams is impressive but there is a whee bit too much legend around it.

This will give you an idea just how hard US tank crews train and this only the basic school active tankers must take a gunnery range test that is very demanding if they fail they will not deploy.I have some good friends from Old Iron Sides which had Abrams stationed in Germany up until a few years ago these guys are very good at what they do without them the Abrams is a high priced hunk of metal.
An impressive machine is nothing without a highly skilled and motivated crew the US military and the Israeli military have proven this fact.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rr1bdanv9tw&feature=related

[CaptainMattJ.]

The IRG were poorly trained, poorly equipped, and were taken completely by surprise. The few T-72s that were ready and waiting were quickly dispatched. the IRG had substandard T-72s, the Speed and swiftness of the Abrams and their crews completely rolled over the IRG before many had a chance to get in their tanks and start them. Once they started them, they had to manually crank the turret to turn it, and still yet, they were poorly trained. If the Russians had been operating those tanks we mightve seen a few casualties due to direct fire. Had we been facing any modernized country, with modern tanks and skilled crewman, there wouldve been many more casualties .

[TLAM Strike]

Okay, not just at night. :) It is about the infrared sights - not to be mistaken for the thermal sights or NVGs.


Yea as I recall in the 6 Days War the IDF spotted tanks with those sights using their NVGs when ever the Syrians turned them on.

You can. By downing it first. ;)

And there are some systems capable to do that, from Tunguskas to Gepards, plus many shoulder-launched missiles. There was a Roland kill on an A-10 during OIF.

[Skybird]

Yea as I recall in the 6 Days War the IDF spotted tanks with those sights using their NVGs when ever the Syrians turned them on.

The torchlight effect, yes. And even without that - even if you cannot ID at maximum distance, a thermal still tells you there is something out there at - how great a distance? 2000 meters? 2500, maybe even 3000 ? An infrared tells you there is something at 300, 400, 500 meters or so.

Guess who marks the first hit!

I have so far not tried the T-72 in SBP, just did so yesterday night after that video, to see how the sim models infrared sightings. You feel blind, naked, exposed and defenceless, I tell you that. Infrared sights are very nicely visualised indeed.

Will not try the T-72 again. :D

[Oberon]

The M1A2 must be pretty wicked then because it did not enter service until 1992.

See?! It's so impressive it can even travel through time!

:oops:

There's no doubting that the Abrams is an impressive tank, although I didn't say that it's the best tank in the world, because that would be inviting a thread derailing debate on the merits of the big four (Challenger, M1 Abrams, Leopard 2 and the T-80/90) which all have their good and bad parts.

A lot of it comes down to how you use it, and the IRG was outclassed by miles. I didn't know about the T-72 at 73 Eastings though, a clever, if somewhat short lived, Iraqi tank commander there.

I do wonder how the Abrams would have performed in its intended role in the south of West Germany, with the knowledge that the sabot of the time would not have been as effective against Soviet ERA as was first thought. Thankfully though, that's something we'll never know for real.

Besides, the Challie is obviously the superior tank...it has a kettle in it for making tea! :salute:

[MH]

The torchlight effect, yes. And even without that - even if you cannot ID at maximum distance, a thermal still tells you there is something out there at - how great a distance? 2000 meters? 2500, maybe even 3000 ? An infrared tells you there is something at 300, 400, 500 meters or so.

Guess who marks the first hit!

I have so far not tried the T-72 in SBP, just did so yesterday night after that video, to see how the sim models infrared sightings. You feel blind, naked, exposed and defenceless, I tell you that. Infrared sights are very nicely visualised indeed.

Will not try the T-72 again. :D


Ambient light NVG compared to thermal is like switching to HDTV:haha:
Yet things get better all the time.

[TLAM Strike]

I do wonder how the Abrams would have performed in its intended role in the south of West Germany, with the knowledge that the sabot of the time would not have been as effective against Soviet ERA as was first thought. Thankfully though, that's something we'll never know for real.
How does ERA effect Sabot rounds? ERA effects HEAT rounds. :hmm2:

[nikimcbee]

Do you think it would have mattered if they, the T-72s, were manned by Russian crews?

