Re: [ds] Modern Tanks.

	Greetings!

On Tue, 17 Nov 1998, John M. Atkinson wrote:

>	"As TF 1-37th Armor crossed over the ridge into the heart of the
Iraqi
> defensive zone, the Iraqi commander's carefully disposed rear-slope
> defense stripped Dyer's tanks of their range advantage.  Within 1,000
> meters, a row of dug-in T-72s and BMPs suddenly appeared below the
> crest. All were hull--down in prepared positions behind thick dirt

<snip>

	I should have been more specific (my fault); what sources have
T-62s "damaging" or "destroying" M1A1s?

> the rear exhaust exits.  ANother T-72 bypassed by D Company had killed
> Steede's tank.  Bravo 23 took another hit from its amubsher in the
back
> of its turret.  The Iraqi sabot blew through the armor into the

	The AARs of Aberdeen and the US Army are unsure of exactly what
"damaged" the M1A1s.  There was debate about this.  The acount you post
is
interesting.

> The above paragraphs describe the fight between TF 1-37th Armored, 3rd
> Brigade, 1st Armored Division and elementsof the Tawakalna Republican
> Guards division.  Sources in the bibliography include a page and a
half
> of names in small print listed as "Interviews," including one SFC
> Anthony Steede, who was commanding Delta 24 when "a 125mm round from
the
> T-72 blew through the turret ring and into the crew compartment."  58
> official government documents, including AARs of numerous units, unit
> logs and diaries, the US Army's offical after-action review, and a
host
> of Articles, Books, Manuscripts, and periodicals.  Offical documents
> tend to have a more comprehensive picture than some civillian, however
> learned he may be.  What's Zaloga's source (presuming he put a
> bibliography in the book you're reading)?

	Zaloga always includes sources.  He is one of the world's
foremost armour historians, had published over 20 books, and has writen
articles in the Journal of Military Ordnance, has written for Jane's,
and
lectures for the US military.  The sources he cites for the book that I
am referring to include post-war data from US Army, Aberdeen, and
General
Dynamics Land Systems.	He also cites interviews with a number of people
from the VII Corp, 24th Infantry, 3rd Armoured, etc.

	The bulk of his "damage" and "destroyed" data comes from the
US Army, GD, and Aberdeen, who pulled apart the damaged vehicles and
conducted post-combat analyses.  You figure that they get the whole
picture that way....

> I just handed you more than 7 'known hits' from 125mm rounds.  

	Assuming, of course, that they KNEW what hit them.  US Army
records records some of these hits as due to friendly fire, often only
accounted for long after the battle was over.

> >	    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, AARs
> 
> Frontal and portions of the side arc?  News flash--the enemy isn't
> always obliging enough to refrain from shooting up the rear and sides.

	No kidding.  I was respoding to your initial shock at my post
concerning frontal and side hits of 125mm rounds that failed to
penetrate
the M1A1.

> Shooting, it's not a kill.  When the crew bails out and the ammunition
> is cooking off, then it's a kill.

	Yes.  And when the crew bails out and the ammunition is cooking
off, it was mostly a case of friendly fire.  Then it's fratricide.

	Laterish!

	Ken