The IDF unveils : Merkava 4 - Page 4

June 30, 2002, 13:07

Quote:

Originally posted by markusf

Thats a great accomplishment, a M1 beat some WW2 tanks with half the range.

Tank competitions are held to determine the worlds best tanks, so that countries with billions to spend in defence can determine what tanks they want to buy.

The T-72 enter service in 1973, The T-80 in 1985. The Gulf War was in Jan. (Air) and Feb. (Ground) 1991. The U.S. used two tanks for this war. The M-60A1/3 enter service 1962 and the M-1 which enter service 1980. Look like the T-80 is a newer Tank.

Tank competitions is OK, but until the tank is used a shooting war, no one really know how it will do.

Saint Marcus · June 30, 2002, 13:43

Didn't the Challenger fight during the Gulf War too?

Panag · July 1, 2002, 08:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
Didn't the Challenger fight during the Gulf War too?

hi ,

yep

have a nice day

Panag · July 1, 2002, 08:05

Quote:

Originally posted by joseph1944
The T-72 enter service in 1973, The T-80 in 1985. The Gulf War was in Jan. (Air) and Feb. (Ground) 1991. The U.S. used two tanks for this war. The M-60A1/3 enter service 1962 and the M-1 which enter service 1980. Look like the T-80 is a newer Tank.

Tank competitions is OK, but until the tank is used a shooting war, no one really know how it will do.

hi ,

the t80u was fielded in 1985
the t80um2 was first shown in Athens in september 1998
the t80um was first presented in 1997

as for the last lines , ...well that is not entirely true , ...

have a nic day

Saint Marcus · July 1, 2002, 09:46

Quote:

The Abrams has never lost in a tank to tank battle, until they do, they will be the best.

Stupid argument. Goes for more tanks than just the Abrams.

Panag · July 1, 2002, 10:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Saint Marcus

Stupid argument. Goes for more tanks than just the Abrams.

hi ,

, actually some where lost in the gulf war , ...

have a nice day

Saint Marcus · July 1, 2002, 10:53

to friendly fire and mines as I recall, not enemy fire.

Panag · July 1, 2002, 14:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
to friendly fire and mines as I recall, not enemy fire.

hi ,

nope at least two where lost in a battle , one bacause of a t80u and a second thanks to a group of some t72's , ...

the first one was fixed and is on the road again , ....

have a nice day

July 1, 2002, 18:12

Quote:

Originally posted by panag

hi ,

nope at least two where lost in a battle , one bacause of a t80u and a second thanks to a group of some t72's , ...

the first one was fixed and is on the road again , ....

have a nice day

Not according the First Sarg. that I talked to last year at the Travis Air Force Base Airshow with his M-1 at the show. He was in the Gulf War, and said one to friendly fire and two to mechanic problems. One of them could have been a land mine.

Saint Marcus · July 1, 2002, 18:16

I know of incidents with mines and friendly fire, but none to enemy fire. Same goes for the Challengers.

Do you have a link panag?

Panag · July 1, 2002, 18:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
I know of incidents with mines and friendly fire, but none to enemy fire. Same goes for the Challengers.

Do you have a link panag?

hi ,

nope but this stuff should be on the net , somewhere , also read the second post , ...

one could always try a forward information act , ....

have a nice day

markusf · July 1, 2002, 18:41

Quote:

Originally posted by joseph1944
The T-72 enter service in 1973, The T-80 in 1985. The Gulf War was in Jan. (Air) and Feb. (Ground) 1991. The U.S. used two tanks for this war. The M-60A1/3 enter service 1962 and the M-1 which enter service 1980. Look like the T-80 is a newer Tank.

Tank competitions is OK, but until the tank is used a shooting war, no one really know how it will do.

Why don't you read up before posting.
http://www.leyden.com/gulfwar/m1.html

Iraq was just being stupid, why on earth would you use all your tanks as artillery? Your just begging for them to be blown up.

markusf · July 1, 2002, 18:42

In the end, 18 allied tanks were taken out of service due to battle damage, 9 due to friendly fire which were permanent losses. 9 others were mostly from mines and considered repaiarable

Saint Marcus · July 1, 2002, 18:47

so much for the "undefeated" Abrams

Panag · July 1, 2002, 18:48

Quote:

Originally posted by joseph1944
Not according the First Sarg. that I talked to last year at the Travis Air Force Base Airshow with his M-1 at the show. He was in the Gulf War, and said one to friendly fire and two to mechanic problems. One of them could have been a land mine.

hi ,

okay , some checking , translations and so on , at least 4 M1's , 2 out of order for allways , the other two , fixed and back in action , ....

a search on www.fas.org revrealed somethings , but not all , ...

now mines , the mil representative talked about a 12 of those , only 4 where to be filed as a complete loss , ...

