It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Harlequin
They were not rpg 7`s they were rpg-29`s - the same ones that are / were busting open merk 4`s in west bank/gaza
They were not rpg 7`s they were rpg-29`s - the same ones that are / were busting open merk 4`s in west bank/gaza
Lieutenant General Raymond Odierno, the second-ranking U.S. commander in Iraq, made the most spectacular claim of Iranian culpability in arming the militias so far when he declared in an interview with USA Today on Wednesday, “We have weapons that we know through serial numbers…that trace back to Iran.” He referred specifically to RPG-29s -- armor-piercing rocket-propelled grenades -- and truck-mounted Katyusha rockets captured in Iraq.
While PRG-29 tubes were found in bank/gaza, not a single tube has been recovered in Iraq.
Not a ONE, no pictures, no records, nothing to suggest that RPG-29s have been used by Iraqis.
A new armor-busting rocket-propelled grenade believed to be of Iranian origin has shown up in Iraq in what may be "a hint about things to come," the commander of US forces in the Middle East said Tuesday. General John Abizaid said the weapon, an RPG-29, has a dual warhead and has proved effective against most types of armored vehicles.
"The first time we saw it was not in Iraq. We saw it in Lebanon. So to me it indicates, number one, an Iranian connection," he told defense reporters here.
"It's hard to say in our part of the world that we operate in as to whether or not people have given us a hint about things to come," he said.
He said only a single RPG-29 has turned up in Iraq so far, and it was unclear how it was smuggled into the country.
"We have weapons that we know through serial numbers … that trace back to Iran," Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno said in an interview with USA TODAY.
On Tuesday, President Bush vowed to crack down on those who supply Iraqi insurgents with arms, though he denied any plans to invade Iran.
"We'll deal with it by finding their supply chains and their agents and … arresting them. … In other words, we're going to protect our troops," Bush told ABC News.
Most weapons supplied by Iran end up in the hands of Shiite extremists, Odierno said.
He said the weapons include:
•The RPG-29, a rocket-propelled grenade that can fire armor-piercing rounds. It is larger and more sophisticated than the RPG-7 more commonly found in Iraq.
Originally posted by Lonestar24
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Since the introduction of the Centurion, the UK has led tank design. At every step.
[...]
Since WW2 the British have consistently produced the world's top-performing tanks. Always with indigenous innovations.
[...]
As I said, the British were producing the best tanks in the world. Therefore they were leading tank design.
Look at the MBT70 project. So many innovations. And yet how many problems did the tank have? How many of those innovations made it into the M1 or the Leo 2?
You aren't "leading" tank design if your products are inferior to your competitors or enemies.
I applaud for your honest national pride. Alas, these statements are not entirely true. While without a doubt one of the leading figures of tank technology, the UK has lost its edge 30 years ago.
The MBT70 had very little "problems".
The main conflict arose from the far too high and conflicting expectations, resulting cost overruns and rivalries between the german and american design team.
And actually there were many design aspects, and newfound testing data, from the MBT70 that flew over into the Leopard 2 (and to a lesser extend the M1), namely the hull construction, the weight distribution, the engine and drive system, electronics etc...
...I was saying "Smoothe-bore? So what"[...] I don't think either are an "innovation" worth following. I was pointing out that the British chose not to go down this road because they didn't see it as a "leading" innovation. Australia's Leo 1s (just retired) mounted Royal Ordnance L7 105mm guns, as fitted by the Germans (so did everyone else's Leo 1s.) The M60 mounted a US version of the same 105mm, because the Brits had already proven it, and the M1 Abrams mounted the same gun on introduction in 1978. When the Brits had already put the 120mm on Chieftain 11 years earlier.
Well, you may not see the smoothbore as an "innovation", though your own MoD seems to think the smoothbore is worth following.
Yes, the L7 was an excellent gun in its day and still has its role, but the Leo1 mounted it as a cost- and time savings measure, while the M1 Abrams from the start only had it as a stopgap filler.
Yes, when Rheinmetall first developed the L44 gun it had little advantages over the existing british L11 - due to a completely new line of ammunition that still had to mature - which has happened since then.
Fact is that every single western tank has adopted a smoothbore since the Leo2 pioneered the new gun.
Fact is also that the rifled 120mm has unbearable deficiencies in operating pressure,barrel life and a slow shooting cycle thanks to the two-part ammunition
while the HESH is largely obsolete compared with newer multipurpose rounds - it is an anachronism for modern main battle tanks.
