If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(IHS Jane's)   One big difference between the Mig-35 and the F-22 is that one of these has customers   (janes.com) divider line 68
    More: Interesting, Anastas Mikoyan, customers  
•       •       •

5943 clicks; posted to Business » on 30 Apr 2013 at 3:06 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



68 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-30 10:14:46 PM

hardinparamedic: we lost 0 tanks during the ensuing battles.


I assume by "we" you mean your video game playmates.


rense.com
fc01.deviantart.net
img191.imageshack.us
www.asriran.com
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-04-30 10:22:36 PM

jaytkay: hardinparamedic: we lost 0 tanks during the ensuing battles.

I assume by "we" you mean your video game playmates.


[rense.com image 520x361]
[fc01.deviantart.net image 520x377]
[img191.imageshack.us image 520x390]
[www.asriran.com image 520x397]
[upload.wikimedia.org image 520x351]


Oh good, someone trying to move the goalposts.

Tanks lost to rolling over massive IEDs that were detonated when the tanks were right on top of them during the insurgency stage are not the same as being lost in active combat to Iraqi Armored Divisions. Of which there were none.

In fact, the "Lion of Babalon" tanks that the Iraqi armored divisions fielded, which were T-72s that had been heavily modernized and were considered the "best" of the Iraqi Army, took on an M1A2 Abrhams tank in Baghdad, and the score was 7 lost T-72s to no damage on the American side.

In reality, the rounds being used by the Iraqi T-72 tanks couldn't even penetrate the skirt and turret armor of the Abrhams. There are well documented accounts from both GWI and GWII of rounds either damaging tracks, or simply bouncing off of them.

Ironically, the pictures you listed were of tanks that were destroyed either by IEDs, or of one scuttled during the initial invasion by being shot with a HEAT round in the rear from another M1 tank.
 
2013-04-30 10:30:51 PM

hardinparamedic: Tanks lost to rolling over massive IEDs that were detonated when the tanks were right on top of them during the insurgency stage are not the same as being lost in active combat to Iraqi Armored Divisions.


No, actually, they're the same. Dead tanks.

Except it's probably an order of magnitude cheaper to kill them with IEDs.
 
2013-04-30 10:40:32 PM

jaytkay: No, actually, they're the same. Dead tanks.


Only if you're lying about it, yeah.

In terms of combat effectiveness, no, they're not. They did what they were designed to do. They bounced rounds, and then turned the other guys into heaps of slag. Even when disabled by shooting off their treads, they were still combat effective.

However, they're not particularly effective against an insurgency who's willing to blow up Achmed and His seven kids in the process of killing one. That's why the TUSK system was developed. 

They're only the same if you want to pull a number out of your ass. The fact of the matter is, until some insurgents started burying fifteen 155mm Russian Artillery shells under roads, nothing could put a scratch on the things. That's the whole reason the T-90 was built. The only thing that could kill an Abrahams in a tank battle is another Abrahams.
 
2013-04-30 10:40:46 PM

jaytkay: hardinparamedic: Tanks lost to rolling over massive IEDs that were detonated when the tanks were right on top of them during the insurgency stage are not the same as being lost in active combat to Iraqi Armored Divisions.

No, actually, they're the same. Dead tanks.

Except it's probably an order of magnitude cheaper to kill them with IEDs.


Yeah, I gotta go with jaytkay here. A combat loss is a combat loss, doesn't matter what you smoked them with.

/even video games count them that way
 
2013-04-30 10:44:19 PM

Peki: Yeah, I gotta go with jaytkay here. A combat loss is a combat loss, doesn't matter what you smoked them with.

/even video games count them that way


I'm talking about tank against tank battles. Not tank against "Little Johnny Jihad waited till the end of formal hostilities and snuck a few dozen arty shells under the road"

The fact of the matter is they slaughtered the Iraqi Army.

Even if you want to go with that as a metric, only 5 have been destroyed/scuttled on site, and 15 more deemed "too costly to repair" after the end of hostilities. That's out of thousands of tanks in action.
 
2013-04-30 11:07:04 PM

jaytkay: ghall3: The US versions of military platforms are so far advanced compared to the rest of the world that our lessor versions sold to allies are still far superior to anything potential enimies might have.

Exactly.

That's why we triumphed in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are peaceful and prosperous today.


Being able to completely destroy another country's military is not the same as occupying another country for a decade. In terms of actual combat (even guerrilla combat) the US has no equal. Attrition and the time spent in danger of attack leads to losses.

Any country the US wanted to attack or defend against would completely decimate the other military and then go back to being on usual patrol and readiness, that would be accomplished easily. The trouble starts when we try to occupy "rebuild" in our image.
 
2013-05-01 12:41:30 AM

jaytkay: hardinparamedic: Tanks lost to rolling over massive IEDs that were detonated when the tanks were right on top of them during the insurgency stage are not the same as being lost in active combat to Iraqi Armored Divisions.

