Military Review

US media criticized their military for trying to glorify M1 Abrams fighting in Iraq

97
American publications, including Popular Military, rather skeptical of Pentagon enthusiastic statements about Iraqi tank Abrams, which supposedly played a decisive role in liberating the city of Heath from terrorists, the newspaper said Look.


US media criticized their military for trying to glorify M1 Abrams fighting in Iraq


The city of Hit, captured by the Islamists in October 2014, was released on April 11.

It is alleged that "the tank, to which the soldiers gave the name" Beast ", acted so efficiently that the American observers thought that there were several Iraqi tanks in the city."

"The tank destroyed enemy explosives, broke through the enemy defenses and maneuvered between several collision zones," said coalition spokesman Steve Warren.

However, Popular Military reminded the military: “The tank had to act alone only because the other two Abrams involved in the assault were out of action.”

The publication emphasizes that "in general, Abrams proved to be not the best in Iraq."

“Over the past few years, the United States handed over to Iraq around 140 Abrams, although at least about 10 of them the US Air Force had to be destroyed because the cars were seized by terrorists,” journalists say.

According to the Foreign Policy publication, “The Pentagon is so focused on the successes of“ Abrams ”in Heath, because it badly needs the opportunity to loudly say at least some kind of victory over the IG.”
Photos used:
Bob Strong RCS / DL / Reuters
97 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 2s1122
    2s1122 April 14 2016 10: 17
    +8
    It all depends on the crew and training; if you want to live, you will twist your head all over 180 in search of the enemy.
    1. Sly
      Sly April 14 2016 10: 31
      +59
      tank like a tank
      1. 13 warrior
        13 warrior April 14 2016 10: 38
        +26
        Totally agree with you. It's like comparing Sherman, Pz-IV and T-34. All have their own advantages and disadvantages.
        It is more correct to compare the training and moral qualities of the crews and their command that plans operations.
        As the well-known wisdom says: "It is not technology that is fighting, but people."
        1. Suhov
          Suhov April 14 2016 10: 54
          +18
          Quote: 13 warrior
          It is more correct to compare the training and moral qualities of the crews and their command that plans operations.
          As the famous wisdom says: "It’s not technology that fights, but people".

          Indeed: "Not as scary a tank as its drunk crew". smile
          1. 13 warrior
            13 warrior April 14 2016 11: 02
            +2
            Yeah, you reminded me how at the end of the 90's our foreman on duty armored personnel carrier went for ... girls.))
            1. demo
              demo April 14 2016 11: 19
              +4
              And at the beginning of 80, the guys in ZGVG managed to go on a tank for schnapps.
              And this is during the exercises.
              And all would be fine, but they had to cross the autobahn.
              The details are long.
              But it blew through.
              And it could end in real terms.
            2. Black Colonel
              Black Colonel April 14 2016 16: 37
              +3
              On the armored personnel carrier it’s cool, but my colleagues (80-82) on the BAT (!!!) went dancing for 25 km at the Telembo air defense ground in Buryatia.
              1. your1970
                your1970 April 14 2016 17: 45
                +2
                Why not at YMRe? belay repeat drinks soldier
        2. Stas157
          Stas157 April 14 2016 11: 34
          +4
          Quote: 13 warrior
          It's like comparing Sherman, Pz-IV and T-34. All have their own advantages and disadvantages.

          Well, do not tell me, the T-34 is the best! Masterpiece! And the fact that it was not very convenient for the crew and it was necessary to switch gears with a hammer, it did not stop winning the war! Sherman is a tall tractor, and the T-4 is a high-tech, expensive, gasoline lighter! Not just Hitler strained the industry to make far more formidable T-5 and T-6!
          1. VP
            VP April 14 2016 11: 45
            +5
            Quote: Stas157
            Not just Hitler strained the industry to make far more formidable T-5 and T-6!

            And so he was an idiot.
            While Guderian had influence, he argued that without triples and fours, the Wehrmacht would be badly, that these were German workhorses of war. But in the end, the view prevailed: "we need uberwalks with which we will overwhelm everyone"
            1. Stas157
              Stas157 April 14 2016 13: 12
              +3
              Quote: VP
              And so he was an idiot.
              While Guderian had influence, he argued that without the triples and fours the Wehrmacht would have to be bad, that these were German workhorses of war.

