I have seen that official lessons learned 'report' a long time ago..
(the one that is published for the public..)

I just wonder:

Do you actually belive what they are claiming in it?

If you do, you are a fool.
(If i remember correctly they say in it that none were destroyed by enemy.. etc.. and that simply isnt true.)

Its .ptt file..

With what i am supposed to open/view this?

Could you please tell?

As i dont have energy to google it..

I am not a fool.

As an American I have the luxury/misfortune of having friends and relatives who are in Iraq as I type this who can provide me with firsthand accounts of what is happening. And I have been repeated told that no US MBTs have been lost to either enemy armour or ATGMs. Some MBTs have been lost due to secondary fires and very large land mines, if you take the time to view the presentation you will understand.

Also as an American, I have the luxury of having access to the finest software available. The file in question is a .ppt, or Microsoft PowerPoint file, which is part of the Microsoft Office software suite. Sorry if we dont export it to Russia..........

You are a fool.

1) I dont live in Russia.
2) Mines are 'Enemy' activity. (If some M1A1 has been blown up by 50kg landmine then that is infact lost to the enemy.
(Even Merkava mk3 was 'totalled' by palestinians with this kind of device.. and Merkava series has about the best protection available.. mush better than in M1A1 anyways.. and Chechens use 155mm shells converted to radio controlled mines to fight T-72 ->)
3) M1A1s were disabled by enemy fire, and left behind.. then destroyed totally by USAF or by other tanks.
Same effect, you lose tank, to the enemy activity.

And back to the file..

Can it be converted to some other format? As i dont have OFFICE.. as it really its good for anything..

Or di you have a another link to same file.. lefts say in .PDF format?

I really would be interested to look at this..

Show me verified proof that an M1A1 was destroyed (rendered non-recoverable and non-repairable) by either an ATGM or hostile MBT and I will aquiesce.

If you put a big enough charge under anything, it will blow up. Give me 10K pounds of TNT and I can sink a battleship; that proves nothing. The statement I made was that no M1A1's were destroyed by MBT's or ATGM's, which the M1A1 was designed to survive and defeat.

Combat losses due to all sorts of unforseen circumstances are an eventuality in any major conflict. The sight of a few M1A1's laying on the side of the road doesn't necessarily concern me. Because we live in a free country with little or no censorship, as well as a very liberal media infrastructure, the information we get about our combat losses tends to not be heavily glossed over. During the 1st Guld War, there was never any deception or lying about the number of aircraft that were shot down (unless the life of the ejected pilot was at stake). In fact, many times these combat losses were reported directly to the press within 24 hours. During this war, the Army and Marines had many embedded reporters and correspondants in their units, and they would certainly have reported (by now) any major problems with US military equipment (remember all the flap about jamming M-16's?).

But most importantly, our troup have this funny habit of writing, e-mailing and calling back home to their friends and families to describe the ordeal they are going through. This is one of the US publics most reliable sources of information about the reality of the current conflict, as it comes from pure, unadulterated sources. If out tanks were getting knocked off, we would have heard about it by now, and the media would be all over it. The Army really has very little to hide, as these tank designs are almost 30 years old now and the only sensitive parts of the vehicle are the laser designators, the IR and laser countermeasures, and the SAP armour system.

Still, there is not another tank in the world that I myself would prefer to ride into battle. The M1A1 has a few advantages over even the most advanced foreign designs:

1: Combat tested. Unparalleled battle record compared to any other MBT since WWII.

2: Combat modifications. Our lessons learned doctrine allows us to improve detected flaws and weaknesses in the design.

3. Battle-tested and battle-proven Officer, NCO and enlisted Armoured Corps. Nothing can equal experience in actual hostile situations.

The new Russian and Chinese tanks may look pretty on paper, but until I see a platoon of T-90's wading through the burned-out hults of Abrams, LeClercs, Cheiftans, or Leopard II's, I will still be an an unbeliever.....

Originally posted by Pyros
Show me verified proof that an M1A1 was destroyed (rendered non-recoverable and non-repairable) by either an ATGM or hostile MBT and I will aquiesce.

Nice one..

Have i claimed that Iraqi tanks or ATGMs destroyed any of those?

I think not..

I do realize that Iraqi tankers, while having some equipment that could take on M1A1s were totally out gunned by air and land forces of 'coalition' and also that their training and tactics really were horrible.

They were not up for the task taking out 'coalition' armor.

And what comes to the Iraqi ATGMs..

Well they even used in their HIND gunships these 'Swatter' variants only..
(Usually these would have AT-6s.. Iraqis didnt have..)

They had 'Swatters' only.. they had (way back..) Milans and HOT missiles also..

But i think that by 2003 none were available..

And even these would have been almost of no use..
(old type of warheads that would have not been that effective against any modern armor..)



