Black Hawk Down

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Hey,




As of Lately, I been obess with reading up on my Information about The Il lfated Raid on Octorober 3-4 1993. I just got done reading Black Hawk Down by Mark Bowden and Just brought Micheal Durant's Book, the only surivior from the 2nd crash site (and the POW).. What you guys thoughts on this?? Again, I keep my thoguhts untill the debate grows..

[percy13]

Well to me the whole mission seemed a tad naive. These Warlords had full scale armies and to go in with relatively small forces seems a bit optimistic. As long as those Warlords were allowed to retain power the country was always going to be a mess.

If the US seriously wanted to end the war they should have gone in full scale and disarmed the lot of the private armies. Then again it's a bit naive of me to think the US people would want to do such a thing.

Africa is such a mess politically.

[Marshal Murat]

I really enjoyed the movie, it doesn't tell it exactly, but its very good.
I think if America had really worried about the situation, then they would've sent in more men to combat the private armies, but like the above poster stated
Africa is politically messy

[Warluster]

I havent read the books but from the mvie perspective, I saw it as an sad crusade on an impossible mission...

[Julian the apostate]

i'd agree with that, the logic of small group fighting rapid movement and heavy fire power do work brilliantly just without the firepower, cut off movement and small numbers bad things happen. Plus in all reality i don't think there was a man to take command if the warlords were taken out

[Grey_Fox]

If the US seriously wanted to end the war they should have gone in full scale and disarmed the lot of the private armies. Then again it's a bit naive of me to think the US people would want to do such a thing.

They did, they used 20,000 Marines to force a ceasefire, and then after a few months brought them home. Then the fighting kicked off again and Task Force Ranger was sent in, with the objective of killing or capturing Aidid. As if getting one person would bring about a democracy.

[percy13]

I didn't realise so many troops were originally used. Any idea how many UN (non-US) troops were involved?

[Grey_Fox]

A regiment of Pakistani troops, and Malaysian APCs. The armoured column was about a mile long.

Numbers are iffy because there's been no official study done on it, at least as of 1999.

[percy13]

Not exactly an overwhelming force then. From my limited knowledge of the campaign (mostly gleaned from the movie and what you guys have said here) it seems to have been a bit of a botch up job entirely.

[econ21]

There was a superb TV documentary about Black Hawk Down, which included interviewing some of the Somali fighters today. It's a fascinating episode, at least viewed from a US perspective in dramatic or military terms. That's thanks to Mark Bowden's riveting work and the superb movie. I find it hard to think about those two sergeants who died trying to protect Michael Durant without a tear welling up. Or to hear Clinton's "we'll get the job done and then skedaddle" speech after without cursing his insincerity.

But those are emotional reactions. From a wider, political or historical perspective, the episode is rather disturbing and troubling. For example, the Somali casualties were apparently horrendous and unlikely they were all combatants. More fundamentally, it raises some important political/moral issues about "liberal humanitarian interventionism" that you could say are being writ large in Iraq and Afghanistan today. And Somalia still has not recovered from the collapse that led to the intervention.

As a liberal humanitarian, I am torn about the merits of the intervention. On the one hand, where armed thugs are messing up a country, it is not ridiculous to say that intervention can help. Sierra Leone is probably a good example of this. But the trick is knowing when it can help and when, as arguably with Iraq, it would just make things worse.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Rather you help Africa or not, that Place is a total and utter mess, and been like that for decades. Rwanda, for instance. 800,000 people killed in how long? a month or two? and UN and them just watched (go figure). Ethopiha and Somilia in the 1980's, Darfur,etc....

we went into Mog with a small force, because the mission was only suppose to take a hour or two, but it turn into a disaeatr for both sides. If we would have just sent tanks and more armor in there, nothing would have went wrong.

[Geoffrey S]

we went into Mog with a small force, because the mission was only suppose to take a hour or two, but it turn into a disaeatr for both sides. If we would have just sent tanks and more armor in there, nothing would have went wrong.
Considering the time constraints attached to the mission I'd be surprised if that were even remotely possible.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

and Ironically the Armor came in a week after the mission (a week I think,not sure) while the POW was sitll being held. could have kept waiting for a week and then went in and finish the job.