              How is it without? In fact, four before the age of 45 released, and most of all released in the 44th year! So, one does not cancel the other! Released everything! And the Tigers, and Panthers, and the fours. Nevertheless, it was the new German tanks that served as the driver for the T-34-85 and IS-2 to appear in the USSR.
          2. Amurets
            Amurets April 14 2016 11: 53
            0
            Even for these tanks, the Germans did not make diesels, since they believed that expensive fuel equipment did not increase the survivability of tanks and did not justify the funds invested in its development and operation in view of the small operational life of the tanks.
            1. your1970
              your1970 April 14 2016 12: 35
              +9
              But nothing that oil needed from Romania drag for the manufacture of solariums, and synthetic gasoline could be cooked right in the Reich ????
            2. Verdun
              Verdun April 14 2016 15: 16
              +2
              Not at all for that. Just artificial fuel, which often had to be poured into the tanks of German tanks, was not suitable for classic diesel engines. And the Germans were not able to create a multi-fuel diesel, unlike Soviet designers, during the war.
              1. wasjasibirjac
                wasjasibirjac April 14 2016 15: 41
                +3
                Quote: Verdun
                . Just artificial fuel, which often had to be poured into the tanks of German tanks, was not suitable for classic diesel engines.
                after all, the Germans could not build a tank diesel, until the end of the war they used gas engines, why do they need diesel fuel?
                1. your1970
                  your1970 April 14 2016 17: 44
                  +2
                  they could build a tank diesel without straining — such a task did not stand, in principle, precisely because of diesel fuel — well, they didn’t have their own Baku, Urengoy and Tyumen.
                  The diesel engine was generally a German invention, for sea vessels it was very, very good - in general the Navy took almost heavy distillates for itself. It’s just that you need to have as much fuel in the sea as possible, which allows a diesel engine with noticeably lower fuel consumption. On the ground, they thought that they there’s enough synthetics. In the USSR, the situation was strictly reverse — oil shafts, but there were high-quality refineries (now, by the way, we have the same problem). Therefore, we even imported aviation gasoline from Lend-Lease from America.
                  So the Germans could not build speak is not correctjust was not needed.
                  In terms of fire resistance of tanks, a much greater role was played by the competent placement of fuel tanks, their protection and fire extinguishing systems, which the Germans had at their best, unlike us ...
                2. Dryulea
                  Dryulea April 14 2016 18: 55
                  0
                  The Germans needed diesel fuel for the fleet, mainly for submarines. Therefore, their tanks were with gasoline engines. And they had tank diesel engines, for example, from two built Mouse, one was with a diesel engine, and the second with a gasoline engine.
            3. Black Colonel
              Black Colonel April 14 2016 16: 39
              +3
              The production of solariums for the Germans was more expensive than the production of synthetic gasoline.
          3. Forest
            Forest April 14 2016 14: 04
            +2
            With the advent of the Tigers and Panthers, the Germans lost the opportunity to carry out major offensives - behind all the victories there were triples and fours who, after breaking through the defense, could make another 100-km throw and surround the enemy, and not wait until they were repaired, add fuel and barely crawl, lagging behind the infantry on the march.
            1. Verdun
              Verdun April 14 2016 17: 30
              +1
              Now not everyone is aware that in the battle of Prokhorovka many "Tigers" simply stopped on the battlefield when the fuel ran out. The power reserve was too small. But the major counter-offensives did not stop because of this.
          4. PSih2097
            PSih2097 April 14 2016 21: 09
            0
            Quote: Stas157
            Not just Hitler strained the industry to make far more formidable T-5 and T-6!

