TF A66 Armor - Baghdad Raid, Iraq, spectacular "Thunder Run", Heavy Fire 4-5-03 - General

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;28180281]I never said it wasnt stupid to drive a pickup into a convoy of tanks, it is stupid to evaluate how dangerous that said truck is to a tank based on a video game. Thats like me saying New York City traffic is bad because I played gta 4. And yes ARMA 2 is just as much a video game as Call Of Duty.[/QUOTE] Just stop, you obviously don't have any idea what you're talking about if you just compared ArmA II to Call of Duty.

mono what are you doing

[QUOTE=Monomiro;28180306]Just stop, you obviously don't have any idea what you're talking about if you just compared ArmA II to Call of Duty.[/QUOTE] Oh lordy, I hate to break it too you but they are both video games. Yes the gameplay might be different but you are still playing it on a computer.

[QUOTE=Monomiro;28180306]Just stop, you obviously don't have any idea what you're talking about if you just compared ArmA II to Call of Duty.[/QUOTE] hey ArmA II is a video game designed for entertainment even if it is highly realistic entertainment. what you really want is VBS2 and that YES is a military simulator. ArmA2 doesn't come close.

[QUOTE=PacificV2;28180395]hey ArmA II is a video game designed for entertainment even if it is highly realistic entertainment. what you really want is VBS2 and that YES is a military simulator. ArmA2 doesn't come close.[/QUOTE] The question of whether ArmA II is a military simulator or not is more of opinion and depends on several factors, vanilla ArmA II is severely lacking of course and isn't marketed as a military simulator, but the game does increase in realism with various mods such as ACE2. Looking at its community its mainly composed of older players including men and women enlisted in the armed forces of various countries who routinely use it, unlike Call of Duty which is infested with children and angsty teenagers. And I'm not judging how much of a threat a trio of technicals would be to the tank because of ArmA II, I'm judging based on its armament and maneuverability which is logic, a small part of which has come from ArmA II. If you think I'm making my assumptions purely from in game experience you're wrong. BusterBluth is wrong for discrediting a piece of software as a learning tool because it isn't real. We use computers from everything to teaching people the effects of drunk driving to training fighter pilots, there are several other factors that determine amount of realism, not just the fact that its coming from a computer.

I want to download this.

[QUOTE=Monomiro;28180627] BusterBluth is wrong for discrediting a piece of software as a learning tool because it isn't real. We use computers from everything to teaching people the effects of drunk driving to training fighter pilots, there are several other factors that determine amount of realism, not just the fact that its coming from a computer.[/QUOTE] I never did anything of the sort sir.

This video is the only video I've seen shot from a tank whilst engaging hostiles. Anyone seen any like this?

[QUOTE=Monomiro;28177986] Three technicals with AT launchers mounted on them could have the potential to overwhelm a single abrams.[/QUOTE] That's a scenario that could only happen in ArmA. There's no such thing as a single Abrams. They always travel with other vehicles. In addition, several M1 Abrams have been hit by anti tank rockets, but I can't find a single case of one being destroyed by one. (There are a few cases of tanks treads being hit resulting in the tank being immobilized) Also in friendly fire incidents they survived direct hits from other M1 Abrams' main cannons. If an armor piercing depleted uranium round doesn't get through it's armor, I don't think any anti-tank weapon an Iraqi insurgent would have access to could get the job done.

*bullet whistles by gunner's head* "Whoo! :cool:" [QUOTE=Monomiro;28180627]The question of whether ArmA II is a military simulator or not is more of opinion and depends on several factors, vanilla ArmA II is severely lacking of course and isn't marketed as a military simulator, but the game does increase in realism with various mods such as ACE2. Looking at its community its mainly composed of older players including men and women enlisted in the armed forces of various countries who routinely use it, unlike Call of Duty which is infested with children and angsty teenagers. And I'm not judging how much of a threat a trio of technicals would be to the tank because of ArmA II, I'm judging based on its armament and maneuverability which is logic, a small part of which has come from ArmA II. If you think I'm making my assumptions purely from in game experience you're wrong. BusterBluth is wrong for discrediting a piece of software as a learning tool because it isn't real. We use computers from everything to teaching people the effects of drunk driving to training fighter pilots, there are several other factors that determine amount of realism, not just the fact that its coming from a computer.[/QUOTE] Hai guyz ARMA II is just like this vdeo and is uber milsim sim OMG!

