has the US lost or had any M1 Abrams damaged??
My guess is no.Major.League.Infidel wrote:
So are we allowed to make fun of the British because there Super Tanks aren't invincible either?
Commence tank discussion.
It's been very specifically reported as the first time it's happened. No Challenger losses to IEDs ever before this. Only 1 Challenger loss ever before that, as a result of friendly fire.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
maybe the first time its been reported?Bertster7 wrote:
So true.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Nothing is impregnable.
It's impressive that this is the first time it's happened.
why would we make fun of our coalition partners?Major.League.Infidel wrote:
So are we allowed to make fun of the British because there Super Tanks aren't invincible either?
Yep. Everything has it's weaknesses. Tanks are the biggest threat on a Battlefield, so naturally lot's of stuff is dedicated to destroying them.Smitty5613 wrote:
has the US lost or had any M1 Abrams damaged??
Because we are rude and nasty and they certainly don't do it to us.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
why would we make fun of our coalition partners?Major.League.Infidel wrote:
So are we allowed to make fun of the British because there Super Tanks aren't invincible either?
Last edited by Major.League.Infidel (2007-04-24 17:35:33)
hmmm...well, im thinking since the brits stay in the south where all they see is shiia and the shiia are not know for their IED's. thats more of a sunni thing. shiia use a lot of actual anti-armor/anti-personell weapons given the fact that the majority of saddams army were shiia concsripts with easy access to munitions and lots of desert. they dont need to make IED's when they got mines.Bertster7 wrote:
It's been very specifically reported as the first time it's happened. No Challenger losses to IEDs ever before this. Only 1 Challenger loss ever before that, as a result of friendly fire.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
maybe the first time its been reported?Bertster7 wrote:
So true.
It's impressive that this is the first time it's happened.
but then again, i question every headline i read 10 times before i make a judgement. all sources of information are forms of propaganda to me. maybe they dropped this bombshell to "lubricate" (good word huh) the public by throwing in questions over Iranian involvement by saying that this weapon was different than the others.
oh fuck yeah we have. not cool.Smitty5613 wrote:
has the US lost or had any M1 Abrams damaged??
people seriously need to get this though about tanks being invincible in todays modern battlefields. you know how much money a dead tank will make an insurgent, even more if it makes headlines.
where there is a will, there is a way.
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2007-04-24 17:42:41)
I heard a report saying that the MOD had said that they believe that this not a different type of IED, that it was simply a powerful one...
Last edited by coke (2007-04-24 17:55:13)
They said the same about the Titanic.ELITE-UK wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6583607.stm
This is the 1st time Ive ever heard something like this, and tbh I'm gutted, i thought this tank was impregnable but to other tanks.
I worked closely with some of the 9/12th lancers boys on exercises in Pirbright for 2 weeks some of whom had just come back from 6 months on telic and they said that they'd had 2 challengers damaged by crappy IED's and that was 2/3 years ago so I imagine there's been a fair few since. Perhaps we spend all this time planning for hi-tech attacks when all it takes is something as low-tech as an Ice-burg or IED.
i like this quote about it,
"We have always said that a big enough bomb will defeat any armour and any vehicle, and the Americans have lost many tanks in Baghdad."
they have to compare losses to us?
"We have always said that a big enough bomb will defeat any armour and any vehicle, and the Americans have lost many tanks in Baghdad."
they have to compare losses to us?
No it is merely stating the fact that other very similar tanks have been "damaged" in the same way...bf2gammer wrote:
i like this quote about it,
"We have always said that a big enough bomb will defeat any armour and any vehicle, and the Americans have lost many tanks in Baghdad."
they have to compare losses to us?
lol gammer.coke wrote:
No it is merely stating the fact that other very similar tanks have been "damaged" in the same way...bf2gammer wrote:
i like this quote about it,
"We have always said that a big enough bomb will defeat any armour and any vehicle, and the Americans have lost many tanks in Baghdad."
they have to compare losses to us?
No. not the lazors~!
They've been talking them up for awhile, and here I've been expecting something out of Star Trek...so have at it.Major.League.Infidel wrote:
So are we allowed to make fun of the British because there Super Tanks aren't invincible either?
not just lasers.... but "lazers"m3thod wrote:
soon the terrorists we be using lazers.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Rather then quote every post I have read about this incident im just going to mass reply to all of them.
First off: Take this into acount: For every person creating a new type of armor, there are atleast 10 trying to devise a new way to crack that armor.
The UK hasn't been hit by many EFP's as they are or were a primarily Shia weapon. BUT, with the new threats to the prince, the insurgents are starting to spread the wealth of EFPs. NOTHING accept glass and water can stop an EFP currently. Recently my Company lost a Stryker due to 2 dual EFP's, the big thing now is they relized that Strykers can take a hit and keep moving, if the EFP doesn't hit the Vehicle commander chances are the truck will be able to roll on its own power back to the FOB. Any Penetrations though and the truck is done, and has to be turned in. The New thing is twin EFPs, One goes for the power pack, one goes for the VC or SL side. The EFP that took out B34 hit the engoine block from 15 meters away and went through the slat armor, blast plates, ceramic tile, hull, engine block, and into the drivers hole. Main thing here is the fact it was trigger from 15 meters off the road. Now they have ranged EFPs.
I hate to be the doom sayer but expect more UK losses. Expect more C2's to get taken out. The Brits are mainly in the south, so its not hard to figure out where the Prince will be headed IF he still deploys to Iraq.
They (The insurgents) Have openly admitted to downloading pics of the Prince, and spreading them around, They have openly admitted they want to capture him and send his ears home to the Queen. The Baghdad Surge has spread the insurgents out of Baghdad, With the increased patrols along the borders, and open clashes between US, Iraqi forces and Iranian forces, the war is going to get ugly real fast, the insurgents are running to ground and now appearently spreading the wealth of knowledge of EFPs with others.
