M1 battle damage

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2

AlbanyRifles RE:M1 battle damage 9/24/2004 8:21:25 AM

Tankerman subtly brings up a great point which I think has been lost on a few posters to these boards. Here we are discussing battle damage to specific tank amongts hundreds of tanks used in a campaign where the Allied force went 700 km in 4 weeks. We are hearing people complaining about a tank which had a battle loss of less than 1 percent!!! What was the battle loss percentage of T-72s? As a great tanker friend of mine would say Hmmmmmm

Quote Reply

mike_golf RE:M1 battle damage 9/27/2004 12:21:19 AM

The article: "Which will make this overweight tank even heavier. Even two additional tons will reduce the cross-country ability of M1A2 to zero." Me: "Uhhhh, come again? The M1A1B-HA and M1A2 weigh nearly the same. We somehow managed to manuever offroad in Iraq just fine. In fact, the vast majority of our manuever was on goat trails and cross country. Hmmmmmm" I forgot to mention that my company regularly manuevered M1-IP, M1A1B-HA and M1A1C-HA off road and cross country at Fort Stewart, GA. The M1A1C weighs 68 short tons combat loaded, only 1 ton less than the M1A2. Fort Stewart is reknowned for its very swampy, difficult to manuever terrain. Hmmmmmmm.

Quote Reply

tankerman RE:M1 battle damage 9/27/2004 12:01:13 PM

I can verify the swampiness. if you have a good driver, you wont get stuck. weight doesnt matter as much

Quote Reply

AlbanyRifles RE:M1 battle damage-Tankerman 9/27/2004 12:54:54 PM

Vivid memory...Fort Stewart 128 just past the 3 bridges towards RT 119...January 1987...my rifle company is huddles up behind some M1s, trying to thaw out after conducting a dismounted attack through the swamp.....I am shivering thinking about it!

Quote Reply

The commander RE:M1 battle damage-Tankerman 9/27/2004 3:00:44 PM

Wait what about ground pressure that what really matters right?

Quote Reply

mike_golf RE:M1 battle damage-Tankerman 9/27/2004 3:33:32 PM

the commander wrote: "Wait what about ground pressure that what really matters right?" Ding, ding, give the man a cookie. In late 1990, Saudi Arabia experienced their wettest winter in 50 years. It rained so much that we experienced flash flooding and mud so bad that in many places Hummers were getting stuck. M1's, Bradley's and M113's, with lower ground pressure than wheeled vehicles, could still move, even in places where Hummers and other four wheel drives couldn't.

Quote Reply

Red6 RE:M1 battle damage 12/30/2004 2:13:37 PM

They?re idiots still bothered by the pain of seeing hundreds of T72s with up turned turrets. The picture they show is of an M1 that was hit by and IED of sorts. His explanation is wrong. He conveniently let out the picture which showed the tank still with the turret on over the right side of the tank. During recovery the turret was pulled off since it no longer worked right and a driver that was trapped. Easy answer, rip off turret. Goes easy and the tank is junk anyway. There are pictures floating on the Internet which still shows the turret on and the M88 which pulled it off. More .ru wishful thinking. Red6

Quote Reply

ret13f RE:M1 battle damage 12/30/2004 7:05:09 PM

Well now, if this is their official analyses should we really tell them anything different? They should use their analyses for future R&D on counter-measures. BTW -Red6? as in artillery?

Quote Reply

1 2