            Hitler first demanded to copy the T-34 and KV, but the designer was convinced of the impossibility of this ...
      2. Kent0001
        Kent0001 April 14 2016 10: 53
        +2
        Such a normal agitation. Very clear.
      3. Stalker.1977
        Stalker.1977 April 14 2016 10: 56
        +11
        Something like this?
        1. kamikaze
          kamikaze April 14 2016 14: 00
          +3
          This tank was built in Israel, so it was called Abram. : laughing laughing laughing
          1. andrewkor
            andrewkor April 14 2016 18: 32
            +1
            Sherman, Patton, Abrams-American hero-generals of different wars!
      4. wanderer_032
        wanderer_032 April 14 2016 11: 16
        +5
        Quote: Sly
        tank like a tank

        Exactly. Absolutely invulnerable armored vehicles do not exist. But this does not mean that tanks on the battlefield are not needed.
        As for the tanks themselves, each of them individually has its own advantages and disadvantages.
        And a professionally trained crew can fully engage in battle, knowing about the strengths and weaknesses of their equipment. This is the professional skill, and not the dumb throwing of the TTX tanks produced abroad with verbal feces.
        Any tank is a serious vehicle. In the 90s, the Serbs even fought on the T-34-85. And in the 70s, Sherman tanks were used - in full growth. True, modified. By the way, in the 90s, the Shermans also fought in the Balkans.
      5. Gennady85
        Gennady85 April 14 2016 15: 27
        +1
        Yes, in any enemy tank it’s necessary to beat like that. :-) soldier
    2. Michael67
      Michael67 April 14 2016 10: 32
      +6
      Here we are talking about the rather weak technique of the squadrons, which their military is trying to rehabilitate at least in words, to attribute to them some "feats". They are PR masters. What did you want from the Merikos? They have one type of f35 our aircraft scared ... U.r.o.dy.
      1. Pavel Tsybai
        Pavel Tsybai April 14 2016 11: 03
        +2
        Mattress-sucking fingers may come up with new thoughts, or he will drive Chernobyl fly agaric to you to rooster, he drove the Estonians the other day — they’ve suffered such nonsense, and learn from them.
    3. tiredwithall
      tiredwithall April 14 2016 10: 32
      +6
      Fight involves two sides, equipping two sides and learning two sides. All spin until they kill.
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. quote
      quote April 14 2016 11: 36
      +1
      Quote: 2s1122
      It all depends on the crew and training; if you want to live, you will twist your head all over 180 in search of the enemy.

      The idea is clear. But it is better (and it is necessary) to turn "head" by 360+, minus 5 degrees.
      Bashka is the "place" of feelings, thinking, capable of switching to automatic mode in a critical situation, and then, at rest, analyzing whether everyone deserves it, and did I overdo it! And then the concept of "skill" appears!
    6. vkl.47
      vkl.47 April 14 2016 11: 41
      +1
      for any Hollywood, the film already shoots rage-2 with delirium rit. XNUMX. As always, at the beginning of the film there is an inscription that is based on real events
    7. Corsair
      Corsair April 14 2016 12: 02
      0
      Quote: 2s1122
      It all depends on the crew and training; if you want to live, you will twist your head all over 180 in search of the enemy.

      what 180 is just a hemisphere - you probably wanted to say 360?
    8. your1970
      your1970 April 14 2016 12: 32
      +2
      "you will twist your head all xnumx looking for the enemy. " belay belay
      And why turn your head by 180 degrees - if we have a viewing angle of 180 ????
      Maybe still on 360 ??? lol lol lol
      1. Aleksey_K
        Aleksey_K April 14 2016 15: 37
        +1
        Quote: your1970
        "you will twist your head all xnumx looking for the enemy. " belay belay
        And why turn your head by 180 degrees - if we have a viewing angle of 180 ????
        Maybe still on 360 ??? lol lol lol

        The tankman in the tank looks into the viewing instruments and there is no angle of view even at 180 degrees. Therefore, you have to twist the commander's cupola. And to twist it at 360 degrees and look back - this is in the cramped towers, when the commander sits sandwiched and legs forward, it is very difficult. This is not a submarine with a periscope, where the captain’s bridge allows you to run around the periscope.
        1. your1970
          your1970 April 14 2016 17: 47
          0
          I admit my guilt, I agree completely, I did not take into account the features of the tank, aviation breathes in the back of the head lol
    9. Aleksey_K
      Aleksey_K April 14 2016 15: 17
      +3
      Quote: 2s1122
      It all depends on the crew and training; if you want to live, you will twist your head all over 180 in search of the enemy.

