05-04-2003 08:59									#1
	Bradley vs T-72 Enter the AD-FREE zone

Just saw it on CNN. 5 Bradleys from the 7th Cav. took on 4 T-72 and destroyed them. The unit Capt. was interview. After the first encounter, the Capt. took 9 M-1s and 2 Bradleys and fought some 20 Iraqie units and destroyed 14 T-72s, 1 ZSU, 1 T-55 and some BMPS.

	05-04-2003 09:02									#2
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Hellfire-armed Bradleys = Dead T-72's.

	05-04-2003 09:18									#3
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Not Hellfires, TOW-2s.

The biggest problem (this is nothing new, but shows the Iraqis didn't learn the lessons of GW 1) is that the gunner's sight on the export T-72 and all T-55 and T-62 models uses stadiametric rangefinders of different types. The T-72 export version has horizontal lines etched in the site to calibrate to 1000 meter intervals based on the apparent vertical height of an M60 tank - the US standard when the T-72 came out.

Problem is that the Abrams is lower overall than the M60, and the Bradley even lower still, causing the Iraqis to misestimate range and overshoot. That combined with the slower than high-fiber diet **** flowing uphill autoloader on the T-72 main gun just dooms the poor bastards in the T-72.

About the only chance they have is with the heavy AAMG, but that can only penetrate the turret of the Bradley at fairly short ranges - if visibility is good, the TOW-2 gives the Bradley a huge standoff advantage.

	05-04-2003 09:20									#4
	Tired of ads?

I take it that the Bradleys engaged the Iraqis at a range beyond the effective range of the T-72s gun, since the Bradleys have much less armor than the T-72s.

Maybe the Soviets sold the special third world - economy class version of the T-72 to the Iraqis.

	05-04-2003 09:21									#5
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Hasn't the point already been made that ex-Soviet material is crap? Do we really need to add insult to injury?

	05-04-2003 09:24									#6
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Speaking of crap, how about 10 M-60s vs 10 T-72?

Of course, in the '70s it was 10 vs 3 or something...

	05-04-2003 09:24									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Not Hellfires, TOW-2s. The biggest problem (this is nothing new, but shows the Iraqis didn't learn the lessons of GW 1) is that the gunner's sight on the export T-72 and all T-55 and T-62 models uses stadiametric rangefinders of different types. The T-72 export version has horizontal lines etched in the site to calibrate to 1000 meter intervals based on the apparent vertical height of an M60 tank - the US standard when the T-72 came out.

I thought that the Soviets fitted the T-72s with laser range finders in the 1980s? Maybe they didn't do so on the export models? You'd think that Saddam might have put some effort into retro-fitting his tanks with decent ranging and night vision equipment after 1991.

	05-04-2003 09:26									#8
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove I take it that the Bradleys engaged the Iraqis at a range beyond the effective range of the T-72s gun, since the Bradleys have much less armor than the T-72s. Maybe the Soviets sold the special third world - economy class version of the T-72 to the Iraqis.

In GW 1, at 73 Easting the Bradleys held their own against T-72s at 1000 down to 500 meters range (since the Bradleys kept maneuvering). One Bradley had a non-fatal sabot penetratrion from a T-72, although one man was mortally wounded, and another had a penetrating hit of the turret from a 14.5 mm AAMG on another T-72, wounding the commander of that vehicle. Both of the Bradleys hit were still combat capable.

The problem isn't penetrating, it's the level of training for the Iraqi gunners to keep them from sighting the Bradley turret roof against the stadiametric etching in the gunner's sight. They have to manually compensate for the different vehicle height, but in the heat of combat, they don't do it - the result is once they dial in the range to the gun, it superelevates and they overshoot by 500-600 meters.

	05-04-2003 09:28									#9
	Remove this text

Go 2d ACR!

