Replies

What the Iraqis and assorted towel-headed banditos over there are doing now is classic underdog: we cannot win in a stand up fight, so we will make this a war of attrition. Eventually, one side or the other must reach their pain threshold to cause the fighting to cease. This was the Japanese strategy at Iwo Jima, Okinawa and in the Phillipines. We can't win, so we'll make the other side suffer.

On our side, we have technology, expertise, capital, civic militarism and individual initiative to fight with. They have God. It is their belief that God is stronger than steel. In any other case, they would be right, but I haven't heard of the Almighty taking direct action in a battle since Jerhico.

The Japanese had God (sort of) and they lost, too.

In the end, it is not gadgets and gee-gaws that win battles. What wins is the desire to get the damn thing over with as quickly as possible, and the way to do that is to make the other side suffer so terribly that they will never take up arms again. This was the resoning behind the gatling gun, the machine gun and ultimately the atomic bomb. All of which, are WESTERN inventions, btw.

Still, to a greater extent, when we talk about order of battle and whatnot, we're talking about military science as opposed to the individual warrior ethic, which is what the other side has in abundance. We have organization, training and discipline, and these are far greater weapons than bravado and machismo. The other side in this war does not practice military science as we know it because it is alien to their culture. This explains why Israel can beat off the entire combined might of the rest of the Middle East on a regular basis. These guys LOOK like soldiers, but they do not fight like them.

That's why you have to kill them off, brutally and without remorse. These arab soldiers are not that far removed from the Huns -- when they have the advantage they are brutal and cold-blooded. When they are on the receiving end, they run off and beg for mercy before slithering from their holes to fight again. Until enough of them are dead and their DNA is removed from the planet, they will continue to snipe, hide, run and thgen fight again when it suits their puropse or whenever they think they have a chance.

Upgraded Israeli Merkava's in above Photo's.

An intersting thread on the M1A1..alot of good comments.

The other day on the T.V ..watched 2 M1A1's moving up the street in Najaf.....*Back to back.
At first..I thought the one tank was towing the other,
Then realized they were using this as a tactic to negate M1A1'a vulnerable spot..ie..The back turret deck and rear engine.

M1A1 was designed to be a fast mover and a schock,breakthru weapon.
This tank is zenith on the battlefield in this regard...and fullfills its purpose handsomely.

Its not a Ronson like the older tanks U.S. forces shoved at the enemy in numeric...even today..in worst situation..the Crew gets out..and thats what counts.

Israels Merkava above is a good ref for what a tank *can be,,as time evolution goes.
Combat lesson's learned applied type thing.
Merkava is more of a *Fight make stand tank....designed with the terrian in the region it will operate.
IDF reconfigured Merkava's turret with add on armor modules.
There is also a 360 field digital camera sytem....the TC commander can stay inside and be fully aware.

Shift;

What makes a tank especially valuable is its flexability in changing terrain and combat environment.
M1A1 can take just about anything fired at it so far.
I have looked for info..and at the time of this article am not really aware of situations where it faced *Top attack ATGM's...
IDF modded their turret design with this reality in mind.
Looking at the M1A1....it is entirley possible to mod this unit with additional armor modules to negate top attack.
I imagine they can design a armor package for the tanks rear aswell.
On a side note...I'm kinda in agreement with some of the posters on this thread who comment that the U.S. has everything it needs...the problem is the P.C. thingy..the resolve to use firepower application to shatter the enemy in situ.
a debate for another thread....ie..if we are going to Monday Quarterback Iraq,
my first comment is..*Why isn't airpower being used more?>

Looking at the destruction of Najaf's environs...it probably would have been best to let Helo's and A-10'S play,swepp the place until white surrender flags appear : )
Airpower unerves Hamdi bigtime...he flee's or dies....and thats what is needed.

If your enemy can get at you 360..your in trouble.
I guess this is the lesson being learned in Iraq.

As it stands...M1A1 is good for..another 15-20yrs?.
In that time..the U.S. will be into other Kinnetic energy gun systems..a new tank will emerge..and it will be an ass kicker like the M1A1 is.

So ya....U.S. has lost/write off...maybe 10-15 M1A1's so far in the Iraq war..with maybe 100+ offline for a time.

Far cry from the days of hundreds of gutted Shermans....tank gone.....crew gone.

M1A1 is still dominant in Iraq,
about the only thing that can stop it there.......is a bridge : )