M1A2..how tough?

[oren_m]

You know, you should'nt believe everything you read in the papers.

[akd]

Originally posted by oren_m:

As for Syria's UAVs, i would'nt worry about them, it's a shme i cant tell you why, anyway, thrust me.

Oren_m

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt you meant "trust me," but no I will not. I have zero respect for ego-driven people who join into discussions with "if I told you, I'd have to kill you" rejoinders. Anyone with real or substantial access to secret information would never even hint that they had such knowledge. They would not allow themselves to be put in a situation where they would even have to respond to a question in a way that would indicate their knowledge or access to information.

[MikeyD]

"i've seen it……. thrust me"

I've seen forums like this attract some pretty 'spooky' people in the past. I think the CIA's favorite author Tom Clancy started out as a computer wargame geek - his first novel Red Storm Rising reads like a string of wargaming scenarios. As a matter of fact one poster (somewhere) was even using the word "Spook"as his handle! So i have no doubt there are people on this forum that have touched things and seen things the rest of us haven't. Then again, there are probably people on this forum who were absolutely positively convinced at the time they had proof of Saddam's WMD!

[Saviola]

Originally posted by oren_m:

You know, you should'nt believe everything you read in the papers.

No, we should believe you. You and Raanan Gissin, the undefeated world champion in the Lying Arts.

Don’t get me wrong, there are other former champions who excelled at blatant lies, like Yehud Olmer for example, or Mofaz the Iranian (put a turban on this fella and how is there any denyin’ his mullah ancestry), and the grand ole daddy of’em all, senior Peres, El Grand Hefe de Liars.

Next time, to lend more credibility to links, I’ll try to cultivate a hacked handle to NORAD’s and DOD’s mainframes, just for you, you skeptical fiend you.

[oren_m]

El_operative, you sound really bitter!

What's eating you?

[Count]

M1A1TankCommander i have question for you. I heard M1 driver cant leave tank if nightvision device installed. He must remove it first. Second: driver can't leave position if turret don't headed in rear position if tank turned over.

[Imperial Grunt]

Thought I would wiegh in with my opinion...

The M-1A1 and A2 tank is awesome but it is not unbeatable. Any tank can be beat. I never thought I would ever see a burned-out M-1 tank, but I have. Somewhat sobering to be going into the attack and moving by a destroyed US tank that was suppossed to be "unbeatable".

The true source of the M-1's strength is tank's target acqusition equipment, weapons, and C2 systems, and the C2 systems of the platoon through brigade it is apart of. Same thing as for US fighter aircraft. Not to mention the high level of training that the crews get, especially when compared to possible opponents.

I just wanted to point out that USMC armor tactics and doctrine is different from the US Army's. 1st MarDiv never conducted a "thunder run" armored raid down into the middle of Baghdad. Following USMC doctrine, the tanks of the division were parcelled out to the RCTs and infantry battalions. While 3rd ID conducted the armored raids on the west side, 1st MarDiv moved its 3 RCTs abreast on line, and began to push forward. The LAR battalions, with their LAV's, screened the flanks, but did not take part of the intial assaults into Baghdad. After Baghdad was taken, the division's three LAR battalions, a rifle company mounted on 7-ton trucks, a company of tanks, and some aviation assets, were formed into Task Force Tripoli. This quickly organized TF rapidly attacked north and siezed Tikrit. But this was done because the CG estimated that the enemy did not have the capability to put up an effective defense in Tikrit (and he was 100% correct). TF Tripoli was relieved by elements of 3rd ID about a week later. (And 4th ID relieved them).

USMC tank doctrine has always been focused on tank-infantry tactics and they are an essential part of the Marines version of MOUT. Even a battalion landing team floating with a MEU has a platoon of M-1A1 tanks attached (in addition to the AAVs and LAVs). Just four M-1A1s can be a huge combat multiplier in any expeditionary operation. The USMC's Small Wars Manual, written before WWII, stressed the importance of armored cars and light tanks, both for firepower and armor and for psychological reasons. And throughout the Pacific campaign, Marine Shermans provided infantry support. Same in Korea and Vietnam. During Desert Storm, the tank battalions operated more independantly, which was an exception, but some tank platoons were still attached out to the infantry. The main armored strength of I MEF in Desert Storm was really an Army tank brigade which was attached to the Marines (called the "Tiger brigade"). This seperate brigade was kept intact and its tanks were not used in the infantry support role. Unfortunately, the Army de-activated that brigade after the war, I guess it got too contaminated with the Marine Corps way of doing things.