      Unfortunately, it is very difficult to find a camouflaged and hidden infantryman with an RPG in a tank. If it was not found in time, then most of the tanks are simply "khan". A shot from a Russian RPG into the side or external ammo rack will lead to the destruction of Abrams. The same applies to Russian ATGMs, if the American did not see it, then Abrams will be destroyed at a great distance.
    10. nrex
      nrex April 14 2016 16: 03
      0
      Have you played enough in tanks?
  2. Vladimirets
    Vladimirets April 14 2016 10: 18
    +16
    "The tank, which the soldiers named" The Beast ", acted so effectively that it seemed to American observers that there were several Iraqi tanks in the city."

    In some country, I already heard about lonely tanks, from which horns scattered battalions, regiments, divisions, squadrons ... We need to change the creative director for some, the cliches went. recourse
    1. Lt. Air Force stock
      Lt. Air Force stock April 14 2016 10: 18
      +1
      Quote: Vladimirets
      In some country, I already heard about lonely tanks, from which horns scattered battalions, regiments, divisions, squadrons ..

      "There is safety in numbers"
      1. 13 warrior
        13 warrior April 14 2016 10: 24
        +4
        Well, why? Warrior, but not for long.))
      2. KaPToC
        KaPToC April 14 2016 10: 31
        0
        The tank is not a warrior, at least four warriors in abrams
    2. DMB_95
      DMB_95 April 14 2016 10: 28
      +4
      And this "Abram" amers through the air does not fly around the terrain at ultra-low heights ?? laughing
    3. demo
      demo April 14 2016 11: 21
      +3
      So the little thing was.
      "White Tiger" was called.
      Mugs of passion with elements of mysticism.
      1. your1970
        your1970 April 14 2016 12: 42
        +3
        Read the book - the author in the image of a tiger described the evil deity of War, and his crew is dead.
        And ours immediately amicably - "Tigers do not walk in swamps", "The Germans did not paint their tanks white in summer", etc.
        This is not a documentary movie, not a movie based on real events, moreover, this movie is not about the Great Patriotic War, this movie is about the WAR in general ...
      2. DMB_95
        DMB_95 April 14 2016 16: 09
        +2
        Quote: demo
        So the little thing was.
        "White Tiger" was called.
        Mugs of passion with elements of mysticism.

        And I like this movie. Not because of the mystical "White Tiger". Because of our driver Naydenov.
        1. your1970
          your1970 April 14 2016 18: 35
          +1
          "Even the 37-mm pukalka, carefully keeping the only" armor-piercing "one, reported full readiness.
          “He is there,” said the Czech tank thankful for everything. - “He has not gone anywhere. He is waiting for you. He had already trodden the battlefield. "Eight-eight" is ready and the gunner clung to the sight ".Old, somehow patched by Ivan Ivanovich Pz 35 (t) (however, like every other tank) had an amazing flair. But political officers, headquarters, “special policemen”, anti-aircraft guns, self-propelled guns and desperate conversations of SMERSH in English with that side, they didn’t occupy the driver right now - the monster was already waiting for Milovets — the familiar 200-millimeter boards were turning white, the tracks were covered with mud and mud, monocular the eye slowly felt for the target. The devils in the tower did their best to turn the flywheel of aiming and took out the “cumulative” one from the combat unit. The monstrous trunk, no doubt, was cleaned by them. However, the tankman, who was swirling in fire and smoke, was wearing an overcoat, black from spots, not tall, all hung with medals and orders, had no doubt that this outdated, touching trolley would be enough for a blow. Enough and one, albeit 37-millimeter, "baby".
          - “Press, Ivan! - the heavenly music rumbled. - Press! .. He's not gone anywhere! ""
          1. DMB_95
            DMB_95 April 15 2016 15: 08
            0
            Just a class! Damn, I have not read fiction about the war for a long time ..
    4. Armax
      Armax April 14 2016 11: 22
      +10
      Quote: Vladimirets
      In some country I already heard about lonely tanks, from which horns scattered battalions