No, actually, they're the same. Dead tanks.

Except it's probably an order of magnitude cheaper to kill them with IEDs.


Iraq was using $800,000 IEDs?
 
2013-05-01 01:02:33 AM
There was one Abrams in Iraq that was disabled with one small round that penetrated and caught fire inside the tank.

I think some other country was test firing their newest round on the cheap.Whomever it was, they sure saved a lot of money on combat testing.
 
2013-05-01 08:20:10 AM

TheShavingofOccam123: There was one Abrams in Iraq that was disabled with one small round that penetrated and caught fire inside the tank.

I think some other country was test firing their newest round on the cheap.Whomever it was, they sure saved a lot of money on combat testing.


I believe that was a Bradley. From what I remember hearing, there was a 30 caliber sized holed that went straight through the thing.

Also, I had no idea we 'sold' M1's to Iraq.  I remember that we sold them to Egypt though.
 
2013-05-01 09:15:48 AM

TheShavingofOccam123: There was one Abrams in Iraq that was disabled with one small round that penetrated and caught fire inside the tank.

I think some other country was test firing their newest round on the cheap.Whomever it was, they sure saved a lot of money on combat testing.


I've seen the photos of the Magic Bullet. The tank was not disabled and I believe the crew all survived. The spalling did cause a small fire.
 
2013-05-01 09:22:28 AM
It's slightly amusing to see somebody spend an entire thread talking about how US export products are heavily degraded, and then turn around and proclaim the M1 a world beater because it chewed through a bunch of export-grade T-72s - or worse, the "Lion of Babylon", which was more or less a kit-car T-72 with homemade parts.

Let's put it this way; the Soviet's term for the  best tanks the Iraqis had was "monkey models".
 
2013-05-01 09:47:39 AM

hardinparamedic: Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: US warplanes are designed to be as expensive as possible to maintain and repair.  With parts made in as many states as possible.

There's a reason why Iran wasn't able to use those nifty F-14 Tomcats after they broke from the US.

/I'm still sad that plane is no longer used, or wasn't modernized.
//It gives me wood to see that plane in a museum. That was my childhood favorite.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh wait, you're serious?!

Iran's F-14s were very successful in their war with Iraq.

Iran's F-14s were the only ones to shoot down an enemy opponent with the Phoenix missile - a decade after they took the hostages.

Iran is the only military STILL FLYING the F-14 and has created a cloned copy of the Hawk surface-to-air missile to fill the long range gap create when they expended their Phoenix supply.

Oh, and subby's comparison is dumb.  The F-16C is the proper aircraft to compare to the MiG-35.  It is still in production, will remain so until at least 2016-2017, and unlike the F-35 it has actual sales already booked.
 
2013-05-01 10:09:56 AM

Click Click D'oh: hardinparamedic: ACTUALLY, we sell the stuff that's 20 years old, or crippled compared to the actual stuff the US uses in some form or fashion. The F-16s we export, with the exception of MAYBE Japan and Israel is a few generations behind the current model in use.

Except that Japan got mad that we wouldn't give them the most current tech on the F-16, so they contract built their own bigger, better F-16 and called it the F-2.


Bullshait.

We sold them F-15 Eagles, which is the high end component to the F-15/16 mix.
We sold them the Aegis/SM-3 combination that can shoot down ballistic missiles.
We sold them AEW platforms as good as the E-3 Sentry.

They built a bigger F-16 because they wanted a bigger platform and more importantly they wanted to support the domestic aviation industry.  The entire F-2 program is based off the old General Dynamics (now Lockheed) Agile Falcon technology demonstrators and Lockheed manufactured major components of the F-2 .

Quite frankly, they should have bought F-16s of F-15E variants.  Either would have been cheaper with similar capabilities.
 
2013-05-01 10:25:23 AM

Shryke: TheShavingofOccam123: There was one Abrams in Iraq that was disabled with one small round that penetrated and caught fire inside the tank.

I think some other country was test firing their newest round on the cheap.Whomever it was, they sure saved a lot of money on combat testing.

I've seen the photos of the Magic Bullet. The tank was not disabled and I believe the crew all survived. The spalling did cause a small fire.


Shortly before dawn on Aug. 28, an M1A1 Abrams tank on routine patrol in Baghdad "was hit by something" that crippled the 69-ton behemoth.Army officials still are puzzling over what that "something" was.According to an unclassified Army report, the mystery projectile punched through the vehicle's skirt and drilled a pencil-sized hole through the hull. The hole was so small that "my little finger will not go into it," the reportís author noted.The "something" continued into the crew compartment, where it passed through the gunner's seatback, grazed the kidney area of the gunner's flak jacket and finally came to rest after boring a hole 1-1/2 to 2 inches deep in the hull on the far side of the tank.As it passed through the interior, it hit enough critical components to knock the tank out of action. That made the tank one of only two Abrams disabled by enemy fire during the Iraq war and one of only a handful of "mobility kills" since they first rumbled onto the scene 20 years ago. The other Abrams knocked out this year in Iraq was hit by an RPG-7, a rocket-propelled grenade.
 
