(Abrams) Tanks take a beating in Iraq

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-03-29-abrams-tank-a_x.htm

The U.S. military's Abrams tank, designed during the Cold War to withstand the fiercest blows from the best Soviet tanks, is getting knocked out at surprising rates by the low-tech bombs and rocket-propelled grenades of Iraqi insurgents.

In the all-out battles of the 1991 Gulf War, only 18 Abrams tanks were lost and no soldiers in them killed. But since the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, with tanks in daily combat against the unexpectedly fierce insurgency, the Army says 80 of the 69-ton behemoths have been damaged so badly they had to be shipped back to the United States.

At least five soldiers have been killed inside the tanks when they hit roadside bombs, according to figures from the Army's Armor Center at Fort Knox, Ky. At least 10 more have died while riding partially exposed from open hatches.

The casualties are the lowest in any Army vehicles, despite how often the Abrams is targeted — about 70% of the more than 1,100 tanks used in Iraq have been struck by enemy fire, mostly with minor damage.

[dbt]

1. Viet Vu in Iraq Nam.

Who the FUCK got us into this mess and how is he NOT in prison?

[Lab2112]

15. RE: Viet Vu in Iraq Nam.

As Rumsfeld said, "you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time."

Sure thing. It's acceptable to have tanks blow up, killing or disabling the soldiers inside, since this is the army we had to scrape up just in time to counter Saddam's nefarious plot to steal Mom's Apple Pie in 45 minutes.

LAB

[dbt]

16. Welcome to DU, Lab2112!

[NNN0LHI]

2. This is why CENTOM does not like giving the details as to how soldiers...

...are being killed in Iraq. Bad for the moral of the guys riding in the tanks.

Don

[trogdor]

3. 5 out of 1500+ isn't that many.

You're still safer riding in a tank than in a Hummer. Way safer.

What the author meant was, the tanks were sustaining disabling amounts of damage - blown tracks and such - because of the nature of the conflict itself. Guerillas are getting closer to them and taking them out with greater precision. No surprise here.

[NNN0LHI]

6. "at LEAST five soldiers have been killed inside the tanks..."

And how many more all fucked up? At least...?

Don

[dArKeR]

4. I haven't heard a thing about the Abrams and little about the Bradley

I had no idea they were still using the Abrams in Iraq. I don't read everything but haven't seen anything in the Lying Whore Mainstream Media.

Let's not forget to weigh the cost. Firstly our children shouldn't be in Iraq at all. With that said. My town has totally broken apart sidewalks and streets. Road signs are terribly faded and broken. Streets have faded/gone paint marking. The city water system pipes are very old and cracking. Low water pressure. Only a voluteer fire station. Schools are crumbling. Parks can't be upkept. Trees aren't being trimmed near utility lines. Little law enforcement except for major crimes (criminals have the run of the city.)... God, is this really what American Christian republicans stand for? My entire city could be upgraded for the cost just to ship and repair one Abrams! Something you don't hear on Limbutt or Whore Hanity.

[Minstrel Boy]

5. 80 Abrams knocked out!

That's amazing. But maybe not too surprising, when you consider some history. In WWII, Russian infantry knocked out a lot of German armour by dropping grenades down the tanks' ventilation shafts.

[Bob3]

7. Question - how many do we have

How significant is the number 80? is it 10% of the tanks 20? 50?

And you wonder what is the break down rate - The Abrams uses a turbine engine that doesn't react well to dust and sand. How many of them are breaking down as opposed to being damaged? I suspect a lot of them it's a complicated machine and that is a very hostile environment for it (it was designed to fight Russian tanks in Europe)

Well we'll never be told. Bad for morale I guess.

And as someone else said- what about the Bradley? How's that doing?

[RamboLiberal]

13. Plus add in their tracks are being chewed up at an horrendous

rate. Not meant to spent a lot of time on hard road surfaces.

[madrchsod]

8. that`s a shit load of tanks

that doesn`t include the number that are down for maintenance at any given time. bush can`t fight anymore wars in the middle east-we don`t have the army to do it....

[Hobarticus]

9. Just read somewhere that IEDs are getting more sophisticated...

Shaped charges that can pierce armor, and so forth.

Those ain't 'dead enders' building those roadside bombs.

[NNN0LHI]

10. sophisticated = bigger in military jargon n/t

[JNelson6563]

14. and more effective

We send these soldiers to their doom. The lunatics at the monkey palace under-estimate the "enemy" due to their arrogance.

Julie

[ConcernedCanuk]

11. "Baghdad Bob" wasn't lying when he said they'd die like dogs in the desert

.
.
.

He, AND Saddam knew exactly what would happen when the USA got on the ground, and couldn't hide behind their GPS guided toys anymore . .

I'll betcha Saddam planned for this time right after the "Road of Death" thing where Allied Forces shot retreating soldiers in the back as they tried to flee Kuwait, well, actually, they chased, and massacred them WAY into the Iraqi desert . .

I don't think Saddam is surprised at any of this - his detention notwithstanding, I think he's enjoying the US's fumbling in Iraq - -

and I don't blame him . . .

[htuttle]

12. They are starting to find the 'sweet spots' on the tanks

It's only a matter of time before the US starts losing more tanks on a regular basis.

I'm reminded of the war in Afghanistan -- the last one, where the Russians tried to hold it. While the Stinger missiles certainly helped the Afghan resistance, when they realized that the oil tank on the Hind helicopters was directly in the middle of the red star painted on the side, they were able to start bringing them down with those long Afghan rifle shots.