even more Photos of the Day

[akd]

[akd]

[ March 18, 2007, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: akd ]

[Apocalypse 31]

My boys from 3rd Brigade! Huah!

[akd]

All photos by Staff Sgt. Stacy L. Pearsall, U.S. Air Force

[panzermartin]

deleted..wrong page

[Andreas]

Originally posted by akd:

I hope the crews escaped.

Lots of casualties on March 15.

http://icasualties.org/oif/

It is a weird series of pictures - I presume the guy blew himself up with the vehicle? Is it certain that is not a series of photoshopped pictures? If it is real, what happened to overwatch and security?

All the best

Andreas

[panzermartin]

Here is the video of the event:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cb4_1174174085

It looks abandoned, although in a seemingly perfect state. No sign of the crew, the red circle on the video indicates something but I cant really tell what.

[Thomm]

Originally posted by panzermartin:

The red circle on the video indicates something but I cant really tell what.

A US soldier?!

Best regards,

Thomm

[panzermartin]

Obviously but I just cant see him.

[Apocalypse 31]

Hahaha.

Well folks, first off thats not a 'tank'. Its a bradley fighting vehicle -or- Cavalry fighting vehicle / Infantry fighting vehicle (CFV / IFV)

Yeah that dude is REAL sneaky. I'm sure if there was actually a crew IN it he would've been hole punched with 762 and 25 mike mike.

Also. Nice try, but no cigar.

The CFV is fine, he used gas to try to make it look much worse than it was....granted, it looked like he used a 155mm shell (which probably did some damage) but I dont think the vehicle was a total loss...You'd be amazed at what our mechanics can do

[Thomm]

I guess "that dude" is also having a good laugh after blowing up a Bradley in broad daylight.

[c3k]

Hmm,

Yeah, you have to credit them with destroying a Bradley. And, you need to take into account that it was done with quite a bit of daring.

My observations having watched the video:

1. The Bradley appears to be undamaged at first, hence, assumed to be operational.

2. The Bradley seems to be unoccupied. The enemy combatant uses the Bradley's bulk to hide his movement from the building behind the Bradley. (I think that red circle highlights a U.S. soldier's position. Perhaps a transient sighting.)

3. The building behind the Bradley therefore probably contains some U.S. elements. The Bradley appears to've been left in an overwatch position, maybe ready to guard that stretch of pavement.

4. There are 3 distinct phases to the video, separated by time-lapse: first the enemy is shown setting two items under the Bradley; at some later time an explosion occurs, characterized by a white/brown cloud and a large flame-sheet and black cloud; finally, some time after the initial explosion, the Bradley ends up surrounded by flames, heavy smoke coming out of it.

5. It seems that automatic fire from the building sprays the area around the Bradley after the explosion, supporting the assumption that the building is occupied by U.S. forces.

A reasonable conclusion can only be that a well executed raid, planned in advance (note the video was made and released, the camera must've been placed - no camera shake after the initial filming phase), took advantage of an opportunity to destroy a several million dollar piece of equipment. A morale boosting tactical and financial victory for the bad guys.

The Bradley seems to've caught fire from its own fuel which added to the cook-off of its ammo. I would think that would be a total write-off.

Regards,

Ken

[c3k]

Oh, an addendum to the above.

From a propaganda viewpoint one could argue the following: The Bradley was a previously abandoned/lost vehicle. The bad guys captured it, added some spray paint (if needed) so it would APPEAR undamaged. They then staged this UNDATED video.

So, without corroborative evidence, we video viewers really don't know.

However, if you subscribe to the propaganda view, you must therefore allow the insurgents/enemy agents the ability to capture, transport, and hide a Bradley.

THAT is even more damning, IMHO, than sneaking up on an empty Bradley and destroying it.

Regards,

Ken

[Andreas]

Originally posted by LT Mike:

Hahaha.

Well folks, first off thats not a 'tank'. Its a bradley fighting vehicle -or- Cavalry fighting vehicle / Infantry fighting vehicle (CFV / IFV)

Yeah that dude is REAL sneaky. I'm sure if there was actually a crew IN it he would've been hole punched with 762 and 25 mike mike.

Also. Nice try, but no cigar.

The CFV is fine, he used gas to try to make it look much worse than it was....granted, it looked like he used a 155mm shell (which probably did some damage) but I dont think the vehicle was a total loss...You'd be amazed at what our mechanics can do

Are you the former Iraqui information minister?

All the best

Andreas

[panzermartin]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LT Mike:

Hahaha.

Well folks, first off thats not a 'tank'. Its a bradley fighting vehicle -or- Cavalry fighting vehicle / Infantry fighting vehicle (CFV / IFV)

Yeah that dude is REAL sneaky. I'm sure if there was actually a crew IN it he would've been hole punched with 762 and 25 mike mike.

Also. Nice try, but no cigar.

The CFV is fine, he used gas to try to make it look much worse than it was....granted, it looked like he used a 155mm shell (which probably did some damage) but I dont think the vehicle was a total loss...You'd be amazed at what our mechanics can do

Are you the former Iraqui information minister?

All the best

Andreas </font>

[John Kettler]

I just finished carefully watching the video. Here's what appears to happen.