[QUOTE=Monomiro;28177986]I agree with you, perhaps I should clarify what I mean by deadly. I meant that combination wise, maneuverability combined with destructibility, a technical with an AT launcher mounted on it can easily fuck over an abrams if they have enough ammo.[/quote] Only if the drivers of the abrams are mentally incapable or vegetables. [quote]An abrams' main cannon obviously won't do anything,[/quote] Yes it will. The abram's main cannon has a targeting system second to none, factoring in target distance, speed, and environmental factors, allowing the abrams to hit a target hundreds of meters away [I]while[/I] the tank is moving. [quote]the only chance of taking it out is the coaxial or the other gun mounted on the cannon.[/quote] Which, as seen in the video, demolishes the technical in an instant. [quote]Three technicals with AT launchers mounted on them could have the potential to overwhelm a single abrams.[/QUOTE] That's why abrams move in groups. You are really dumb.

[QUOTE=Monomiro;28177986]I agree with you, perhaps I should clarify what I mean by deadly. I meant that combination wise, maneuverability combined with destructibility, a technical with an AT launcher mounted on it can easily fuck over an abrams if they have enough ammo. I never had a situation where a technical took out an abrams, but I've been blown up plenty of times by those damn things and couldn't do crap cause they were always moving. An abrams' main cannon obviously won't do anything, the only chance of taking it out is the coaxial or the other gun mounted on the cannon. Three technicals with AT launchers mounted on them could have the potential to overwhelm a single abrams.[/QUOTE] This isn't Bad Company 2.

[QUOTE=Monomiro;28176213]I encountered a AT launcher mounted technical in ArmA II, you're right when you say those things are deadly. I can only imagine how bad it would be in real life. I don't think that truck had an AT launcher on it though. What would a machine gun mounted on one of those things do against an M1 Abrams?[/QUOTE] shatter optics, though pretty much futile when the tank has you lased in his sights [QUOTE=jeimizu;28181412]That's a scenario that could only happen in ArmA. There's no such thing as a single Abrams. They always travel with other vehicles. In addition, several M1 Abrams have been hit by anti tank rockets, but I can't find a single case of one being destroyed by one. (There are a few cases of tanks treads being hit resulting in the tank being immobilized) Also in friendly fire incidents they survived direct hits from other M1 Abrams' main cannons. If an armor piercing depleted uranium round doesn't get through it's armor, I don't think any anti-tank weapon an Iraqi insurgent would have access to could get the job done.[/QUOTE] The Abrams may be hard to [i]destroy[/i], but your standard gamut of anti-tank methods work when you want to [i]knock it out[/i]. Many friendly fire incidents involving M1s did result in them being inoperable for the duration of the battle. Main battle tanks these days are rather hard to [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophic_kill][b]destroy[/b][/url] (with the exception of tanks with carousel autoloaders, but that's another story) [editline]20th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=The Vman;28182253]That's why abrams move in groups. You are really dumb.[/QUOTE] His opinion isn't all that unfounded when you're not focusing exclusively on tank vs technical armed with some sort of AT weapon. While you can disregard Iraqis of having any sort of battlefield competence, proper use of anti-tank weapons can repel even "mighty" Abrams tank platoons. The Soviet-style OPFOR at the Fort Irwin National Training Center did so countless times in the 1990s.

By no means Abrams is indestructable, it's as vulnerable to rpg shots on it's ass and tracks as every othet tank out there. Also it can be disabled just by throwing shit ontop of it's engine

[QUOTE=Brage Nyman;28175713]Technicals can be pretty deadly not to mention that they are fast and agile on a highway. Mount a recoilless rifle and you got a cheap way to fight tanks.[/QUOTE] Screw fighting on highways, the desert is the way to go! [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_War[/url] The name says it all. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fada[/url] And this

That font makes my eyes bleed.

Didn't watch to end, what is it about? A tank driving through a village ?

why the fuck would you want to watch this

[QUOTE=Raiskauskone V2;28182720]By no means Abrams is indestructable, it's as vulnerable to rpg shots on it's ass and tracks as every othet tank out there. Also it can be disabled just by throwing shit ontop of it's engine[/QUOTE] That's what I mean, hit the treads and fuck up its exhaust and you have a stationary cannon. Then its extremely vulnerable until it gets support. [QUOTE=Billiam;28182375]This isn't Bad Company 2.[/QUOTE] You're right, this isn't Bad Company 2, tanks don't get disabled in Bad Company 2, they just explode. In real war you don't just shoot a tank in the same spot over and over and expect it to somehow wear down and explode in a reasonable amount of time. [QUOTE=The Vman;28182253] That's why abrams move in groups. You are really dumb.[/QUOTE] Speak for yourself, abrams don't always move in groups. A single abrams might be requisitioned to support an infantry platoon, then its the responsibility of the infantry to protect the tank. Your comments only show your ignorance and unrealistic way of thinking reflected from playing action FPSes, as with most of the people arguing in here.

[QUOTE=marlkarxv2;28186164]why the fuck would you want to watch this[/QUOTE] Why, are you annoyed it isn't a T-80? People have different tastes.

