Originally posted by WestPoint23
Originally posted by The Vagabond Antal's books reveal his belief that artillery, MLRS strikes, mines, possible -minor- advances in
ammunition, well placed shots by current ammunition, wire guided missiles, or volley firing or even just repeated hits by inferior tanks or
man-portable AT missiles all pose a threat to the M1.
Well duh most of those things are a threat to a tank but a thereat doesn't mean it will be destroyed. Repeated hits by inferior tanks... of course
even if the tank is from WWII if it hits you 50 times its going to destroy a tank. And The objective of war is not to let those things happen.
Yeah, that's what the Col. meant- that it would take 50 hits but it could maybe happen. Are you insane? We're talking 1 extremely well placed shot
at close range. 2 or 3 at the very most. Easily possible if the enemy jumps you at close range and gets the first volley in. At the end of this post
you will find a scenario detailing what I mean exactly, so that we can understand eachother.
Originally posted by The Vagabond While the M1 is a strong tank, it has only been demonstrated on a large scale during the gulf war. The
gulf war was characterized by American forces attacking an under-trained enemy force which lacked initiative and was armed with inferior hardware, on
terrain favorable to the American forces.
That is the objective of the war to have as much of an advantage as you can who the hell wants a fair war. You have to deny your enemy as much as you
can while increasing your chances to win quick, and without much loss of life.
Retard! We didn't choose Iraq's terrain. It was not a case of taking all the advantage we can. It was a case of being extremely lucky that the enemy
had chosen a crappy place to live and an even crappier way to fight over it. What if Iraq had a REAL army, and attacked during Desert Shield before
our forces were in place? What if it had been Iran instead of Iraq (with plenty of mountains)? I'm trying to beat some basic safety rules into
your head. You know how there's no such thing as an unloaded gun? Well there's no such thing as an unloaded army!
Originally posted by The Vagabond
Nobody knows what would happen...
if: The same enemy siezed the initiative and forced Americans to fight at unfavorable times and locations, perhaps with the enemy having the
fire-support advantage as the result of taking the initiative.
if: The enemy conducted ambushes on favorable terrain, forcing the M1 to fight point-blank against combined arms forces.
if: The M1 was forced to fight under contested airspace, or was surprised by the presence of enemy aircraft, where attack helicopters were able to
play a role in the enemy plan.
Umm sorry to break this to you but who is going to have those advantages? In 91 Iraq had the 4th largest army and over 4.000+ tanks. Yet how long was
the war a few days if i remember right. In any future war the US would ensure that it had all of the point you listed above.
[edit on 8-8-2004 by WestPoint23]
Umm sorry to break this to you but Korea would have those advantages.
-A war in Korea would likely start at a time of North Korea's choosing, and result in an initial success for their forces.
-Korea is a mountainous area with no wide open flanks areas and several rivers which almost completely bisect the nation.
-Korea knows that it runs the risk of war with America and has by all odds taken measures to improve air defenses, in addition to the obvious
ramifications of Chinese intervention, even if only in the air.
-Korea has a disciplined, motivated, well trained army. They are acknowledged as one of the highest-quality forces in the world. Because their terrain
is best suited to heavy infantry and artillery instead of armor and airpower, their technological inferiority is less of a disadvantage.
Korea is likely to be America's Thermopylae, if America behaves as you would Westpoint. At Thermopylae, a few hundred Spartans held off up to a
quarter of a million Persians for 3 days, until they were sold out by a traitor. The Persians were great fighters in the open ground, but in a
mountain pass where the Persian grunts had to square off with the superior Spartans, who had trained their whole lives for that moment, they were
humiliated until they were forced to back off and slowly whittle the Spartans down from a distance with archers. If it hadn't been 250,000 versus
less than 1,000, the Persians may never have won.
NOW, for an example of what I would do to humiliate you in battle Westpoint23.
You've got an American tank company. 9 M1A1 with 3 LAV-25s in the lead. I'm commanding a reinforced Iranian mechanized company- 6 second-hand M113s
with TOWS (aka M-901A1 Tow Carrier) 6 T-64s, and approximately 50 infantry dismounted and dug in.
My mission is to defend a narrow pass in the Zagros Mtns, enroute to Tehran. I choose to make my stand on the outlet-side, so that you have to engage
me up close. The mouth of the pass is 1km wide. the middle .5km is covered by a ditch, not deep or wide enough to be an obstacle to your tanks.
Finally the night arrives, and you enter the engagement area. Your LAVs run for my flanks right away, hoping to get in where the 25mm can penetrate
inferior armor. The ditch ignites as soon as they enter the engagement area. Neither side can see through the smoke and flames. The LAVs encounter my
infantry and dismount their troops. Now you discover that only your side is blinded by the flames- my troops are using a grid system and spotters to
fire through and your LAVs are destroyed. Your tanks enter just behind the LAVs and see what has happened- you have a choice, run the flanks of the
ditch, up close and personal with my infantry and their AT-4s, or through the ditch, where the flames hide something your thermal viewing would
possibly have revealed- anti-tank mines on the reverse side.
As if to remind you that your decision must be rapid, your XO's tank explodes as my strenuously practiced spotters successfully direct two tanks
simultaneously onto his.
You can't afford to show us your flanks, so you rush the ditch. The M113s recieve the word from the spotters and move forward of the ditch on the
flanks, firing 6 tows into your company, scoring 3 hits for 2 mobility kills. The third tank is taken entirely out of action as the ammo doors blow
out as designed, saving the crew- barely. Two of your tanks successfully take aim and destroy their attackers before the wireguided missiles arrive.
My M113s run, but not before 2 more are destroyed. Your remaining 5 remaining tanks cross the ditch, engaging my outdated Russian hardware at 300
yards. There are 5 T-64s and 2 M113s facing you- apparently you got lucky through the flames just as much as I did.
The first tank strikes a mine, suffering a catastrophic kill. You realize what has happened and order your 4 to freeze. You'll slug it out with your
inferiors now- there are few options. One of my tanks just happens to find himself on target and gets off the first shot, destroying one of your
tanks. My others are not so lucky though, and your 3 remaining tanks fire 3 shots for 3 kills. As you target my remaining targets, they fire their
first shots. You get lucky and only one of them gets penetration. Before the last remaining American unit- your tank, can fire, a TOW strikes it
broadside from close range killing you.
You have lost an even fight with the Revolutionary Guard because your force and your tactics were insufficient. If only you'd respected the enemy. If
only you'd insisted on infantry support to take the highground, or if America hadn't let me rehearse for that battle for a month while the stupid
air-war dragged on.
It's only a drop in the bucket of course. America will probably win. But you are dead, and you've taken over 50 innocent men with you. You live on
only as a cautionary tale which every West Point officer after you is certain to read.
The final casualty of our battle is technology- the Mobility-killed M1s will soon be captured by my remaining forces. They will probably go to North
Korea where the technology can be duplicated and the design can be studied for weaknesses.