Krom Ganesh
Holdfast Syndicate Amarr Empire
870
|
Posted - 2013.12.12 18:46:00 -
[2] - Quote
Himiko Kuronaga wrote:So now we're linking wikipedia to make an argument? You're lucky I'm not your professor. You would have been ejected from almost any class at a respectable college for that. But since we're playing the wikipedia game... Quote:The M60A1 tanks of the U.S. Marines saw action during Operation Desert Storm in 1991, opposing Iraqi armor which included the T-54/T-59, T-55, T-62, Type 69, and T-72. The M60A1s were fitted with add-on explosive reactive armor (ERA) packages and supported the drive into Kuwait City where they were involved in a two day tank battle at the Kuwait airport with the loss of only one vehicle and no crew. They saw service with the United States Marine Corps, and the Saudi Arabian Army. Quote:When the Abrams entered service in the 1980s, they operated alongside M60A3 within the United States military, and with other NATO tanks in numerous Cold War exercises. These exercises usually took place in Western Europe, especially West Germany, but also in some other countries like South Korea. During such training exercises, Abrams' crews honed their skills for use against Soviet soldiers, equipment and vehicles. However, by 1991 the USSR had collapsed and the Abrams had not been in any combat.
The Abrams remained untested in combat until the Gulf War in 1991. A total of 1,848 M1A1s were deployed to Saudi Arabia. The M1A1 was superior to Iraq's Soviet-era T-55 and T-62 tanks, as well as Iraqi assembled Russian T-72s, and locally produced copies (Asad Babil tank). The T-72s like most Soviet export designs lacked night vision systems and then-modern rangefinders, though they did have some night fighting tanks with older active infrared systems or floodlightsGÇöjust not the latest starlight scopes and passive infrared scopes as on the Abrams. Only 23 M1A1s were taken out of service in the Gulf[52] and one of these losses resulted in crew deaths from Iraqi fire. Some others took minor combat damage, with little effect on their operational readiness. Very few Abrams tanks were hit by enemy fire, and there was only one fatality, along with a handful of wounded as a result. Yea, so much for the effectiveness of the mighty RPG. Strange that so few tanks took any real damage, considering how favored the RPG is...
Hmmm.... Strange. I'm reading these quotes of yours yet I do not see the line "Modern battle tanks are invulnerable to all AV weaponry." Huh.
Oh hey, look at this from the articles I linked.
Quote:The US Army ranks the RPG-29 threat to armor so high that they refused to allow the newly formed Iraqi army to buy it, fearing it would fall into insurgent hands. (Source Link... because that's what you actually use for research)
As for the Javelin, clearly it must have some use as, well... the US military uses it.
!
|
Krom Ganesh
Holdfast Syndicate Amarr Empire
894
|
Posted - 2013.12.13 13:46:00 -
[3] - Quote
dogmanpig wrote:Krom Ganesh wrote:Himiko Kuronaga wrote:Use AV weaponry on actual tanks in real life and you will come to understand how entirely worthless they actually are. Umm....Edit: And of course there is this. first from " only lightly damaging the tank which drove home under its own power " and second from " Javelin launchers and missiles are rather expensive target heat contrasts poorly with the terrain, the missile can miss " so you were saying?
I see you failed to notice "In September 5, 2007 an RPG-29V hit the side turret of an M1 tank in Baghdad, caused 1 KIA and 2 WIA, the tank was seriously damaged" and that was with a single RPG-29V. These are shaped charges. The amount of damage done to the vehicle is dependent on where the vehicle is hit. If it doesn't hit head on toward a critical part of the tank, it will of course not damage the tank too seriously.
As for the Javelin, how do either of those two statements refute its ability to destroy tanks?
!
|