[yesdachi]

I watched the original history channel documentary when it first aired and it was very informative, apparently so informative that when re-aired the next day it was missing, iirc, a half an hour, including some of the info on the Delta’s and some of the more gruesome footage of the idiots parading around body parts of those soldiers they killed (just recalling the visuals makes me very angry for several reasons). One part of the documentary that I found fascinating was the explanation of the use of whatever drug (my memory sucks tonight) the warlord’s troops chewed and how it affected them by what time and how the US should really have paid attention to its use.

Decent movie, good documentary and yes, Africa is a mess.

[Grey_Fox]

One part of the documentary that I found fascinating was the explanation of the use of whatever drug (my memory sucks tonight) the warlord’s troops chewed and how it affected them by what time and how the US should really have paid attention to its use.

The drug is locally called khat, I think it's just marijuana. The Americans knew all about how it effected the Somali's and their fighting abilities, but they decided to go in gung-ho anyways. Their eyes were bigger than their bellies.

[yesdachi]

The drug is locally called khat, I think it's just marijuana. The Americans knew all about how it effected the Somali's and their fighting abilities, but they decided to go in gung-ho anyways. Their eyes were bigger than their bellies.
That’s the stuff! Definitely different from MJ. Here is a little description of the effects from wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khat)

Khat consumption induces mild euphoria and excitement. Individuals become very talkative under the influence of the drug and may appear to be unrealistic and emotionally unstable.

and a nice article from the BBC. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6155796.stm)

Islamist fighters in Somalia's capital, Mogadishu, shot at a crowd angered at shortages of the mild stimulant khat, killing one person, say eyewitnesses.

Khat vendors were protesting about loss of revenue since a ban on Kenyan flights to Somalia on Monday, that has led to a shortage of imported khat.

The Islamists have subsequently burned two big khat consignments which were flown in from elsewhere this week.

The Islamic courts have tried to outlaw khat since they rose to power in June.

The Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) that now rules the capital says khat encourages immorality.

Most khat, chewed by many Somali men - especially the gunmen who have fought for control of the country for the last 15 years - was flown in from neighbouring Kenya.

[Tribesman]

They did, they used 20,000 Marines to force a ceasefire, and then after a few months brought them home. Then the fighting kicked off again and Task Force Ranger was sent in, with the objective of killing or capturing Aidid. As if getting one person would bring about a democracy.

Wasn't it 37,000 troops to secure half the country . Which was replaced by22,000 troops and police to secure the whole country plus the apparently co ordinated but indepedent US rapid reaction force .
I say apparently co-ordinated since one of the funniest episodes of the debacle was when the rapid reaction force attacked a UN compound and arrested the commisioner .
Well he did have armed guards so he must have been a warlord .... :oops:

BTW with some saying about needing more tanks and armour.
Hasn't it been shown time and time again that tanks in a built up populated area are vulnerable and not very effective , plus have the a problem related to inflicting lots of needless civilian casualties .

[Fisherking]

BTW with some saying about needing more tanks and armour.
Hasn't it been shown time and time again that tanks in a built up populated area are vulnerable and not very effective , plus have the a problem related to inflicting lots of needless civilian casualties .

Traditional wisdom is that an armored unit is severely vulnerable without infantry support in a built up area. This does not mean that tanks are of no use in city combat. Quite the contrary actually. In WWII the limited availability of tanks in Aachen lead to the employment of SP artillery in the role of direct support weapons, much less able than tanks. An Armored Cavalry or Armor-Infantry team was exactly what was needed to secure the country, not just the city. It was strictly a civilian Political decision which kept it from being deployed in the first instance.

[Tribesman]

It was strictly a civilian Political decision which kept it from being deployed in the first instance.
By the first instance do you mean the watered down version where only 3500 troops were authorised due to political intransigence(there was after all an election coming up) .
Or do you mean the second first instance drawn up by a certain fellow named Colin (acting on CIA reports) where he was given 7,000 more troops than he asked for plus the option of a further 8,000 .
Or are we into the third first instance when political intransigence again kicked in , but they retained their own military independance with the option to do whatever they saw fit deployment and operations wise .

