RE: [ds] Modern Tanks.
From: "Glover, Owen" <oglover@m...>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 17:00:57 +1000
Subject: RE: [ds] Modern Tanks.
Ease up a little John or please take the rants off-line. When people
start
the use of profanity to support the argument I think your argument is
lost.
Up until the personal attacks I have been amused at the defence and
attack
on the M1 in teh Gulf War but a little civility isn't too much to ask??
-----Original Message-----
From: John M. Atkinson [mailto:john.m.atkinson@erols.com]
Sent: Sunday, 15 November 1998 6:38
To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [ds] Modern Tanks.
Kenneth Winland wrote:
> The US Army's VII Corp had 9 M1s destroyed and 4 M1s damaged.
In
> the entire Desert Storm, 9 M1s were destroyed and 9 were damaged. No
M1s
> were destroyed by enemy fire, it was all fratricide and mines. At
least 7
Source? Considering I just posted details of four M1A1(HA)s being
knocked out by enemy action, I'd say whereever you got your info is a
little unreliable. Or maybe using an interesting definition of knocked
out.
> M1s took direct hits from 125mm rounds from T-72s. None penetrated
and
> none were disabled. In one instance, an M1 was hit by two 125mm
Again, bullshit. Already posted source. You do the same. Cite source,
or retract.
> projectiles from 500m away; one hit the hull front and the other the
> turret front. The result was no injury to the crew and no
debilitating
> injury to the tank.
Frontal arc.
> In one instance, an M1 was hit by 1 T-72. The M1 returned
fire
> and destroyed the T-72 before it's autoloader could cycle another
round!
Frontal arc.
John M. Atkinson