A US Army Stryker battalion, operating independantly, has just as much mobility as a USMC LAR battalion, and more dismounts and firepower. But in an assault against a determined enemy dug into an urban environment, I would want to keep the Stryker units (and USMC LAR units) back and bring up tank reinforced infantry. And, of course, I am partial to US Marines, because who they are and their infantry-centric force structure. US Army armored cav and mech forces also have a lot armor and the neccessary dismounts for MOUT. But Army rifle squads are smaller than Marine rifle squads and mech soldiers prefer not to stray very far from their vehicles, which is something they have to do when conducting MOUT.

So, with that said, I think that a Syrian unit with 1990's weapons and a will to fight would make a worthy opponent for a Stryker unit. Especially in an urban environment. If the game includes the professional jihadists, those Islamic soldiers that have fought in places like Chechniya, Afghanistan, and Iraq, then Syrian player will have some effective forces that are also fearless to along with the predictably terrible Syrian conventional forces and lackluster "special forces". And with the typical Arab military mentality, the best troops will be kept back to defend the capitol, and not go forward to attempt to engage the enemy at a decisive time and place.

I am really hoping that the game's graphics look like the video shown in the History Channel's "Shootout-Fallujah".

[MikeyD]

What'll be Abrams most valuable asset in the game (one assumes) will be first round hits, fast turret traverse and fast reload. T72 doesn't really have much first round hit probability (under 1000m or so), though the autoloader's not so bad.

[Peter Cairns]

MikeyD,

The T-72's first round hit probability is pretty good, it's just not as good as the M1A2.

If it was a gunfight on Main Street at High Noon, the better range , faster first shot and first round hit would make the M1A2 a clear winner, but real life isn't like that.

As with CNBO,BB and AK, the most likely to win is the one who spots first, because he will probably fire first and more often than not hit first.

Use M1A2's badly, like moving then in file in to a cross fire of covering T-72's at 1,500m and the generally inferior T-72's will make mince meat of them.

By and large the US out fought and out Thought the Iraqi's. and if players in CM:SF really on their hardware not their brains they are in for a shock.

Peter.

[M1A1TC]

Originally posted by Count:

M1A1TankCommander i have question for you. I heard M1 driver cant leave tank if nightvision device installed. He must remove it first. Second: driver can't leave position if turret don't headed in rear position if tank turned over.

The front/middle periscope is removed prior to night ops and the driver must be inside to install the night vision. This is for M1A1. For the A2 I dont know, as I didnt served on one. Yes, it has to be dropped down in order for the driver to exit(its very easy-2 thumbcrews)

The driver can exit if the turret is moved to a side or rear. In event of rollover the TC usually tries to rotate the turret to the side.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:

The driver can exit if the turret is moved to a side or rear. In event of rollover the TC usually tries to rotate the turret to the side.

How come they never thought of installing an escape hatch of some kind in the floor? From where I sit, that seems pretty elementary, but I'll be the first to admit there may be something I don't know here.

Michael

[Colin]

Weakspot vs mines?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Colin:

Weakspot vs mines?

Not necessarily. Depends on how you design it. And tank floors aren't usually all that tough anyway.

Michael

[oren_m]

I dont think that modern MBT's has a driver escape hatch.

But i have a qustion, does M1A1/2 driver can move into the turret without getting out?

In the Merkava we had "wounded driver" drill, the gunner rotates the turret to 3 oclock and the loader grabs the driver in his vest and pulls him into the turret.

Do you have similar drills in M1A1/2?

Oren_m

[ February 06, 2006, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: oren_m ]

[undead reindeer cavalry]

T-72 with unmodernized FCS is quite inaccurate. if crew doesn't have good training i wouldn't expect good first shot hit percentage at ranges above 500 meters.

[Peter Cairns]

URC,

First round hit at over 500m makes it no better than late WW2, when stationary against a moving target, which I find a bit extreme.

The UK Cheiftan had better than that in the sixties.

Peter.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

URC,

First round hit at over 500m makes it no better than late WW2, when stationary against a moving target, which I find a bit extreme.

