From: colin*@pacbell.net (Colin Campbell) Subject: Re: T-90 verus M1A2 Date: 1997/06/08 Message-ID: #1/1 Sender: military@ranger.daytonoh.ncr.com (Sci.military Login) References: Organization: Pacific Bell Internet Services Newsgroups: sci.military.moderated From colin*@pacbell.net (Colin Campbell) jaskew@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph Askew) wrote: >: The damage to the M1? Out of alignment sights from the blast of the ammo >: cooking off. The turret was replaced (and sent back to the States for >: analysis), while the tank went back into action. > >And this is the problem I have with the story. Ignoring things like >why would an *advancing* US Army destory tanks rather than leaving >them for recovery crews (and if they couldn't shift it the first >time how did they succeed the second?), the impact of a 120 mm DU >penetrator is considerable. If I remember right about the same as >being hit by a Greyhound bus doing 60 mph. There is *no*way* that >after suffering such a hit, even if there was no penetration which >from the rear at poiint blank range I'm sure there would be, the >tank would be fine. Actually this is a true story. The turret was replaced because they had a spare one and it was faster than replacing the cables. The decision to 'combat-loss' the tank was made because the commander did not want his recovery assets left behind (basically sacrifice the tank in order to keep the advance rolling). The attempt to destroy the tank was made using a HEAT round and the ammo doors were locked open. After the fires went out, the gun was fired but the FCS was inoperable due to fire damage to the wiring harnesses. The tank was recovered by pulling it out with 3 M88s linked together. 'Reply to' address changed to foil email spammers. Please remove " * " if you wish to reply via email