When the Challenger 1 appeared, years after the Leo2 and around the time of the M1A1 upgrade program (which finally made that tank useful)
it already had large deficiencies in fire control and its propulsion.
After all it took less than a decade until it was decided that a WHOLE NEW tank was needed
and the Challenger 2 still played catch with the other two premier western designs, as can also be seen in the Greek trials.
What are the CR2s features? Obviously the armor. Still, the credentials of the Dorchester stuff are mostly from hearsay, and even IF it has a decisive edge over other armor, thats about it, and there are enough new products in the work by others to assume that it won´t be the premier passive defence for long.
The tank´s other main improvements over the mediocre CR1
are a FCS which is a slightly improved version of that mounted on the M1A1 (which back then was already not quite as capable as the FCS on the Leo2),
and improvements in sensory equipment which mainly came - TaDaa - from Thales and Sagem.
So I ask, where has "the UK led" tank design? The exceptional Centurion was ahead of its time.
The Chieftain already sacrificed too much for its heavy armor and armament.
CR1 and CR2 carried on many legacy deficiencies.
There is a reason why the british tank industry has lost every single european customer, and most of their traditional Middle Eastern customers as well.
Originally posted by iskander
Lonestar24, hi there, how are you.
So I ask, where has "the UK led" tank design?
Nicely put.
Even better, here’s a historical FACT.
During WWII joint ally victory parade in Berlin, Stalin reserved the very last place for previously unseen IS3.
Stalin planned the unveiling this way, and when the IS3s were rumbling past the tribune, Roosevelt said to stunned Churchill, “Don’t worry, we’re still your allies”.
Actually, I’ve seem to remembered a BBC program which showed a few good English lads restoring a Comet tank, or what they called the best British tank of the WWII, and they were actually the ones that mentioned that Berlin military parade and how IS-3 made all other tanks obsolete in one day.
It was hit directly by eight rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile, and was under heavy small arms fire for hours. The crew survived remaining safe within the tank until the tank was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later after the repairs. One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident.[8]
There have been only three Challenger 2s damaged in combat
there has never ever been a `show of tv serial numbers` for anything so please dismiss that notion as quite frankly its very poor of you;
the links you added are showing multiple officers stating the rpg-29 is being used - so why are you ignoring them? clear evidence provided by yourself!
in multiple threads you`ve given links , whilst you might not have extracted the quote yourself, the information has allready been presented by yourself - citing multiple sources over the use of the rpg-29 in iraq!
therefore using your very own information , the rpg-20 is being used in iraq in clear evidence - again supplied by you.
jane`s defence weekly did an op/ed piece again citing sources as to the extent that the rpg-29 has arrived in iraq -jane`s is quite probably the most respected publication in the industry, and i am a subscriber - its a hardcopy - none internet work.
Among American officials, concern over the purported Iranian, Syrian or Hezbollah role grew recently when an advanced antitank weapon, an RPG-29, was used against an American M-1 tank in Iraq.
He said only a single RPG-29 has turned up in Iraq so far, and it was unclear how it was smuggled into the country.
And you reuse the launch tube so your not going find them lying around discarded.
And a link where they say 1 has been used.
“The first time we saw it was not in Iraq,” Gen. John P. Abizaid, the head of the United States Central Command, told reporters in September. “We saw it in Lebanon. So to me, No. 1, it indicates an Iranian connection.”
Originally posted by iskander
reply to post by deckard83
And you reuse the launch tube so your not going find them lying around discarded.
Weapons are recovered from the field or weapon caches which are regularly discovered, because a LOT of people work specifically to find them.
Even if the US/UK do release a photo of a RPG-29 tube and the remains of a shell it's not going to be proof enough.
We'll have to wait until the iraq insurgents make a promo video of them shooting one at a M1
Originally posted by MAVERICK05
im not sure what to believe. is the british challenger 2 better than m1 a2 abrams that the us has? DO YOU REALLY THINK THE US WOULD LET ANOTHER COUNTRY HAVE THE MORE SUPERIOR VEHICLES? my answer is hell no.
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
It *may* have been. I specifically used the example of the calibrated co-axial ranging machine-gun.
No. It is just one example among others that could be quoted.
Plus, if what you're talking about is fibreglass, then I wouldn't call it much of an innovation. As in, not a massive increase in protection. Ceramics-based composites (al a Chobham) have been the world-standard since introduced by the Brits.