[Oberon]

How does ERA effect Sabot rounds? ERA effects HEAT rounds. :hmm2:

The effectiveness of Kontakt-5 ERA was confirmed by tests run by the German Bundeswehr and the US Army. The Germans tested the K-5, mounted on older T-72 tanks, and in the US, Jane's IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness confirmed that "when fitted to T-72 tanks, the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the depleted uranium penetrators of M829 APFSDS, fired by the 120 mm guns of the US M1 Abrams tanks, which were among the most formidable tank gun projectiles at the time." This is of course, provided that the round strikes the ERA, which only covers 60% of the frontal aspect of the T-72 series tank mounted with it.

This is the reason why the M829 series was upgraded following the end of the Cold War, well, one of the reasons anyway, the US discovered that Soviet ERA was better than they thought.

[Skybird]

Do you think it would have mattered if they, the T-72s, were manned by Russian crews?
Yes. Russian crews would have sat in better versions of the T-72 and in the T-80, and would have had better ammo. As I said, they probably would have been eaten in 91 and 03 nevertheless, but they would have set up more of a fight, and I expect they would have caused higher losses. And where the Russian tank crews would have been, there also would have been Russian infantry, Russian infantry-fired SAMs, Russian Flak-tanks, and other Russian army material. The latest Russian Panzerfausts/RPGs are anything but subtle on tanks. And who knows - maybe there would have been plenty of Russian artillery as well. Plus Russian satellite intel and ELINT.

It makes little sense to single out a single variable only and by that judging the outcome of a complete war, which is a complex formula with much more than just variable. And if their tacticval analysts are worth their payment, they have learned from the Mujaheddin during their Afghanistan war what Panzerfausts can do to overwhelming tank forces, if the right tactics are used. Panjshir valley, anyone? The Russians lost dozens and dozens of Ts and BMPs there.

[Stealhead]

The Russians would not have been sitting in fixed potions waiting for the Americans to come they would have been ramming every single tank they had through 73 Easting trying to overwhelm the Americans.

In fact the roles where reversed from the norm in Fulda the NATO tanks would have moved from position to position trying to destroy as many T-72s/80s as possible they would likely have performed tactical retreats(realistically) to move into better defensive positions more or less extending the hour of doomday by perhaps a few days.

The IRG foolishly thought that our crews would not be able to hit the low profile that the turrets of their tanks made while inside their dugouts.I guess the did not get the memo that US crews train on the range to find identify and engage targets in mere seconds they also likely had no idea the true accuracy of of guns they must have had a good idea of our optical capability because they did try to hide the T-72s as much as possible.They more than likely hoped that the Abrams crews would within very close range where they actually have a chance of doing some damage.

Interesting side note the ballistics computers in the Abrams can also work with the commanders .50 cal and the coaxial M240.A Marine Abrams in 2003 saw some Saddam Fedayeen rounding up towns people likely to use as human shields so they crew decided to take out one of the Fedayeen with one round from the .50 cal they where over a mile away and hit and obviously killed the man the towns people figured out that something was blowing away the unwanted with amazing accuracy so they kept luring more and more Fedayeen into the center of town and the Abrams kept icking them off with one shot from the .50 and the coaxial 7.62mm(they where slowly moving closer to the town) .I wonder if they even knew that there was a tank doing all the killing?Allah strikes down our foes they likely thought. Cant think of the name of the book I read this in it was written by a former USMC general Bing West I think the author witnessed the event.

[Skybird]

Over 1 mile - a .50, and no dispersion, no spray and so precise on target that it picks a selected person within a group of persons and with just one and the first round? Very hard to believe, I admit.

Even more, the cal .50 is the commander'S weapon that doe snot get operated by the gunner'S primary sights. He can give a more precise range by lasing the target of course, but still the TC needs to use the purely optical sight for the .50. Without magnification. Elevation done via handcranks, not by just pointing and swinging the weapon like a LMG on a tripod. And then just one shot? Heck, this is no sharpshooting rifle, this is no M107.

