AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
No. All that you claim is only on paper. That's not fact.
Chinese ATGM discussion
- Thread starter Broccoli
- Start date
No. All that you claim is only on paper. That's not fact.
D
Deleted member 13312
Guest
Then I am very interested in what you consider to be "facts", considering that the evidence you brought up consist of nothing more than a blurry video that does nothing to show a HJ-8 actually destroyed that M1A1.
We can easily trace what kind of variant of the tank that is sold to Iraq by official statements by the US department. Or how much of Iraq's defense budget is propped up by US foreign funds via the US State Deparment.
If you are going to say that the US department is capable of lying, then I too can say that all the other sources that you brought up have the possibility of being fabricated or being outright fakes. This goes both ways you know.
Last edited by a moderator:
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Back when that video was released there were also videos of the Peshmerga firing the HJ-8 showing the view down the road that was very similar to those shots of the destroyed tank video. The videos were posted somewhere in this forum when it happened. The Peshmerga are US allies. So US allies lie? Before Desert Storm they said the M1 could take a hit from mostly anything normally used against a tank. Now they don't say that except from fanboys. Something destroyed that tank so it doesn't really matter which weapon. The front is suppose to be the most heavily armored. The videos posted from the Peshmerga show they fired at the front of the tank. Do you have proof they were water-downed M1s for export? That's you assuming since apparently you saw the video for the first time when I posted it. Back when it happened some believed they were handed down from US forces who used them when they were still in Iraq. Their word is just as valid as yours.
If you think the Pentagon doesn't lie, I've got a bridge to sell you. Shall I bring up Pat Tillman? Or how about the four US Navy ship collision in the last year? Two of them the Pentagon was quick to blame the other party before an investigation was done. Hmmmm. Then they had to admit it was the US Navy's responsibility for the accidents.
D
Deleted member 13312
Guest
The Iraqi are also supposed US allies, yet you claim that they are capable of concealing evidence and facts ? So should not that also apply to the Pershmergas as well ? Or is because what they are claiming just so happens to conform with what you want to believe so you accept it as true ? Well that's some cherry picking.
I don't know who those fanboys are but you won't hear that one from me. Not all tanks' fronts are uniformly armored, due to restrictions or unfeasibility some areas like the roof of the driver's compartment and the lower front plate are lesser armored compared to the turret face and upper front plate, due to 1) the unlikely nature that a ATGM can be accurate enough to hit such weakspots repeatedly and 2) Making all the front part equally armored would make the tank unacceptably heavy.
As for the M1s being watered down versions here is the statement
I am not assuming, because I know for a fact what kind of Abrahams variant that the Iraqis are using.
Of course I don't believe that the Pentagon is an absolute paragon of virtue, but in the same gist I am also highly skeptical of any other claims by sides who have an axe to grind in the matter. The Pershmerga had always chaffed under Iraqi rule so they have a real interest in making them look bad.
And if you think that unverified sources of media and hearsay are more credible than official sources, then might I suggest the Empire State Building which is going at the low low price of "gullible/wishful thinking/naive".
Might I also bring up the extremely opaque state of Pershmerga propaganda as well.
Last edited by a moderator:
The USA AFAIK does not export M1 variants with the depleted uranium armor package. It is for USA usage only. The Soviets used to have a similar situation with their tanks. AFAIK the USA also used depleted uranium rounds. While most of the Iraqi T-72s, when the USA was fighting real T-72s, were using regular AP steel core ammo which in USA or Soviet usage would only be used either for training purposes or against light skinned vehicles. So the Iraqis basically used for the most part ammo that couldn't even penetrate USA M1 tanks armor. HEAT rounds would also have been fairly useless. What the Iraqis needed was tungsten core ammunition. Then there are the issues they had like bad night fighting capabilities because the tanks had no decent panoramic IR sights, poor communications, and the like.
Remember the panic of the US Army when they found the Iraqis had the Kornet missile in limited amounts the second time around? A couple of tanks were disabled with that although AFAIK no crew was lost.