[QUOTE=Monomiro;28187067] Speak for yourself, abrams don't always move in groups. A single abrams might be requisitioned to support an infantry platoon, then its the responsibility of the infantry to protect the tank. Your comments only show your ignorance and unrealistic way of thinking reflected from playing action FPSes, as with most of the people arguing in here.[/QUOTE] If you come down off your high horse for just a bit you might see that you are the only person who is sighting a video game to compare to a real life combat operation. You sound like a kid in hgh school rotc who thinks he knows everything about real life combat situations, but judging by your comments you seem have as just an ignorant view of war as those COD kids you tell about.

My face lit up when I saw the burnt out BRD- oh wait, the thread's turned into an argument about games. [editline]22nd February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Raiskauskone V2;28182720]By no means Abrams is indestructable, it's as vulnerable to rpg shots on it's ass and tracks as every othet tank out there. Also it can be disabled just by throwing shit ontop of it's engine[/QUOTE] The Abrams is developed so that damage, at least by second-rate AT weaponry (second-rate being anything short of a modern heavy AP shell), is confined to the component it hits. A hit to the engine isn't going to make the entire tank blow up, and the rest of the tank is strong enough to withstand several hits from the average RPG round, if it even hits in the first place. Keep in mind that the insurgents and armies of most middle-eastern countries are using 60s-80s era warheads which aren't very effective against modern armour. And the likelihood of any threat getting close enough to "throw shit ontop of its engine" is pretty slim, and you'd need a hell of a lot of shit. In this case each tank has the rest of the vehicles in the formation covering it, so that won't really happen. It'd also be quite inconsequential, because as I implied, a mobility kill isn't much of a success especially when the loss of equipment and however many soldiers is taken into account. [editline]22nd February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Tac Error;28182501] The Abrams may be hard to [I]destroy[/I], but your standard gamut of anti-tank methods work when you want to [I]knock it out[/I]. Many friendly fire incidents involving M1s did result in them being inoperable for the duration of the battle. Main battle tanks these days are rather hard to [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophic_kill"][B]destroy[/B][/URL] (with the exception of tanks with carousel autoloaders, but that's another story) [/QUOTE] Don't forget the Abrams has an M2 mounted on top of the turret as well as an M240 and the M68 in co-axial positions, so damaging the turret, without killing the crew, means the tank is still a threat to infantry and light-armoured vehicles. This also applies to destroying the engine or damaging tracks, a mobility kill isn't sufficient to render a tank useless, and the means by which an insurgent or Republican Guard soldier would do this are obviously very dangerous and unlikely to go well for them. I'm not completely disagreeing with you here, but a tank is usually too large a threat for a poorly equipped and trained force composed mainly of infantry, armoured cars and technicals. [editline]22nd February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=The Vman;28182253]Only if the drivers of the abrams are mentally incapable or vegetables. [/QUOTE] Monomiro is right, in the ideal circumstances it could be easy to do some damage to an Abrams with a technical-mounted SPG-9 which is the most common setup for an AT technical. If the technical is in close proximity with plenty of cover, they can outmanoevre the tank, and run circles around it faster than the turret can turn. There may be several blind corners where the technical could come up unnoticed, fire a shot and run. If the tank is mobility-killed, infantry could mob it with molotov cocktails (Which aren't very effective) and any other explosive ordonance they have. However, in open ground like in this video, you saw that they had little chance of taking the tank out. (Edit: 6:55, if the RPG team had done a better job of concealing themselves they may have been able to do something similar to what I described had this Abrams been on its own) Whoever said the M1's main gun wouldn't be effective against a technical is an idiot. Tanks generally carry 2 different types of ammunition; Armour piercing, obviously for enemy armour (Mainly tanks but also useful against APCs and the like. There's a line where a HE (Or HEA[P/T]) shell would be equally as effective), and High Explosive, used against infantry and light vehicles.

[QUOTE=Monomiro;28180627]infested with children and angsty teenagers.[/QUOTE] The playerbase may not be, but the voice actors certainly are. :v:

Reading this Mono kids comments are only frustrating me. I'm positive even the developers of ARMA will tell you that it is no where close to being perfectly realistic. No one in the army is going to judge what they do based off of what happened in ARMA. There are so many variables in real life that would be impossible to code into any video game or simulator or anything. There is nothing comparable to real life.

Is this beta footage? Kinda buggy.

Nice speedrun but I managed to do "Thunder run" in only 6 minutes. The trick is to hijack the Humvee at the start.