Complicted stuff this Somalia innit :sweatdrop:

[econ21]

Traditional wisdom is that an armored unit is severely vulnerable without infantry support in a built up area. This does not mean that tanks are of no use in city combat. Quite the contrary actually. In WWII the limited availability of tanks in Aachen lead to the employment of SP artillery in the role of direct support weapons, much less able than tanks.

I agree, Iraq War II has shown that modern heavy armour is very useful in cities, at least against a 3rd rate army (like Somali militia). But I recall it being said that the armour is so heavy, it takes much longer to deploy - it has to be shipped, not flown in. I don't know if the time factor was significant in Somalia.


An Armored Cavalry or Armor-Infantry team was exactly what was needed to secure the country, not just the city. It was strictly a civilian Political decision which kept it from being deployed in the first instance.

Maybe it was a political decision rather than a logistics matter. But I fear experience in Iraq and Afghanistan suggests that thinking "a team" can secure a large untamed country is a little optimistic. Secure the cities and major towns, maybe.

That being said, it seems like the Ethiopians/Provisional Somali government are getting close to securing the Somali cities now even without M1 Abrams. Part of the problem with the US intervention in Somalia is that - unlike the Ethiopians today - they did not seem to have any significant local proxies they could work with. Nationalism is such that an outsider like Ethiopia (or US) intervening to back a local faction is one thing; but an outsider vs all local factions is a recipe for disaster, heavy armour or no.

[Fisherking]

There was at the time, just as there is today a stockpile of equipment at Diego Garcia. I am not sure what type of tanks were on hand at that time but getting the correctly trained troops for the equipment is not such a huge problem (M-1A1s most likely). It was more of the then secretary of defence stating that he did not want any tanks or apcs because it looked too aggressive. When the military and media cry went out for tanks Les Aspen resigned.:oops:

Armor was late arriving in Vietnam because everyone said it was not tank country but they soon found that it was desperately needed. By the end all major formations has armor available.

Armor can be deployed by air but it takes the total heavy lift air fleet to deploy one Battalion of Tanks. (54 tanks and assorted other heavy equipment totalling roughly 70 aircraft for equipment and people) That said, it does not mean that it had to be more than a platoon of 4 tanks and a company of apcs, which are far more easily transported.

Team is the current military term for a mixed force of Tanks and Infantry at company size, i.e. Team Yankee. Larger units are called taskforce *.

Armored Cavalry was a better option for deployment at the time and would have provided the security necessary for transport moving about the country side. I didn't mean that such a force would single-handedly secure the country.

The Marines had been withdrawn I believe but any Marine Corps landing team would have had a tank force available.

Les Aspen was a leading dove during Vietnam. He was from one of the few States which had no significant military bases which would have been jeopardized by his actions. Additionally he had not served in the military and was decidedly antimilitary. His appointment by Mr. Clinton to head the Department of Defence was hailed as a great thing by the press at the time but was simply a disaster waiting to happen IMO. It would be like appointing Himmler to head the Anti Defamation League.

Political appointments are usually something to cause great press without regard to what happens afterward. The military establishment it's self can not always be relied on to do the sensible thing. At the top levels it is also extremely vulnerable to political whim and staffed usually by men who want to tell you what you would most like to hear. With the changes made starting with the first Gulf War and continuing at least through our last Secretary of Defence the likelihood of future blunders has only been enhanced. Force structure is far out of balance and cooperation between the services is, or was as of a year or so ago, still a problem. Too often too much attention is paid to perception rather than results. Until the top brass and the civilians are thinking of what the troops need to do the job they are asked to do rather than how it looks to the public we still run the same risks as we did then.

[Tribesman]

I agree, Iraq War II has shown that modern heavy armour is very useful in cities, at least against a 3rd rate army (like Somali militia). But I recall it being said that the armour is so heavy, it takes much longer to deploy - it has to be shipped, not flown in. I don't know if the time factor was significant in Somalia.

Well I was thinking of two recent middle eastern examples which were more approprite to the situation in hand .
When the Isrealis decided to use ground troops without accompanying armour(though they had it in support) in the west bank to minimise the civilian casualties but still get the job done .
The foray into Lebanon where they sent in troops but withdrew much of the accompanying armour after early losses highlighted its vulnerability in an urban setting (which "officially" was clear of any civilians so they cannot have been a factor in the descision) .


