[2dogs]

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,6119,2-10-1460_1343223,00.html

Iraqi tanks 'suicidal' at airport
04/04/2003 11:57 - (SA)



Baghdad - United States troops fighting for Baghdad international airport fought off a counter-attack by Iraqi tanks on Friday, destroying five of them and a number of armed trucks in a fierce firefight, according to a witness.

Reuters correspondent Luke Baker, with units of the US 3rd Infantry division on the eastern bank of the Euphrates River about 20km southwest of the airport, saw a number of Iraqi vehicles mount what was effectively a suicidal charge on the Americans in an area the US forces had previously considered secure.

"The Bradley fighting vehicles opened up with heavy machine guns and TOW missiles and knocked out four T-72 tanks, a T-62 and a number of other vehicles," said Baker.

"The tanks are smouldering and I can see several bodies lying around."

Associated Press said there was no report of US casualties. American officers said they estimated they had killed about 40 Iraqi fighters in the half-hour battle, which began just after 08:00.

A US army intelligence officer said the troops controlled "probably 80%" of Saddam Hussein International Airport, but warned it would not be secure "until you've gone to every room of every building. There're a lot of buildings."

US troops and vehicles were streaming across a bridge toward the capital, but other Iraqis were firing rocket-propelled grenades and mortars from the cover of buildings and date-palm groves.

More than 1 000 US troops were in and around the airport about 20km southwest of the city, which came in for new bombing raids overnight, leaving buildings in flames.

The US military said elite Iraqi Republican Guard troops inside the airport had been bombed on Thursday night and witnesses said dozens of people had been killed or wounded by heavy artillery fire.

A US officer identified by CNN as the commander of the troops besieging the airport said there were "no casualties" among his troops in the raid.

The officer, Major John Altman, of the 3rd Infantry division's 1st Brigade, was speaking shortly after 07:30 with heavy machine gun fire in the background, indicating fighting was still going on. - News24/AFP

[Ol' Badger]

Maybe this war will be called the Great Iraq Turkey Shot. Or the worlds largest live fire training exerise :D

[Dain Bramage]

When our APC's start taking out their tanks, with no loss to ourselves, it's time for the Fat Lady to warm up her tonsils. Any reasoned pre-war military opinion would have thought otherwise. Considering that any Soviet-supplied main tank gun would make mincemeat of a Bradley, IF IT HIT, it is a great tribute to the skill, guts, and training of our troops. Especially in the light of our post-Vietnam conflicts, where the time for on-the-job training is quite short.

[Bahadur]

When our APC's start taking out their tanks...APC? Please, IFV (or CFV)!

This ain't your father's M113.
Considering that any Soviet-supplied main tank gun would make mincemeat of a Bradley, IF IT HIT, it is a great tribute to the skill, guts, and training of our troops.Well, they can't hit what they can't see.

[Peetmoss]

APC= Armored Personel Carrier

[Gusgus]

Peetmoss,
I think Bahadur knows what an APC is. His point is that Bradleys are NOT APCs. They are IFVs (Infantry Fighting Vehicles) or CFVs (Calvary Fighting Vehicles). CFVs carry additional TOWS and chain gun ammo in leu of troops. Though they're not designed to stand toe to toe with a T-72 and exchange blows, their night targeting sights and TOW launchers, allow them to take out most Iraqi armor, before they even know what hit them.

[ahadams]

yep the Bradley is what the old soviet bmp series was *supposed* to be, but never quite got up to snuff.

[jmbg29]

Iraqi tanks 'suicidal' at airport It's just God working his magic and thinning the herd. :evil:

Adios barbarians!:fire: :fire: :fire: :fire:

[standingbear]

proof of saddams armys desperation.they cant win an they know it.

[Dain Bramage]

Used to be, I knew every version of every AFV out there. There was Willie, Mother, Schneider, and that German one (A7V?). The new-fangled Whippets and Renaults will never work. See what responsibility, family and a mortgage will do to you?

Okay, I considered using "MICV", that '70's term, because I don't know the acronym soup that the Army currently uses. I also didn't know what Bradley version was being used, since the article doesn't mention it.

I may be an old school blasphemer, but they all fall under the larger, better known term "APC". They are all armored, and they carry personnel, even the scout version, hence "APC".

I would definitely take a TOW over an Iraqi tank gun in the open desert, but in a dog-fight, all bets are off. IFV, CFV, and M-113 all fall to the T55's 100mm gun, much less the 115mm and 125mm.

All I was trying to say was: the performance of our troops has been fantastic. Superior training, tactics, and guts are making the difference, even when our superior technology can't be used to it's best advantage.