      I also heard, but it was July 3, 1941, in Minsk, and the T-28 tank.
      This is where our guys raided the glory.
      True, not all survived, but all the heroes.
      Once there was a plot on TV by May 9, but now I can’t find it, here is a short story:
      http://www.contrpost.ru/threads/rejd-po-nemeckim-tylam-tanka-t-28.2719/
      And about Abrams - "beast", I do not know.
      1. VOLCHOXURAL
        VOLCHOXURAL April 14 2016 16: 55
        +1
        Quote: ArMax
        I also heard, but it was July 3, 1941, in Minsk, and the T-28 tank.
        This is where our guys raided the glory.
        True, not all survived, but all the heroes.
        Once there was a plot on TV by May 9, but now I can’t find it, here is a short story:
        http://www.contrpost.ru/threads/rejd-po-nemeckim-tylam-tanka-t-28.2719/
        And about Abrams - "beast", I do not know.

        Now, I remembered this and this incredible story of the Great Patriotic War was called "accidental crew"
        1. Armax
          Armax April 14 2016 18: 56
          +2
          Quote: VOLCHONOKSURALA
          Now, I remembered this and this incredible story of the Great Patriotic War was called "accidental crew"

          So it is, random. Major, sergeant and four cadets.
          But the Nazis crumbled ... as harmonious in battles.
  3. salad
    salad April 14 2016 10: 22
    0
    Well, nothing to add wassat
  4. vic58
    vic58 April 14 2016 10: 26
    +7
    It is alleged that "the tank, to which the soldiers gave the name" Beast ", acted so efficiently that the American observers thought that there were several Iraqi tanks in the city."

    It also seems to me that after a liter of vodka there are several beds repeat But I don’t report it to anyone laughing
    1. tiredwithall
      tiredwithall April 14 2016 10: 30
      +9
      And rightly, they’ll take it away.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh April 14 2016 11: 30
      +2
      Is there a video. There he very spectacularly carries the moving toyota-tachanka of the IS from the gun.
      1. Black Colonel
        Black Colonel April 14 2016 16: 48
        +3
        And in the jihad tachanka, a ton of TNT was pre-laid for a greater effect?
  5. Oml
    Oml April 14 2016 10: 26
    +5
    The tank destroyed enemy explosive devices, broke through the enemy’s defenses and maneuvered between several zones of collision, ”said Coalition Forces spokesman Steve Warren.


    The quote "worthy" of the amerikosov, especially "maneuvering between several collision zones".
    1. tiredwithall
      tiredwithall April 14 2016 10: 35
      +2
      Maneuvering menacingly away from the enemy.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. kirieeleyson
      kirieeleyson April 14 2016 10: 56
      +1
      there were many enemy explosive devices - some (!) themselves moved and fired from long cannons. Other explosive devices were men with sticks, which they threw on their shoulders, sat down and also shot!
  6. Fitter65
    Fitter65 April 14 2016 10: 28
    +1
    Tiger albino beast ... laughing laughing
  7. PatriotKZ
    PatriotKZ April 14 2016 10: 28
    +1
    Tank Abrams can only be praised for one quality: It burns well. laughing
    1. Marconi41
      Marconi41 April 14 2016 10: 50
      +12
      Quote: PatriotKZ
      Tank Abrams can only be praised for one quality: It burns well. laughing

      In fact, Abrams is not a bad car at all and is not much inferior to ours. By aiming, it is robustly ahead of our tanks in some cases (I won’t say for Armata). If someone thinks that the T-72 easily throws RPG-7 grenades off its side, then it is very mistaken. So the PR of the Americans is in the elementary advertising of their products. We are promoting our T-90s, and they are Abrams - everything is natural.
      1. Altona
        Altona April 14 2016 12: 11
        +3
        Quote: Marconi41
        In fact, Abrams is not a bad car at all and is not much inferior to ours. By aiming, it is robustly ahead of our tanks in some cases (I won’t say for Armata).

