Al Khalid Main Gun Target Range

[Officer of Engineers]

By the by, office of engineers, please don't talk about the superior forces-----iraq was a third rate army, with third rate soldiers, obsolete equipment and generals with no training. It should be a shame for any major army to show it as a feather of success in their hats.

And you are under the misconception that my eval got anything to do with the Iraqis. It does not. V Corps has done things I only dreamt about when I was with VII Corps.

You remember the 1st day, the Shock-&-Awe? When CENTCOM learned of Saddam's wherabouts and re-arrange an entire strike campaign to hit him. An entire strike campaign that was desgined to allow the flow of V Corps to move into Iraq was taken, tossed out, re-arranged with new targetting priorities - with less than optimal but tolerable reduction of Iraqi C2 for V Corps - all done within 24 hours.

How about the reduction of the Medina Division, within 10 hours, the 3rd Infantry Division's plan of hitting the Medina Division was thrown out and replaced with brigade-to-brigade action. 10 hours. I need 10 hours alone to re-organize a brigade from supporting action to independent action and the 3ID did it as a division.

The american forces are trained to combat russian forces one on one---

One on three. When I was with VII Corps, we were expecting the 8 Guards, 16 Guards, and the 1st Moscow Shock Armies.

to dignify iraq conflict to that level is an indignity in itself.

100 miles in 72 hours. This has only been matched by the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan in terms of military prowness.

You lost friends, that happens in combat

I don't blame luck.

----- in the first gulf war, when the coalition mine sweeper tanks and bulldozers went in, the LATIMES estimated that there may have been 50000 to a 100000 iraqi troops buried alive in their trenches.

Come on. A division's frontage is 10 miles and the USMC did not collapse 10 miles of trenches. And an Iraqi division is 15,000 men

What's everybody has been staying amateur on are the toys and not even the real toys for that matter. My tank got a bigger gun than yours. My tank got a thicker skin than yours. Who the hell cares. There's been no understanding shown for simple concepts like combined arms. I doubt anyone here can even tell me what Joint Force is. Well, "my tank" can call for help alot better than anyones, even without me calling for help.

In a one-tank-on-one-tank contest, every tank got a 50-50 chance of killing any other tank in the world. It all depends on who sees who first and then you can plan accordingly.

When you get into tank platoons and tank companies, those who can stay in formation and fight in formation the fastest wins the fight even if they're the ones who lost a tank first. And that's where the Western tanks come up heads and shoulders above everybody else. Every tank in a company can see what every other tank can see - without asking for it. When we lose a tank, we know just as fast as the crew died. We see a big gapping hole in our screens and we can react as a company formation almost instaneously. What's even more, battalion and brigade and even DAG and CAS can mount fire support without the engaging company asking for it. Nothing like this has ever been seen by any army and what's more it worked in combat conditions. So what the Iraqis are incompetents. It does not reduce the real world effectiveness of these systems by a single iota.

How else did you think 3-7Cav (a single tank battalion) take on the entire Medina Division? It ain't by slugging it out.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

There is no doubt that the U S millitary has done on the ground what other armies can only dream of. But it is also true that the opposition had nothing of substance to stop the assault. Any assault, troop movement, armour or otherwise was carried out as if it was just a routine training mission, the enemy armour and equipment was like shooting ducks in a gallery. The enemy couldnot see the american tanks or the gunships coming in---they were slaughtered into a peacemeal.

No doubt there was great troop movement, everything happened as planned---because there was no adversary who could take a stand. The enemy had nothing to disrupt the oppositions movement. Iraqi army was fighting the war with the first world war mentality whereas the americans were way into the twenty first century. I stand corrected---american soldiers are trained against a 1:3 proportion and that against the russian army----and in that combat too the russian millitary don't stand a chance in conventional warfare. The tank divisions would be mercilessly slaughtered, their airforce neutralized in the first 100 hours and by the end of week one, it would be a surprise if russia would not have resorted to tactical battlefield nukes.

