*Snif* Monty would be proud...

Warspite · Post by **Warspite** » 2003-03-27 01:48pm

BRITS BLAST 14 IRAQI TANKS

British forces have destroyed 14 Iraqi tanks near Basra in what is described as the biggest British tank battle since World War II.

The battle ensued after a squadron of 14 Challenger II tanks from the Scots Dragoon Guards "came across" 14 Iraqi T-55 tanks as they were heading down the al-Faw peninsula, according to Admiral Michael Boyce, head of British defence staff.

"The Scots Dragoon Guards squadron engaged the Iraqi tanks whilst on the move, and destroyed all 14, and none of our Challengers were damaged. Then the guards pressed on and overran two associated Iraqi infantry positions," Boyce said.

It was Britain's largest tank clash in more than half a century, if only a skirmish compared to some of the tank battles of World War II, said David Fletcher, historian of the Tank Museum in Bovington, England.

My hat goes off to these professionals.

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-03-27 01:54pm

Can the Iraqi tanks fire while moving... well effectively at least?

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-03-27 01:58pm

Zoink wrote:Can the Iraqi tanks fire while moving... well effectively at least?

If you believe the propoganda that Iraqi tanks come from the US, then maybe. Though I'm not up on the technological capabilities of T-55s.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-03-27 02:03pm

Monty would indeed be proud. However shortly thereafter Patton would call him a primadonna and go out and kill twice as many tanks just to piss him off.

Queeb Salaron wrote:
Zoink wrote:Can the Iraqi tanks fire while moving... well effectively at least?
If you believe the propoganda that Iraqi tanks come from the US, then maybe. Though I'm not up on the technological capabilities of T-55s.

The Iraqi's do have a few early model M60's IIRC

Warspite · Post by **Warspite** » 2003-03-27 02:05pm

The T-55 may have stabilized guns, but surely, the Challenger II's must be more efficient.
Anyway, that point ends up being irrelevant due to training, which probably the Iraqis are deficient.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-03-27 02:17pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:Monty would indeed be proud. However shortly thereafter Patton would call him a primadonna and go out and kill twice as many tanks just to piss him off.

Then march into Baghdad and waltz up to Saddam and, *theoretical quote*: "Shoot the yellow bastards."

Sokar · Post by **Sokar** » 2003-03-27 03:37pm

Zoink wrote:Can the Iraqi tanks fire while moving... well effectively at least?

Doubtful, the T-55 is nearly 50 years old as a design, and I've yet to hear of a factory or field upgrade kit for giving them fire on the move tech. (Although I could be wrong) Even if upgraded the 100mm gun on a T-55 would barely scratch the heavily sloped Chobbam armor on a Challenger I or II.

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2003-03-27 03:42pm

They can't fire while moving-
Nonetheless they were excellent tanks at their time.

Sokar · Post by **Sokar** » 2003-03-27 03:52pm

Cpt_Frank wrote:They can't fire while moving-
Nonetheless they were excellent tanks at their time.

When they first appeared they were every bit the excellent tank, easily equal to the M-47/48's we were fielding.

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2003-03-27 03:58pm

Sokar wrote:
Cpt_Frank wrote:They can't fire while moving-
Nonetheless they were excellent tanks at their time.
When they first appeared they were every bit the excellent tank, easily equal to the M-47/48's we were fielding.

Half a century ago.

[/nostalgic]

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2003-03-27 04:39pm

T-55s were good when they first came out. So were MiG-15s, but no one uses them anymore.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-03-27 04:52pm

Andrew J. wrote:T-55s were good when they first came out. So were MiG-15s, but no one uses them anymore.

True, though China does use updated MiG-19s (same time period as the American F-100). They just call them the J-6 and Q-5.

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2003-03-27 05:08pm

The Republican Guard are using T-72s, correct?