        ---------------------
        In fact, "Abrams" is in general an anti-tank self-propelled gun, if you look at the ammunition, there are all sorts of sub-caliber armor-piercing "nails", no shells for the destruction of infantry, protected shelters and similar tasks. Although it seems like a counter tank battle is a rare phenomenon. As for aiming, you can aim in static, while on the move it is simply hard to throw a 24 kg projectile into the breech, you can try to control a heavy object in the car on the off-road. Further, this tank is categorically prohibited from leaving the highways. The tracks are soft and the tank is heavy on shaky soil. And about "shooting", then without the Apaches Abrams to be afraid to fight, always asks for air support. As for the "heroic dispersal" of enemies, even the last boy armed with an RPG is not afraid of this monster.
        1. Forest
          Forest April 14 2016 14: 12
          +1
          There are multi-purpose shells in the Abrams BC, if you want to, at least score the entire BC with them. There are several types of caterpillars, and due to the powerful engine, patency is much worse than teshes. From an RPG you can knock out ANY tank if you know where to shoot.
          1. Altona
            Altona April 14 2016 14: 14
            +3
            Quote: Forest
            There are multi-purpose shells in the Abrams BC, if you want to, at least score the entire BC with them. There are several types of caterpillars, and due to the powerful engine, patency is much worse than teshes. From an RPG you can knock out ANY tank if you know where to shoot.

            -------------------
            Charge 24 kg on the go several times? try ...
            1. Forest
              Forest April 14 2016 14: 35
              +2
              Firstly, fire is fired from short stops or from the track when the driver reduces the speed to 20-30 km / h and drives the tank as accurately as possible. It’s difficult to shoot even with the MOH and AZ. In battle, on the go shoot - wasting shells in vain.
  8. 13 warrior
    13 warrior April 14 2016 10: 31
    +5
    "The tank destroyed enemy explosive devices"
    I also have a "mine clearance machine"! ))
    They write, of course, absurdity. Although in history there are examples of the successful use of single cars. Take at least the T-28 on the streets of Minsk in 1941. But this requires the dedication and professionalism of the crew and a lot of luck.
  9. engineer74
    engineer74 April 14 2016 10: 32
    +3
    I would not be surprised if, in a few years, it turns out that it was an old Saddam T-55 - again the journalists were "mistaken" ... wassat
  10. aszzz888
    aszzz888 April 14 2016 10: 36
    +1
    Something the mericatos parted, with their Abrams. You will not praise yourself - no one will praise. The piece of iron that the Cornets are asking for! laughing
    1. Marconi41
      Marconi41 April 14 2016 10: 53
      +5
      Quote: aszzz888
      Something the mericatos parted, with their Abrams. You will not praise yourself - no one will praise. The piece of iron that the Cornets are asking for! laughing

      Do you think the T-90 will take a well-aimed blow to Cornet? Well, well ... Maybe you can see in the internet how our tanks burned in Grozny? Underestimation, as well as revaluation, is unhealthy in war.
  11. The comment was deleted.
  12. gridasov
    gridasov April 14 2016 10: 46
    +3
    You might think that others do not glorify their creations. The complete discrepancy between the declared parameters and the fact that there is actually literally apply to everything and everyone. Everyone learned to lie, and then a person suffers.
    The same "night hunter" who fell in Syria. How they paint it! But in reality, the human factor is under which you can hide the flaws of the creators. In general, until they honestly designate everything that is, there will be no sense.
  13. X Y Z
    X Y Z April 14 2016 10: 49
    +2
    And I completely agree with the authors of several previous articles, which argue that modern American weapons are designed to make money, and not for real military operations with an equal enemy. America is not going to wage such wars, preferring to act with the wrong hands and enters the battle only where success is inevitable. Armament is up to the task.
  14. Observer2014
    Observer2014 April 14 2016 10: 52
    +3
    Quote: 2s1122
    It all depends on the crew and training; if you want to live, you will twist your head all over 180 in search of the enemy.