2013-05-01 10:50:55 AM

TheShavingofOccam123: Shryke: TheShavingofOccam123: There was one Abrams in Iraq that was disabled with one small round that penetrated and caught fire inside the tank.

I think some other country was test firing their newest round on the cheap.Whomever it was, they sure saved a lot of money on combat testing.

I've seen the photos of the Magic Bullet. The tank was not disabled and I believe the crew all survived. The spalling did cause a small fire.

Shortly before dawn on Aug. 28, an M1A1 Abrams tank on routine patrol in Baghdad "was hit by something" that crippled the 69-ton behemoth.Army officials still are puzzling over what that "something" was.According to an unclassified Army report, the mystery projectile punched through the vehicle's skirt and drilled a pencil-sized hole through the hull. The hole was so small that "my little finger will not go into it," the reportís author noted.The "something" continued into the crew compartment, where it passed through the gunner's seatback, grazed the kidney area of the gunner's flak jacket and finally came to rest after boring a hole 1-1/2 to 2 inches deep in the hull on the far side of the tank.As it passed through the interior, it hit enough critical components to knock the tank out of action. That made the tank one of only two Abrams disabled by enemy fire during the Iraq war and one of only a handful of "mobility kills" since they first rumbled onto the scene 20 years ago. The other Abrams knocked out this year in Iraq was hit by an RPG-7, a rocket-propelled grenade.


So if that 'something' came to a rest after boring a hole in the other side.  What was it?

We always speculated it was some kind of DU slug.
 
2013-05-01 11:24:45 AM

TheShavingofOccam123: Shryke: TheShavingofOccam123: There was one Abrams in Iraq that was disabled with one small round that penetrated and caught fire inside the tank.

I think some other country was test firing their newest round on the cheap.Whomever it was, they sure saved a lot of money on combat testing.

I've seen the photos of the Magic Bullet. The tank was not disabled and I believe the crew all survived. The spalling did cause a small fire.

Shortly before dawn on Aug. 28, an M1A1 Abrams tank on routine patrol in Baghdad "was hit by something" that crippled the 69-ton behemoth.Army officials still are puzzling over what that "something" was.According to an unclassified Army report, the mystery projectile punched through the vehicle's skirt and drilled a pencil-sized hole through the hull. The hole was so small that "my little finger will not go into it," the reportís author noted.The "something" continued into the crew compartment, where it passed through the gunner's seatback, grazed the kidney area of the gunner's flak jacket and finally came to rest after boring a hole 1-1/2 to 2 inches deep in the hull on the far side of the tank.As it passed through the interior, it hit enough critical components to knock the tank out of action. That made the tank one of only two Abrams disabled by enemy fire during the Iraq war and one of only a handful of "mobility kills" since they first rumbled onto the scene 20 years ago. The other Abrams knocked out this year in Iraq was hit by an RPG-7, a rocket-propelled grenade.


The pictures don't show much damage. Hrm.
 
2013-05-01 08:01:54 PM

moanerific: TheShavingofOccam123: Shryke: TheShavingofOccam123: There was one Abrams in Iraq that was disabled with one small round that penetrated and caught fire inside the tank.

I think some other country was test firing their newest round on the cheap.Whomever it was, they sure saved a lot of money on combat testing.

I've seen the photos of the Magic Bullet. The tank was not disabled and I believe the crew all survived. The spalling did cause a small fire.

Shortly before dawn on Aug. 28, an M1A1 Abrams tank on routine patrol in Baghdad "was hit by something" that crippled the 69-ton behemoth.Army officials still are puzzling over what that "something" was.According to an unclassified Army report, the mystery projectile punched through the vehicle's skirt and drilled a pencil-sized hole through the hull. The hole was so small that "my little finger will not go into it," the reportís author noted.The "something" continued into the crew compartment, where it passed through the gunner's seatback, grazed the kidney area of the gunner's flak jacket and finally came to rest after boring a hole 1-1/2 to 2 inches deep in the hull on the far side of the tank.As it passed through the interior, it hit enough critical components to knock the tank out of action. That made the tank one of only two Abrams disabled by enemy fire during the Iraq war and one of only a handful of "mobility kills" since they first rumbled onto the scene 20 years ago. The other Abrams knocked out this year in Iraq was hit by an RPG-7, a rocket-propelled grenade.

So if that 'something' came to a rest after boring a hole in the other side.  What was it?

We always speculated it was some kind of DU slug.


I recall a similar (maybe the same) story and the culprit was a copper coned directed energy warhead. It has been confirmed that those types of warheads can and will penetrate the armor on an Abrams.
 
Displayed 18 of 68 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report