Insurgent enters stage right dragging on some bag, folded tarps, etc., a 15cm range artillery shell, which after some snooping and pooping he drags well under the Bradley IFV/CFV and apparently proceeds to arm it. The weird gyrations this entails under the AFV look very unIslamic, especially with fat pixels, presumably to stop his being IDed. This done, he then egresses the way he came in, returning to his point of origin, from whence he shortly emerges with what looks to be a multigallon fuel container, fill state unknown. This is taken under the AFV and, hard to say from depth of field issues, is positioned on or near the primary charge. The insurgent then again egresses, staying low and leaves the scene from the place he first arrived. An unknown delay then occurs before the primary explosion is initiated, creating so much smoke and dust that it's quite impossible to see anything at all for many seconds, after which the AFV can be seen looming out of the smoke, damage state unknown, with the ground beneath it ablaze. Somewhere after the explosion, but while smoke obscures the vehicle entirely, you can clearly hear multiple U.S. infantry weapons blazing away, but no tracer fire is evident.

I saw no evidence of a K-Kill, in that the AFV is apparently still there, is the same height and so forth, but I seriously doubt, given what I saw, that the thing is even mobile, much less fightable. At the very least, I suspect crippling damage to the power pack and drive train, never mind running gear, tracks, and the fire burning beneath the belly.

Am very surprised that in a war zone such a vehicle wouldn't at least have the turret powered up and manned by one guy and with a 360 degree infantry security cordon around the approaches to the Bradley. It may never be discussed publicly, but somebody's facing charges, IMO, for this snafu.

Regards,

John Kettler

[civdiv]

Here, let me take a stab at what happened;

A completely undisciplined Army infantry unit violated every SOP in the book and left a Bradley completely unattended (Based on no exhaust and no turret movement I really doubt anyone was inside). Someone needs to be court martialed for that screw-up, regardless of the condition of the Bradley. A Bradley is armored against 155mm arty, but that doesn't really take into account the round going off UNDERNEITH the vehicle.

civdiv

[PLM2]

oops

[PLM2]

Also notice theres a lot of camo nets covering the area behind the bradley. Unnattended AFV outside of a military outpost? Then there were 4 soldiers in the same unit (a cavalry unit that might use bradleys) killed when an IED blew up "near their unit." Either way, someone is gonna have some nitemares about that one.

[John Kettler]

civdiv,

Technically, the Bradley is armored against a 152mm low airburst, not a direct hit. That was a primary design requirement. Your point about a detonation beneath the AFV's being out of protection spec is well taken, though.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Peter Cairns]

I think it is unlikely but there is the alternative that they have reversed the video and that it hit a mine or IED.

Then long after it was abandoned they staged the guy putting the bombs underneath for PR.

I t would be interesting to see what it would look like that way round.

Peter.

[Andreas]

Except, would the US Army abandon a vehicle even if it was an M-Kill without completely destroying it?

I have my doubts about your theory.

All the best

Andreas

[Fly Pusher]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Except, would the US Army abandon a vehicle even if it was an M-Kill without completely destroying it?

I have my doubts about your theory.

All the best

Andreas

I agree. They would not abandon an essentially intact AFV with all the bits and bobs still attached and leave it sitting arround - even if it had been immobilised.

My guess is that SOP dictates that some poor bugger was left behind to mind the vehicle. I bet he was either distracted in a big way, not paying attention or fell asleep.

It happens...

[Michael Dorosh]

Probably off topic at least a bit but there is a model kit company in Ukraine who has released a 1:72 model of the Grizzly IFV (one of Canada's versions of the Pirranha). The Van Doos in Bosnia apparently surrendered one of their positions to one of the factions and they got an intact 6-wheeler out of the deal.

The model kit company has provided this kit with Canadian NATO markings, Canadian UN markings - and also a paint scheme for a "captured" Grizzly, which I think is sticking in the craw of some Canadians.

Amazingly, a Serbian website had photographs of the actual vehicle online, along with a litany of false accusations regarding Canadian war crimes in the former Yugoslavia:

The vehicle is in tow and has had a new camo scheme applied.

I can't see the US Army surrendering vehicles, and don't mean to imply it as a possiblity, just providing something possibly of interest not really relevant to the discussion. But strange stuff does tend to happen in "operations other than war."

Does beg the question of captured use of vehicles by the enemy/insurgents - not necessarily ala Otto Skorzeny in the Battle of the Bulge, but in any capacity.

[Dirtweasle]

From the Belmont Club -

A friend sent me this video posted on Iraqi Slogger of a Bradley being blown up in Anbar by a Jihadi who sneaks under the vehicle, which is apparently unguarded and plants a bomb under it. While I'm not a hundred percent certain, there are certain aspects of this video which are extremely suspicious. Three come readily to mind.

There are no track marks in the soft muddy path leading into the vehicle driveway. The Bradley must have backed into the driveway and around the obstacles shown in the video. But there are no track marks. Two, if you look at the blast pattern starting at 3:28, there is very little in the way of a horizontal blast wave that roils the placid water, which BTW remains mirror placid throughout the explosion. Also note the pebbles falling on the water from a high trajectory, not the low angle fragments you would expect. How did they rise to an apex and fall so fast as to beat the horizontal fragments? Third, look at the transition at 4:21 where the smokelike mist disappears to be replaced by a sudden black plume rising high into the sky. Freeze frame it and you'll see it.

I cannot view movies like that (or others really) from my office. Do his concerns line up with what you all are seeing?