[konaice]

"If the US troops were forced to abandon their night vision then the Iraqi's would have just achieved a "levelling" of the battlefield capability. "

--
You mean US troops would revert to "only" their daytime advantage of fire-power, training, tactics, armor, air support, etc, etc. This is hardly a "levelling" in any real sense of the word.

There has never been a battle where foot soldiers, in small numbers, regardless of weaponry, have stopped an armored advance of any significant size.

[Mark Felton]

The scenario refers to nighttime. The "levelling" would be in terms of vision only, but only for a few minutes at best. Long enough to get off a shot or two, then retreat. If you cannot see, you cannot be too successful.

I made no mention of stopping an armored advance. The armor will go wherever it wants. I referenced strictly destroying armor, and other vehicles, piecemeal, using Komets or some other such anti-armor weapon that is highly portable.


shoot, run, delay, delay, shoot, run...

[Mark Felton]

FYI: This refers to the Kornet anti-tank weapon. Iraq had procured 500 of the missiles. From Iraqi defeat jolts Russian military

"One bright note for Moscow, however, is a report that Iraqi forces used Russian-made, laser-guided antitank missiles to destroy several Abrams tanks during the US attack. This could boost profits for Russian armsmakers, who are already receiving inquiries from Syria and Iran, according to Shlykov. "

[Mark Felton]

"There has never been a battle where foot soldiers, in small numbers, regardless of weaponry, have stopped an armored advance of any significant size."

BTW: The ONLY tank kills in Iraq were by foot soldiers.