Pics from the Georgia front lines

[kranz]

I see that you guys are pro when it comes to tanks, so my question is: I read a book by Parker about testing chemicals, gases etc on soldiers.There was a part that during the GW1 american tanks got friendly-fired by some other americans with ammo having uranium something inside. Why is it used(this uranium) and could it be true?

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by kranz

I see that you guys are pro when it comes to tanks, so my question is: I read a book by Parker about testing chemicals, gases etc on soldiers.There was a part that during the GW1 american tanks got friendly-fired by some other americans with ammo having uranium something inside. Why is it used(this uranium) and could it be true?

Its depleted Uranium. Hard stuff from a nuke reactor. They use it in a rd called a Sabot. Turns tank armor into swiss cheese.

Some info on it here - http://www.army-technology.com/contr...ion/apfsds.htm

-S

PS. It is mildly radioactive, so if you ever see a destroyed tank, leave it alone. The rd is OK, but its the radioactive dust that it leaves behind that you do not want to breathe.

[Happy Times]

Originally Posted by kranz

I see that you guys are pro when it comes to tanks, so my question is: I read a book by Parker about testing chemicals, gases etc on soldiers.There was a part that during the GW1 american tanks got friendly-fired by some other americans with ammo having uranium something inside. Why is it used(this uranium) and could it be true?

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

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Happy Times

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

Beat ya! :p

-S

[AntEater]

Tanks are usually lost when they burn.
These T-72s definitely did. In Iraq, US forces were always able to recover knocked out tanks, but in a situation when this is not possible and a M1 is left burning for a certain time, the ammo should cook off as well.
There are fire supression systems in western tanks, but those tend to suffocate the crew as well, so if the crew doesn't wear rebreathers I'd rather bail out and lose a tank to a fire than lose a tank crew to suffocation. Not good for morale.
Incidentally, since we're in Subsim forum, the rebreathers worn by german tank crews today are exactly the same type of "Tauchretter" made by Dräger used in WW2 U-Boats as escape apparatus.
At least thats what guys on german military forums said about Leo 2s and comparable damage, and M1s and Leo 2s are quite similar in layout.
This destruction might not have been instantaneous either. It is possible those tanks were hit, set on fire, the crew abandoned them and left them burning.
Few minutes later, ammo cooks off. Or, the georgians themselves blew them up because they were knocked out and there was no time for recovery.

(DU allready explained)

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by AntEater

Tanks are usually lost when they burn.
These T-72s definitely did. In Iraq, US forces were always able to recover knocked out tanks, but in a situation when this is not possible and a M1 is left burning for a certain time, the ammo should cook off as well.
There are fire supression systems in western tanks, but those tend to suffocate the crew as well, so if the crew doesn't wear rebreathers I'd rather bail out and lose a tank to a fire than lose a tank crew to suffocation. Not good for morale.
Incidentally, since we're in Subsim forum, the rebreathers worn by german tank crews today are exactly the same type of "Tauchretter" made by Dräger used in WW2 U-Boats as escape apparatus.
At least thats what guys on german military forums said about Leo 2s and comparable damage, and M1s and Leo 2s are quite similar in layout.
This destruction might not have been instantaneous either. It is possible those tanks were hit, set on fire, the crew abandoned them and left them burning.
Few minutes later, ammo cooks off. Or, the georgians themselves blew them up because they were knocked out and there was no time for recovery.

(DU allready explained)

Thats probably a logical explanation. Russians using there more is better policy vs Americans using the less but technologically superior is better mentality.

I'm sure the price tag difference is pretty enormous though. Last I heard, M1's were way past the $5 Million mark. T-72's - cheap and effective.

-S

[Happy Times]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Thats probably a logical explanation. Russians using there more is better policy vs Americans using the less but technologically superior is better mentality.

I'm sure the price tag difference is pretty enormous though. Last I heard, M1's were way past the $5 Million mark. T-72's - cheap and effective.

-S

They are that, and im sad that Finnish defence forces phased out the t-72s as they would have had their use with the territorial troops in a more defencive role. They were also equipped with western electronics and fire control.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

I've never seen an M1 look that bad, not matter how much explosive they used on it.

-S

I have. M1A2 drove over 5 stacked AT mines while using a military bypass SW of Fallujah. I wan't there for the show but I was there for the cleanup.
Whole tank flipped over, but I was on perimeter security so I was too far away to really see the damage.
Still, I heard the crew survived, it's a remarkable piece of hardware. Not sure if they managed to repair it or not.

In person the M1a2 is terrifying, even if it's on your side. Literally shakes the pavement. I just wish I had gotten to co-operate with one in combat.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

I have. M1A2 drove over 5 stacked AT mines while using a military bypass SW of Fallujah. I wan't there for the show but I was there for the cleanup.
Whole tank flipped over, but I was on perimeter security so I was too far away to really see the damage.
Still, I heard the crew survived, it's a remarkable piece of hardware. Not sure if they managed to repair it or not.

In person the M1a2 is terrifying, even if it's on your side. Literally shakes the pavement. I just wish I had gotten to co-operate with one in combat.

Crew survived? Holy ****! That means no real major damage to the chassis. I bet that thing is back in operation.

-S

[Happy Times]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Crew survived? Holy ****! That means no real major damage to the chassis. I bet that thing is back in operation.

-S

Chassis has to be compromised, you would think it to be marked as total loss.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Crew survived? Holy ****! That means no real major damage to the chassis. I bet that thing is back in operation.

-S

You underestimate the power of U.S. Government contracts. *hoooooooh-hahhhh hoooooh-hahhhh*

Many contracts stipulate that if a unit is unsuitable for field repair and can't be repaired at "reasonable" cost to the manufacterer, it must be replaced by a unit of the same type at full cost. Hooray for our government

[August]

Russians having some fun with Georgian civilians?

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by August

Russians having some fun with Georgian civilians?

Thats major BS! To collapse like that, he has internal injuries I bet and he will be dead if he doesn't seek major medical help.

-S

[August]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Thats major BS! To collapse like that, he has internal injuries I bet and he will be dead if he doesn't seek major medical help.

-S

Yeah he did go down awful hard with no attempt to break his fall or prevent that major face plant.

[AntEater]

A little look at the date:
July 2007????
According to Youtube comments, these Policemen (not soldiers) are Ukrainian.
The perpetrators both got a life sentence for this, unfortunately, the guy really died.
Apparently it was a huge scandal in Ukraine last year.