So if a country like russia cannot stand in front of the U S forces, where does iraq or any other nation stand a chance against such an adversary.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

On the contrary, the Iraqis more than prove themselves capable.

They stopped us cold at Basra. In addition the Fedayeen Saddam, the 51st Division re-organized themselves into a single Brigade and carry on the fight.

The Medina Division was caught out of position both physically and psychologically facing a possible Northern thrust. Within 30 hours, despite overwhelming air strikes, managed to surround the 3ID's vanguard, 3-7Cav. Just because they could not co-ordinate proper fire in time did not mean that 3-7Cav was not in a world of hurt. Given another 10 hours, 3-7Cav would have had to abandon its position beign bingo ammo.

They decimated an entire APACHE sqn at Karballa.

Yes, most ran but those who didn't run fought their best.

As for the Fulda Gap, the Warsaw Pact had more than a good chance at killing us. VII Corps' success rested with the 11th Armour Calvary Regiment and its surivior on the 4th Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group. It was the 11ACR's job to delay 8 and 16 Guards long enough for VII Corps to set up. Failing that, it was 4CMBG's job to delay them until VII Corps can reach across the Rhine. If you can count, that's two brigades in independent actions against an entire Army Group. Not exactly good odds.

Now, if 11ACR did its job and VII Corps got ready, then we have two choices. Either they nuke us to blast us openned or we nuke them to stop them cold.

However, even taking nukes out of the equation. We'll lose ground up to the Rhine. There's no way around it. At 3 to 1 strategic odds and most likely 6-7 to 1 local odds, there's no way to stop them everywhere. The best we can do is hold out in salients until re-enforcements from North America start changing the course.

Remember I said the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan was on par with the Iraq Invasion? That army went through some of the toughest terrain in the middle of winter in less than 3 weeks.

What's that goto do with Fulda Gap? Engineering obstacles, including minefields formed a major part of our defences. A mine has three active uses. To kill an enemy tank. To create an obstacle using the dead enemy tank. And to create a crater as another obstacles. Well, the Soviets just went through hundreds of miles of bolders blocking pot holed roads. A couple of hundred metres of minefields ain't going to be a problem.

Which by that time, we expected nukes to be tossed.

 

[sigatoka]

BULL CRAP! There is no such thing as luck. Enemy incompetence is not something we relied on. At every engagement level in Iraq, we ENSURED we had local superiority and that's because we WON the recee battle at every level.

In the current conflict the U.S. armies equipment, training and technology has improved remarkably. On the other hand the Iraqi military was under sanctions, found it hard just to keep running its outdated equipment and wasnt able to upgrade at all.

Heres the point I am making, the U.S. did very well in 1991 but a certain "portion" of the success then was an abberation because in the current conflict they have done worse against a more poorly equiped opponent while having superior equipment and technology.

Im not saying that the U.S. shouldnt have been able to win in 1991 in a crushing fashion, just that in reality it shouldnt have been able to do it with less than 200 casualities while inflicting 20,000 deaths.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Heres the point I am making, the U.S. did very well in 1991 but a certain "portion" of the success then was an abberation

How?

because in the current conflict they have done worse against a more poorly equiped opponent while having superior equipment and technology.

Will you get off that schtick. This is an INSURGENCY. The WAR is over. In fact, the Iraq War was even more spectacular than the Kuwait War. The Insurgency may or may not succeed but it's an entirely different type of conflict. A type which every military professional out there has empathetically stated that the US military has not prepared for.

Im not saying that the U.S. shouldnt have been able to win in 1991 in a crushing fashion, just that in reality it shouldnt have been able to do it with less than 200 casualities while inflicting 20,000 deaths.

That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. The mesaure of an army is by how many casualties one suffers.

 

[ChinaWall65]

Will you get off that schtick. This is an INSURGENCY. The WAR is over. In fact, the Iraq War was even more spectacular than the Kuwait War. The Insurgency may or may not succeed but it's an entirely different type of conflict. A type which every military professional out there has empathetically stated that the US military has not prepared for.

