Strengths and weaknesses of US armor operations in Iraq.

[Skybird03]

Interesting observations and conclusions

http://www.wargamer.com/forums/tm.asp?m=133014

[Trekker]

Indeed good reading, although there was really not much new. Tanks and IFVs are not designed to fight in build up areas, and sometimes it looked during the Iraq campain that the Americans got alittle to confident during the Bagdhad thunderruns. And used tanks and IFVs maybe more then they should in build up areas.

On the otherhand rather have and not need then don't have and need. Tanks have showed their values many times over during the Iraqwar. Many who thought that we would see another Chechnya tank massacre was amazed by the way tanks worked in cities. I doubt that anyother tank would perform better, or any other weapon carrying system..

And as Vasiliy states, the Iraqis had learned, they took on the Americans inside the cities where they had a chance to inflect damage..

[Homer]

That article was hardly balanced. It does not mention anything that did work. When all you do is point out the bad, its easier for readers to draw the wrong conclusions. Nevertheless, it was cool to read from a russian perspective.

Here is the original article http://mdb.cast.ru/mdb/1-2005/ac/us_armor/ The other articles are much more interesting. Check out "Russian Armed Forces" > "The Russian Military: Still Saving for a Rainy Day"

[Ludwigmeister]

That article was hardly balanced. It does not mention anything that did work. When all you do is point out the bad, its easier for readers to draw the wrong conclusions.

Keep in mind it was a critique. They went in saying there were high expectations for the M1. Therefore anything that wasn't mentioned met the expected level/standard, and as laid out at the beginning, those expected levels/standards were high. Therefore anything that didn't have anything negative mentioned did indeed work well. For example, the frontal armour of the M1 seems to have maintained its praise.

Ludwig.