You can see auxiliary sight'S design from various vehicles (LAV, M2, M1, Leo1, Leo2) in this essay, scroll down the text a bit.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=191272

I check that with the eSim forums. Many tankers there, probably somebody there has heared the story if it is true. But I have a hard time that you even can use the tank'S main aiming devices to precisley pick a single person in a group of person at over 1 mile and avoid the dispersion, always hitting with just one round.

[Karle94]

Up until Irqaq in 2003, the longest kill ever by a gun was in Vietnam, and the weapon; a Ma Deuce with a sniper scope. The weapon is well capable of making those shots, even at almost 2,5 kilometers.

[Skybird]

It is about the .50's sight of the TC that is anything but a sniper scope, the inevitable dispersion, the likelihhod of repatedly hitting on first shoit, with a single round fired only. The rahnge of the .50 is not the question here. I question is if with that setup such a precision could be reliably acchieved over that distance. And there my difficulty starts to believe this story. 1 mile, that is 1600 meters! He says the range was in excess of that! Aiming a human without a scoped precision rifle, hitting with just one round, no salvo, no dispersion. There are heavier callibres, autocannons, that inevitably see disperson patterns at that range.

[Oberon]

The Russians would not have been sitting in fixed potions waiting for the Americans to come they would have been ramming every single tank they had through 73 Easting trying to overwhelm the Americans.

In fact the roles where reversed from the norm in Fulda the NATO tanks would have moved from position to position trying to destroy as many T-72s/80s as possible they would likely have performed tactical retreats(realistically) to move into better defensive positions more or less extending the hour of doomday by perhaps a few days.

That's exactly what makes me ponder about the K-5 ERA that the Soviets had, given that the US forces hoped to make as many kills as possible before un-assing to the next rally point it would mean that more Soviet tanks would survive initial contact, thus giving the Soviet forces more momentum to take the push forward.
Of course, it's immaterial since initial Soviet doctrine called for a liberal dispersal of nuclear weapons on the first day and it wouldn't have changed the fate of things like the BMPs, BRDMs (Bolshevik Recce Death Machine) and BTRs, nor would it change the fate of the Soviet armour when faced with CAS, however CAS itself would have to dodge the mounted AAA and SAM units that would move with the front.

I must carry on reading Team Yankee. :yep:

[Skybird]

I did a quick check in SBP, and took some screenies.

"In excess of 1 mile". For the sake of simplicity, assume it means one and a quarter mile, that would be 1600 + 400 = 2000 meters.

Also assume, the enemy was hidding in a village, there was cover, he tried to hide and run around and after realising he was under attack he certainly did not just stand still in the open.

Below you see a couple of screenshots on a flat and featureless terrain. The tank is a M1A1(HA). Mind you, the sim is said to give quite accurate physics and visual dimensions of its sights, because real men use it for demonstration and training for the real hardware.

The setting is as such: I have set up BMP-2 (flank shown) at precise range of 1000m, 1500m, and 2010m (cannot help the 10 meters :) ) Attached to each BMP, in line formation, is infantry laying flat on the ground, facing the Abrams. They were placed exactly at these ranges , and in a was so that all three groups can be seen simultaneously in the sights.

The original pics are jpgs at 1680er resolution. I use imageshack to reduce them to 1280.

General overview:
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/2686/96501264.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/88/96501264.jpg/)

Gunner'S primary sight, thermal, unzoomed (x4):
http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/7329/57878029.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/16/57878029.jpg/)

Gunner's primary sight, thermal, zoomed (x10)

http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/4642/50117102.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/713/50117102.jpg/)

Gunner's primary sight, optical, x10
http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/4341/73654429.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/836/73654429.jpg/)

Gunner's auxiliary sights
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/9426/59961762.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/140/59961762.jpg/)

Commander's turret vision block
http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/4062/76527805.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/843/76527805.jpg/)

And Tatarataaaa: commander's cal.50 sight:
http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/7166/60779062.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/838/60779062.jpg/)

Mind you: we are talking about 1 1/4 mile. That means 2000m - the most distanced row of targets. One mile distance would be slightly behind the medium row of targets.

