A lobang on the front does not mean penetration. It could simply
mean damage. Given the tank itself with the damage looked otherwise
ok with no signs of fire damage and the like, not to mention not in
the battlefield when the photograph was taken, we can conclude that
whatever hit it, it survived.
Back to the tonners.
Remember there was this dude called Glock who though our Armoured
5-Tonners were more cost effective then the mine-resistant
Terrex.
Armoured 5 tonners have their place, and any armour is better then
no armour at all. The experience of the Yanks in Iraq has led to
them up-armouring their soft-skins with official armour packs or
even hillbilly (improvised) armour.
But lets not delude ourselves that the armoured 5-tonners are
supposed to stand up to stuff like RPGs and the like, but shrapnel
and fragmentation that would turn a normal tonner into a frag
house
maybe.
So unless this Alfred is suggesting that we somehow have the means
to move ALL our troops in proper AFVs then his point is pretty
moot. Unless all our grunts have to hump it on foot they will have
to go to point A to point B in some form of transport, and the
truck is still the cheapest means of doing so, despite the lack of
protection compared to an APC or IFV. And if you can increase the
protection level of the truck, why not?
Somehow I have no idea how this basic logistical logic can escape
this Alfred dude, having nitpicked over mines and explosions and
stuff.
And on MBTs, lets not start on another silly this MBT is better
then that MBT threads, especially if the MBTs are so similar.
And please note that the Abrams is not unkillable, but if you read
Thunder Runs, as well as listen to the testimonial of the grunts
who have taken deadly fire in that thing, you would know that like
any well designed MBT it is something you really want to be
in.
Typically in the current Iraq war, the M1s taken out of action were
either gotten by suck thumb IEDs that are way beyond the capacity
of any vehicle to protect from or from shots to their vulnerable
areas (rear, motive systems). And if the Yanks cant retrieve a
disabled tank immediately, they will burn it up and plug a few
holes in it to make sure its not going anywhere soon (which often
accounts for the multiple holes in the abandoned tanks that were
burned down). But all in all these behemoths have performed rather
well in their role and given the amount of fire they have
taken.
The myth of Abrams invincibility is either spread by ignorant
American propagandists or insurgents who make a great deal of
knocking out one (betraying a mentality that they indeed think the
tank is neigh invulnerable). But I think the grunts who go into
battle with the steel beast knows the limits of their ride and
never expose themselves unnecessarily to risk. They trust the tank
to take fire and not quit to get them back home, and if it does
quit still keep the crew in one piece, and combat experience has
proven that this is usually the case.
On the other hand, wed probably expect a similar performance from
our Leo 2.