    Yeah and shove shells into the cannon, probably faster than an automatic loader, while there is nothing to ignore bully
  15. Kibl
    Kibl April 14 2016 11: 07
    0
    It was infa that the mattress to their allies are alloyed by Abrams without "native" armor, which they put only on their tanks, which are in service with the American army itself.
  16. RuslanNN
    RuslanNN April 14 2016 11: 10
    +4
    I also do not mind glorifying invulnerable abrams
    1. Max_Bauder
      Max_Bauder April 14 2016 11: 21
      0
      Quote: RuslanNN
      I also do not mind glorifying invulnerable abrams


      laughing
  17. sodick
    sodick April 14 2016 11: 17
    +1
    Here, the tank should not be glorified, but its crew. In 2008, our crew acted this way during clashes with Georgians
  18. karakuin
    karakuin April 14 2016 11: 18
    +1
    Well, just one defeated everyone. URRRA-A-A! Kakya nonsense. And that there was not a single ISIS with a Russian grenade launcher? After all, everyone already understands that this rattle with a purely English name ABRAMs is a product of the past millennium. They say that the production plant was closed. Is there really nothing that can be promoted? More and more, it seems that Abamia is blunting - the further, the more.
    1. dogens
      dogens April 14 2016 12: 00
      +1
      Quote: karakuin
      Well, just one defeated everyone. URRRA-A-A! Kakya nonsense. And what was not found not a single ISIS with a Russian grenade launcher? After all, everyone already understands that this rattle with a purely English name ABRAMs is a product of the past millennium. They say that the production plant was closed. Is there really nothing that can be promoted? More and more, it seems that Abamia is blunting - the further, the more.


      Judging by Washington’s statements about its readiness to put modern weapons in a moderate opposition, their grenade launchers are not Russian.
  19. Victor-M
    Victor-M April 14 2016 11: 46
    0
    However, Popular Military reminded the military: "The tank had to act alone only because the other two Abrams participating in the assault were disabled."

    Want to know how to spin! laughing
  20. BOB044
    BOB044 April 14 2016 11: 48
    +1
    “The tank destroyed enemy explosive devices, broke through the enemy’s defenses and maneuvered between several zones of collision,” - and then the M-1 Abrams tank took to the sky and bombed the enemy. Ahrenet not a tank but super. The spokesman for the coalition forces, Steve Warren, said. fool
  21. jovanni
    jovanni April 14 2016 11: 58
    +1
    Quote: 13 warrior
    It is more correct to compare the training and moral qualities of the crews and their command that plans operations.
    As the well-known wisdom says: "It is not technology that is fighting, but people."


    Absolutely right. Therefore, given that they have such worthy crews, their guys need to be driven to the seventh sweat, and taught to think. Just in case...
  22. Victor-M
    Victor-M April 14 2016 11: 58
    +9
    "The tank destroyed enemy explosives, broke through the enemy defenses and maneuvered between several collision zones," said coalition spokesman Steve Warren.
    laughing
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 April 14 2016 14: 00
      +1
      This photo is another US Iraqi company.
      1. Victor-M
        Victor-M April 14 2016 20: 06
        0
        Quote: Vadim237
        This photo is another US Iraqi company.

        Then ISIS was born.
  23. Disorder
    Disorder April 14 2016 12: 00
    +2
    [quote] "The tank destroyed enemy explosive devices, broke through the enemy’s defenses and maneuvered between several zones of collision," said coalition forces spokesman Steve Warren. [/ quote]
    Nonsense. Which explosive devices, which collision zones? This is not a tank, but some fantastic "mech" from the future, and a walking one. belay
    Moreover
    [quote] [However, Popular Military reminded the military: "The tank had to act alone only because the other two Abrams participating in the assault were incapacitated." / quote]
    Maybe it's all different tanks? Two simple ones threw off the tracks, and a third, super secret development, showed ballet on ice. lol
  24. Taygerus
    Taygerus April 14 2016 12: 04
    +1
    another ovsky PR, and for what reasons other tanks dropped out, never report
  25. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh April 14 2016 13: 58
    +1
    Abrams is imprisoned for the battle tank against tank.
    And he showed himself superbly in that capacity.
    I read the memories of American tankers about Iraq 2003.
    Like, "we were very worried because most of the shooting we have
    It was on simulators, not practical shooting. But it turned out -
    no difference. We shot from the same distances, and the real T-72
    caught fire and then exploded in the same way as virtual ones.
    In 20 minutes there was no one to shoot at. "