The gunner should have no problem to lay his crosshairs ointo a target the size of a man at ranges 1000, 1500 and 2000 meters. With the auxiliars sights it is more difficult, but still possible. The commander's cal.50 sights certainly enable him to target vehicles and hit them with a salvo, but you already expect some missing rounds here. Hitting a single man with only one round and the first shot witb these sights, repeatdly, and dispersion not messing up the ballistics at all, I assume to be almost impossible. You have dispersion even when firing rounds from a 25, 30 or 40 mm autocannon. The gunner can use the coax and lay sights on a man at 2000 m, still, even at below 1000m you would have a dispersion that make it extremely likely that you will need several salvos or one long one.

Note that the sights of the commander end line markings at the range of 1600 meters! There is no marking included for the 2000 m range.

The TC can rain fire on a group of people at that target, and with a long salvo he will hit many of them. But one shot per target only? No.

(BMP-2 is 2.45 m in height. So three quarters of its height, and you have a man 1.80 meters tall - that gives an idea of how high a standing man would appear in those pics.)

[Skybird]

Ssnake has practically ruled out any believable liklihood for the TC using one .50 round to hit a man at a range exceeding 1 miles, almost 2 km. The longest confirmed sniper shot with .50 ammunition he said was at around 1800m - but that was a dedicated sniper gun, dedicated scope, trained sniper, and special sniper ammunition that is designed to minimise dispersion - ammo that is not used on the M1. Not too mention, he added, the mounting of the .50 on the M1 that makes such precise fire and easy handling even more difficult. And as I already have illustrated, the sights of the TC for the .50 simply do not allow such precise fire.

The coax is linked to ballistic computers in every modern tank, because the gunner operates it via his primary sights anyway. While the tank was approaching and killing distance, it is possible that they may have taken out infantry with it - that'S what it is there for. But again, I doubt the range given, the dispersion of the coax is not any nicier than that of the .50., and it takes salvos, not single shots for sure. In the sim, it sprays even at several hundred meters only. 2 km is not the distance you use it at. Not even close. Low hundreds.

[MH]

0.5 slaved to main sights should do the job with short burst.

[Stealhead]

I admit I read this a few years back and memory of the exact wording is not certain it may have said short bursts at any rate the tank crew was confidant enough engage the hostiles without concern for hitting the non combatants.

I am pretty sure that they where not standing side by side the towns people where probably 20 or 30 feet away but still it gives you an idea what is possible.The enemy was in plain sight in the center of the town like whack a mole.

Skybird you are also comparing a sim to a real life tank that sim likely does not know the classified bits of information on optics and such that a real tank does know so keep that in mind.The sim could be fairly accurate in certain respects.There are also very likely things that a real tank crew can do that can not be done in that sim.

For example the AH-64 Apache the Hellfire missiles a very skilled crew can actually fire two Hellfires (the laser guided one) at two separate targets in a salvo this takes great skill and some timing but US Army and Royal Flying Corps have done so with success on more than one occasion.This has even been performed by an Apache crew in a case where it was also the laser designation source.

Real life war fighters can do things in combination with their resources that a sim even the kind that they use to train with simply can not simulate.

I hunt and I have seen game animals through optics at such ranges even with my much cruder equipment objects do not look blokish as they do in your screens.the troops look like a squre turd with a hat on:D when with human eyes and true high quality optics they would look like a man not a square turd you can not seriously consider your comparison to have any legitimacy when we all know the humans eyes see things better than that.

[Red October1984]

The Whispering Death.

It can see you, you can't see it, you can't hear it, and then it reaches out and touches you.

M1A2 Abrams, soiling Middle Eastern underpants since 1991.


