Russian missles take out 2 American Battle Tanks

Omega-13 · Post by **Omega-13** » 2003-03-26 04:58am

Well, the Iraqi's are starting to use them, the russian Kornet missle system was used for the first time yesterday on the 7th cavalry, destroying 2 M1A1's

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/03 ... index.html

interesting article however...I think this was the beginning of many american MBT's being destroyed.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-03-26 05:09am

Omega-13 wrote:Well, the Iraqi's are starting to use them, the russian Kornet missle system was used for the first time yesterday on the 7th cavalry, destroying 2 M1A1's

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/03 ... index.html

interesting article however...I think this was the beginning of many american MBT's being destroyed.

This article denies that that ATGM has been supplied to Iraq

"We do agree that the Kornet missile is able to successfully oppose any tanks or motorized infantry divisions," the company added, "but if they were in Iraq in any quantity, then the U.S. infantry would be taking greater losses than they are now."

Allthough one wonders what will happen if Bush does get taken by the Idea that Russian arms are being used by Iraq

Omega-13 · Post by **Omega-13** » 2003-03-26 05:11am

Thats why I thought it was such an interesting article, the a LT. in the 7th cavalry reported that it was wire guided missle fired from over 4 km, do the Iraqi's have anything like this? The LT. said it was a 'toe like system'

Is there any doubt its starting to be used?
The russians are lying, they want to see if their new toys work

Post by **Edi** » 2003-03-26 05:12am

Before we have another round of denouncing Russia, what everyone seems to be ignoring is that it is possible for Iraq to get weapons like the Kornet through intermediaries instead of direct from the Russians, in which case the Russians would be telling the truth and all the saber rattling about it by the US in their direction has been useless.

Edi

*reads own post*

Fuck, me defending Russia, time to go dig up the old ice skates and join Chrostas in taking a spin over the ice cover of the lake of fire...

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-03-26 05:16am

Edi wrote:Before we have another round of denouncing Russia, what everyone seems to be ignoring is that it is possible for Iraq to get weapons like the Kornet through intermediaries instead of direct from the Russians, in which case the Russians would be telling the truth and all the saber rattling about it by the US in their direction has been useless.

Edi

*reads own post*

Fuck, me defending Russia, time to go dig up the old ice skates and join Chrostas in taking a spin over the ice cover of the lake of fire...

*hands you some samogon and a fur cap with a red star on it* Drink and dance with your comrades, Edi!

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-26 05:28am

This belongs in breaking news.

As for Kornet- BULLSHIT. Kornet is laser-guided. The missiles were wire-guided. Try again, dumbass mainstream media.

The Iraqis have Fagot (AT-4 SPIGOT), and the French/German HOT. Fuck the media know nothing ...

This is a Kornet: http://www.army-technology.com/projects ... rnet3.html

One thing they're right about is that if the Iraqis did have Kornet-E missiles (export versions of systems have an -E suffix), then you'd see a lot more dead American/UK armor. It has a range of 5,500m, a thermal imaging sight, and 1,200mm RHA equivalent penetration. Enough to reduce an Abrams to a burning hulk.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-26 05:32am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
*hands you some samogon and a fur cap with a red star on it* Drink and dance with your comrades, Edi!

Anyone remember that Simpsons episode (with the hilarious return of the Soviet Union skit) with that picture of Homer in the full cossack garb?

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-03-26 06:49am

"But...the Soviet Union? I thought you guys broke up years ago!"

"Zhat's vat ve vanted you to vhink!"

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2003-03-26 06:51am

In USSR he was always called "our friend Saddam".

Darksider · Post by **Darksider** » 2003-03-26 07:14am

HemlockGrey wrote:"But...the Soviet Union? I thought you guys broke up years ago!"

"Zhat's vat ve vanted you to vhink!"

"must....crush.....capitalisim"

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2003-03-26 07:21am

"Smert zhazhravshimsya burjuyam"

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-03-26 08:13am

Edi wrote:Before we have another round of denouncing Russia, what everyone seems to be ignoring is that it is possible for Iraq to get weapons like the Kornet through intermediaries instead of direct from the Russians, in which case the Russians would be telling the truth and all the saber rattling about it by the US in their direction has been useless.

Edi

*reads own post*

Fuck, me defending Russia, time to go dig up the old ice skates and join Chrostas in taking a spin over the ice cover of the lake of fire...

You are right Iraq get the weapons from an intermediary party its called the Russian mafia

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-03-26 08:50am

Where did you hear about the tanks being destroyed?

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-26 08:56am

Axis Kast wrote:Where did you hear about the tanks being destroyed?

Reuters, and the Army Times.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-03-26 08:57am

I always thought that the M1A1/2 was immune to RPGs and man-portable missiles. Or can those things destroy any fighting vehicle in the world?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-26 09:02am

Axis Kast wrote:I always thought that the M1A1/2 was immune to RPGs and man-portable missiles. Or can those things destroy any fighting vehicle in the world?

Obviously not. It sounds like the Iraqis managed to hit the weaker rear armor rather than the frontal armor.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-03-26 09:03am

I meant all-around. I wasn't aware that the M1A1 had deficiencies of that sort. IFVs and APCs? Okay. Not MBTs.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-03-26 09:04am

Stormbringer wrote:
Axis Kast wrote:I always thought that the M1A1/2 was immune to RPGs and man-portable missiles. Or can those things destroy any fighting vehicle in the world?
Obviously not. It sounds like the Iraqis managed to hit the weaker rear armor rather than the frontal armor.

