Pics from the Georgia front lines

[SUBMAN1]

Those tanks look utterly destroyed. I've never seen an M1 look that bad, not matter how much explosive they used on it. I guess 1 M1 was designed to take on 5 Soviet tanks since they were designed to fight outnumbered, so maybe its strength has something to do with it.

-S

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Those tanks look utterly destroyed. I've never seen an M1 look that bad, not matter how much explosive they used on it. I guess 1 M1 was designed to take on 5 Soviet tanks since they were designed to fight outnumbered, so maybe its strength has something to do with it.

-S

...and that's why I'm not a tanker.

On a side note, has the M1 truely been tested in combat? The M1 absolutly kicked a$$ in gulf War 1. I think (my memory is rusty) only 14 or so M1s were lost in GW1, and most of those had their tracks blown off from a mine. There was that one M1 tank that took a direct hit from a T-72 (funny story, the M1 parked infront of th T-72 to take a break ) at point blank range the tank commander had a ringing in his ears, but the tank didn't catch fire.- the crew survived.

What I'm asking is: would the M1 fair as well against a real opponent that knows how to fight tanks.:hmm:

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

...and that's why I'm not a tanker.

On a side note, has the M1 truely been tested in combat? The M1 absolutly kicked a$$ in gulf War 1. I think (my memory is rusty) only 14 or so M1s were lost in GW1, and most of those had their tracks blown off from a mine. There was that one M1 tank that took a direct hit from a T-72 (funny story, the M1 parked infront of th T-72 to take a break ) at point blank range the tank commander had a ringing in his ears, but the tank didn't catch fire.- the crew survived.

What I'm asking is: would the M1 fair as well against a real opponent that knows how to fight tanks.:hmm:

The M1 was designed to take a direct hit in the frontal area, though in the war, no M1's were really lost. They were only disabled - hit with the best stuff that could be thrown at them. And then some tank tow truck shows up, tows it off, and the damn tank is back running the next day! Its like indestructable.

One M1 was hammered mutiple times when disabled, but they simply returned fire waiting for a rescue!

-S

[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?