If you want to say insurgency is not part of the war, then there was never a second war in Iraq. Most of Iraqi forces surrendered as US forces got there...they weren't trying to fight, they were waiting for US forces to "liberate" them. The ones that stayed and fought are what the US are now calling insurgents. You are trying to convince us that Iraq can defeat US while at the same time you are trying to convince us that US can squash any army in the world.

That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. The mesaure of an army is by how many casualties one suffers.

This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. The measure of an army is its ability to win wars, not by how many casualties it suffers. USSR lost around 10 million soldiers in WWII compared to Germany's 5 million losses. But USSR still defeated Germany.

 

[tahirkhely]

Officer of Engineer, dont try to be over pseudo, right. You said the even iraq war was more spectacular than kuwait war. dont you feel ashamed to wage a war against weak nations which dont have a comparable army navy or airforce and still you never won any of those. Vietnam, afghanistan, Iraq are all medals on the forehead of US military. Just consider US military might and the results that it has got.

 

[A.Rahman]

Officer of Engineer, dont try to be over pseudo, right. You said the even iraq war was more spectacular than kuwait war. dont you feel ashamed to wage a war against weak nations which dont have a comparable army navy or airforce and still you never won any of those. Vietnam, afghanistan, Iraq are all medals on the forehead of US military. Just consider US military might and the results that it has got.

US many have won the battles in Iraq, but in the long run they will loose the war.

you simply cant beat the gurellia warfare.

The best thing for US to do right now is to pull out & install a puppet government.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Officer of Engineer, dont try to be over pseudo, right.

Don't try to tell me about war.

You said the even iraq war was more spectacular than kuwait war. dont you feel ashamed to wage a war against weak nations which dont have a comparable army navy or airforce and still you never won any of those.

Ashamed? Hell, no. That's the job of the military. To make sure you win. It is complete military stupidity to give the bad guys a chance to win against you.

Vietnam, afghanistan, Iraq are all medals on the forehead of US military. Just consider US military might and the results that it has got.

Afghanistan and Iraq are on going. The US have not lost those yet and while the news media may report otherwise; 90% of both populations do not want any more fighting and that right now means to support the biggest and meanest dog on the block and that means the US.

And I really suggest you take a harder look at Vietnam. Vietnamization worked to the point that Saigon attacked Hanoi.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

US many have won the battles in Iraq, but in the long run they will loose the war.

That remains to be seen. Frankly, what did you expect? The Americans were bound to make mistakes in Iraq. They're human. However, if this is the worst of it, then they're doing pretty damned good. The opposition is fragmented and not one is capable of outbleeding the US. Combined, the Iraqi insurgency have a chance but they're not uniting anytime soon.

you simply cant beat the gurellia warfare.

Poppy frag. Mongols in Afghanistan (famous 300 heads per soldier order), The Viet-Cong (as opposed to the NVA) died during Tet in Vietnam; the British won both Northern Ireland and Malyasia; Khmer Rouge lost Cambodia; Kabul lasted another ten years after the Soviets left and only fell when 2 of the biggest warlords switched sides; Turks crushing the Armenians and Kurds; Iraq and Iran doing the same; Nazi occupation of the Ukraines, Poland, Greece, and Balkans (Soviet Red Army drove them out, not guerrillas).

The best thing for US to do right now is to pull out & install a puppet government.

Doing it. After they build the Iraqi Army, they're going.

 

[sohailbarki]

i think alkhalid-II will have better range and turret..

 

[dberwal]

Terrorism is not Gurilla war people pls understand.

Its a shame on a soilder to even compare gurilla warfare and terrorism.

How can someone compare an ARMY ORG to a POLICE ORG, if u get the differnce; then i guess my point is understood. (guess v little chance)

A soilder always have some basis athics about warefare,

terrorists dont have any!!!!

A soilder is trained to fight a soilder not a civilian (pls understand the meaning)

where as a Terrorist is trained to kill people that all without facing them... like a coward.

A soilder is loyal to his battalian, his country and people that is what motivates him.

A terrorist is used by his masters, and his sole purpose is to obey his masters command and never use the brain given by god.

