American and Iraq loses in war

[Marmot1]

anyone have some data about american and iraq losen in iraq??
i want data about equipment not soldiers ie. how many Abrams were lost how many Bradleys,Apaches etc... and same figures about iraqi forces if someone have please post it...


there are some pics of american armour lost but i thin you need to register beferoe you can see it..
http://www.trackpads.com/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/43217/password//sort/1/size/big/cat/500/page/

[Pojo]

Iraq = Everything Lost In Combat
U.S.A. = Only Losses Are Mechanical Break Downs

;)

I dont think anyone has any real numbers anyways about the only thing you can agree on is that they lost more.

[Marmot1]

Well i know but i have seen couple of destroyed M1 and i wonder how many of them were lost and damaged beyond repair.... same to Apache i have seen at least 3 of them downed and 2 Cobras plus couple of Blackhawks couple of hard hit A-10 and other vehicles i wonder if US DoD released oficial summary of loses....
and of course I would be glad to see come pic especiali closeups of places where this stuff was hit like there was a nice pic of RPG hole in M1 and nice T-72 blown up :-)

[Kingpin]

Iraq = Everything Lost In Combat
U.S.A. = Only Losses Are Mechanical Break Downs

;)

I dont think anyone has any real numbers anyways about the only thing you can agree on is that they lost more.

It is useless to count Iraqi combat arms losses now because they abandoned huge pile of their equipment before it was destroyed. :) How we count it as combat loss if GIs just rigged them with explosives and blow up :)

[Fox2]

Iraq = Everything Lost In Combat
U.S.A. = Only Losses Are Mechanical Break Downs

;)

I dont think anyone has any real numbers anyways about the only thing you can agree on is that they lost more.

It is useless to count Iraqi combat arms losses now because they abandoned huge pile of their equipment before it was destroyed. :) How we count it as combat loss if GIs just rigged them with explosives and blow up :)

I believe I read somewhere alot of the M1 Abrams that were lost were disabled just enough so that they couldn't be repaired right there. (Tracks being hit by RPG round and coming undone, et cetera.) So, to keep the momentum of the assault, they'd just leave it and pack the crew someplace else, then call in an airstrike on the abandoned vehicle.

Anyway, does that count as a combat loss also? :D

[Pojo]

The damaged tanks that got blown up by our planes to make sure they dont fall in enemy hands should be counted as kills against iraqs.

rofl

[Argyll]

Pojo
What about the M2's the AAVP7's the Hummers,that were destroyed by RPG's and AT weapons?
The US did lose vehicles/ac during the ground offensive!

[koster]

sure they did, mate, quiete a few actually.
I've seen a few pictures of M109s, M113's, M1A1s (HA I beleive), and A2's, I actually have some of them on my HD, too bad I can't attach them in this forum..

[Kingpin]

sure they did, mate, quiete a few actually.
I've seen a few pictures of M109s, M113's, M1A1s (HA I beleive), and A2's, I actually have some of them on my HD, too bad I can't attach them in this forum..

If it isn't widely available so you can place it for example at community.webshots.com and then link here

[koster]

Ok, here are some pictures, not sure if you guys have seen them though.
T-72M (was packet with HE and detonated by Iraqis)
http://community.webshots.com/s/image2/1/70/54/105917054xNzwKh_ph.jpg
M109
http://community.webshots.com/s/image6/1/75/33/105917533XdQJlA_ph.jpg
M1A1/HA? (this one was hit in a side by a BPS)
http://community.webshots.com/s/image2/1/85/14/105918514miUXWC_ph.jpg
AH-64D (after one of those "safe" landings)
http://community.webshots.com/s/image6/1/82/33/105918233gJiUxX_ph.jpg
M1A1
http://community.webshots.com/s/image6/2/2/87/105920287MbFyoS_ph.jpg
http://community.webshots.com/s/image6/2/4/32/105920432GSrBxE_ph.jpg

[Marmot1]

koster pls repair links... :-)

[Kingpin]

koster pls repair links... :-)

His links correct but webshots.com doesn't like referers. I tried to move his pics to my site but i have technical problems.

Actually nothing brand new but photos he posted are rather rare. If you would like to see them in Properties of each picture copy link to it and paste into browser window. Then press Enter. This helps.

[usa320]

Notice how our tanks remain fairly intact though, enough for the crew to escape, where as the image of the T-72 speaks for itself.

[Marmot1]

:( :( :(
so i can't see them.... password required..

[Kingpin]

Notice how our tanks remain fairly intact though, enough for the crew to escape, where as the image of the T-72 speaks for itself.

