Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Alexey K

Photo of destroyed Iraqui M1A1M

Recommended Posts

 

 

The by-and-large media silence on Libya gives lie to this statement.

I think Libya was self breaking.  You can make the argument that Iraq would have potentially limped on for another decade or so (but I'm fairly sure the Arab Spring would have killed it) but for American intervention.  Libya as misguided as that was, was going to happen if NATO bombed it or not.  More likely than not it'd just wind up looking amateur hour Syria (which is pretty much what it's doing now anyway!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the first clip in this video look like a kill on a Iraqi Abrams? 

 

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f88_1402790352

 

Also here just for reference here is a propaganda clip of a abandoned Abrams being blown up

 

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9ae_1423994373

Someone said earlier that it was hit by a car bomb, and that the turret was dragged away from the remains of the hull. Dont know how he knew that, but it seems plausible. The video you posted shows a tank being hit by some sort of missile. It's hard to tell from the video what kind of vehicle is being hit.

 

The second video shows an Abrams being deliberately blown up, which is more likely to cause the turret to leave the hull as the video shows. According to the ISIS caption, these machines are "fragile" and need to be blown up. I'm sure there may be other reasons why they blow them up. 

Edited by Nidan1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think in that first video it was said that was a kornet engaging a abrams. the turret sure has the shape of one.

I think they lack the logistics to run them so they destroy them. Whats th fuel consumption for these beasts? Are the export models diseal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Abrams is strongly resistant to Kornet from most angles.  It isn't immune, and the Iraqi armor arrays are like, 1986 levels at this point.  Interesting to note the rest of the hits don't really appear to much to the tank in later videos though.

 

In terms of logistics....I think it's more the lack of parts and ammunition.  They've likely got enough 100, 115, and 125 MM from Syrian stocks, and that's not uncommon stuff on the foreign market....but finding Abrams spare parts, or 120 MM NATO type rounds is going to be hard.  Also much harder to find mechanics or operators for (finding enough jihadist M1 crewmen and mechanics from all sources would be hard, but doubtless there's a lot more available jihadist guys with T-55 experience). 

 

Not to mention ISIS isn't exactly conducting armor maneuver warfare.  

Edited by panzersaurkrautwerfer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 More likely than not it'd just wind up looking amateur hour Syria (which is pretty much what it's doing now anyway!).

 

It isn't like he hadn't put down rebellions before.

 

Probably wouldn't have gone into stalemate like Syria; as incompetent as Ghaddafi's army might have been, his mercenaries were not and when paired with even marginal amounts of armor they were consistently facerolling the rebels whenever they met. The rebels were down to their last stronghold when airpower caught those armored columns on the road and routed them. Obviously we've gotten pretty good at finding people trying to be sneaky, so Libyan attempts to pull off what other people do fell flat and we just bombed the living hell out of everything they had. It was a complete one-eighty and very close to the eleventh hour as well.

 

As for the idea that no one would have taken up in his stead; one of Ghaddafi's favorites is running the capital and the largest, most productive slices (not that it's saying much) of the country. But since the resulting ethnic cleansing campaign against Ghaddafi's tribesmen and people that look like the mercenaries was brought to an end by him, we're not going to raise a fuss about it. End result is Libya is essentially under the old management, except they don't own a monopoly on force or a functioning state any longer and can't even theoretically abide by Ghaddafi's anti-terrorism and intelligence-sharing agreements any longer. Not that they are particularly inclined to do so, since, y'know, we bombed them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh. Ghadafi was weaker than ever, and even if he'd won this one it'd only be seeding the roots of the next one.  That also ignores the sort of extremist element that wound up in Libya anyway.  A slappy fight between ISIS wish they could be, and the Libyan Army (another oxymoron) is at least one of the more likely outcomes.  

 

I still contend it was a matter of time.  Either way it should stand as a tacit example of unintended consequence and third order effects.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope nobody is surprised to learn that Abrams is liable to be blown up. Its not a magical mystery tank, it still conforms to the laws of physics just like everything else. I recall reading somewhere US had 900-1000 Abrams KO'd in Iraq... depending on your definition of 'KO'. Rebuild depots performed heroic work bringing back Abrams from the dead on many occassions including, by one account, welding a two halves of a vehicle back together again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh. Ghadafi was weaker than ever, and even if he'd won this one it'd only be seeding the roots of the next one.  That also ignores the sort of extremist element that wound up in Libya anyway.  A slappy fight between ISIS wish they could be, and the Libyan Army (another oxymoron) is at least one of the more likely outcomes.  

 

Gaddafi wasn't weaker than he was in the late eighties, early nineties, when everyone important hated his guts except the Soviets. And extremist elements mostly steered clear of Libya unless they had a pressing desire to get their fingernails ripped out by pliers. They only came in numbers (but very many) in the aftermath of the civil war because there was no longer a functioning state. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Gaddafi wasn't weaker than he was in the late eighties, early nineties, when everyone important hated his guts except the Soviets. And extremist elements mostly steered clear of Libya unless they had a pressing desire to get their fingernails ripped out by pliers. They only came in numbers (but very many) in the aftermath of the civil war because there was no longer a functioning state. 

