Oh shit - Now it's M1s too

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-03-31 07:09am

Good for them. They've got an Apache no one can fly, several drones that are totally useless and now an Abrams stuck in a ditch.

I'm sure their vengeance will be swift with their new found toys.

Arrow · Post by **Arrow** » 2003-03-31 07:42am

The angles of shadows from the tank barrel and from the reporter's arm and head don't seem to match. Still, it is very close.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-31 07:53am

It doesn't look quite right. It's possible they got an Abrams but there is a hell of a lot of difference between a helicopter and a tank. I guess time will tell.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-03-31 07:59am

weemadando wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:
Who have been wrong many times before just like every other new service.
Indeed, but they did cover it. And at the moment the burden of proof is on the US to show that it DIDN'T happen.

actually the proff is on you to show us the story since you made the claim. give us a link, or retract your statement.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-31 08:17am

http://vif2ne.ru/nvk/forum/files/987/I5783.jpg

http://vif2ne.ru/nvk/forum/files/987/I5526.jpg

Obtained from tanknet.

Notice that these tanks have been stripped of their external machine guns, and one of them may be missing a road wheel or two- a thermal shroud is also missing. In addition, I think that Ando's BBC world story is further backed up by this, though I'd like to see the article.

Obviously, abandoned by the crew, and stripped by the Iraqis for everything they could take (if you're the crew running away, you won't be carting an M2HB machine gun with you).

Inlined the images ~ Stormbringer

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-03-31 08:30am

The shadows match up with the rocks all right, but why is his uniform so damn clean despite the dust?

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-03-31 08:32am

The Iraqis might have been permitted to get close to the tanks once the Coalition troops moved on.

I know that there are at least two or three tanks knocked out by RPG fire at the side-skirts or turret flanks. I don't think we lost any crew though.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-31 08:35am

Axis Kast wrote:The shadows match up with the rocks all right, but why is his uniform so damn clean despite the dust?

He's a reporter, not a soldier on the battlefield, he probably drove up in his jeep, did his little propaganda piece, then went back to Baghdad- either way, those two extra pictures pretty much prove that the Iraqis did have access to at least a pair of abandoned M1s. It would take some effort to tow them, and in all liklihood they have already been blasted by airpower.

Just to add, the other picture of the tank shown in the original post seems to show that the side turret armor may have been holed.

Even some of the mightiest tanks on the battlefield look better when they're a bit beat up IMO- I have no love for pristeen, brand spanking new tanks. Give em some dents, some lost track guards, a heavy helping of dirt. These fucked up M1s are beautiful.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-31 08:36am

I like the way some peoples' first reaction is to dismiss it and then make up a lot of questionable reasons for doing so (frankly, this "look at the shadows" bullshit sounds an awful lot like people trying to rationalize a gut reaction).

Like it or not, the Iraq press has a pretty good track record of telling the truth about shit like this. Even during the Iran/Iraq war, they would hold these press conferences about what was happening and it usually turned out to be quite accurate. And yet, anything coming from that source is dismissed out of hand unless we get "confirmation" from CNN or FOX (apparently, BBC isn't enough).

I've said it before and I'll say it again; the existence of a gross presentation bias and rhetorical slant does not mean that a news source must be habitually fabricating information out of thin air.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-31 08:38am

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/39027 ... han_vi.ram

The report from BBC about the three abandoned tanks Ando was speaking of.

http://mitglied.lycos.de/milstuff/tankn ... msBBC1.jpg

http://mitglied.lycos.de/milstuff/tankn ... msBBC2.jpg

http://mitglied.lycos.de/milstuff/tankn ... msBBC3.jpg

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-31 08:41am

Darth Wong wrote:I like the way some peoples' first reaction is to dismiss it and then make up a lot of questionable reasons for doing so (frankly, this "look at the shadows" bullshit sounds an awful lot like people trying to rationalize a gut reaction).

Like it or not, the Iraq press has a pretty good track record of telling the truth about shit like this. Even during the Iran/Iraq war, they would hold these press conferences about what was happening and it usually turned out to be quite accurate. And yet, anything coming from that source is dismissed out of hand unless we get "confirmation" from CNN or FOX (apparently, BBC isn't enough).

I've said it before and I'll say it again; the existence of a gross presentation bias and rhetorical slant does not mean that a news source must be habitually fabricating information out of thin air.

I agree- look at Rumsfeld proclaiming imperiously that the Iraqis were clearly out of touch and that their regime was crumbling when they said Um Qasr hadn't been captured (when it was first reported taken in the opening seconds of the war). He was the one who should've ended up having egg on his face- but of course, not a single one of those reporters at the White House press room saw fit to call him on his error.

I find the regular mainstream media scrambling for 'confirmation' really amusing- we can fucking SEE the damn Apache, and they're saying "well, the Pentagon hasn't confirmed it yet ..."

