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.

 

"The mighty M1", a stupid media product ....

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 07:37 PM
link   
ahhhhh......i cant believe what i read,Zaphod58, those battles arent "tank to tank", and you know that, there were some situations (and sometimes fantastic wartales) in wich a T72 sneaked into M1 formations, and shooted (with their pathetic old sabots) some experts admit that the T72 sabots were sooo old and useles that were just good as practice excersice sabots,the T72s were outnumbered, their crews didnt had electroptics sensor (remember that a big number of tanks were destroyed in night and outrange by the electronics), and they were so badly tired and wasted after a looooooooooooooooooong 10 years war

i heard once a nice tale of a single M1s sabot destroying 3 t72,there are tales and tales`specially in wartime, im engieneer -i hate to say that- but i know what could be a fantastic tale and what is true

so please, dont start with tales




posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Total Protonic Reversal


Originally posted by grunt2
the U238 gamma shield has no sense, because the neutrons has more penetration capacity than the gamma rays, so...

U-238 still makes a better shield against gammas and x-rays than most other substances, and I can assure you, if you're in a nuclear battle zone, you're going to want to minimize your gamma exposure.

In a reactor plant environment, dosimeters (such as TLDs) primarily measure gamma exposure for a variety of good reasons. While you don't want to be hanging out in a neutron cloud, in a practical sense, the gammas are the ones to watch.

Meanwhile, stuff which contains a lot of hydrogen is better for neutrons, because neutrons tend to transfer more kinetic energy to nuclei of similar mass than to nuclei of dissimilar mass. However, density is also an issue, and for fast neutrons, a few inches of U-238 are still better than a cloud of hydrogen when it comes down to it.

Granted, nuclear detonations are a different animal from slow fission reactions based on thermal neutrons and U-235, which is what I am more familiar with, but some of the same health and physics factors still apply, and reactors still spit out fast neutrons.

I find it paradoxical that you can express concern that fast neutrons would set off nuclear reactions in U-238 on the one hand, while implying that U-238 doesn't absorb fast neutrons very well. How exactly does that make sense?


But I think diving too deeply into all this wonderful stuff is sort of missing the point, which is the idea that Abrams tanks would somehow act as secondary nuclear explosive devices in a nuclear battlefield.

That's a very dubious proposition.

Hey, I could be wrong, it's been a while, but I'm not seeing a very convincing argument supporting the concern.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 07:43 PM
link   
So having EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS are tales huh? Whatever. Not long after that fight happened, more M-1s and a Tank Recovery vehicle showed up to unstick the Abrams. That's a lot of witnesses, but I guess everything we can point to is a "tale" as opposed to your "evidence".
I'm glad to see that you keep an open mind about things you post, and don't know much about. Good way to learn new things.


[edit on 6-7-2005 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 07:49 PM
link   

as posted by grunt2
i heard once a nice tale of a single M1s sabot destroying 3 t72,there are tales and tales`specially in wartime...


Erm, it was two T-72 tanks, not three, and it is a factoid, and has been documented by a number of military or otherwise reliable and credible sources.



In one incident in the Gulf, a DU round penetrated both walls of a T-72 tank, exploding it, and then went on to destroy another T-72.

Politics of War: Tank-Plinking in the Gulf

Care to provide anything credible or reliable to counter, or you simply a 'mini-me' military armour analyst in disguise? :shk:








seekerof

[edit on 6-7-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 07:49 PM
link   


find it paradoxical that you can express concern that fast neutrons would set off nuclear reactions in U-238 on the one hand, while implying that U-238 doesn't absorb fast neutrons very well. How exactly does that make sense


i never said that U238 dont absorb neutrons!!! its absorb and turns in Pu239, i JUST said that neutron radiation has more range than gamma!!, so the gamma radiation is important but not as the neutronic flow

about theU238 protection, what you are saying, that the tank is full covered with U238???????


neutrons are hard to measure, and their dosimeter are expensive, in the dosimeter you are searching radioactive isotopes, that emit, neutrons, alpha, beta and gamma, you are searching radiactive ISOTOPES, not the nuclear core radiation



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 07:51 PM
link   
those tales are from both russian and american side, im pretty sure that there are also idiots believing that a t72 blowed 3-4 M1s.... in wartimes there are always these tales



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 07:58 PM
link   
So ALLLLLL the EYEWITNESSES are lying about what happened during battles. You're talking at least two crewmembers (commander and gunner) per tank that were watching to see if the rounds hit, plus the after battle cleanup, intel search, tank recovery crews, plus any overhead recon units, or aircover units and god KNOWS how many OTHER people that are on a battlefied. EVERY SINGLE one of them is telling tales and doesn't know what they're talking about.
And YOU do. YOU KNOW that EVERY single after action report is faked. There were NO multiple kills made, the stuck M-1 DIDN'T destroy three T-72s at 400 meters or less, there were NO tank to tank battles (by the way, what in your tiny little mind IS a tank to tank battle?), and MOST of the T-72s were destroyed by aircover. YOU know this but NOBODY else does.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 08:03 PM
link   


destroy three T-72s at 400 meters or less, there were NO tank to tank battles (by the way, what in your tiny little mind IS a tank to tank battle?), and MOST of the T-72s were destroyed by aircover. YOU know this but NOBODY else does.


yeah, it look likes...


hoe anyone didnt noticed that the t80u is an 1987 tank?? how didnt anyone noticed that the M1s armour 950mm is only in the last years???, how didnt anyone noticed that the U238+N=Pu239????


