Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

There have been conflicting stories/posts on this.
I don't know if the Army Times is any more accurate than other media.
It is hard to believe that a truck-mounted machine gun could take out two M1A1s.
The casualty record is great.
1 posted on 03/25/2003 10:28:31 PM PST by Diddley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Diddley
machine gun = anti-tank gun
2 posted on 03/25/2003 10:30:48 PM PST by Diddley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Diddley
Well it said truck mounted anit-tank gun, so maybe a small artillary piece rather than a mahcine gun, and on the rear weaker armor of the Abrams it might have been powerful enough to get through.
3 posted on 03/25/2003 10:31:52 PM PST by battousai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Diddley
Later reports, as of two hours ago describe the tanks as disabled but not destroyed. The implication from Ted Koppell on ABC who is with the unit was that they were repairable, though probably not in the field.

SO9

4 posted on 03/25/2003 10:33:19 PM PST by Servant of the Nine (JDAM the Arabs, Full Speed Ahead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Diddley
Wow. That's...shocking. The Abrams is such an overwhelming force, its difficult to imagine one being damaged, much less taken out. A modern day Bolo.

Impressive that the ammo-explosion containment buffers saved the crew, though!
7 posted on 03/25/2003 10:43:02 PM PST by OOPisforLiberals
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: KayEyeDoubleDee; SlickWillard
Bump.
8 posted on 03/25/2003 10:51:07 PM PST by SlickWillard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Diddley
Question: Is the 7th cav. of the 3rd ID the same unit as the 7th cav. of the 1st cav. of Viet Nam and Korea, which is to say THE 7th cav.?
10 posted on 03/25/2003 11:19:33 PM PST by InABunkerUnderSF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Diddley
Two tank losses in nearly 7 days is an impressive record along with the fact none of their crews died. Some people read too much into bad news from the war front. All bad news should be as good as this.
15 posted on 03/25/2003 11:28:17 PM PST by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Diddley
LIVE ON CNN...

they are running the Karbala Gap in the sandstorm.
16 posted on 03/25/2003 11:30:15 PM PST by BurbankKarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Diddley
I've read several books on the Gulf War, and it seems that in GW I, the Iraqis were able to knock out several Abrams that had bypassed them because the Iraqi tank engines had been turned off, thereby generating no heat signature. Apparently, the Abrams were targeted from behind, several having their engines knocked out by enemy rounds. I think at least one tank had its ammo cooked off. In the Abrams, the ammo is in a separate compartment from the crew, the door to which only opens when the loader pushes his knee against a lever. This way, the ammo, if hit, explodes upward through a panel, keeping the crew safe. I've seen the test videos of this feature on some Discovery Channel-type show, and it's impressive. By contrast, all the Iraqi tanks have their ammo in with the crew, and a hellish firestorm and explosion is created within the tank when an Abrams round pierced the tank and sends white-hot spall flying through the turret.

It's interesting that the soldiers earlier said that "some of our equipment was damaged", or words to that effect. I think this info should have been kept hush-hush if possible. No need to encourage the Iraqis.

The Abrams is just about unbeatable against enemy armor and infantry if it keeps its front or side 30 degrees to the ememy. Let's hope we won't lose too many of these tanks in the coming battles.

21 posted on 03/26/2003 12:54:42 AM PST by BushMeister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Diddley
We're finding out what those Russian air transports offloaded some months ago. Remember the embargo violation of "commercial" sales to Iraq? The UN took no action.

I suspect that Iraq has thousands of "technicals", pickups and flatbeds with .50 cal., ~20-40mm AA, and state-of-the artski laser aimed, fire & forget guided anti-tank missles (range 5km). 'Blackhawk Down' is the Baathists' favorite video.

We should expect swarming by OOday's ninjas. Our supply line is exposed as are our lead and flank tanks. These guys can swarm our tanks knocking them out from behind, stalling the advance. Mortars and mines will be problems.

I hope our daisey cutters preceed our M1-A1s into the breach. I pray that mini-guns with 10k+ rounds and .50 M2s on rings over cabs are as common as in WWII in our convoys. Bradleys heavy guns are too few so use Hummer/TOWs. We risk staggering casualties so we'd best set aside foolishness. (I don't want heads mounted on our tanks, yet.)

We must stop being chumps for "civilians". Strip 'em, and herd 'em into holding pens - to be released only when this show is over. This is time to stomp on some throats after we cut some. I bet that our Marines have developed a whole new attitude, Bless their souls.

I will be surprised if Iran doesn't leak jihadies to help defend "Islam". If we show weakness, Iran may even join this fight against us with their corps of new Russian T-90s. Iran has a lot of tricks bought from China and the federated Russia. Islamofascism and the post-commie fascists are at war with us. We must be ready to nuke 'em if they jump on our flank and 5th Fleet boats.

IMHO, we have entered the first white hot battle of a multigenerational war to save our Republic and our Western Civilization. Call-ups continue.
22 posted on 03/26/2003 1:43:25 AM PST by SevenDaysInMay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Diddley
This story is not true according to other sites.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m1-intro.htm

During the Gulf War only 18 Abrams tanks were taken out of service due to battle damage: nine were permanent losses, and another nine suffered repairable damage, mostly from mines. Not a single Abrams crewman was lost in the conflict. There were few reports of mechanical failure. US armor commanders maintained an unprecedented 90% operational readiness for their Abrams Main Battle Tanks.
24 posted on 03/26/2003 7:07:17 AM PST by finnman69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Diddley
The two tanks saw tracers from behind them and were maneuvering to return fire when, within seconds of one another, each took hits from their rear and burst into flames.

Coax sighting technique.

36 posted on 03/27/2003 9:44:53 AM PST by RightWhale (Theorems link concepts: Proofs establish links)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson