Prev: Re: GEV capabilities, was RE:Tank Riders {SG2] Next: Re: Tank Riders {SG2]

Re: [ds] Modern Tanks.

From: Kenneth Winland <kwinland@c...>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 13:28:45 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: [ds] Modern Tanks.


On Sun, 15 Nov 1998, John M. Atkinson wrote:

> Ah, bingo!  "Permenant Losses".  That's an interesting term.	I tend
> think of kills (and so does the source I was reading) as no longer
> capable of fighting without serious maintinence.  
> Yeah, you can take a
> tank which has a 125mm round into the ammo bays, replace the
> electronics, clean it out, replace the ammo bays, repaint it, and call
> it "repairable", but if the tank can't fight any more, then it's a
> to me (and to whoever is shooting at it).  This was common practice in
> WWII--Shermans would get knocked out, brew up, burn, be recovered,
> cleaned out, repaired, and sent back into the line.  But they still
> count as being "killed".

	I was fairly clear in my earlier posts; Nine were considered
permanent losses, nine were considered "recoverable".  The definition of
"kill" varies between writers, techs at Aberdeen, techs at the VII
Corp, etc.

	In an earlier message, you posted that M1A1(HA)s were taken
out by T-62, T-72, BMPs, RPGs, etc.  I have been unable to find this
anywhere in post-Gulf reports (Zaloga's books, Jane's, Journal of
Ordnance, etc.).  There were seven known hits from a 125mm onto M1A1s;
none of them penetrated.  Several of the "damaged" M1A1s *may* have been
hit by 125mm, but most could be attributed to mines (and one case of RPG
fire).	Some of these M1A1s were classed as "severely damaged".

	The BM15 APFSDS round (part of the 3UBM7 round) and the 9M119
"Svir" guided rocket, both fired from the T-72 are *unable* to penetrate
the M1A1(HA) from the frontal and portions of the side arc.  However,
and tech reports raised the possibility that some of the "damaged" and
"severely damaged" M1A1(HA) were struck by this round from a side or
angle.	They were unsure.  Most of the known damage was from mines
on crew accounts).

 > Like I said, either misinformed or using a really screwy definition
of > killed.  If you define "killed" as "incapable of moving or
> then you have the majority of "killed" vehicles being repairable in
> long term.  But you gotta win in the short term to worry about the
> term.

	I was taking the terminology directly from Jane's and Zaloga. 
several cases, "damaged" M1A1s were able to shoot back or continue
fighting.  Thus, they were not defined as "kills", only"damaged" and
considered "repairable".



Prev: Re: GEV capabilities, was RE:Tank Riders {SG2] Next: Re: Tank Riders {SG2]