M1A2 did, i believe enter service in 1992 as somebody said above.



M1 Abrams tanks PERIOD. Soil pants around the world.

[MH]

I admit I read this a few years back and memory of the exact wording is not certain it may have said short bursts at any rate the tank crew was confidant enough engage the hostiles without concern for hitting the non combatants.
Precision of some MG's is very underestimated but actually while not being sniper rifles MG's on stable platform with good sights can be very precise.

Or lets just say precise enough.

[Oberon]

Precision of some MG's is very underestimated but actually while not being sniper rifles MG's on stable platform with good sights can be very precise.

Or lets just say precise enough.

Unless the barrel falls off:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJPao_T6vR8

[Stealhead]

Someone did not follow instructions when they replaced the barrel on that .50.

With Soviet Bloc gear that never would happen.





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NqewaD1kfA

(I like the second top rated comment)

@ MH I would argue that an MG mounted on a tank is in the most stable state that it could be in and therefore also most accurate.An MG on a well placed tripod mount and using human hand control can place a very tight grouping with the quality of a tank mount and all that comes with it it can only get better.

[Skybird]

I admit I read this a few years back and memory of the exact wording is not certain it may have said short bursts at any rate the tank crew was confidant enough engage the hostiles without concern for hitting the non combatants.

I am pretty sure that they where not standing side by side the towns people where probably 20 or 30 feet away but still it gives you an idea what is possible.The enemy was in plain sight in the center of the town like whack a mole.

Skybird you are also comparing a sim to a real life tank that sim likely does not know the classified bits of information on optics and such that a real tank does know so keep that in mind.The sim could be fairly accurate in certain respects.There are also very likely things that a real tank crew can do that can not be done in that sim.

For example the AH-64 Apache the Hellfire missiles a very skilled crew can actually fire two Hellfires (the laser guided one) at two separate targets in a salvo this takes great skill and some timing but US Army and Royal Flying Corps have done so with success on more than one occasion.This has even been performed by an Apache crew in a case where it was also the laser designation source.

Real life war fighters can do things in combination with their resources that a sim even the kind that they use to train with simply can not simulate.

I hunt and I have seen game animals through optics at such ranges even with my much cruder equipment objects do not look blokish as they do in your screens.the troops look like a squre turd with a hat on:D when with human eyes and true high quality optics they would look like a man not a square turd you can not seriously consider your comparison to have any legitimacy when we all know the humans eyes see things better than that.

I have taken that into account what you say about sim versus real life. It's just that the claim raised here was so absurd to me that I felt confident that the screenies do no damage, but just illustrate a point I tried to make, one of severals. In this case it was to show the size difference of the target as seen through the various sights. As you can see, the gunners primary has a good chance to lock onto an individual man at 2000, even more so when he stands tall and still. But then you still have the probelm of bullet dispersion. Even 25, 30 and 40mm autocannons already have a dispersion at 2000 m that create a randomised pattern on a vehicle: a man at 2000, they can hit - or miss by half a meter.

Browning M2 cal.50 have been used for sniping. But they were fitted with sniuper scopes, and used dedicated mounts and deciated ammunition. No matter how precise you aim - the standard ammo has dispersion patterns that you cannot avoid, they are a physical fact. I doubt that they arm sniper ammuntion into M1 cal.50 these day, don't they?

Another guy linked me to this legendary sniper, who used the Cal.50 for sure, at ranges of 1000 yards, and inlduing his record kill at 2500 yards. But he was not sitting in a tank, he had special ammo, another weapon mount, another training, he had not to fight with the M1's weapon mount of the .50 .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Hathcock

Hathcock generally used the standard sniper rifle: the Winchester Model 70 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_Model_70) .30-06 caliber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30-06_Springfield) rifle with the standard 8-power Unertl scope (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unertl_scope&action=edit&redlink=1). On some occasions, however, he used a different weapon: the M2 Browning machine gun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Browning_machine_gun), on which he mounted a 10X Unertl scope, using a bracket of his own design. Hathcock made a number of kills with this weapon in excess of 1,000 yards, including his record for the longest confirmed kill at 2,500 yards.