[QUOTE=urbanmonkey;28203809]Reading this Mono kids comments are only frustrating me. I'm positive even the developers of ARMA will tell you that it is no where close to being perfectly realistic. No one in the army is going to judge what they do based off of what happened in ARMA. There are so many variables in real life that would be impossible to code into any video game or simulator or anything. There is nothing comparable to real life.[/QUOTE] It's a shame in Arma you don't have the freedom to climb ontop of a tank and fill it with grenades, or atleast perform something similarly improvised. The AI technicals are also stupid and don't know how to take down a tank. I ended up destroying 3 technicals simply by running over their cars, and that's after the RPGs they fired bounced off the hull and did nothing in terms of damage.

[QUOTE=urbanmonkey;28203809]Reading this Mono kids comments are only frustrating me. I'm positive even the developers of ARMA will tell you that it is no where close to being perfectly realistic. No one in the army is going to judge what they do based off of what happened in ARMA. There are so many variables in real life that would be impossible to code into any video game or simulator or anything. There is nothing comparable to real life.[/QUOTE] Learn to understand, also, its main cannon obviously would have no problem blowing up a truck unless it was constantly moving and had lots of cover. You obviously don't have any idea what you're talking about if you're saying a simulator has zero capability of being realistic in any aspects. Tell that to the USAF or a large amount of the people flying planes over the US right now. Obviously purely learning from a simulation is also a bad idea, it also takes common sense and real experience. Simulators can be a great advisory tool for strategy in [b]certain[/b] cases. It should be common sense that while an Abrams is nearly indestructible armor wise, it can still be rendered ineffective other ways, i.e taking out the treads, screwing up its engine, etc. When you do those things all it becomes is a stationary cannon with an M2 on it, but since its lost its mobility its vulnerable and can could be outmaneuvered cause its not moving. Of course you and most of the other idiots in this thread would assume that I mean destroying the tank in its entirety, this isn't a Hollywood action shooter. All the dumb ratings I'm getting say more about the people giving them than anything else. [QUOTE=BusterBluth;28196947]If you come down off your high horse for just a bit you might see that you are the only person who is sighting a video game to compare to a real life combat operation. You sound like a kid in hgh school rotc who thinks he knows everything about real life combat situations, but judging by your comments you seem have as just an ignorant view of war as those COD kids you tell about.[/QUOTE] And you sound like a troll who has not even the slightest clue what he is talking about. You still fail to comprehend past the face of what I said. You yourself are an ignoramus for assuming I meant that an abrams can easily be [b]destroyed[/b] by a trio of technicals. The fact that an abrams is not completely invincible, added with common sense (which most of the people in this thread seem to be severely lacking in) would dictate that a group of technicals have the capability to overwhelm and immobilize an abrams. ArmA 2 is not realistic in that a tank can be blown to bits with enough shots than a 9 millimeter and I recognize that, but I never used that as an example to prove anything. I only alluded to certain strategic elements of the game with a great deal of common sense involved. Because it is a tank does not mean it will win every single time.

[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;28199986]Don't forget the Abrams has an M2 mounted on top of the turret as well as an M240 and the M68 in co-axial positions, so damaging the turret, without killing the crew, means the tank is still a threat to infantry and light-armoured vehicles. This also applies to destroying the engine or damaging tracks, a mobility kill isn't sufficient to render a tank useless, and the means by which an insurgent or Republican Guard soldier would do this are obviously very dangerous and unlikely to go well for them. I'm not completely disagreeing with you here, but a tank is usually too large a threat for a poorly equipped and trained force composed mainly of infantry, armoured cars and technicals.[/QUOTE] Of course, but any of the crewmembers can get wounded or killed and I guess for them, it's worth losing a guy to disable a tank. (There are times when not having an aversion to casualties can be considered good for some) A light infantry-based force can certainly turn armor into swiss cheese (Chechens in Grozny come to mind), but that's another story. [quote]Keep in mind that the insurgents and armies of most middle-eastern countries are using 60s-80s era warheads which aren't very effective against modern armour.[/quote] Insurgents (with the exception of Hezbollah), yes. Armies no. All the major state players in the Middle East have gotten themselves some modern AT weaponry. As one former West German tanker said; it's the frontal armor that protects you and nothing else. Any medium to heavy anti-tank weapon produced from 1975-onward can penetrate the Abrams' side and rear armor. (Konkurs, MILAN and the like)

[QUOTE=Monomiro;28213981] And you sound like a troll who has not even the slightest clue what he is talking about. You still fail to comprehend past the face of what I said. You yourself are an ignoramus for assuming I meant that an abrams can easily be [b]destroyed[/b] by a trio of technicals. [/QUOTE] But you said one technical could easily fuck over a Abram. [QUOTE=Monomiro;28177986] I meant that combination wise, maneuverability combined with destructibility, a technical with an AT launcher mounted on it can easily fuck over an abrams if they have enough ammo. [/QUOTE] I would think if one could "fuck over" an Arbam common sense would dictate a trio could certainly destroy one with no problem.