Until the top brass and the civilians are thinking of what the troops need to do the job they are asked to do rather than how it looks to the public we still run the same risks as we did then.
Until the top brass , politicians and their nations want to be featured in the history books under events like East Berlin , Budapest , Prague or Tainnamen square then that is a risk the troops will have to put up with .

[Grey_Fox]

The foray into Lebanon where they sent in troops but withdrew much of the accompanying armour after early losses highlighted its vulnerability in an urban setting (which "officially" was clear of any civilians so they cannot have been a factor in the descision) .


You forgot the qualifier of econ21's post, here it is again, with the qualifier bolded:


I agree, Iraq War II has shown that modern heavy armour is very useful in cities, at least against a 3rd rate army (like Somali militia).

Hezbollah is not a third rate army - it is a highly trained, well equipped guerilla force, for all intents and purposes a light infantry division.

[econ21]

Going a little off-topic, but I wonder what, if anything, took out Israeli tanks?

IIRC, the US lost only two Abrams in the Iraq 2 War. It was speculated that one - on the Baghdad ring road? - might have been taken out by an anti-aircraft missile. The normal RPGs available to the Iraqi army and insurgents etc did not seem to make much impact. A British Challenger 2 apparently reported about 70 RPGs bouncing off it near Basra (that tank crew must have had brass balls :sweatdrop: ).

But I can imagine Hezbollah getting access to some higher tech stuff - the rockets that they keep lobbing into Israeli towns, for example, are not your typical third world militia kit. And eventually a determined, experienced adversary will figure out counters to even powerful tanks. (e.g. like the Wehrmacht learnt how to cope with KV-1s and T-34s early in Barbarossa).

[Tribesman]

Going a little off-topic, but I wonder what, if anything, took out Israeli tanks?

If I recall correctly the first loss was quite a while back in occupied territories using a new type of homemade explosive . That led to the all the tanks being taken out of service for upgrades .
In the Leb the first two were attributed to conventional anti tank mines , then followed a mixture of losses to mines anti tank guns/missiles and improvised bombs .

[Watchman]

I recall seeing mentions of the Iranians (and most likely also the Syrians) having made a point of supplying their Libanese friends with generous stockpiles of honest-to-god ATGMs. So generous in fact the Hezbollah guys could afford to use them even against soft targets - they'd have run out of ammo rather soon if things had dragged out of course, but it wasn't exactly a material attrition match.

Plus given it was their "home ground" they had held for the past decade or half and knew quite intimately, they naturally had ample opportunity to place all the booby-traps they needed. Even MBTs break with big enough blasts. Didn't some Palestine militants manage to nail one of those IDF "heavy APCs" (converted from old MBT hulls) that way a couple of years back as well ?

[Fisherking]

Until the top brass , politicians and their nations want to be featured in the history books under events like East Berlin , Budapest , Prague or Tainnamen square then that is a risk the troops will have to put up with .

All of those Governments had one thing in common. Less despotic Governments have not been able to get away with that sort of thing for a very, very long time.



I certainly agree that Africa is a mess and that it is generally allowed to just keep getting worse.

The mess in Chad is only the latest example and there are several others. It is obviously more a matter political and economic interest rather than any real humanitarian effort.

Most of the governments are corrupt without question but that is not an excuse for letting innocents die or suffer with only a word or two on the evening news now and then. But in truth it is much more than just Africa. The last time I heard there was still a genocide going on in western New Guinea. Indonesia though seems to be immune to serious criticism of its treatment of subject peoples. The Javanese are and have been in charge of the government and are pretty much hated by everyone else but they have good resources in their conquered territories and no one is saying a word, or is it because they are the largest Muslim country in the world?

God moves individuals to great insights of sprit, whereas religion seems to be a tool of the powerful to move people into giving them what the powerful want in the name of God.

Almost all of these recent conflicts have religion as a component…Regardless of what religions may say I don't think that God cares too much for war.