Physically, the weapon and callibre has the range, and even more, no doubt. But aiming with needed precision and avoiding dispersion - that is where the tricks are done.

[MH]

Unless the barrel falls off:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJPao_T6vR8

LOL 0.5 barrel change too complicated?:har:

[MH]

Physically, the weapon and callibre has the range, and even more, no doubt. But aiming with needed precision and avoiding dispersion - that is where the tricks are done

Well yeah...and sometimes you get also lucky besides being skillful.
Some modern toys actually makes it easier also regular ammo is not so bad and cheaper...it generally hits the target.

[Stealhead]

Hatchcock would have had optics of poorer quality than on an Abrams though he maybe used a x10 or x12 scope if they even had any in Vietnam which I doubt they did I bet that he used maybe an x6 or x8 scope.

According to Wikipedia "A second 7.62 mm M240 machine gun in a coaxial mount to the right of the main gun. The coaxial MG is aimed and fired with the same computer fire control system used for the main gun" so with the coaxial it is very possible.And I argue that an Abrams crew has their bag of tricks they might be able to do things that we do not know about so it could be possible with the .50 mount around in 2003.the current mounts either TUSK or CROWS would allow such long range shots with the .50 cal feasible without doubt.Perhaps not single shots I already said that I not certain about the single shot part but with bursts yes and even a tripod or bipod can be used in the indirect fire role at these ranges.

You also fail to take into consideration that the crew can use the gunners sight to observe the acurracy of the .50 cal fire and adjust even without ballistic computer aid.Snipers do this very often the spotter has a high magnification scope and they observe the lay of shots.

[Skybird]

Well yeah...and sometimes you get also lucky besides being skillful.
Some modern toys actually makes it easier also regular ammo is not so bad and cheaper...it generally hits the target.
But the story was about a targetted kill with one shot at a hilarious distance wihgtout adequate ammo and adewquate scope.

Machineguns are not so much for targeted indsividual kill of individual targets, but they are more meant as area-supression-weapons. A guy at the eSim forums pointed out that this is indeed one of the major differences you see between how MG are (unrealistically) used in computergames, and how they are used in real life.

[Skybird]

Hatchcock would have had optics of poorer quality than on an Abrams though he maybe used a x10 or x12 scope if they even had any in Vietnam which I doubt they did I bet that he used maybe an x6 or x8 scope.

According to Wikipedia "A second 7.62 mm M240 machine gun in a coaxial mount to the right of the main gun. The coaxial MG is aimed and fired with the same computer fire control system used for the main gun" so with the coaxial it is very possible. And I argue that an Abrams crew has their bag of tricks they might be able to do things that we do not know about so it could be possible with the .50 mount around in 2003.the current mounts either TUSK or CROWS would allow such long range shots with the .50 cal feasible without doubt.Perhaps not single shots I already said that I not certain about the single shot part but with bursts yes and even a tripod or bipod can be used in the indirect fire role at these ranges.

You also fail to take into consideration that the crew can use the gunners sight to observe the acurracy of the .50 cal fire and adjust even without ballistic computer aid.Snipers do this very often the spotter has a high magnification scope and they observe the lay of shots.
I referred to the story the way you told it.

Yes, the coax is linked to the gunner's primary sight, which has the strongest zoom of all sights on the tank, but still, the target is small in this case, a man at 2000 meters is not that big at all, even in a zoom x10. The cal.50 onboard a tank probably is not the same cal.50 that was used and altered by that USMC master sniper. And then the ammo, the dispersion. You cannot really correct by impacts observed by an observer if the dispersion is too spread anyway. That makes only sense when the weapon for single shots is extremely precise, which I doubt for a tank-mounted .50 with non-specialised ammunition, or when planning to send an area bombardement anyway.