Also, I'm glad to see that old warhorse, the M113, is still being used. Saw footage of one with an mg turret, towing a trailer, and protecting a supply column. Food Services Machinery still on the roll.

[Dain Bramage]

Oh, and might I add that situations such as these disprove the British theory of no ATGM's on the Warrior.

The Bradley isn't a tank, and it does have its detractors (burn in heck 60 Minutes!), but it's a complete fighting package, and you can take her in harm's way.

[MeekandMild]

Odd, no mention here of dismounted infantry to protect from envelopment. How do they keep the enemy foot from attacking their vehicles? Or are they just ignroing the troops because they have no idea how important they are? I've wondered this for the duration of this short war.

[Bahadur]

I think Bahadur knows what an APC is. His point is that Bradleys are NOT APCs. They are IFVs (Infantry Fighting Vehicles) or CFVs (Calvary Fighting Vehicles).Indeed. I find it curious that someone tried to explain to me what "APC" stands for.
CFVs carry additional TOWS and chain gun ammo in leu of troops. Though they're not designed to stand toe to toe with a T-72 and exchange blows, their night targeting sights and TOW launchers, allow them to take out most Iraqi armor, before they even know what hit them.People always talk about gun bore size and armor thickness (along with cruising speed) as if gun-armor-speed is the be-all, end-all of armored combat (this ain't the early '40s and even then things like communication - radio - and doctrine played much more significant roles).

Our AFVs have superior imaging systems, range-finder, ballistics-solution equipment, not to mention better-trained and coordinated brain (crews), built upon a much more advanced operational doctrine.

100mm (or 125mm) gun or no, in a visibility-degraded environment with all kinds of other "crazy" things going on, a Soviet-era tank is going to be no match even for one of our "light" AFVs (provided the latter is armed with some sort of a serious AT weapon).

In fact, an obsolescent Soviet-era tank is nothing but a big steel target, waiting to be popped for a "mere" infantryman armed with a suitable AT weapon and some sort of an advanced (thermal or otherwise) imaging system under that scenario.
I may be an old school blasphemer, but they all fall under the larger, better known term "APC". They are all armored, and they carry personnel, even the scout version, hence "APC".There is a qualitate difference between an APC and an IFV. Yes, they are both armored and carry personnel. But, in addition, the IFV (at least theoretically) can FIGHT (hence the term infantry FIGHTING vehicle) just about anything on the ground, including an MBT, whereas the traditional APC like the M113 was designed to be a safer "battle taxi."

One is for fighting. The other one is for transport, albeit for a "shooting" environment.

[Bahadur]

yep the Bradley is what the old soviet bmp series was *supposed* to be, but never quite got up to snuff.Very true. But considering that the BMP series became much more widely spread among the Soviet forces before our own upgrade with the Bradleys took place, the threat was pretty serious.

I wouldn't want to go against a BMP with one of the earlier variants of the M113, would you?

Only a handful of super wealthy countries possess true IFVs. For the rest, the Soviet BMP makes quite an improvement over their more vulnerable APCs.

[4v50 Gary]

APC = armor piercing cartridge? ;)
IFV = Inflatable floating vessel?
CFV = Californians for vegetables
TOW = The other Way
ATGM = A thing gone mad
Iraqi Republican Guard = walking fertilizer

[Al Thompson]

Gary, ya gotta start looking at the bread you make your sandwiches out of - the green stuff isn't good for you. :D

Those T72m1s light up pretty fast. Wouldn't surprise me if a flank shot with 25mm AP (asparagus producers for Gary) gets a kill.

Meek and Mild, when you run dismounts in a desert environment, you have more trouble than they're worth. You slow movement down to the speed of a walking man. With the stabilized turret and 25mm/7.62 coax, you have a mobile sniper rifle. IIRC, the turret can do a 360 in 11 seconds. Good march discipline and fire control in an open environment makes dismounts unneeded. When terrain/buildings get tight, time to get the dismounts out and about.

[Marko Kloos]

There are combat accounts from a day or two ago where a combined force of M1A2s and Bradley IFVs took on 20 or so T-72 tanks in prepared positions.

No American losses, all Iraqi tanks destroyed. One of the Bradleys was credited with two T-72 kills, another with three T-72 kills.

Apparently, the new DU penetrator ammo for those 25mm Bushmasters is working pretty good on Soviet-made MBTs.

[Spark]

The bradley turret can move a lot faster than that - it's tertiary role is ADA, and when you push down that slew button, it rotates damn quick.

Damn speling erors.