[Cangrande]

Just a side comment but, entertaining tho' it may be, I wouldn't like to have to rely on the historical accuracy of anything produced by the History Channel.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Wasn't it 37,000 troops to secure half the country . Which was replaced by22,000 troops and police to secure the whole country plus the apparently co ordinated but indepedent US rapid reaction force .
I say apparently co-ordinated since one of the funniest episodes of the debacle was when the rapid reaction force attacked a UN compound and arrested the commisioner .
Well he did have armed guards so he must have been a warlord .... :oops:

BTW with some saying about needing more tanks and armour.
Hasn't it been shown time and time again that tanks in a built up populated area are vulnerable and not very effective , plus have the a problem related to inflicting lots of needless civilian casualties .


I watched a Show about Abrams Tanks on the Mitliarty Channel last month, and they was saying how those Abrams can take a hell of a beating and still keep going on.

I highly doubt a RPG from a 3rd rate Milita in Somilia would take out a Tank,like a Abrams, in one hit.

[Watchman]

I doubt RPGs have enough "bite" to puncture the shell of a first-rate MBT. Except maybe with a roof hit (buildings, anyone?), or square hit to the rear. Ought to still be able to disable a tread or two though - although at least some Israeli tanks have the option of extra armour to shield those too...

Anyway, one little issue with urban settings is that there's no shortage of stuff the enemy can hide AT mines, big bombs and similar booby-trap nastiness in, which if not quite capable of knocking out a tank may well immobilize it.

[Grey_Fox]

Some tank platoons were at 50% strenght by the time they reached Baghdad in the Second Gulf War, and many tanks were barely operational due to combat damage and mechanical breakdown. Those tanks were then cannibalised for parts to keep the other tanks moving - there was a chronic lack of spare parts during the war.

The Abrams is weak at the engine grille on the back of the tank, an RPG hits there and the engine can catch fire and break down.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

I doubt RPGs have enough "bite" to puncture the shell of a first-rate MBT. Except maybe with a roof hit (buildings, anyone?), or square hit to the rear. Ought to still be able to disable a tread or two though - although at least some Israeli tanks have the option of extra armour to shield those too...

Anyway, one little issue with urban settings is that there's no shortage of stuff the enemy can hide AT mines, big bombs and similar booby-trap nastiness in, which if not quite capable of knocking out a tank may well immobilize it.

yes, but I would feel safer in a tank then a Humvee. RPG hit to the Humvee or the Tank, your pick.

[Watchman]

Well, sure. But Abrams doesn't transport people worth a jack now does it...? It's also big, loud, kinda clumsy, not that fast, a fuel hog, and a pain to transport any longer distances like all MBTs. Prolly occasionally falls through weak bridges and streets too. Nevermind hideously expensive and requiring a specifically trained crew.

[Mailman653]

My brother was in Somalia with the Marines when they got deployed shortly after the incident though he never talks about his experiences over there though I did get a nice souvenir from him, a UN beret lol. Somehow the joke "My brother was in Somalia and all I got was this lousy UN beret" comes to mind.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

My brother was in Somalia with the Marines when they got deployed shortly after the incident though he never talks about his experiences over there though I did get a nice souvenir from him, a UN beret lol. Somehow the joke "My brother was in Somalia and all I got was this lousy UN beret" comes to mind.


the whole point of the UN is a joke,what you expect :dizzy2: :laugh4:

[Watchman]

At least it's a popular joke. ~;p

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

At least it's a popular joke. ~;p


a popular joke (that is true IMO) :yes:

[Watchman]

...unlike some I could name. ~;p

[Julian the apostate]

Is there another option for the hummer, i guess there are slower APCs but they aren't fantastic

[percy13]

The UN is of course only the sum of its constituent nations.

[Julian the apostate]

true but i think china and russia have a tendancy to be negatives as they can veto just about any move into Africa to try and bring peace or introduce infrastructure

[MilesGregarius]

true but i think china and russia have a tendancy to be negatives as they can veto just about any move into Africa to try and bring peace or introduce infrastructure

The same can be said of the US vetoing anything deemed even mildly anti-Israel that might start to ameliorate the mess in the Middle East. Perhaps all five members could give up the veto, but I don't see any of them agreeibg to do so.

The UN has flaws, but, contrary to the opinions of some, it has served its stated purposes fairly well in its 60 odd years. The fact that the Cold War never turned hot can to some extent (certainly not entirely) be attributed to the UN providing a forum for the US and USSR to hash out their differences with out slinging lead or tossing nukes.

