
Face it - disabled, destroyed - all the same. The US has lost 2 M1s and possibly a crewmember to enemy fire.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Most ATGMs are fired at closer range, even if they can reach kiolmenters out. It's must be pretty hard to steer a missile on a target at 5km.
Vindicating my point, it is intresting to note that the term they used here was "disabled" for the knocked out american AFVs. The journal you all see to be treating as gospel gives very graphic visualizations that are apparerntly more fiction then fact.
Big difference, if you bothered to study proper military terms of equipment status "disabled" and "destroyed" imply two very different things. No where was it stated if it was a recoverable or non recoverable loss. I suspect it's highly likely it's a recoverable, the iraqis will have to put an artty round, explode 250kg of explosive below it or drop a 2,000 lb pounder on an M1 to destroy it, the rest of their firepower is just kinda puny. An ATGM to the rear wun really harm the recoverability status of the Abrams much.Originally posted by bcoy:Face it - disabled, destroyed - all the same. The US has lost 2 M1s and possibly a crewmember to enemy fire.
Have you fired a live ATGM missle before?
Oh really? maybe I should invite an American M1 crewman here to tell you otherwise. There are weakpoints in the M1, which could destroy it totally. Hitting the rear end with an ATGM would just do it. Recover and repair can mean different things as well. All M1s' are recovered. Repairing it is a different story. If they could, they would. If its destroyed, the tank is still recovered to prevent the makeup of the armour laminate from being discovered.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Big difference, if you bothered to study proper military terms of equipment status "disabled" and "destroyed" imply two very different things. No where was it stated if it was a recoverable or non recoverable loss. I suspect it's highly likely it's a recoverable, the iraqis will have to put an artty round, explode 250kg of explosive below it or drop a 2,000 lb pounder on an M1 to destroy it, the rest of their firepower is just kinda puny. An ATGM to the rear wun really harm the recoverability status of the Abrams much.
Spike or Milan?Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:yah
pretty cool
Most likely destroyed by the simple RPG !! ... Dun believe izzit ? Read this.Originally posted by warspite:If it was hit in the back as claimed, thats understandable. All MBTs have the weakest armor protection at the rear and top of the vehicle.
*clap clap clap*Originally posted by observe:whether its a recoverable or non recoverable lost, its not important now to the US military planners....the fact now is that they are facing M1A1 loses and they have not even started the real ground fighting with the Medina division.
BTW, you seem to be in self-denial....maybe its time to remove your nose from the crack of Bush's butt and breath some fresh air. Inhaling too much of his BS, is bad for your health.
self-denial....Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Cashing in on the infantileness... now THAT's a sign of intelligent life.
*yawn*Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Typically iraqi information minister style, which is yours.
Thinking personal attacks somehow add the the validity of your points.