[ahadams]

I wouldn't want to go against a BMP with one of the earlier variants of the M113, would you?

well you got me there Bahadur! nope cooking with aluminum never appealed to me much less cooking *in* aluminum!

uh, did anybody besides me see the pic on the FNC site this noon of an Abrams seen over the top of a T-72 chassis with the associated turret laying upside down next to said chassis? danged if that T-72 didn't look just like pictures of a WWII Tiger tank in the same condition I remember seeing somewhere. anybody else notice that?

[Al Thompson]

Kevin, you may be right. Last time I BC'd a Brad was 1985. Perhaps it's the M1 that's 11 seconds.

[Blackhawk]

Considering that any Soviet-supplied main tank gun would make mincemeat of a Bradley, IF IT HIT, it is a great tribute to the skill, guts, and training of our troops.It does it the same way you win a gunfight with a .32. Shoot first, and shoot accurately. The Bradley crew's also got the vision advantage. :D

[Bahadur]

Those T72m1s light up pretty fast. Wouldn't surprise me if a flank shot with 25mm AP (asparagus producers for Gary) gets a kill.That'd be a bit much to hope for reliably. Although I will say that the Soviet types seem to really light up well fairly cosistently. They are not "clean" machines.
Meek and Mild, when you run dismounts in a desert environment, you have more trouble than they're worth. You slow movement down to the speed of a walking man. With the stabilized turret and 25mm/7.62 coax, you have a mobile sniper rifle. IIRC, the turret can do a 360 in 11 seconds. Good march discipline and fire control in an open environment makes dismounts unneeded. When terrain/buildings get tight, time to get the dismounts out and about.The key operative phrase there is "desert."

Open desert is one of those few areas where land warfare resembles naval warfare. High mobility ground vehicles with good firepower reign supreme in that kind of environment. Pure foot infantry is not particularly useful compared to other environments.

However, as "glorious" as tank-to-tank battle in the desert can be, it is relatively rare. And it will become rarer still in the future with the continuing urbanization of the Third World (accompanied by the utter obsolesence of Third World conventional military forces).

This is where I have problems with the current Army doctrine. A lot of its tankers are still in love with the big "tank-to-tank" battle idea (and, unfortunately, 73 Easting was a further confirmation of their deeply-held beliefs). While slugging it out strength-to-strength might be fine since we are "stronger," I think it is a fundamentally unsound principle, particularly in today's environment.

While fully capable of making a breach itself, tank should be fundamentally an exploitational weapon - one that can deal effectively with something other than other tanks, rather than being turned into a tank-killing specialist weapon.

In my view, we badly need a lighter AFV that is more flexible (and rapid-deployable) and geared toward fighting something other than tanks (with better short-range 3-D visibility/imaging system). The Bradley is not bad, but I think we can do better.

[Spark]

If the Stryker could shrug off 12.7mm - 25mm rounds and had multiple weapons systems, I'd say it'd be perfect for many tasks. Unfortunately I think it falls a bit short.

[Al Thompson]

Kevin, do you have a link for the Stryker's balllistic protection?

I agree about the desired levels, wonder how the Bradleys are doing. I thought the slab armor was a step in the wrong direction. If it will indeed stop an RPG, I'm wrong, but IIRC it was to stop the BMP IIs 30mm.

[Marko Kloos]

In my view, we badly need a lighter AFV that is more flexible (and rapid-deployable) and geared toward fighting something other than tanks (with better short-range 3-D visibility/imaging system). The Bradley is not bad, but I think we can do better.

The XM-8 Armored Gun System would have fit that bill, but that project got cancelled sometime in the late 1990s. Now that the M-551 Sheridan is retired and relegated to OPFOR duty at NTC, there's nothing to fill the gap between the Bradley and the behemoth M1A2.

[ahadams]

lendringser - you're right, but prior to the current SecDef anyone (at least anyone on the Army side of the equation) who tried to push for something lighter with more punch didn't stand a chance - I know, as I was involved in one of the much earlier rounds of that debate back in the mid-80's. Remember that the M1A2 partially evolved from a background of people who thought the XMBT-70 had a lot of potential! no kidding!

[note for non military types: the XMBT-70 was a tank prototype that was intended to be totally impervious to every tank gun and antitank weapon which existed when it was designed. Indeed they succeeded in developing a vehicle that met that spec. Only problem was it literally sank through asphalt pavement. There were some humorous pictures, later destroyed of the XMBT-70 which had been parked in a blacktop parking are usually used for heavy vehicles and left over night. When they came back the next morning it had sunk it's tracks all the way through the blacktop and compressed the dirt below the blacktop as well - it was *that* heavy. You can imagine what happened they first time they drove it into a field of wet clay - can you say 'instant pillbox'?]