For the UN to be as effective as its detractors seem to expect to be, it would have to infringe severely upon the sovereignity of its member states, something those said-same detractors would be even more up in arms about.

[percy13]

I think it would require something tantamount to a world consensus to sort out the UN. However, short of Vulcans landing in Florida or Moscow I don't see that happening.

[Ice]

I watched a Show about Abrams Tanks on the Mitliarty Channel last month, and they was saying how those Abrams can take a hell of a beating and still keep going on.

I highly doubt a RPG from a 3rd rate Milita in Somilia would take out a Tank,like a Abrams, in one hit.

That's incorrect Warman. Hit in certain places, an RPG round could destroy a tank or easily disable it. That's why you have infantry to try to minimize the threats.

In open plains, though, an abrhams is almost invincible due to the fact that it's front armor is nearly impossible to breach by any third world nation.

[Watchman]

I'm under the impression the first-rate armies are starting to have a bit of planning trouble with their MBTs. In principle they should be able to kill each others' prime toys if need be - but these days the active, passive and reactive defenses are getting so good the current offensive weaponry (120mm main gun is the workhorse) doesn't really measure up anymore. AFAIK they're as a result pursuing some pretty sci-fi avenues of research, and I've read the current French MBT had provisions for upgunning to 140mm if all else fails...

Since the best tanks third-world nations have in any meaninfgul numbers are at least two generations old surplus stuff, they obviously don't have a chance if it comes down to that. Then again, the tanks belong to the governements and these days it's not those who're the major problem anyway.

[percy13]

Is that true even with depleted uranium sheels?

[Tribesman]

In open plains, though, an abrhams is almost invincible due to the fact that it's front armor is nearly impossible to breach by any third world nation.

Isn't the selling point of the new Kornet that it can breach any armour , and isn't it being bought by "third world" nations ?

[Watchman]

Is that true even with depleted uranium sheels?What else do you imagine the default kinetic-penetrator munition against another first-rate MBT to be ? Those armours are made crazy sloped and out of a whole slew of high-tech materials for some pretty decent reasons.

[Watchman]

Isn't the selling point of the new Kornet that it can breach any armour , and isn't it being bought by "third world" nations ?Kornet... Russian ATGM system, right ? Betcha it's one of those "top attack" designs that seem to be becoming the norm these days, and for good reasons - the top of the tank just can't be armoured to even remotely the same degree as the hull, else the machines would become monstrously heavy.

Which is why they're adding all kinds of pro-, re- and just plain active anti-missile systems to the tanks these days, of course.

[MilesGregarius]

I think it would require something tantamount to a world consensus to sort out the UN.

With the veto, any Security Council resolution essentially requires consensus among the five permanent members. Additionally, the UN, by design, lacks the ability to coerce its member states to follow what decisions it does make. No national government suffers under such burdens, but citizens of nearly all countries often complain about their own countries governmental inefficiencies.

The UN definitely needs some major reforms, but expectations of what it can do need to be realistic. Also, people need to be aware that a portion of the UN's negative reputation comes from the incessant harping from certain corners that may be more concerned with advancing their own agendas than providing objective commentary.

[Tribesman]

the top of the tank just can't be armoured to even remotely the same degree as the hull, else the machines would become monstrously heavy.


Just checked Watchman , penetration up to 1200mm of latest ERA plating .
Hezballah used them to take out Israeli tanks , the Iraqis to take out abrams , Hamas is supposed to have recieved them , Syria has lots of them Iran has them , Eritrea has them and is believed to have passed some on to the Islamic Courts in Somalia .

[DemonArchangel]

The Kornet is a direct attack weapon, what makes it so lethal is that it's light enough for a single soldier to carry into battle.

[Watchman]

You mean it just busts straight through and doesn't bother playing around with this top-attack stuff ? Ouch. Just how large a warhead does the missile actually have ?

[Tribesman]

Just checked Watchman , penetration up to 1200mm of latest ERA plating .
:oops:
My mistake , its 1200mm of RHA , only 980mm of ERA .