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-03-31 08:44am

Darth Wong wrote:
Alyeska wrote:Look at the reporters right arm (our right, not his). That has almost the classic blue screen look to it. Kind of the same look when Luke was fighting the Rancor in ROTJ in the original filming.
Actually, that looks like JPEG compression artifacts to me.

IMHO, it looks like a bluescreen job to me (having done a few chromakeys before). The edge is too distinct - I rarely see JPEG artifacts like that (usually I see macroblocking first).

Arrow · Post by **Arrow** » 2003-03-31 11:17am

Darth Wong wrote:I like the way some peoples' first reaction is to dismiss it and then make up a lot of questionable reasons for doing so (frankly, this "look at the shadows" bullshit sounds an awful lot like people trying to rationalize a gut reaction).

Like it or not, the Iraq press has a pretty good track record of telling the truth about shit like this. Even during the Iran/Iraq war, they would hold these press conferences about what was happening and it usually turned out to be quite accurate. And yet, anything coming from that source is dismissed out of hand unless we get "confirmation" from CNN or FOX (apparently, BBC isn't enough).

I've said it before and I'll say it again; the existence of a gross presentation bias and rhetorical slant does not mean that a news source must be habitually fabricating information out of thin air.

Now that I've seen more pictures of it I'm willing bite. But that first picture looked like something off the cover of the Weekly World News. I am skeptical of what the Iraqi media is putting out, and the same goes for Fox, CNN and NBC (especially after that Peter Arnet piece).

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-03-31 11:50am

I'm with Phong on this one. While we know that the US media and the Pentagon have been bullshitting a lot, this particular one seems a little wrong.

A pity that the image quality is so poor. If it were any clearer, it would be possible to see whether the reporter was looking at a studio or a desert by the reflection in his glasses.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-31 11:54am

Crayz9000 wrote:I'm with Phong on this one. While we know that the US media and the Pentagon have been bullshitting a lot, this particular one seems a little wrong.

A pity that the image quality is so poor. If it were any clearer, it would be possible to see whether the reporter was looking at a studio or a desert by the reflection in his glasses.

Dude- there are five other pictures of these tanks. This is not a bluescreen job. M1s being abandoned is not a big deal.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-03-31 12:03pm

Dude - a picture is useless without a frame of reference.

The only pic that has a frame of reference (the reporter) looks pretty bad...

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-03-31 12:04pm

(And before you repeat yourself again, I know that abandoning an Abrams is not a big deal. It's about as useful to the Iraqis as a disabled ISD is to the Federation.)

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-03-31 12:13pm

Stas Bush wrote:What's so unusual about capturing a tank? Any tank could be captured, even by a single infantry soldier.
I think you all know the story of Wehrmacht Gemeinde who captured a KV-1 tank with bare hands.

Yeah. Indiana Jones, too!

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2003-03-31 02:59pm

Crayz9000 wrote:(And before you repeat yourself again, I know that abandoning an Abrams is not a big deal. It's about as useful to the Iraqis as a disabled ISD is to the Federation.)

I saw that and I immediatly thought about that, and seeing some sort of propaganda stunt...

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-03-31 03:44pm

I didn't say the Iraqis hadn't knocked out some of our tanks. I merely pointed out that this picture looks a bit suspicious.

Even somebody driving in a jeep would have to subject themselves to desert dust. Look at the guy's clothing. It's absolutely spotless.

Warspite · Post by **Warspite** » 2003-03-31 04:21pm

It has been shown on several news services during the weekend (not this particular shot), showing one M1 destroyed, including captured equipment from the soldiers and from the tank.
Besides, it was raised the question that all the footage could be from '91.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-03-31 04:45pm

So we lost a few tanks.

Not good, but not terrible. The Iraqis can't salvage much beyond some very heavy machine guns and a few American small-arms. Perhaps, if they are lucky, they'll also be able to take night-vision equipment.

Now, that aside, it doesn't mean that this particular photograph - the one with the Iraqi journalist - isn't doctored.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-03-31 05:34pm

Warspite wrote:It has been shown on several news services during the weekend (not this particular shot), showing one M1 destroyed, including captured equipment from the soldiers and from the tank.
Besides, it was raised the question that all the footage could be from '91.

Not possible. The US only lost three tanks in '91 and all three were to friendly fire.

Warspite · Post by **Warspite** » 2003-03-31 05:49pm

Really? Anyway, it's irrelevant, since back-engineering, or discovering the secrets one of those beasts will take at least a few months, and I'm sure the US military won't let that happen.

(Anyone here knows the story of how the Soviet Union got hold of AIM9(A? B?) Sidewinders? Several paralels apply.)

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-31 07:15pm

Alyeska wrote: Not possible. The US only lost three tanks in '91 and all three were to friendly fire.

18 M1 tanks where knocked out of action in Desert Storm, half could later be repaired.