EFPs are even cheaper to make then IEDs. They just take more time. All Allied forces in Iraq had better pay attention to what they do with water bottles full of piss, cause thats one of the main ingredients to some of the homemade explosives they are making. Seems the days of tossing urine bottles at the bastard rock throwers has finally ended. Better start maintaining piss bottles till you get back to the FOB to dump them out.
First off: Take this into acount: For every person creating a new type of armor, there are atleast 10 trying to devise a new way to crack that armor.
The UK hasn't been hit by many EFP's as they are or were a primarily Shia weapon. BUT, with the new threats to the prince, the insurgents are starting to spread the wealth of EFPs. NOTHING accept glass and water can stop an EFP currently. Recently my Company lost a Stryker due to 2 dual EFP's, the big thing now is they relized that Strykers can take a hit and keep moving, if the EFP doesn't hit the Vehicle commander chances are the truck will be able to roll on its own power back to the FOB. Any Penetrations though and the truck is done, and has to be turned in. The New thing is twin EFPs, One goes for the power pack, one goes for the VC or SL side. The EFP that took out B34 hit the engoine block from 15 meters away and went through the slat armor, blast plates, ceramic tile, hull, engine block, and into the drivers hole. Main thing here is the fact it was trigger from 15 meters off the road. Now they have ranged EFPs.
I hate to be the doom sayer but expect more UK losses. Expect more C2's to get taken out. The Brits are mainly in the south, so its not hard to figure out where the Prince will be headed IF he still deploys to Iraq.
They (The insurgents) Have openly admitted to downloading pics of the Prince, and spreading them around, They have openly admitted they want to capture him and send his ears home to the Queen. The Baghdad Surge has spread the insurgents out of Baghdad, With the increased patrols along the borders, and open clashes between US, Iraqi forces and Iranian forces, the war is going to get ugly real fast, the insurgents are running to ground and now appearently spreading the wealth of knowledge of EFPs with others.
EFPs are even cheaper to make then IEDs. They just take more time. All Allied forces in Iraq had better pay attention to what they do with water bottles full of piss, cause thats one of the main ingredients to some of the homemade explosives they are making. Seems the days of tossing urine bottles at the bastard rock throwers has finally ended. Better start maintaining piss bottles till you get back to the FOB to dump them out.
that leaves bad thoughts in my head. makes sense, the amonium right?CannonFodder11b wrote:
EFPs are even cheaper to make then IEDs. They just take more time. All Allied forces in Iraq had better pay attention to what they do with water bottles full of piss, cause thats one of the main ingredients to some of the homemade explosives they are making. Seems the days of tossing urine bottles at the bastard rock throwers has finally ended. Better start maintaining piss bottles till you get back to the FOB to dump them out.
To be honest, the Challenger 2 was a damage not a loss, and it was blown underneath the tank, the weakest part or one of... i think, and repairable, and i hope the makes of this tank will put more armour underneath and all over.
i think you need to reread cannonfodders whole post man.ELITE-UK wrote:
To be honest, the Challenger 2 was a damage not a loss, and it was blown underneath the tank, the weakest part or one of... i think, and repairable, and i hope the makes of this tank will put more armour underneath and all over.
I got news for you. BEND the frame in any way and the tank is a Loss.ELITE-UK wrote:
To be honest, the Challenger 2 was a damage not a loss, and it was blown underneath the tank, the weakest part or one of... i think, and repairable, and i hope the makes of this tank will put more armour underneath and all over.
You would be correct sir! +1GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
that leaves bad thoughts in my head. makes sense, the amonium right?CannonFodder11b wrote:
EFPs are even cheaper to make then IEDs. They just take more time. All Allied forces in Iraq had better pay attention to what they do with water bottles full of piss, cause thats one of the main ingredients to some of the homemade explosives they are making. Seems the days of tossing urine bottles at the bastard rock throwers has finally ended. Better start maintaining piss bottles till you get back to the FOB to dump them out.
I've actually made a thread virtually identical to this one in the Junk Drawer, but I'll contribute to this one.
I believe that a tank, no matter what, is considered defeated and a loss if one or more of the crew is heavily injured or killed, in this case the driver ended up losing his leg. I know it sounds strange, because the tank could be repaired, but if the crew are critically injured then that particulary vehicle has lost its ability to protect the occupants. I won't blame anyone if they get confused with what I'm trying to say.
I believe that a tank, no matter what, is considered defeated and a loss if one or more of the crew is heavily injured or killed, in this case the driver ended up losing his leg. I know it sounds strange, because the tank could be repaired, but if the crew are critically injured then that particulary vehicle has lost its ability to protect the occupants. I won't blame anyone if they get confused with what I'm trying to say.
To be Honest the weakest part of a tanks armor is the top. The bottom is usually fairly thick, to deal with small AT mines. The heaviest armor is on the front slope, then flanks, then bottom then top then exhaust ports.ELITE-UK wrote:
To be honest, the Challenger 2 was a damage not a loss, and it was blown underneath the tank, the weakest part or one of... i think, and repairable, and i hope the makes of this tank will put more armour underneath and all over.
But also to add to what I said earlier: Bend or Breach the Hull and the tank is a loss. It will get scrapped and eventually recycled. If that hull was breached, or frame bent, and that tank is still used for anything other then training, that crew is at risk. Patches are temporary fixes for battlefield situations. Used until and ORF can get rushed to the front to replace the damaged tank. These new Tanks aren't solid steel, its a blend of Different things, that dont take to kindly to be welded.
According to reports it was equivelent to a 2000lb shaped charge because it was in a drain on the roadside ..compacted so only one way the force could go..