	05-04-2003 09:31									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove I thought that the Soviets fitted the T-72s with laser range finders in the 1980s? Maybe they didn't do so on the export models? You'd think that Saddam might have put some effort into retro-fitting his tanks with decent ranging and night vision equipment after 1991.

For Warsaw Pact and USSR use, yes, but the export versions had stadiametric sights. AFAIK, it's not something that's really upgradeable, you just essentially replace the entire gunner's station and gun controls, and that probably costs almost as much as the basic tank. The other big problem is getting crew training time under realistic conditions.

For the Abrams, the gunsight/thermal sight/gun computer and control suite costs in excess of $200,000 per copy. The Soviet T-72 and T-80 version doesn't have all those gewgaws like the barrel droop sensor and crosswind sensor, but still, the optics, laser and controls have to cost, not to mention the specialist labor.

	05-04-2003 09:37									#11
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat For Warsaw Pact and USSR use, yes, but the export versions had stadiametric sights. AFAIK, it's not something that's really upgradeable, you just essentially replace the entire gunner's station and gun controls, and that probably costs almost as much as the basic tank. The other big problem is getting crew training time under realistic conditions. For the Abrams, the gunsight/thermal sight/gun computer and control suite costs in excess of $200,000 per copy. The Soviet T-72 and T-80 version doesn't have all those gewgaws like the barrel droop sensor and crosswind sensor, but still, the optics, laser and controls have to cost, not to mention the specialist labor.

Didn't the Israelis retrofit a bunch of their older US tanks? I'll betcha they know where you can get it done for a really nice price. Oh, wait, maybe not for you Mr Hussein.

	05-04-2003 09:44									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Not Hellfires, TOW-2s.

Not missles, 25mm cannon.

I heard the interview on CNN; the soldier said 2 Bradleys destroyed 5 T-72s with their 25mm cannons. Now that's frightening.

	05-04-2003 09:45									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

That was a while ago, though - I think they were 90mm M48A2 Pattons upgunned to 105 mm NATO rifled standard.

They also did some Sherman 105 conversions, unlike our WW2 version of the Sherman 105, which was an armored howitzer used as an assault gun, they reworked the suspension and turret race, and fit a turret with a 105 mm AT gun.

IIRC, that was back in the 60's and 70's though.

	05-04-2003 09:47									#14
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Carver Not missles, 25mm cannon. I heard the interview on CNN; the soldier said 2 Bradleys destroyed 5 T-72s with their 25mm cannons. Now that's frightening.

They must have *******d them then, the 25mm gun can't take MBT frontal armor. If they got them from the flanks or rear, though, the rate of fire and accuracy of the 25mm makes it a very effective tank killer.

	05-04-2003 13:03									#15
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

It is pretty sad for the Iraqi's when their 'best' tanks can't take the US worst AFVs....in a 'normal' war something like that 25mm should be a weapon of last resort against enemy armour, but here it seems just as good.

	05-04-2003 13:17									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

does Iraq have any newer models, like T-80s?

quote: Not missles, 25mm cannon. I heard the interview on CNN; the soldier said 2 Bradleys destroyed 5 T-72s with their 25mm cannons. Now that's frightening.

wow. like MtG said, they had to have gotten them from behind, or perhaps well placed flank shots, but even that is surprising that the 25 mm could defeat MBT armor at all. I suppose its relatively high rate of fire allows it to just pound the **** outa of a T-72. What type of rounds does the 25mm shoot? Are they depleted uranium like the A-10's 30mm vulcan? or are they just some alloy AP round like tungsten carbide?

	05-04-2003 13:20									#17
	Increase Your PM Length

I thought Clinton made the US drop DU rounds after Yugoslavia?

	05-04-2003 13:21									#18
	Support Apolyton

We pretended to, then picked them back up when he wasn't looking.

	05-04-2003 13:26									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

The M-60 was and is a **** pile. They are not much better than a T-55.

	05-04-2003 13:28									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

And they're worse than the T-62.

73' war!