The pilots are all OK and unscathed. Remember, disabling a tank doesn't equate to its complete destruction.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-03-26 09:04am

Axis Kast wrote:I always thought that the M1A1/2 was immune to RPGs and man-portable missiles. Or can those things destroy any fighting vehicle in the world?

Enough RPG hits will knock out an M1, but it does depend where they hit and how many. As for man-portable missiles, they can be very deadly to tanks (especially newer generation top-attack ones like Javelin). Russia has been deploying active defenses in the form of ARENA for that reason.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-26 09:09am

Omega-13 wrote:The russians are lying, they want to see if their new toys work

I doubt the Russians are so eager to test their systems they'd kick of a major international incident. Bush's reaction to any weapon's sales alone would be enough to give thems serious pause. If they are supplying weapons, it'd probably be older weapons that are much more common on the international market. Putin's smarter than to get his ass nailed with shenigans like that.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-03-26 09:14am

The Russians are refuting the claims though. It doesn't help that Putin is now dangerously against the war. I figured he'd have shut up. He's now worse than the French. And I understand that Bush is keen on having the Russians back American foreign policy as much as possible. At least, he emphasizes the importance of a relationship with Moscow more than he ever did a relationship with Germany or France.

Why haven't we chosen to deploy an ARENA-type system?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-26 09:15am

Colonel Olrik wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:
Axis Kast wrote:I always thought that the M1A1/2 was immune to RPGs and man-portable missiles. Or can those things destroy any fighting vehicle in the world?
Obviously not. It sounds like the Iraqis managed to hit the weaker rear armor rather than the frontal armor.
The pilots are all OK and unscathed. Remember, disabling a tank doesn't equate to its complete destruction.

That's something to be thankful for. And I am aware of the distinction between destroyed and disabled. But even if it's only disabling, that hardly counts as immunity.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-26 09:18am

Axis Kast wrote:I always thought that the M1A1/2 was immune to RPGs and man-portable missiles. Or can those things destroy any fighting vehicle in the world?

It's purely a question of where you hit the vehicle. Along the frontal arc, the M1A2 is quite well protected, but still not invulnerable. A modern Russian RPG round fired at the flanks (93mm PG-7VL, or the tandem HEAT 105mm PG-7VR) *will* penetrate, guaranteed. Rear, even more so.

I doubt the Russians are so eager to test their systems they'd kick of a major international incident. Bush's reaction to any weapon's sales alone would be enough to give thems serious pause. If they are supplying weapons, it'd probably be older weapons that are much more common on the international market. Putin's smarter than to get his ass nailed with shenigans like that.

The Russians no quite well how their weapons work- performance characteristics can be measured etc. As for supplying older weapons, I really don't see the point- the Iraqis have plenty of ATGMs as it is.

Enough RPG hits will knock out an M1, but it does depend where they hit and how many.

How many? That's true in terms of a tank with reactive armor (fire two shots, one to take out the reactive armor block, the next to penetrate the armor itself), but in terms of a normal tank, the round either penetrates, or it doesn't, yes?

As for man-portable missiles, they can be very deadly to tanks (especially newer generation top-attack ones like Javelin). Russia has been deploying active defenses in the form of ARENA for that reason.

Yup. Actually, the first active ATGM defense system ever deployed was the Russian Drozd system, fitted to Naval Infantry T-55s. Now there's Arena, and the new Drozd-M system. Then there's Shtora, which is a passive system that makes TOW and other such wire-guided SACLOS missiles pretty much a waste of time.

The pilots are all OK and unscathed. Remember, disabling a tank doesn't equate to its complete destruction.

Pilots?! Tankers! tsk tsk tsk *Wags finger*

The M1A2 is one of the safest main battle tanks in the world. You have an excellent chance of living if your vehicle is holed. Unless burning embers ignite a round the loader may be holding. That could be bad.

I should add that despite the Army Times claim that this is the first time an Abrams has been lost to enemy fire, it's not true. In 1991 Iraqi T-62s took a pair of Abrams out by sitting still with their engines off (at night), so that they didn't show up on thermal imagers (which lots of tankers exclusively fight with, since everything comes up so clear)- the T-62s waited for the M1s to go by, and fired into their flanks. Two tanks were knocked out- but unfortunately for the wily Iraqis, their gun barrels were now hot. You can guess what happened next.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-26 09:19am

Axis Kast wrote:The Russians are refuting the claims though. It doesn't help that Putin is now dangerously against the war. I figured he'd have shut up. He's now worse than the French. And I understand that Bush is keen on having the Russians back American foreign policy as much as possible. At least, he emphasizes the importance of a relationship with Moscow more than he ever did a relationship with Germany or France.

Russia has ties with Iraq that go back a long time and they were (and perhaps still are) good customers for Russian arms. It's a case of the Russian's protecting their interested. Bush's piss poor diplomatic efforts probably didn't help though.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-26 09:21am

Axis Kast wrote: Why haven't we chosen to deploy an ARENA-type system?

It's quite expensive, and given the current range of threats, not particularly necessary. But then again, the US is abandoning the 70-ton MBT and pursuing a 20-ton 'Future Combat System' that will rely on it's sensors to stay out of trouble (trouble meaning any enemy fire whatsoever).

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Russian missles take out 2 American Battle Tanks

Russian missles take out 2 American Battle Tanks

Re: Russian missles take out 2 American Battle Tanks