My point was just that US MBTs were destroyed and disabled by enemy using mines, rpg, recoiless rifles and maybe even MBT/AT guns and missiles..

But none were destroyed by AT-guns (kinetic energy projectiles) or by ATGMs.

On one of my many travells within MOD UK, I was sent to ABRO at Warminster, just after the first Gulf war.

Round the side of the radio repair building, alongside the railway line which is on the left as you follow the one way circuit to drive out, I saw a Chally 1 very much the worse for wear.

The hull, sides and rear, were scored with hundreds of gouges. The turret had three gouges whilst the glacis plate had one massive gouge. One of the near side road wheels was smashed to pieces as well.

I promptly stopped the Land Rover I was driving, stepped out and went to talk to a mate of mine who was working in the turret.

Apparently this vehicle had sustained repeated hits by both main gun and coaxial machinegun fire from Iraqi tanks. Not a single shot had penetrated the Chobbam armour. I counted fourty main strikes from either 12.7, 13.5 or something a bit larger, but it was the strike on the glacis plate that surprised me.

It had been made by the main armament from an Iraqi tank - probably an APFSDS 120mm round fired by a T74/76 - and had not penetrated the Chobbam armour. What it had done, was to gouge a groove out of the armour about the length of your arm. The normal steel underneath the armour had not been affected.

I asked my mate if I could look inside but he told me to go away and multiply, so I never got to see whether or not there was internal damage.

But your Abrams crap couldn't take that sort on punishment and still be in working order!

The report is correct, there were no "catastrophic losses" to enemy weapons in the invasion of Iraq. There were Abrams hit in the engine deck, which caused secondary fires. Most of these were put out and repaired.

After that report was written however. There have been something like 2-3 Abrams penetrated in turret ring by RPGs. There has been only 1 fatality attributed to this. All the instances that Fulcrum is referring too happened after this was written.

[edit on 27-2-2005 by Kozzy]

Kozzy, I have a simple question to ask.

How can you justify in your ratings, that the Merkava (Chariot or Lion Cub) and the Leo 2 are better than the Chally 2, when NEITHER HAS SEEN COMBAT AGAINST OTHER TANKS?

The Merkava is an overly large armoured personnel carrier, armed with a 105 mm or 120mm turret mounted gun. It has never been used in tank v tank combat mainly because terrorists do not have them and the Syrians in Lebanon aint got the guts to fight them head on.

The Leo 2 is a great tank with the ability to run at speeds in excess of 40 mph cross country BUT you can't stabilise the main armament even with dampers and gyros at that speed and still expect to hit the target!

No my friend. One on one between Abrams and Chally 2? Chally would win hands down because our crews are trained to a higher standard!

Originally posted by fritz
Kozzy, I have a simple question to ask.

How can you justify in your ratings, that the Merkava (Chariot or Lion Cub) and the Leo 2 are better than the Chally 2, when NEITHER HAS SEEN COMBAT AGAINST OTHER TANKS?

The Merkava is an overly large armoured personnel carrier, armed with a 105 mm or 120mm turret mounted gun. It has never been used in tank v tank combat mainly because terrorists do not have them and the Syrians in Lebanon aint got the guts to fight them head on.

The Leo 2 is a great tank with the ability to run at speeds in excess of 40 mph cross country BUT you can't stabilise the main armament even with dampers and gyros at that speed and still expect to hit the target!

No my friend. One on one between Abrams and Chally 2? Chally would win hands down because our crews are trained to a higher standard!

Wrong. The Merkava Mk 1 destroyed T-55s, 62s, and 72s in Lebanon in 82. You don't know much about the Merkava at all either. Read the book on it. It is not designed to carry infantry organically, and it doesn't. The infantry carrying ability was just a bonus to a front placed engine and a rear exit.

The Leopard is better then the Challenger because of mobility mainly. The 1200hp Perkins is a bad engine compared the one in the Leo. What are you talking about with the Leo's stabilization? It is fully capable of hitting targets on the move at 40mph.

That's retarded. "one on one"(also retarded) between challenger 2 and Abrams its whoever fires first. I rate the Abrams higher because it's mobility is better, it has a x50 FLIR, and the M289A3 sabot. And don't bull# me about the Brits having a higher standard of crew training, prove it.

The first 5 tanks on my list have nother much in advantage against each other. Basically, it is whoever fires first.

Kozzy, me thinks you is missing the point about the thread and the problems I have with it.

Sure, the Merkava has destroyed T-55s, T-64s & T-72s. Even an RPG will do that!

No my friend. What I refer to is modern armour v armour tank fighting. Armour has moved on since the occupation of Lebanon by the Israelis in 1982. That was over 20 years ago and that is why I totally ignored that fact.

The Israelis have not engaged a single modern armoured battle in over 25 years. I beleive the last time they did, they still wupped arab botty's with Cents and M60s. That was why the excellant IMI designed the Merkava in the first place and yes it was designed to carry stretchers or infantry from the outset.