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-03-27 05:11pm

I'd like to tip my hat to those Brits, though I'd like to see the British Navy kick some ass.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2003-03-27 05:18pm

Montgomery wouldn't be proud. He was a glory hound. He'd see no glory in killing Tank-1955 with Tanks from the 1990s recently upgraded.

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2003-03-28 06:52am

Captain Lennox wrote:The Republican Guard are using T-72s, correct?

Unmodified first model T-72E without any upgrades.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-28 06:57am

Cpt_Frank wrote:Unmodified first model T-72E without any upgrades.

The correct designation is actually T-72M- but still you're right- it's just an export version of the very first T-72s ever made. Krrraaapppp.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-03-28 07:36am

NecronLord wrote:Montgomery wouldn't be proud. He was a glory hound. He'd see no glory in killing Tank-1955 with Tanks from the 1990s recently upgraded.

Actually, I rather think that a Feild Marshal would be more concerned with the overall progrees of the war. Besides that, he was no more a glory hound than most other Generals, and less to than MacArthur. Montgomery also tended to be quite practical most of the time and knew his own weakeness..except for that wee airborne fuckup.

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2003-03-28 07:41am

The time of the T-54/55 is over (especially for those without any upgrades).
However they have their place in history and can still be used as dune buggys.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-03-28 07:51am

Cpt_Frank wrote:The time of the T-54/55 is over (especially for those without any upgrades).
However they have their place in history and can still be used as dune buggys.

I would happily use one to garuntee myself parking space in town

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-03-28 07:52am

Sokar wrote:
Cpt_Frank wrote:They can't fire while moving-
Nonetheless they were excellent tanks at their time.
When they first appeared they were every bit the excellent tank, easily equal to the M-47/48's we were fielding.

and not as good as the Centurion

Post by **NecronLord** » 2003-03-28 07:59am

Stuart Mackey wrote:
NecronLord wrote:Montgomery wouldn't be proud. He was a glory hound. He'd see no glory in killing Tank-1955 with Tanks from the 1990s recently upgraded.
Actually, I rather think that a Feild Marshal would be more concerned with the overall progrees of the war. Besides that, he was no more a glory hound than most other Generals, and less to than MacArthur. Montgomery also tended to be quite practical most of the time and knew his own weakeness..except for that wee airborne fuckup.

Don't get me wrong, he was compotent. However he claimed that success in N Africa was entirely due to him, although most of it was due to his predessesor F.Marshal Orkinweck{sp?}

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-03-28 09:43pm

NecronLord wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote:
NecronLord wrote:Montgomery wouldn't be proud. He was a glory hound. He'd see no glory in killing Tank-1955 with Tanks from the 1990s recently upgraded.
Actually, I rather think that a Feild Marshal would be more concerned with the overall progrees of the war. Besides that, he was no more a glory hound than most other Generals, and less to than MacArthur. Montgomery also tended to be quite practical most of the time and knew his own weakeness..except for that wee airborne fuckup.
Don't get me wrong, he was compotent. However he claimed that success in N Africa was entirely due to him, although most of it was due to his predessesor F.Marshal Orkinweck{sp?}

Montgomerys success was due to good logistics, good ground and knowing his troops and equipments strenghts, much like Wellington did in some of his battles. The events around Montys relief of Richie/Auchinleck had everthing to do with Richie not having the experience or qualifications for the job, and a number of defeats. Auchinleck was relived and moved to Iraq/Persia mainly for political reason but also for mishandling events earlier, namly taking over from Ritchie in the middle of a battle. Auchinleck no longer had the confidence of 8th army. In short Up unrill the arrival of Montgomery, the management of the desert war after O'Conner, was one big cluusterfuck.

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2003-03-28 10:47pm

Ugh. The Challenger 2 is 40+ years younger.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-03-28 11:01pm

Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:Ugh. The Challenger 2 is 40+ years younger.

Who are you replying to ?

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Snif Monty would be proud...

Snif Monty would be proud...