ahhh yeah but some guys are very ready to believe any unproved "fact" that sound more like tipical corporative advertising


most of the tanks were actually destroyed from the air, that wasnt "tant to tank" battle, it was a coodrinated sistematic destruction, using the better support tech and the weak ponts of the enemy

[edit on 6-7-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 08:05 PM
link   

as posted by grunt2
those tales are from both russian and american side, im pretty sure that there are also idiots believing that a t72 blowed 3-4 M1s.... in wartimes there are always these tales


Yeah, having served in the 1st Gulf War myself, you are quite right.
The difference being that some are factualized, verified, and documented, whereas, in your case, some continue on and blossom into fairy tales, continuing to be passed on by word of mouth. Apparently, you do not see or understand the difference between the two?





seekerof

[edit on 6-7-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 08:12 PM
link   
se here we go if you were a soldier it become more factible to believe in such things without any prove (that actually arnt)

just like the korean air war in which the pilots claimed a exagerated planes downed, most of them fantastic tales, again thats so prerry commun in wartime...

the iraqies just cannot stop the more advanced american army, but remember...

"but it seems that some guys think "well, we kicked a untrained-un equipped 3th world army -tired and wasted by a 10 years war-, with huge numerical superiority, so it seems that we have the best tank""

[edit on 6-7-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Succinctly Speaking


Originally posted by grunt2
i never said that U238 dont absorb neutrons!!! its absorb and turns in Pu239, i JUST said that neutron radiation has more range than gamma!!, so the gamma radiation is important but not as the neutronic flow

Abrams tanks are not wannabe atomic bombs.

All the rest of this is fun to discuss, but seems to be scattering the topic, so I'll leave it at that.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Well, hey, at least I can honestly say that I am not a armchair general or a "mini-me" military armor/armour analyst in disguise.

Got anything else to bring to the table, grunt2?
You are far from discrediting the M1 or Challenger 2 MBTs.





seekerof

[edit on 6-7-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Guess what Bob. Airpower doesn't work in sandstorms.

"Battle of 73 Easting." Advancing through a heavy sandstorm, the U.S. regiment was ordered to find the enemy, defeat any forward covering forces, determine the position and extent of the main defenses, and fix them in position for assault by the heavier forces advancing behind them. About 4 p.m. on the afternoon of February 26, the regiment's lead troop, under the command of Captain H.R. McMaster, made contact with the main Iraqi position.(18) Launching an immediate assault, McMaster's troop of 9 M1 tanks and 12 M3 Bradleys subsequently destroyed the entire defensive belt in front of them, hitting 37 Iraqi T-72s and 32 other armored vehicles in about 40 minutes. The adjoining troops immediately followed suit. Before stopping to regroup at around 5 p.m., this nominal scouting mission by three U.S. cavalry troops had overrun and wiped out an entire Republican Guard brigade. Subsequent Iraqi counterattacks were beaten off with heavy losses, leaving a total of 113 Iraqi armored vehicles destroyed at the cost of one U.S. Bradley lost and one crew member killed by Iraqi fire (with a second vehicle loss attributed to fratricide). Some 600 Iraqi casualties were removed from the battlefield.(19)"

And a little more.....
"The largest TANK battle of the war, which has previously has gone unreported in any detail, conclusively demonstrated the superiority of American tanks and fighting doctrine over that of the Soviets. As a whole, the battles of the ground war showed that American military maneuverability clearly outclassed the plodding tactics of the Iraqis, who emphasized pitched engagements and linear movements as they had been taught by their Soviet advisers."

"During the open desert tank battles of ‘91, U.S. tanks out-classed and out-fought obsolete Iraqi tanks...."

But again, I guess they're all tales, and not real. Everyone that was in the tank crews and around tank battles is a liar obviously. (yes that was a TINY bit of sarcasm.)



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 08:22 PM
link   
I guess ANYTHING put out by the military is a lie huh grunt2? No matter HOW much evidence is put in front of you, if it's from the military it's a lie?



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 08:25 PM
link   
where you get that, from another nice military propaganda book??????
, pretty bussisnes based on "patriots" nationalists



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Abrams tanks are not wannabe atomic bombs

no they arent, but there is the probalility, the point here is that U238 armour was a mistake, because is potencialy radioactive in a nuclear theatre

did you know guys how many books were selled with that 10-1 sabre kill rate?????????


[edit on 6-7-2005 by grunt2]

[edit on 6-7-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Those quotes came from many sources. It must be a sad sad world you live in if you refuse to believe anything you read. But I guess anything that says anything good about the military is automatically Bad in your eyes. What a world you must live in.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 08:44 PM
link   


It must be a sad sad world you live in if you refuse to believe anything you read.


no, im not refuse anything that i read, i read it, analyse, and then i have my opinion



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 08:52 PM
link   
The First Casualty

In flame wars, as in all war, the first casualty is the truth.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 08:52 PM
link   
And god forbid our facts and evidence get in the way of your opinion. Those tales of the M-1 have, in some cases, HUNDREDS of witnesses, at the very least DOZENS of witnesses. But I guess everything they say is just more "patriotic propaganda" in your eyes, because you've made your opinion, and refuse to believe anything else.

And for the record, the earlier quotes were from civilians that analyzed the battles independantly from eyewitness accounts of people that were THERE and SAW or participated in the battles. So unless you have evidence that all of these soldiers and other witnesses were lying, put it up, otherwise there's no point in having a debate with a close minded person like you.







 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join