Has the Leopard actually fired a shot in anger? I think not. Firing on the move at Hohne or Sennelager aint the same as banging off rounds in combat, even under simulated battlefield conditions.

Just 'cause something is fast, that don't make it accurate. All that makes it is harder to hit.

When was the last time the Germans designed a damned good tank, eh?

What have the Germans ever done for armoured warfare?

Apart from the Panther.

Or the Tiger 1.

Or the Tiger 2.

Almostr forgot about the Mk IV with its powered turret and almost stabilised 75cm gun.

But apart from them, what have the Germans ever done for armoured warefare?
Only we and the yanks have had that pleasure

Originally posted by Pyros
I am not a fool.

As an American I have the luxury/misfortune of having friends and relatives who are in Iraq as I type this who can provide me with firsthand accounts of what is happening. And I have been repeated told that no US MBTs have been lost to either enemy armour or ATGMs. Some MBTs have been lost due to secondary fires and very large land mines, if you take the time to view the presentation you will understand.

Also as an American, I have the luxury of having access to the finest software available. The file in question is a .ppt, or Microsoft PowerPoint file, which is part of the Microsoft Office software suite. Sorry if we dont export it to Russia..........

are you serious?! Oh great American, how privileged you are to live in such a great nation where you can get microsoft office and listen to your relative's go on about how America is the greatest and no-one can put a dint in the M1A1! don't you realise armed forces members are usually biased, along with the citizenry that snaps up this junk?

Originally posted by fritz
Kozzy, me thinks you is missing the point about the thread and the problems I have with it.

Sure, the Merkava has destroyed T-55s, T-64s & T-72s. Even an RPG will do that!

No my friend. What I refer to is modern armour v armour tank fighting. Armour has moved on since the occupation of Lebanon by the Israelis in 1982. That was over 20 years ago and that is why I totally ignored that fact.

The Israelis have not engaged a single modern armoured battle in over 25 years. I beleive the last time they did, they still wupped arab botty's with Cents and M60s. That was why the excellant IMI designed the Merkava in the first place and yes it was designed to carry stretchers or infantry from the outset.

Has the Leopard actually fired a shot in anger? I think not. Firing on the move at Hohne or Sennelager aint the same as banging off rounds in combat, even under simulated battlefield conditions.

Just 'cause something is fast, that don't make it accurate. All that makes it is harder to hit.

When was the last time the Germans designed a damned good tank, eh?

What have the Germans ever done for armoured warfare?

Apart from the Panther.

Or the Tiger 1.

Or the Tiger 2.

Almostr forgot about the Mk IV with its powered turret and almost stabilised 75cm gun.

But apart from them, what have the Germans ever done for armoured warefare?
Only we and the yanks have had that pleasure

Are you #ing serious? The Germans revolutionized armored warfare in WWII. Before that tanks were just infantry support weapons. The Germans totally reversed that concept and made tanks the central core of an attacking force, not just supporting the infantry. Their original ideas(Blitzkreig and such) are the building blocks for all armored warfare thinking since. The Germans have always made good tanks, their tanks in WWII had a kill ratio of something like 5 to 1. The Leopard 1 was a great tank, with excellent mobility and firepower. The Leopard 2 is even better, the last time they made a good tank was in 98 when the Leopard 2A6 came out.

Define a "modern" tank battle. Israeli has been engaged in 4 major wars since it's inception. The lessons learned during those wars are still applicable today. The Merkava has done everything a Challenger or Leopard has. It has killed other tanks, survived ATGMs and RPGs, and operated for months under combat conditions.

I know combat is the ultimate test of any weapon, but I have no doubt if Challengers or Abrams were replaced by Leopards in the Gulf war, they would have done the job just as well.

Originally posted by Kozzy
What have the Germans ever done for armoured warfare?

Apart from the Panther.

Or the Tiger 1.

Or the Tiger 2.

Almostr forgot about the Mk IV with its powered turret and almost stabilised 75cm gun.

But apart from them, what have the Germans ever done for armoured warefare?
Only we and the yanks have had that pleasure

Gulf War I and II were classic Guderian blitzkrieg. You don't give Germans the credit where they are due. Never underestimate the Germans or their tanks, British and US tanks were tin cans compared to theirs in WWII.

thanks,
drfunk

Originally posted by fritz
When was the last time the Germans designed a damned good tank, eh?

The Leopard series is an excellent production tank and its latest iterations are excellent even today. Rheinmetall corp designs some of the if not the best modern tank guns in the world that are used on the M1 series tank. Germany pioneered the use of Diesel powered tanks as well.

The MBT 70 project was a cooperation between the US and Germany and was the predecessor to the M1 abrams, though it never reached production.

thanks,
drfunk