    But the sides of the hull at Abrams are weak. They are taken and the old ATGMs, and RPG-7.
    1. Foofighter
      Foofighter April 14 2016 15: 36
      +3
      Only now the T-72s were knocked out by aviation or parts with them were bought together with their generals, before that the Abrams did not go forward winked
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh April 14 2016 15: 51
        0
        In 1991 - yes, mainly by aviation,
        and in 2003 - not, mainly, tanks and TOU with Bradley.
        1. Foofighter
          Foofighter April 15 2016 20: 30
          0
          In 1991 - no,
          in 2003 in part, and by the Apaches
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Horst78
      Horst78 April 14 2016 15: 40
      +1
      Quote: voyaka uh
      I read the memories of American tankers about Iraq 2003.
      Like, "we were very worried because most of the shooting we have
      It was on simulators, not practical shooting. But it turned out -
      no difference. We shot from the same distances, and the real T-72
      caught fire and then exploded in the same way as virtual ones.
      In 20 minutes there was no one to shoot at. "

      And how did they shoot at the Papuans? Also? Soviet T-55 in Iraq gave Abrams pinduly without surrender.
    4. Ratmir_Ryazan
      Ratmir_Ryazan April 14 2016 20: 04
      +2
      Well, do not dissemble !!! Abrams in Iraq opposed the old Iraqi T-72s, which even theoretically could not hit them in the frontal projection with old armor-piercing and cumulative ammunition, especially at night and in bad weather conditions, especially during sandstorms ... What the Americans used ... I not to mention the fact that most of the equipment they simply shot abandoned from planes and helicopters ... Abrams does not have high-explosive ammunition and uses it to combat infantry - multi-purpose which is essentially a cumulative ammunition! Do you fight so much in the city, and even one tank? The most modern tank anti-personnel munition is the same cumulative only with shrapnel and firing range for some reason, a maximum of 400 meters ... I doubt that they have already delivered them to Iraq ... A lonely tank in the city is a dead man ... All these attempts of Western propaganda to promote Abrams is pathetic stupidity, although their desire is understandable ... There are so many pictures of burned Abrams on the Internet that even American tankers are beginning to lose faith in them ...
  26. Svetovod
    Svetovod April 14 2016 14: 37
    +1
    We are waiting for the M1Ax at the tank biathlon. Moreover, they are already in all sorts of Baltic countries.
  27. Evil 55
    Evil 55 April 14 2016 15: 44
    +1
    "Abrams" or "Bryams" is this pizza delivery machine called "bearded"?
  28. Mama_Cholli
    Mama_Cholli April 14 2016 16: 44
    +1
    The Americans have already made one fantastic movie about the valor of their soldiers and the advantage of their tanks - the film Rage with Brad Pete in the title role (he watched and cried with laughter). Now, apparently, the second series about the abrams in Iraq will appear (the question is only in the main character, Arnold is already old and will not fit into the abrams, besides, he is an ethnic German). Well, yes, inside the abrams, you will not understand who was sitting (Iraqi Americans). Well, apparently it's time to stock up on popcorn.
  29. avg-mgn
    avg-mgn April 14 2016 17: 52
    +1
    Quote: Black Colonel
    The production of solariums for the Germans was more expensive than the production of synthetic gasoline.

    but this rare German tank on
    firewood does not fit into your concept?
  30. Algetxnumx
    Algetxnumx April 14 2016 17: 59
    +1
    Quote: Vadim237
    This photo is another US Iraqi company.

    Yes, even the tenth, the main thing is that they bought the abrashka.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 April 14 2016 21: 39
      +1
      Only before that, this Abrashka, the whole country was torn apart.
  31. Anchonsha
    Anchonsha April 14 2016 18: 36
    +1
    not only to American Abrams, but also to the Pentagoners themselves, if their own media speak about Abrams and the military. But to the Americans, at least somehow show the world that at least the American got the upper hand. And then all Russian, but Russian.