 

[zraver]

Because you are just plain out stubborn...M1A2 has never fought an opponent that actually had any real chance of winning...Type 99 is well enough to destroy M1A2s and vice versa, so stop being so absolute.

Sorry to be reving a dead horse but........

The Chinese 125mm smooth bore is a 48 caliber gun platform. Even allowing that the Chinese have the metallugical skills to make a barrel and breach that can take higher pressures than the Russian 2A46 125mm/L48 and have made the chemistry breakthrough to make a propellant able to use that streanght, why didnt they increase to 51 or 52 calibers like the Russians did with the 2A46M-1 or 2A46M-2? The higher the caliber the higher the velocity or amount of energy it can impart to the round. The failure to go to a higher caliber implies that one or both of the requirements (metallurgy/chemistry) has not been met,and that gun is an early 2A46 clone.

I do not doubt that the chinese 125mm will outlast the early model Russian 2A46 guns and are made to more exacting tolerances improvong acuracy as well. But there is no reason to assume that they have created a gun that can fire a short rod penetrator fast enough to defeat modern armor.

All 125mm 2A46 pattern guns hav ethe same curse, 2 piece ammuntion. This limits not only the overall amount of powder (velocity) but the leangth of the penetrator. A 500mm-ish short rod penetrator cannot achieve the same performance as a 120mm longrod penetrator at 800mm+ in leangth. A SRP will by its nature hav emost of it's mass close to the tip. This mean only the energy imparted at impact will be available. A longer sabot has signifigant mass behind the tip that will drive the round forward even after impact (on the same principle that the Romans used with the pilum type javalin). In effect a LRP can make more use of the imparted energy to defeat armor than the SRP can.

3VBM8/3BM22/23- 4.5 kg sabot 450 mm 1760 m/s (typical T-72 round for early 2A46 guns)

Russian 3VBM19/3BM42M- 6.9kg sabot 570 mm 1750 m/s (This is rusisas most advanced round for the 2A46-M1/2 found on the T-90 and T-80U)

DM53 120mm KE Projectile (Rheinmetall)- (Non-DU) NATO 120mm sabot round
8.9kg sabot 745mm in leangth 1,670 m/s @ L/44 1750 m/s @L55

M829A3 Silver Bullet- (US DU sabot) 10kg sabot 892mm 1700m/s+ (1,555m/s stated but this is deliberately low based on my own experiance)

Real simple math formula= mass x velocity x leangth of the penetrator

Round Number Penetration
3VBM8/3BM17/18 3,564,000 420mm RHAe published
3VBM19/3BVM42M 6,686,100 600mmRHAe published
DM53 @ 1670* 11,072,935 900mm RHAe est
DM53 @ 1750 11,603,375 1000mm RHAe est
M829A3@ 1700 15,164,000 1450mm RHAe est
M829A3@ 1555 13,870,600 1200mm RHAe est
Pak 125mm DU sabot** 7,267,500 690mm RHAe est
Pak 125mm DU sabot*** 4,590,000 500mm RHAe est

* probalby equivalent to the Arjuns gun

**If Pakistan's 125mm DU round is 570mm long (doubtful as it uses the autoloader form a T-72 not a T-90 and weighs 7.5kg and reaches 1700 m/s

*** If Pakistan's 125mm DU round is only 450mm long 6kg and travels 1700 m/s


Rusisan pattern guns can only achieve 1700m/s+ with rounds signifigantly lighter than western ammuntion types.

No matter how you cut it the pak 125mm DU round will probalby be a an improvement over the standard Rusisan or Chinese rounds as long as they have over come the deformation problems. But as the math shows it will not be enough to overcome the curse of the short rod penetrator

http://www.answers.com/topic/125-mm-smoothbore-rounds-1

http://www.defense-update.com/products/digits/120ke.htm

 

[mohammadkhan70]

how many tanks does the pakistan have compared to India??

 

[zraver]

India has about a 1.5-1 lead over Pakistan in raw numbers but has more defense commitments and Pakistan is also modernizing faster. The next 10 years will decide who gains the real qualitive lead.