From: Steve Grammont (islander@midmaine.com)
Date: Thu Nov 06 2003 - 09:10:22 PST
>Funny, I had someone try to tell me that a picture of a T72 on a
>trailer in Texas was proof of a UN build up in the US. My response
>was, "no you dork, they're taking it to a range to blow it up with
>our newest weapons!"
I was present for such a test so I can verify that they go "boom" quite
nicely :-) There was a yard full of 1950s-1970s Soviet stuff they use
for target practice. Oh, and several Sgt Yorks too. Now there is an
expensive target :-(
>They probably knew they penetrated when the crew in the tank went all
>angry on them. A wounded TC getting hauled out probably didn't help
>for letting them know they got to the soft squshy inside of the tank.
>I'll bet the Halon going off didn't do much for keeping it a secret.
Circumstantial evidence is of course useful, but for something this
technical it isn't all that important. Especially if the gunner didn't
stick around to observe the exact location hit and the type of damage it
caused.
>A few flukes don't make a killer weapon.
True. I don't think anybody is saying that exactly. It is more like
"was it expected that x weapon could do y damage". This is the question
we would like to know and not the bad guys.
>The thing is, this isn't an example of a kill in my mind.
I partially agree with you there. But in this type of warfare
definitions are more gray than B&W. As far as I know by tactical
definition if the crew is forced to abandon the vehicle during its
mission, it is a "kill". For that little firefight, the tank was
effectively put out of action. Recoverability and repairability is an
operational issue, so from that standpoint this was not a kill. Although
because of the novelty of the hit I assume this vehicle won't be back in
service any time soon if at all. Lots of geeks with pocket protectors
will want to have a looksie before they shove it back out into the streets :-)
Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 07 2005 - 20:26:25 PDT