Marines fight their biggest battle of war

SJ Mercury News ^ | 4/4/03 | Juan O. Tamayo - Knight Ridder

[NormsRevenge]

MARINE COMBAT HEADQUARTERS, Iraq - A battle Friday for a crucial crossroads 12 miles southeast of Baghdad involved the heaviest combat Marines had undertaken so far in Iraq, commanders said, as members of the Republican Guard put up what one commander called "a coordinated defense."

[TheLooseThread]

So they actually lost <= 1 tank.

[Timmy]

What's it say about this war that the "biggest battle" results in eight wounded and no dead, and total annihilation of the enemy?

[skeeter]

They lost three of their "best tanks". I'm sure the SJ Mercury considers it a wonder the marines didn't surrender on the spot. What a rag.

[fightu4it]

Any Marine caught dying without permission is in a world of shit.

[Abn1508]

So they actually lost <= 1 tank.

Yeah. But they had to dismount from their vehicles!!!

Wow that fighting was intense.

[LibKill]

Warning to Iraqis; Do not annoy the Marines.

Stand back and let them get rid of your evil masters. Then you will be free.

[1stFreedom]

their 70-ton Abrams tanks was destroyed Two thing have happened here. 1. The Abrams is no longer "unbeatable". 2. While no longer "unbeatable" it has proven it's worth -- no solder has died from penetration of rounds (one driver was shot dead). 3. Portable anti-tank technology will soon catch up and be able to penetrate the armor. (I do believe that our Javelin can penetrate it, but that's just speculation) It's time to replace the Abrams and hand the remaining lot over to the Marines. (Remember the Marines had M-60s in the Gulf war). They always get leftover stuff and beef it up. Just look at the Cobras! I would suggest the following replacement features: 1. Small, unoccupied turret. Basically enough of a turret to turn and raise the gun while providing an extremly small target. 2. Enhanced front and top armor. Weight saved from small turret design allows increased armor elsewhere. Major threat from top penetration. 3. Implement a secondary skin of the newly discovered British armor. It uses layers of metal which hold charges. When a shaped charge penetrates the first layer, it makes an electrical connection. This electricty dissapates the copper charge, thereby negating the weapon. 4. Add linking capability. Just like the F18/E's can link up, make the tanks link up. 5. Remote control. Provide remote control of some sort so that one tank can control 3 tanks. Maybe even Predator style with line of sight control to eliminate jamming. (Laser??) 6. Laser countermeasures. Ruskies have this. A laser scans the horizon, when a reflection is detected, a stronger laser is sent to the reflection to blind it. This will help defeat laser guided weapons like the Kornet. It's time for a new tank!

[1stFreedom]

their 70-ton Abrams tanks was destroyed

Two thing have happened here.

1.  The Abrams is no longer "unbeatable".
2.  While no longer "unbeatable" it has proven it's worth -- no solder has died from penetration of rounds (one driver was shot dead).  
3.  Portable anti-tank technology will soon catch up and be able to penetrate the armor. (I do believe that our Javelin can penetrate it, but that's just speculation)

It's time to replace the Abrams and hand the remaining lot over to the Marines.  (Remember the Marines had M-60s in the Gulf war).  They always get leftover stuff and beef it up.  Just look at the Cobras!

I would suggest the following replacement features:

1.  Small, unoccupied turret.  Basically enough of a turret to turn and raise the gun while providing an extremly small target.
2.  Enhanced front and top armor.  Weight saved from small turret design allows increased armor elsewhere.  Major threat from top penetration.
3.  Implement a secondary skin of the newly discovered British armor.  It uses layers of metal which hold charges.  When a shaped charge penetrates the first layer, it makes an electrical connection. This electricty dissapates the copper charge, thereby negating the weapon.
4.  Add linking capability.  Just like the F18/E's can link up, make the tanks link up.  
5.  Remote control.  Provide remote control of some sort so that one tank can control 3 tanks.  Maybe even Predator style with line of sight control to eliminate jamming.  (Laser??)
6.  Laser countermeasures.  Ruskies have this.  A laser scans the horizon, when a reflection is detected, a stronger laser is sent to the reflection to blind it.  This will help defeat laser guided weapons like the Kornet.

It's time for a new tank!

[Colt .45]

The three tanks were knocked out by Russian made missiles that were developed during the sanctions against Iraq. Of course they were sold to So-damn Insane by our "friends" the Russians. Now the amazing thing is that the Axis of Weasels want to have a major role in the post war Iraqi rebuilding. I say "F*CK 'EM", would rebuild 99% of the country and leave those ba*tards one small gas station to rebuild. Those losers have a lot of gall to try and tell us how to run business.

[1stFreedom]

Sometimes I hate HTML.

[demlosers]

My BS detector is going off.

[fightu4it]

Corps to Saddam:

Were you born a no good worthless goat f#*$ing piece of s%!t, or did you have to work at it?

[bert]

one of their 70-ton Abrams tanks was destroyed ....

The general said no tank was lost. Apparently it was out of action until repaired.

[SierraWasp]

"some 100 planes were stacked west of the capital Friday afternoon waiting their turn to bomb."

Hey Norm, that's a pretty big que!!!

[nightdriver]

"Now the amazing thing is that the Axis of Weasels want to have a major role in the post war Iraqi rebuilding."

Especially since it most likely will be our tax money that they would be using to do it with!

[Grampa Dave]

Typical left wing maggot writing this story.

It is all about the Marines losses and bad they feel.

The Marines blew up every Iraqi tank and killed every Iraqi who didn't surrender.

Our Marines know that they have a major role in killing the RGs and Fedayeen in Baghdad.

One of the estimates of the Iraqi losses in just this battle were over 2000 men.

O' Reilly tonight and one of his military experts are saying that our forces have killed over 100,000 Iraqis in two weeks.

[DudleyDoright]

They may not even have "lost" a tank.

These media weenies can't differentiate between "battle damaged," "disabled," and "destroyed."

A number of the M-1s thus far "destroyed" in Iraq have been victims of an RPG shot in the ass. The M-1's armor is good, but there is very little of it covering the powerpack. An RPG can knock the track off, too, if the shot hits the skirts/track just right.

But this is something that can be repaired in a few hours/days by the maintenance shops. Its not like they've taken on an M-1's frontal armor with a potent anti-armor weapon and succeeded in rendering the vehicle "destroyed" and killed the crew. Glancing RPG shots that disable the vehicle don't count.

I do wonder, however, about the M-1 and the two Bradleys that got hit last week. I seem to recall that one of the M-1s in that engagement wound up cooking off its ammo (with the driver crapping his pants in the driver's compartment, stuck). That one might have been a total loss.

[NormsRevenge]

left wing maggot ... LOL ... I'm not sure where this chap works out of either.

Seriesly tho, I heard the bodycount so far is over 100,000 killed Iraqi soldiers,RepublicanGuard, fedayeen, etc

Almost Clintonesque numbers .. bodycount-wise ;-)

[NormsRevenge]