Also AFAIK none of the exported tanks have had the TUSK upgrades with ERA blocks. The original tanks could probably defeat an RPG-7 of that era, but against more modern anti-tank weapons you need something better. Even the USA realized they hit a protection limit with the ERA and are now testing the Trophy system. IMHO they should also test the LAHAT missile.
Remember the panic of the US Army when they found the Iraqis had the Kornet missile in limited amounts the second time around? A couple of tanks were disabled with that although AFAIK no crew was lost.
Also AFAIK none of the exported tanks have had the TUSK upgrades with ERA blocks. The original tanks could probably defeat an RPG-7 of that era, but against more modern anti-tank weapons you need something better. Even the USA realized they hit a protection limit with the ERA and are now testing the Trophy system. IMHO they should also test the LAHAT missile.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 13312
Guest
Moresoever we have not seen actual footage of the HJ-8 impacting and destroying the said Abrahams, and even the extent of the damage is debatable, a blackend and scorched front does not mean a penetration. The The front of the tank actually looks pretty much intact, the ammo storage is destroyed but that is part of the Abraham's design (blow off panels), moresoever such a damage can be achieved by attacking the flanks of the Abrahams, a common and very much encouraged ATGM tactic.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
I've got news for you... you don't come off as a neutral observer. You obviously have a prejudice against China. What you charge ain't exclusive to China. In fact if it offends you that they're are rampant nationalistic chauvinism in Chinese military forums, I'm all for it. Like all other military forums aren't the same? They're all like that. You charging that's exclusively Chinese is your bias. What you don't get is I don't care what's the truth or not. I destroy people's arguments using their own words. People said the M1 can survive conventional anti-tank attacks especially from the front. No it doesn't. The Iraq War showed that the M1 can be destroyed by conventional means. It happens and people try to spin excuses.
The only thing I mentioned about Iraqis is it was their tank. Where did I say they were concealing evidence and facts? Making up stuff again? Is this like assuming I was talking about you charging the HJ-8 was obsolete when obviously that wasn't the case? Or automatically assuming those were watered-down export M1s? You're the one that believe US allies, the Peshmerga, were lying about the situation. Or did you not know they were US allies before I told you?
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
All I see is an M1 destroyed which ain't suppose to happen. I don't see a blast area for a larger unconventional weapon. So it was destroyed by a conventional weapon which is not suppose to happen given the M1's reputation. I recall one aerial video also showing the tank crew's bodies executed to the side. They were able to survive to be executed meaning it wasn't a powerful weapon if the crew survived to escape the tank but it was enough to destroy the tank by fire and that's all that matters.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 13312
Guest
Well coming from those coloured lens of yours, I am would be surprised if it appeared any other way. I brought up the opaqueness of Chinese and Pershmerga military news to counter your assertion that they trustworthy.
But I have to give you some credit. At least you are honest about your intentions of not seeking the truth. But you fail utterly at everything else, for starters by accusing me of Chinese prejudice you convienently ignore my other posts in other threads, more specifically this
or this
In which I give due credit to China when it is due and only due.
Second off you fail utterly to negate my claims and evidence, with only bare denial and your own rhetoric as a rebuttal.
From here
And they being who ? It is either the US or the Iraqis at this point. So don't try to wiggle out of this one. The Pershmerga's aren't exporting tanks to anyone as far as I know. And only the Iraqis have access to the supposed wreckage. For all your boasting of destroying other people's argument you aren't very clever at formulating your own.
And did you actually missed the links to which I have posted ? My my, that is some oversight there kiddo.
And do you have any evidence to suggest that I don't that the Pershmerga are ostensibly US allies ? Or are you again selectively ignoring my earlier posts that stated that I knew that all along. If you are going to argue rhetoric at least try to sound intelligent and fact check your posts.[/QUOTE]
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 13312
Guest
So lets summarize, we can tick attempted ad homenim, hearsay and shifting the goal posts off the list of logical fallacies you have displayed here. If we keep going we might get the whole list done. I am rooting for you !!