	05-04-2003 13:33									#21
	Suffering from ads?

quote: What type of rounds does the 25mm shoot? Are they depleted uranium like the A-10's 30mm vulcan? or are they just some alloy AP round like tungsten carbide?

They're DU, according to CNN. Accept no substitutes...

	05-04-2003 13:36									#22
	Inflate your Upload Space

that would explain their excellent armor penetration then. I wonder if the health effects of DU ammo residue (most of it is cleaned up by teams they send in... dont want any of that stuff floating around for terrorists to make rad bombs and stuff) are overly exagerated? Or is it pretty mean stuff?

	05-04-2003 13:38									#23
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: I wonder if the health effects of DU ammo residue are overly exagerated? Or is it pretty mean stuff?

From what I've read, it isn't much worse than any other heavy metal. Still bad, but not the monstrosity that some make it out to be...

	05-04-2003 13:40									#24
	Suffering from ads?

You probably wouldn't want to roll it up and smoke it....

on the American low-tech end...


"some US troop divisions have been equipped with battering rams, grappling hooks, folding assault ladders and battle axes, in anticipation of breaking down doors and scaling rooftops to root out Saddam Hussein's forces."

"Battle Axes"

LOL this is probably a misstatement, I think they mean the kind of axe a firefighter carries, but I just get this mental picture of ferocious Minnesotans armed with M-1 Battle Axes...

	05-04-2003 14:46									#25
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: LOL this is probably a misstatement, I think they mean the kind of axe a firefighter carries, but I just get this mental picture of ferocious Minnesotans armed with M-1 Battle Axes...

"Sir, all men report being out of ammo! The perimeter is collapsing, we are being overwhelmed by Iraqis from every side! We're pinned down!"

"There is no retreat! Platoon to axes! *ferocious battle cry*"

*officer leads a sureal charge of 21st century soldiers in 21st century body armor and gear, into 12th century combat with 12th century wepons*... that would be somethn to see...

	05-04-2003 14:47									#26
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I wonder how many Iraqis a marine can take down with a battle ax before falling himself?

	05-04-2003 14:54									#27
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Kramerman that would explain their excellent armor penetration then. I wonder if the health effects of DU ammo residue (most of it is cleaned up by teams they send in... dont want any of that stuff floating around for terrorists to make rad bombs and stuff) are overly exagerated? Or is it pretty mean stuff?

It is pretty mean, but not in casual contact. The problem in desert environments like Iraq is that DU residue will get in the soil, be kicked up in sandstorms, and can get into the lungs, where DU particles are truly dangerous.

It does take a fairly significant amount, and the Army has specified procedures for personnel working in a DU environment. Respirators are only indicated when doing something like working during recovery operations inside a vehicle that has had a DU kill.

It is less toxic than most heavy metals when ingested (obviously in small amounts), and it is generally not absorbed into plant or animal tissues, but it is highly carcinogenic when ingested into the lungs.

BTW, the 25mm gun on the Bradley can fire both AP and HE rounds, both are belt fed to it.

	05-04-2003 14:57									#28
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by DarthVeda The M-60 was and is a **** pile. They are not much better than a T-55.

USMC M60A3s held their own pretty well against Iraqi T-72s, T-55s and BMP-2s at Kuwait International Airport in GW1. They had no crew fatalities, and quite a few armor kills.

The basic model and the A1 are pieces of ****, the A2 was an abomination, but the A3 is at least more or less mediocre.

	05-04-2003 14:58									#29
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: BTW, the 25mm gun on the Bradley can fire both AP and HE rounds, both are belt fed to it.

yeah, i remember reading a few years back about this nifty mechanism it has, where it allows the gunner to merely flip a switch or somethn and he can select instantly between HE and AP ammo. I was wondering tho about what type of AP ammo it had in particular, but this has been answered already, unless they use an alternative to DU

	05-04-2003 15:02									#30
	Got spare money?

There really is no alternative, unfortunately.