Whether the link between ballistic computer and the TC's cal.50 means only a transfer of numbers (range) for computing environmental factors and final elevation, or whether the gunner really sees on his display on behalf of the TC and aims the weapon on the commanders behalf, I just do not know. Even if he does aim the .50 as if it were the coax, there still remains the problem of dispersion - a cal.50 is no SABOT. Initially you mentioned "one shot". And that is simply extremely unlikely. The probabiulity for a first round hit is very low at 2000m, I assume.

Note that that master sniper made most of his shots with the .50 still at around 1000 yards only. And he was a sniper, no tank commander.

Anyway, there have several people reported back in the eSim forum to my question on this story - and nobody believes the story as being told - sorry. :) Considering that there are many real tankers in that forum, many Abrams riders as well, I take that feedback the way it was given. So, the story as being told rates as "most extremely unlikely".

[MH]

Machineguns are not so much for targeted indsividual kill of individual targets, but they are more meant as area-supression-weapons. A guy at the eSim forums pointed out that this is indeed one of the major differences you see between how MG are (unrealistically) used in computergames, and how they are used in real life.

Its not about one shot one kill.
As i said burst at 1500 meters could do from well maintained not worn out 0.5.
Again MG are what they are and some are better than others at delivering scooped burst at relatively small area... also for suppression purposes.
Suppression is not just about making lots of noise and spraying....


........

[Stealhead]

It depends on how a given MG is set up up if it is in a sustained fire role on a tripod then it is placed there to kill with reliable accuracy any enemy that has the misfortune to step into its field of fire that is why you see MGs set up around a defensive parameter an excellent example would be the many MG42s and MG34 along the Normandy beach head those positions where devastatingly accurate they in some cases fired right down the open ramp of landing craft and killed or seriously injured nearly every solider inside the craft.They mowed down men trying to get up onto the beach accurate burst after accurate burst.

German MGs also laid waste to god knows how many Russians while set up in sustained fire role in this role if the line of fire is well laid and the gun properly zeroed and the gunner has proper marksmanship he will have very high probability of killing you with one burst and the next and the next guy after him.
WWI and a Maxim machine gun or a Vickers.

If you are on the offensive and advancing on a enemy then your MG is is performing the area suppression role kill some pin the others down the other troops close the gap and kill the ones pinned down.

An AFV could be in either role depending on the situation at hand.

[krashkart]

Silent But Deadly.

It can see you, you can't see it, you can't hear it, and then it reaches out and caresses your nostrils.

The Stealth Flatus, clinging to everything it touches since the dawn of mankind.

Fixed. :03:

[Skybird]

More feedback was given, and by actual and former Abrams tankers. The two main points:

The claimed connection/link between the ballistic computer and the TC's .50 is bollocks (as I silently assumed, but I did not know it for sure and so dfid not comment). The gunner can give verbal feedback on range (from lasing the TC'S targhet with hgis own sights, and calling out the number) to help the TC adjusting the elevation of the MG, but that's it. - The gunner using the coax by his own sights, that is somethign totally different now. But the coax has even more dispersion, I believe I remember to have read that somewehre, and to the layman that I am that makes sence: it is a smaller callibre.

The TC's .50 is an area supression weapon, they say. First salvo hits have been reported - but not beyond 600 m, and only at targets the size of a truck. Beyond that, repeated salvos are almost guaranteed to be needed, correcting after each salvo.

The mounting on a Abrams, it was also said, does not compare to the stabilised, solid attitude the gun is provided with when using a dedicated tripod for sniping. There is too much vibration, even clearance. - And as was already said: ammunition with less dispersion, and scopes.

If there still are doubts about these doubts about that original story, I have nothing more to say on that and I would recommend you head over to their forum and engage the guys there. Some of them did and still do all that tanking stuff in real life.

[MH]

good then....

The TC's .50 is an area supression weapon, they say. First salvo hits have been reported - but not beyond 600 m, and only at targets the size of a truck. Beyond that, repeated salvos are almost guaranteed to be needed, correcting after each salvo

It can be done easily with iron sights....