[Leatherneck]

In the kind of fast-paced maneuver warfare envisioned for the future (at least by SecDef Rumsfeld and his "transformation thinkers"), heavying up to defeat an AT hit is out. Fast transport and battlefield agility, coupled with near-total knowledge of the tactical surroundings and on-call combined arms support, are in. An MBT so heavy that a C-5 can only transport a single one is not very useful in most places we're likely to fight the WOT. Numerous agile battle vehicles that don't break down and do fuse information from multiple sources to provide the warfighter with a complete picture of friendly and hostile force disposition are the key to future success.

TC
TFL Survivor

[Marko Kloos]

The main faults of the MBT-70, which was a joint project with Germany, was its mechanical complexity and the corresponding per-unit cost. The tank had hydropneumatic suspension, a remote-controlled 20mm AA cannon in the cupola, and a three-man crew seated in the turret. The driver was seated ina stabilized capsule on the left side of the turret, which would keep him facing forward regardless of the slew direction of the turret. In practical use, drivers complained about disorientation and nausea.

The whole tank was a case of "too much, too soon". Its problem was the introduction of expensive new technologies, and the resulting cost overrun killed it. It actually weighed less than an M1A2, and its weight was no more or less remarkable than that of other Western MBTs at the time.

[Bahadur]

spark:
If the Stryker could shrug off 12.7mm - 25mm rounds and had multiple weapons systems, I'd say it'd be perfect for many tasks. Unfortunately I think it falls a bit short.In that assessment, we agree (hey, something we agree on)!

lendringser:
The XM-8 Armored Gun System would have fit that bill, but that project got cancelled sometime in the late 1990s.I am a huge advocate of a similar system if not the XM-8 itself.
Now that the M-551 Sheridan is retired and relegated to OPFOR duty at NTC, there's nothing to fill the gap between the Bradley and the behemoth M1A2.Who'd have thought that I'd grow old enough to hear someone miss the Sheridan! :)
The whole tank was a case of "too much, too soon". Its problem was the introduction of expensive new technologies, and the resulting cost overrun killed it.That's exactly right. MBT-70 was "too revolutionary" for the time. The motto at the time was "proven (inexpensive) technology" (the only exception being the armor system).

leatherneck:
An MBT so heavy that a C-5 can only transport a single one is not very useful in most places we're likely to fight the WOT. Numerous agile battle vehicles that don't break down and do fuse information from multiple sources to provide the warfighter with a complete picture of friendly and hostile force disposition are the key to future success.Gawd, someone make this man the Army procurement officer!

I agree wholeheartedly. But try convincing the entrenched tankers who become orgasmic at the thought of 73 Easting-type heavy armor battle.

They're a lot like their Air Force counterparts (the fighter-bomber-attack pilots) who cannot see why a huge fleet of advanced CUAVs at the expense of manned a/c is the right thing for the future.

[Marko Kloos]

Who'd have thought that I'd grow old enough to hear someone miss the Sheridan!

Well, it has thin armor and a slow-loading main gun, but it beats a Humvee or a set of BDUs for armor protection and firepower, and it is air-deployable. Now the Airborne has no armor left.

On a side note...ever seen the new German armored weapons carrier used by the Airborne division? It's called the "Wiesel" (Ferret), and it's armed with a 20mm chain gun or TOW launcher. It has the footprint of a VW Golf.

http://www.frontiernet.net/~lendringser/images/wiesel.jpg

[Bahadur]

lendringser:
Well, it has thin armor and a slow-loading main gun, but it beats a Humvee or a set of BDUs for armor protection and firepower, and it is air-deployable. Now the Airborne has no armor left.Well, just about anything beats a Humvee or clothing (!), but that does not mean that it's worth spending money on.

To state that the Sheridan has "thin armor" is an understatement. It's main gun wasn't just "slow-loading" either. Care to tell us about how the gun/missile system worked (or not worked, for that matter)?

And anyone who's been in one when the main gun is fired... well, soon develops an appreciation of the word "recoil."
On a side note...ever seen the new German armored weapons carrier used by the Airborne division? It's called the "Wiesel" (Ferret), and it's armed with a 20mm chain gun or TOW launcher. It has the footprint of a VW Golf.That is certainly an apt name.
http://www.ifrance.com/ArmyReco/europe/Allemagne/vehicules_legers/Wiesel1/Wiesel_Tourelle/Wiesel1_Mi127mm_Germany_02.jpg http://www.ifrance.com/ArmyReco/europe/Allemagne/vehicules_legers/Wiesel1/Wiesel_HOT/Wiesel_HOT_Germany_01.jpg