[Geezer57]

According to this assessment (http://www.defense-update.com/analysis/lebanon_war_3.htm), very few of the Merkavas in Lebanon were penetrated by any of the Hezbollah threats, and only two destroyed (by massive IED's).

[Ice]

Isn't the selling point of the new Kornet that it can breach any armour , and isn't it being bought by "third world" nations ?

Do you have a link to prove this? I'm not trying to be a smart ass, but I just looked and couldn't find anything describing it well.

I did find this however: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams#Armor


The Abrams is protected by Chobham armor, a type of composite armor formed by multiple layers of steel and ceramics. It may also be fitted with reactive armor if needed (as in the Urban Survival Kit). Fuel and ammunition are in armored compartments with blowout panels to protect the crew from the risk of the tank's own ammunition cooking off if the tank is damaged. Protection against spalling is provided by a Kevlar liner. Beginning in 1988, M1A1 tanks received improved armor packages that incorporated depleted uranium (DU) mesh in their armor at the front of the turret and the front of the hull. Armor reinforced in this manner offers significantly increased resistance towards all types of anti-tank weaponry, but at the expense of adding considerable weight to the tank. The first M1A1 tanks to receive this upgrade were tanks stationed in Germany, since they were the first line of defense against the Soviet Union. US tankers participating in Operation Desert Storm received an emergency program to upgrade their tanks with depleted uranium armor immediately before the onset of the campaign. M1A2 tanks uniformly incorporate depleted uranium armor, and all M1A1 tanks in active service have been upgraded to this standard as well, the armor thickness believed to be equivalent to 24 inches (610 mm) of RHA. The strength of the armor is estimated to be about the same as similar western, contemporary main battle tanks such as the Leopard 2. The M1A1/M1A2 can survive multiple hits from the most powerful tank munitions (including 120 mm depleted uranium APFSDS) and anti-tank missiles.[citation needed] In the Persian Gulf War, Abrams tanks survived multiple hits at relatively close ranges from Iraqi T-72's, ATGM's. M829 "Silver Bullet" APFSDS rounds from other M1A1 Abrams were unable to penetrate the front and side armor (even at close ranges) in friendly fire incidents as well as an incident in which another Abrams tried to destroy an Abrams that got stuck in mud and had to be abandoned. In addition to the Abrams' advanced armor, some Abrams, most notably M1A1's of the US Marine Corps, are equipped with a Missile Countermeasure Device that jams the guidance systems of laser-guided anti-tank missiles. This device is mounted on the turret roof in front of the Loader's hatch, and can lead some people to mistake Abrams fitted with these devices for the M1A2 version, since the Commander's Independent Thermal Viewer on the latter is mounted in the same place, though the MCD is box-shaped and fixed in place as opposed to cylindrical and rotating like the CITV.

It sounds like the Abhrams is pretty well protected, while in the correct formation, from most threats a third world nation could muster.

[Julian the apostate]

True, and sry if that seemed one sided. I don't know why the US would hinder its own bizarre path in the world by vetoing a motion it was going towards and I acknoledge that none of the Atomic club or the 5 permanant members are nice countrys really. U.S., France, Brit, China and Russia, Israel
Potentially a poor man's UN may be more useful then one held by the powerbrokers simply because of their need to stick together. Strange how after whats happened to so many countries that gave the veto power to noble councils we still do it.

Also, considering the expense of transporting, supporting, and recovering MBTs. Really isn't worth it anymore is it? In city streets, they are pretty badly screwed. Outside of the city most countries have the air power to knock the bloody hell out of them. If you have air cover, Tanks are great but really is there going to be a conventional war on either American or European soil? NOw if not eventual John Maynard Keynes may show himself as a far greater then the military commanders of the past.

[Watchman]

The Abrams and its peers may be pretty well protected, but then, what do you think the Kornets were designed to kill ? 150mm tandem-charge HEAT warhead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M133_Kornet) ain't something to laugh at. Just by eyeballing the numbers the missile has around 30mm more punch than a tank's main gun (the power of shaped charges increasing fairly directly with the diameter), on top of which come whatever engineering wizardry the designers managed to cram in to improve performance plus the tandem charge. If the manufacturer claim to 980mm of penetration even through reactive armour is legit the Abrams is in trouble, as its armour-thickness equivalency estimate is somewhere along 610mm... Needs a lot more on top of that, even if the estimate were on the low side.

