SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!!
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: epicure who wrote (100077)4/30/2005 10:24:48 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 108807
 
The headline really doesn't reflect the contents of the article. 80 tanks knocked out of action (but in many cases not destroyed and in many cases the crew isn't killed) in 2 years is a low rate for a war. I notice how the article mentions that "atleast 5 soldiers have been killed in tanks". Sounds like the armor has been pretty effective. The article also says "The casualties are the lowest in any Army vehicles, despite how often the Abrams is targeted — about 70% of the more than 1,100 tanks used in Iraq have been struck by enemy fire, mostly with minor damage." And later says "Commanders say the damage is not surprising because the Abrams is used so heavily, and insurgents are determined to destroy it."

If we are going to worry about vehicles being destroyed its the lighter vehicles that we have to worry about like Humvees (even the most armored versions are very vulnerable to any anti-tank weapon).

Tim
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News