 

Same could be said for Syria. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as the photo goes.  To me the 2 turrets are very different from each other and in their surrounding areas.  The first photo as another person pointed out has no burn or blast marks, nor can you see the blown tracks in the left rear of the background of the 2nd turret.  Additionally where is the burned out body of the tank directly to the front/left of the burnt out turret. It seems unlikely to me that the 1st photo wouldn't have blast damage or carbon on the right side if the left side is covered with soot.  If the turret was carried away from the body so that it's out out the photo I don't see any drag marks that should be visible in the sand.

 

As for the state of Iraq or what's left of it.  Good!  Let them bleed for the idiocy of their social and political policies.  Their gov't didn't want a SoF treaty and we left.  It's not our fault that we left.  They told us to leave, plain and simple.  I think we should keep our ground troops out of this and let the Saudi's, Iranians and the GCC put their own troops on the ground to fight the good fight.  No need for western "Crusader's" to fan the idealogical flames that ISIS claims is their reason for being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

frankly, I don't see the "good" arab countries really putting their feet on the ground and the fight to ISIS - mostly because there is imho a deep hypocrisy about this whole situation.

If people in the west are really that naive to think that ISIS is a sort of "state founded and run by terrorist", the western governments should know better - and it's alarming they are not intervening.

My point is, this "calyphate" basically came out since the arab revolutions. Strangely enough, revolutions in arab countries took place only in those where there wasn't a theocratic regime: Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Morocco (somehow), and the like.

Also, one can see a pattern like these scenarios forming up in sunni countries - or where sunnis are present in substantial numbers.

 

Shouldn't that ring some bell somewhere?

 

I don't want to type hundreds of words to express a simple concept, also because it would be kinda OT to this thread.

 

But, somebody has heavily financed this country from the start, and looking at where we are going, one would be simply blind not to notice that ISIS is the wet dream of extremely rich, petrodollar-heavy, religious integralist "noble" families, all of which never resided in Hussein's Irak, Assad's Syria, Qaddafi's Lybia and so on, but - in countries which the west keep really close as friends (and I don't wanna mention which countries, I'm sure folks on this forums know plenty of them).

 

Also, kinda worrying the lack of involvement, at least in a substantial way, by Israel. A country which has always been crying wolf at the smallest suspicious event in near arab countries, a country that has bombed nuclear plants hundreds of miles away from it's borders, and that would find itself ISIS at its border if Assad falls, seems extraordinarily silent to me on the subject.

 

Turkey? not ambiguous at all - the only time they opened up on somebody it was on the kurds trying to regroup outside Kobane.

 

I don't want to draw conclusions too soon, but I already made my mind up about the geopolitical scenario, and I doubt facts are gonna change the idea I get, although I really hope so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, no need to mention names lol.  The thing is though the theocratic countries who funded ISIS have no control over them.  If they had any in the beginning it was lost to them once ISIS declared itself a caliphate.  Let's say the US stays the current course, Iraq implodes and ISIS overruns the country and begins massacring the Shiite population.  Iran would be forced to declare war to save their brethren across the border.  Saudi Arabia and Kuwait would be pressured to defend their borders from ISIS and Iran.  Possibly SA would be compelled to cross into Iraq to prevent the Iranians from taking over Iraq.  However the Saudi's to my mind wouldn't be able to fight their way out of a paper bag.  Which is why they won't cross into Yemen because they probably know their own armed forces wouldn't be able to do squat against the Houthis.  Plus if their forces are shown to be "losers" it opens the Sauds up for major criticism on the home front which would have the potential to create an Arab spring there.  So the Saudi's will probably ask the US to put troops on the ground so their precious blood won't be spilt.  

 

As for Israel, why should they get involved.  Arabs vs Arabs is a good thing for them.  If you noticed ISIS itself is very careful NOT to do anything to aggravate the Israeli's.  I think they know it wouldn't take much time at all for Israel to send all of their followers chasing after their virgins in heaven. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, kinda worrying the lack of involvement, at least in a substantial way, by Israel. A country which has always been crying wolf at the smallest suspicious event in near arab countries, a country that has bombed nuclear plants hundreds of miles away from it's borders, and that would find itself ISIS at its border if Assad falls, seems extraordinarily silent to me on the subject.

 

Why should they ?

They already have to fight the Palestinian surplus male population and could not care less if the surplus male population of the whole Arab world decimates each other in Syria and Iraq.

(and yes i know its not PC to say something like this...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Israel has no incentive to fight ISIS. Israel and ISIS share many of the same enemies: the Syrian government, Hezbolla, Iran. The Syrian government has Russia and Iran as patrons, ISIS is universally despised. Victory for ISIS in Syria or Iraq would not be a bad outcome for Israel.

Edited by Vanir Ausf B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

frankly, I don't see the "good" arab countries really putting their feet on the ground and the fight to ISIS - mostly because there is imho a deep hypocrisy about this whole situation.

Well, that whole statement is, to borrow a phrase, deeply hypocritical.

 

"Good" Arab countries - what does that even mean? The ones that'll meekly do your bidding? The ones that'll provide resources at rock bottom prices? The ones that'll shaft their own population in order to get a cut of the profits made from allowing multinationals to run amok without regulation?

 

I don't want to draw conclusions too soon ... I already made my mind up ... I doubt facts are gonna change the idea I get ...

You're just playing this for the lulz, right?

Edited by JonS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...