The "Kornet" is also cited as being relatively resistant to "jamming" of the guidance beam.

Let's just say that there's probably some very good reason why the militaries are investing big bucks in ways of keeping ATGMs from hitting the tanks in the first place, and seem to have gotten quite interested in active interception systems lately.

[Tribesman]

Do you have a link to prove this? I'm not trying to be a smart ass, but I just looked and couldn't find anything describing it well.

A link to what , its capabilities or to "third world" nations buying it ?
Try this ( the bottom part of the article) , it has both claimedperformance of the missile and a new nation to add to the list of customers .
http://www.stratmag.com/issueMar-15/page02.htm

[Ice]

A link to what , its capabilities or to "third world" nations buying it ?
Try this ( the bottom part of the article) , it has both claimedperformance of the missile and a new nation to add to the list of customers .
http://www.stratmag.com/issueMar-15/page02.htm

Impressive. It does appear like it would be able to take out an Abhrams, but the number of countries that have them seem limited at the moment.

[Xiahou]

Anyone ever catch a show called "The Final Report"? I believe it airs on the National Geographic Channel. Sometimes the topics they cover don't interest me, but I saw one on 9/11 and more on topic one on Black Hawk Down which were quite good imo. The seem to do a fair job of remaining unbiased and have lots of interviews with the commanders/soldiers/agents who were involved.

In Mogadishu, the commanders had apparently requested a handful of tanks but the request was denied by Aspen because he wanted to stick to a drawdown and didn't want to give the appearance of a military buildup. The commander they interviewed (name escapes me atm) seemed to suggest that many/most of the casualties may have been avoided with some heavy armor.

The show suggested that the incident was setup when the US military had essentially completed its initial mission of clearing the way for aid and peacekeepers and began to leave the theater. Meanwhile, the security council decided instead that the entire country should be occupied and stabilized. After Aidid's men attacked and killed a number of Pakistani peace keepers in an ambush, the US force was expected to "deal" with him- even though the same force was reducing it's presence and was a fraction of it's original size by the time.

Feel free to criticize the above as needed. :whip:

[Tribesman]

Feel free to criticize the above as needed.
only so far as to say that it was the security council that voted for and its special commissioner for Somalia that recomended the changes from Unitaf to UnisomII .

The US voted for it at the SC and the special commisioner who recommended it was a US admiral .

So this part .....The show suggested that the incident was setup when the US military had essentially completed its initial mission of clearing the way for aid and peacekeepers and began to leave the theater. Meanwhile, the security council decided instead that the entire country should be occupied and stabilized......is slightly wrong , the decision was taken in tandem on the recomendation of an American with backing from America .

[Xiahou]

So this part .....The show suggested that the incident was setup when the US military had essentially completed its initial mission of clearing the way for aid and peacekeepers and began to leave the theater. Meanwhile, the security council decided instead that the entire country should be occupied and stabilized......is slightly wrong , the decision was taken in tandem on the recomendation of an American with backing from America .
I don't disagree with that- my point was the disconnect between the new policy and the forces on the ground. The UN/administration expanded the mandate, while continuing along the path of reducing troop levels. It was asking for problems.

[Grey_Fox]

Yes, but the UN was no part of the actual battle other than rescuing the US troops. Task Force Ranger was separate to the UN peacekeepers and did not report to them.

The problem was that the US government believed a small force of commandos with some helicopters would allow a Jeffersonian-style democracy to flourish.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Yes, but the UN was no part of the actual battle other than rescuing the US troops. Task Force Ranger was separate to the UN peacekeepers and did not report to them.

The problem was that the US government believed a small force of commandos with some helicopters would allow a Jeffersonian-style democracy to flourish.


and it didn't work sadly.

I think they didn't realize, You can't send 100-150 Delta/Rangers in, with some Black Hawk and Little Birds and Apache support, into a town of THousands of armed people. People were armed from everything with RPG's to AK-47's to simple pistols and handguns. You needed a few hundred soldiers and some armor tanks, several copters and air support form F-16's and such to actually do something.