Saint & 1944 , it seems that the US has a strange way of filling these type of reports , if a tank is completely fixed , its removed from statistics , ....odd , ...

they lost 2 in Somalia , one left standing there , when the pics are found , you can see it here , ....!

as for the reports , the problem is also with the numbers , meaning USMC and USA , reserves and so on , ...however its intresting to use the numbers of the pentagon , however that site is closed after 9/11 , ...

2 Challengers where lost , total loss , one from an old t66 , the other from friendly fire , ....
there is some stuff about the balkans two , ...
BTW , its very easy to get a challenger , the protection in the front , from top to bottem , tight in the middle , is very low , ....

intresting to see is the loss of an Indian Shir in 1991 , listed as total loss , "overseas" , .....maybe gulfwar , ...

have a nice day

Saint Marcus · July 1, 2002, 18:52

I believe all British Challengers have been upgraded to the Challenger 2. The tank with the tickest armor in the world.

Panag · July 1, 2002, 19:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
I believe all British Challengers have been upgraded to the Challenger 2. The tank with the tickest armor in the world.

hi ,

nope on the first , and nope on the second

the 420 from the typ 1 are a lond way from getting to number 2

the no 2 is just getting finished , total numbers ;

386 , +22 for driving school

, and 9 prototypes

the challenger is easy to get , if you know where its soft points are , .........

30cm both ways of the main gun , very thin on the tower there , ...

then the lower front , again thin , ....

have a nice day

July 1, 2002, 21:32

Quote:

Originally posted by panag

hi ,

okay , some checking , translations and so on , at least 4 M1's , 2 out of order for allways , the other two , fixed and back in action , ....

a search on www.fas.org revrealed somethings , but not all , ...

now mines , the mil representative talked about a 12 of those , only 4 where to be filed as a complete loss , ...

Saint & 1944 , it seems that the US has a strange way of filling these type of reports , if a tank is completely fixed , its removed from statistics , ....odd , ...

they lost 2 in Somalia , one left standing there , when the pics are found , you can see it here , ....!

as for the reports , the problem is also with the numbers , meaning USMC and USA , reserves and so on , ...however its intresting to use the numbers of the pentagon , however that site is closed after 9/11 , ...

2 Challengers where lost , total loss , one from an old t66 , the other from friendly fire , ....
there is some stuff about the balkans two , ...
BTW , its very easy to get a challenger , the protection in the front , from top to bottem , tight in the middle , is very low , ....

intresting to see is the loss of an Indian Shir in 1991 , listed as total loss , "overseas" , .....maybe gulfwar , ...

have a nice day

I will agree with your statement about how we consider loss or back to full duty.
Take the USS Cole. It is now on sea trial to be retured to full duty. So it will not be listed as damage anymore. One day history will only say it received minor damage and was repaired and return to full duty. Of course we of today will know that it came very close to sinking and was it 19 people that loss their lives. The Navy does not like to talk about loss of live. It is suppose to make the ship a bad place to be on.
A young new sailor that came aboard my ship just a few weeks before I took a week of leave to get married, died while cleaning some electorial gear. They told me about it when I came back and that was it, no more talking about him or why he died.

Panag · July 1, 2002, 21:41

Quote:

Originally posted by joseph1944
I will agree with your statement about how we consider loss or back to full duty.
Take the USS Cole. It is now on sea trial to be retured to full duty. So it will not be listed as damage anymore. One day history will only say it received minor damage and was repaired and return to full duty. Of course we of today will know that it came very close to sinking and was it 19 people that loss their lives. The Navy does not like to talk about loss of live. It is suppose to make the ship a bad place to be on.
A young new sailor that came aboard my ship just a few weeks before I took a week of leave to get married, died while cleaning some electorial gear. They told me about it when I came back and that was it, no more talking about him or why he died.

hi ,

yep , did they tell you at least how he died , and how to prevent the accident next time , when you might be there , ....

a group of us saw the same on the Inchon , brrrrr

sad man , at least they explained how it happend , and did not use that gear untill it was fixed

have a nice day

July 1, 2002, 23:57

Quote:

Originally posted by panag

hi ,

yep , did they tell you at least how he died , and how to prevent the accident next time , when you might be there , ....

a group of us saw the same on the Inchon , brrrrr

sad man , at least they explained how it happend , and did not use that gear untill it was fixed

have a nice day

I was told he was using cleaning fluid in no. 2 hole (the bottom of the ship) and when to sleep.

Panag · July 2, 2002, 14:16

Quote:

Originally posted by joseph1944
I was told he was using cleaning fluid in no. 2 hole (the bottom of the ship) and when to sleep.

hi ,

, and he died of that , .....

either stay away from that cleaning fluid or ask again , ....

have a nice day

Carver · July 2, 2002, 15:21

Quote:

Originally posted by markusf
Iraq was just being stupid, why on earth would you use all your tanks as artillery? Your just begging for them to be blown up.

That's how the Taliban used their tanks. Are you telling me the Taliban don't know armored combat?