Some corrections: damage to this T-72 is due to ammution explosion. If ammunition explode in Abrams we will see similar picture except that turret willn't fly in the sky :)

Actually in this case shells cook off in Abrams:
http://www.aeronautics.ru/img/img006/coalition_hardware_losses_iraq/web_gal/hardware/gallery/images/abrams_explodes.jpg

[ShotOver]

I saw a video of a Paladin suffering a shell Jam, and the crew had only seconds to leave the vehicle before it blew up.

[Kingpin]

I saw a video of a Paladin suffering a shell Jam, and the crew had only seconds to leave the vehicle before it blew up.

Yeah it was spectacular explosion :)

To usa320

From the other hand i can dig up for you pics and story of T-72 who fought in Dagestan in 1999 and during battle for village received 8 direct rpg hits without any penetration and damage to systems.

Other story: during battle for Grozny ATGM's HEAT warhead penetrated armor of T-72 and hit through detonators of some HE shells in tank and this didn't lead to any explosion.

[ShotOver]

The RPG-7's round is only 40mm am i right?

[Dave the Dawg]

Notice how our tanks remain fairly intact though, enough for the crew to escape, where as the image of the T-72 speaks for itself.

Some corrections: damage to this T-72 is due to ammution explosion. If ammunition explode in Abrams we will see similar picture except that turret willn't fly in the sky :)

The point is still valid. The design of the Abrams turret and especially the safety features of the ammunition storage compartment in the turret bustle mean that explosions in the ammunition compartment usually don't destroy the entire tank and give the crew a much greater chance of surviving. Hitting a T-72 center mass, though, puts a round into the ammunition carousel below the turret, which results in a spectacular explosion and usually the death of the entire crew. This is a problem reportedly being addressed with the redesigned turret of the T-80UM2, but given the Russian ground forces perennial underfunding, they may continue to rely more on technology to avoid hits (Arena, Shtora, etc.) than to survive them.

Regards,
Dave

[Dave the Dawg]

The RPG-7's round is only 40mm am i right?No. The launcher is 40mm. The PG-7 round is 85mm. There are also other rounds.

EDIT: 85mm is the average size for various warheads. The PG-7 is 73mm, the PG-7M is 70mm. The PG-7L is 93mm. The PG-7VR has a tandem warhead to attack reactive armor - the second warhead is 105mm. Another tandem, the PG-7LT, has a 93mm second warhead. The OG-7 family of antipersonnel warheads are larger, but I can't remember exactly how big. The TBG-7 fuel-air thermobaric warhead is 105mm.

[Operation Ivy]

I dont like this thread :(

[Groove]

I saw a video of a Paladin suffering a shell Jam, and the crew had only seconds to leave the vehicle before it blew up.


May we see this video too pleas ? :)

Groove

[koster]

Sorry about the pictures, I guess the webshots don't like me.

That T-72 on the first picture looks like that because it was packed with HE and detonated by the Iraqi crew, the same thing happened to the one in front of it. If you will pack same amount of explosives into an M1, it will look the same after the detonation.

[koster]

Here are the links to the pictures, they should work if you copy and paste them into your browser.
http://community.webshots.com/s/image2/1/70/54/105917054xNzwKh_ph.jpg
http://community.webshots.com/s/image6/1/75/33/105917533XdQJlA_ph.jpg
http://community.webshots.com/s/image2/1/85/14/105918514miUXWC_ph.jpg
http://community.webshots.com/s/image6/1/82/33/105918233gJiUxX_ph.jpg
http://community.webshots.com/s/image6/2/2/87/105920287MbFyoS_ph.jpg
http://community.webshots.com/s/image6/2/4/32/105920432GSrBxE_ph.jpg

BTW, no offence was meant in any of my posts.

Regards,
koster

[Marmot1]

thx koster any way do you know what hapenned with that Apache that was captuded by iraqis and was shown in tv??? was it recaptured or destroyed by US or ended by miracle in moscow like F-117 that was shoot down over Kosovo in 1999

[koster]

I think it was destroyed by USAF, but I'm not sure.
Even if it got to Moscow, we won't know about it for atleast a couple of years :)

[Marmot1]

I think it was destroyed by USAF, but I'm not sure.
Even if it got to Moscow, we won't know about it for atleast a couple of years :)

well moscow have tradition in copyng...like it was with Tu-4 if I am not wrong it was copy of B-29 Zis-5 was copy of ford truck Scud comes from V2 and mig15 and 17 from captuded german prototypes... :-) so maybe we will se Mi-64D or Ka-64D :-) (I wonder when they release a MIG-117 :-) )

[koster]

There really is no need for "Mi/KA-64D" we already have KA-50, KA-52, and they are atleast as good :).
And things about V2 and other ones can also be said about lots of US equipment, although I don't know much about planes and helos.