The UK Cheiftan had better than that in the sixties.

with standard T-72M1 you get laser rangefinder, analog calculator and a stabilized gun, but that is pretty much it. you still need to use your own brains to adjust the sight to hit moving targets (you don't aim at the target itself) and you need to know how to operate the calculator correctly (and have the tank running OK in general). for a crew that hasn't received good training (or who have bad equipment) it will be a challenge to get first round hits at moving targets at 1000 meters. you can see this in AARs from Gulf Wars - Iraqis manage to achieve perfect ambushes but they have hard time hitting anything.

it's all about the FCS, otherwise the equipment is good. for example fully trained Finnish conscript gunners with modernized T-55 get nearly 100% hit chances to stationary targets at almost 4000 meters.

i don't know anything about Chieftain so no comments about that.

[civdiv]

Good article that speaks to this issue;

Why Arabs Can't Fight by Kenneth Pollack;

http://www.ciaonet.org/conf/ssr01/ssr01af.html

The site requires a password but you can get a one week trial just by providing your name and address. No credit card or anything required.

[Peter Cairns]

URC,

But hitting a moving target depends on the vector, as an M1A2 driving straight towards you, in relative terms isn't moving at all as you don't need to track it.

From the combat perspective, that means slowing them down, and forcing them in to areas that make them esy to track and target, and avoiding an open manouvering battle.

Like people having been saying from the start, from the Syrian perspective, eleiminate your enemies strengths and exploit his weaknesses, or put simply, don't try to take the M1A2's on in a straight fight in the open.

Peter.

[Splinty]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

What'll be Abrams most valuable asset in the game (one assumes) will be first round hits, fast turret traverse and fast reload. T72 doesn't really have much first round hit probability (under 1000m or so), though the autoloader's not so bad.

Didn't the auto-loader have a tendency to try and load the gunner? Also the T-72's generally spectacular demise when hit is a result of the auto-loaders need to have rounds out in the open.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Peter,

of course one needs to do one's best to make combat favorable to oneself. the thing with unmodernized T-72s with bad crews is that you have very poor accuracy. if i was a Syrian commander i would use T-72s only against light targets and let ATGMs and tank-hunters deal with enemy tanks.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Splinty:

Didn't the auto-loader have a tendency to try and load the gunner? Also the T-72's generally spectacular demise when hit is a result of the auto-loaders need to have rounds out in the open.

auto-loader eating arms is a myth. for example Leopard-2 would throw the turret just the same.

[civdiv]

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Splinty:

Didn't the auto-loader have a tendency to try and load the gunner? Also the T-72's generally spectacular demise when hit is a result of the auto-loaders need to have rounds out in the open.

auto-loader eating arms is a myth. for example Leopard-2 would throw the turret just the same. </font>

[FirstCav]

Some friends of mine in Ft Hood were trundling back to the motor pool after a long day on the range when their tank suddenly lost power and all the warning lights lit up. They got out and found the back of the tank was smoking, and on further inspection discovered they'd taken a 105mm training round right in the engine.

IIRC was some brain surgeon from Dixie Thunder who pulled the trigger. Never mind the target on the range was about 180 degrees the other way and it was broad daylight to boot.

Later they said the round lodged in the transmission. If it had come in a little to the left of right it could've penetrated the crew compartment and things would probably have gone badly for the them.

For a fraction of a second, anyway.

Also - and slightly OT - the driver's position in an M1 is no place if you're the least bit claustrophobic. As much as I liked the idea of driving one, you were always very aware of that big turret right behind you -- and what it would do to your head if it traversed suddenly. There were a few stories going around of guys getting their heads chopped off or being cut in half because the turret wasn't locked. One of our guys lost part of his foot...

Cav

From its birth in the 1630s, the Guard protected the early colonists and helped win the War on Independence. - GW Bush

[TargetDrone]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

"Dis iz owa Holy Lant, ant ve owa he-ah to take it baak! Hey, Assad, I kill you laast! But ifv you give me a nice politikal campaign contributon, or zome hot vemen vit few morals, I might make you nice pozition in new government instead", Arnold "Syranator" Schwartznegger addressing the Syrians as his fleet of armored Hummer2s and Pinzgauers pour over the border into Syria.

Steve

Shhh... dont reveal our secret Austrian counterpart of the Hummer

Just imagine the psychological effect if they storm damascus on Pinzgauers

There you have your way of nonlethal combat... rofl can be quite disabling