Glock Forum - GlockTalk banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,779 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Surprised to see 'em in the streets. I'm sure the Israelis don't approve...
 

·
> OD Glock 32
Joined
·
4,431 Posts
Pretty good business model the USA has.

  1. Make effective product
  2. Supply to opposing sides.
  3. Profit!!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
20,343 Posts
Pretty good business model the USA has.

  1. Make effective product
  2. Supply to opposing sides.
  3. Profit!!
4. If your customer goes off the reservation stop shipping them spare parts. :supergrin:
 

·
Scouts Out
Joined
·
23,815 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,001 Posts
when the USA GIVES Egypt over 1 billion dollars in aid per year, most of that going to their military, yes they have M1's and they also have quite a few F16's and othe r sophisticated military hardware.

so far it was to keep them from totally going over to the radical militant islam side.

but as usual, our foreign policy monster back bites us in the arse.
 

·
AAAMAD
Joined
·
31,908 Posts
They have them, as do the Iraqi\'s.

But they\'re also not driving the top of the line M1 series, but older, previous block models. Tanks are also, slowly entering what may be the decline of their use. Much like airplanes did in battle ships, AT-fires are becoming more and more advanced, and the Tank\'s can\'t really compete.
 

·
Getting older every day!
Joined
·
2,944 Posts
Pretty good business model the USA has.

  1. Make effective product
  2. Supply to opposing sides.
  3. Profit!!
Unfortunately we are not charging these countries for these goods so we do not see a profit, we loose $. :steamed:

An article I read last week stated we pay $1.5 BILLION annually to Egypt. :faint:

How may other countries to we pay this kind of $ to? Let's stop and balance a budget for once. :upeyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,456 Posts
They have them, as do the Iraqi\'s.

But they\'re also not driving the top of the line M1 series, but older, previous block models. Tanks are also, slowly entering what may be the decline of their use. Much like airplanes did in battle ships, AT-fires are becoming more and more advanced, and the Tank\'s can\'t really compete.

I am thinking you mean anti tank technology is getting better and means the end of the tank??

If so, well, doubtful. That song has been playing since 1962.. still hasn't become a hit. Every advance in anti tank tech from the AT-3 forward has been effectivly countered. In fact the AT-3, which scarred the living crap out of the west when introduced, was countered for .1% of the cost of the missile with just some chain link fence.

But yes, they have M1's, an "export" version with out the advanced fire control of even our original M1IP. Several countries use them actually. I helped train them back in the day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
That's the dirty little secret of the foreign aid we pay to Israel and Egypt so they would stop fighting each other. The billions of dollars we give them each year has to be spent on U.S. purchase. Most of those purchases are weapons.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,471 Posts
I am thinking you mean anti tank technology is getting better and means the end of the tank??

If so, well, doubtful. That song has been playing since 1962.. still hasn't become a hit. Every advance in anti tank tech from the AT-3 forward has been effectivly countered. In fact the AT-3, which scarred the living crap out of the west when introduced, was countered for .1% of the cost of the missile with just some chain link fence.

But yes, they have M1's, an "export" version with out the advanced fire control of even our original M1IP. Several countries use them actually. I helped train them back in the day.
I can say from my tours in Iraq that you're wrong. Tank tech is serverly lacking compared to today's AT tech. Our tanks were paralyzed in Fallujah due to the Kornet. The role of the MBT has changed so dramatically from the First Gulf War to how we use it today it borders on a revolutionary change of tactics.

Rolling them out from under the umbrella means trouble very fast.
 

·
AAAMAD
Joined
·
31,908 Posts
No, I said the tank can not really compete. Tanks will be around forever because of what they are. But they are quickly becoming less and less usefull. It was a lesson hard learned by the Israeli\'s. Unlike the Iraqis we faced, when they rolled into combat last time, they faced extremely prevalent use of AT weapons. They lost a ton of Merkavas which are very hardy tanks, including the MK IV, though only two of the IVs were complete losses.


We have now seen that an RPG, has the power to punch through the armor on any tank in existence, including the Abrams, Challenger, and Merkava. We\'re currently spending millions trying to devise ways to protect our multi million dollar tanks from 100K AT weapons.

Most of the current fighting is going on in cities, mountains, and other places tanks dont go. Unless we see a war with another first rate army. Tanks use has been, and will continue to decline.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,456 Posts
I can say from my tours in Iraq that you're wrong. Tank tech is serverly lacking compared to today's AT tech. Our tanks were paralyzed in Fallujah due to the Kornet. The role of the MBT has changed so dramatically from the First Gulf War to how we use it today it borders on a revolutionary change of tactics.

Rolling them out from under the umbrella means trouble very fast.
They are paralyzed by the MOUT, doesn't make them obsolete, or useless. the "role" of the MBT has not changed, the current use of the MBT, outside it design or employment realm, is not the tanks fault, nor does it mean it's useless.

You can pound nails with a baseball bat, doesn't mean the hammer is obsolete.
 

·
> OD Glock 32
Joined
·
4,431 Posts
Unfortunately we are not charging these countries for these goods so we do not see a profit, we loose $. :steamed:

An article I read last week stated we pay $1.5 BILLION annually to Egypt. :faint:
Oh, we profit alright. It's not always monetarily, but we profit nonetheless.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,471 Posts
They are paralyzed by the MOUT, doesn't make them obsolete, or useless. the "role" of the MBT has not changed, the current use of the MBT, outside it design or employment realm, is not the tanks fault, nor does it mean it's useless.

You can pound nails with a baseball bat, doesn't mean the hammer is obsolete.
First off where did I say they were useless? I don't belive that I said that. If you belive that the role of the MBT hasn't changed then your not staying current because it absolutely has.

the days of the MBT leading the way on the FEBA are over. They can't operate without a leveled umbrella of protection.

BTW our tanks were getting popped moving to contact by the Kornet long before they were getting tangled up in MOUT.

When was your last tour?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,710 Posts
I am thinking you mean anti tank technology is getting better and means the end of the tank??

If so, well, doubtful. That song has been playing since 1962.. still hasn't become a hit.
The tank has only been *around* since the first World War.
Every advance in anti tank tech from the AT-3 forward has been effectivly countered.
Yup... that will be true, until it won't.
In fact the AT-3, which scarred the living crap out of the west when introduced, was countered for .1% of the cost of the missile with just some chain link fence.
And now you can blow up MBTs with a Javelin or Kornet that costs .1% of what the tank did.

Technology evolves, things change. MBTs were designed for a set-piece open-field style of warfare that doesn't happen much anymore.

EDIT: I see others with more recent experience have beaten me to the punch; I just know that during my 4 short years as an anti-armor missileman I saw the capabilities of man-portable AT weapons increase dramatically.

Marine8541 said:
the days of the MBT leading the way on the FEBA are over.
This man speaks the truth. The M1 was designed to stop T72s coming through the Fulda Gap. That seems unlikely to happen.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
747 Posts
Egypt, I heard on Neal Boortz on Friday, is the second highest recipient of US Foreign Aid...
I want to say it's fourth, after Israel, Pakistan, and someone else. Maybe Taiwan?
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top