[Marmot1]

There really is no need for "Mi/KA-64D" we already have KA-50, KA-52, and they are atleast as good :).
And things about V2 and other ones can also be said about lots of US equipment, although I don't know much about planes and helos.

well of couse it can be said about US equippment example the Gemini and apollo program father and main rocket constructor was... Verner von Braun and the constructor of V2 was Verner von Barun so the man that constructed that what become later SCUD also placed american's on moon..

btw. Russians rocket are still much better if u compare the ratio : weight of the rocket to weight of the cargo dlivered to orbit it is becouse you have better engines and rocket fuel than americans (cause you catched more germas :-), sounds like pokemon "Catch them all!!!" rofl )

[Kingpin]

1. In the day it was downed CENTCOM reported it as destroyed by airstrike to prevent it to fall into enemy hands. At this time Iraqwar.ru Ramsaj report stated that only crude mockup was destroyed by this airstike while Apache itself was evacuated by Iraqis before this.

2. And few days after Italian (if i'm not mistaken) photographer took pics of same Apache moved on truck through Baghdad to unknown destination.

This is just plain facts. Choose more reliable source by your own.

Note that all devices from its nose already dismounted. And i suppose all avionics too. Guess who bought all this stuff.

EDIT: I want to emphasize one thing: it was great successes of Iraqi military that they with ease captured some of high tech US equipment such as Apache and several Abramses intact or only lightly damaged. Compare this (for example) with numerous Soviet pilot attempts to capture flyable (or at least repairable) Sabre. Those attempts costed some lives and almost failed (except couple of medium damaged Sabres).
http://www.aeronautics.ru/img/img006/coalition_hardware_losses_iraq/web_gal/hardware/gallery/images/apache_002.jpg

[Pojo]

I would be surprised if the stuff they pull of the helo would be anything new for the Russians. At the rate they steal military info they should already know all about it and in great detail. No doubt they will make their own version based on this but as always it will be just a ****ty replica. Russia has the ability to come up with great stuff and the scientific sector is very bright but they lack the tech industry to make competitive parts.

:bash:

[Kingpin]

I would be surprised if the stuff they pull of the helo would be anything new for the Russians. At the rate they steal military info they should already know all about it and in great detail. No doubt they will make their own version based on this but as always it will be just a ****ty replica. Russia has the ability to come up with great stuff and the scientific sector is very bright but they lack the tech industry to make competitive parts.

:bash:

There is also China may be interested in those parts.

We don't need to make replicas of Apache just because we already have our modern gunship - Mi-28 (which in some way actually already similar to Apache :) ). We making copies only in case we don't have time to invent our own (Tu-4 and some nuke technologies as examples - we were very short on time to implement new technology).

[Pojo]

My fault I meant the computers and optics, the good stuff they removed not the helo itself. China already has most of what Russian is selling and they selling near the best they have at this point.

:bash:

[Kingpin]

My fault I meant the computers and optics, the good stuff they removed not the helo itself. China already has most of what Russian is selling and they selling near the best they have at this point.

:bash:

:bash: - is this your signature? :) :P

[Deuterium]

There really is no need for "Mi/KA-64D" we already have KA-50, KA-52, and they are atleast as good :).
And things about V2 and other ones can also be said about lots of US equipment, although I don't know much about planes and helos.

well of couse it can be said about US equippment example the Gemini and apollo program father and main rocket constructor was... Verner von Braun and the constructor of V2 was Verner von Barun so the man that constructed that what become later SCUD also placed american's on moon..

btw. Russians rocket are still much better if u compare the ratio : weight of the rocket to weight of the cargo dlivered to orbit it is becouse you have better engines and rocket fuel than americans (cause you catched more germas :-), sounds like pokemon "Catch them all!!!" rofl )

I have to disagree with you on this point. The real comparison should be launch capabilities. If your contention would be correct then the Estes model rocket would win. The heavy lifters belong to the US. That being said we are seeing cross pollination between the US/Russia in the Atlas III program, US rocket, Russian engines. Her is a definitive comparison chart:

http://www.fas.org/spp/guide/launcher.htm

[Russian Texan]

I don't get it, please explain that cost-range thing. And what is "lead time"? Is it time needed to construvt it and do all the preparations?
According to your table Russian rockets have, depending on the model, 2-5 times greate payload capacity including Energia(most powerful Russian)
35 680 kg vs Titan(most powerful American) that can lift up to 11 000 kg or am I missing something?

BTW that chart is from '94 so I am sure some advances were made since then

[Kingpin]

So anyway Energia rocket system is best. :)

[Marmot1]

well at the begining of space era russian rocket weight/payload weight was 50000tons!!! to 2 tons of payload in US rockets and in russians i was around 3000t/2 tons... ant theoretcal what can be archibed is 1000/1 (1000rocket to bring 1ton of payload to orbit or somethilg like that....) the secret or russian succces was that they had better germans :-) workong on fuele and russian rocket fuel was much much better...