LeGenD
MODERATOR
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2006
- Messages
- 15,813
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
I am not asserting that Pakistani accounts are [absolutely] based on a BBC documentary.Wait...So your argument on the subject is based on the "inaccuracy" of the footage shown on BBC???? And then you state,
So Pakistan Army rejected the tank after watching the footage on BBC which the BBC claimed to be the tests conducted in Pakistan?
I cited the BBC documentary because it 'supposedly' contains footage of an M1 series MBT firing towards some targets and missing them [in Pakistan]; I analyzed this footage and found it to be misleading. I then mentioned that [if] Pakistani accounts are based on this footage then they are equally misplaced.
You understand the meaning of word if? I hope you do.
Now, if Pakistani accounts are based on another source then they should be presented for critical evaluation. This is the purpose of this thread.
Clear enough?
You know what the problem of an average Pakistani is? He doesn't focuses on the CONTEXT, he primarily focuses on the NEGATIVITY about an area of interest in most cases. This is why Pakistani nation is plagued with disinformation and is not making much progress.Another of your points was,
coupled with,
Both of which the US's own reports do not agree with,
http://www.gao.gov/assets/220/215553.pdf
M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank 1982-92 - Steven J. Zaloga - Google Books
When the (original) M1 Abrams MBT was developed, their were concerns about its gas turbine engine getting bogged down in desert environments due to the threat of sand creeping in to it. To address this issue, air filters were installed to prevent sand from creeping in to the engine. This technique worked and M1 series MBT were able to work well in desert environments afterwards. Primary maintenance requirement was that the air filters had to be cleaned after hours of operations in the sandy environment.
Information [about problems] in published literature tends to give the impression [to a reader] that the military assets holistically failed to perform according to the expectations of the personnel and/or ran in to serious problems during offensive operations but this impression is MISLEADING. A report is sometimes developed to [critically evaluate] the experiences of personnel with the hardware during military operations and document all kinds of problems (minor to major); purpose of such documentation is to analyze the problems and propose solutions.
No matter what you do, machines are not failure-proof. Every army experiences problems with hardware during operations in harsh environments (ranging from minor to major). Difference is that reports about such experiences are not necessarily declassified for the public in some countries; this is true for Pakistan in particular.
Do you think that Pakistani military hardware is failure-proof? (I can point out dozens of incidents and accidents to you)
Do you also think that US troops marched towards Iraqi positions on foot? Their hardware failed to work in the desert environment, right?
REALITY CHECK: Thousands of military vehicles were deployed for OPERATION DESERT STORM and they worked in the desert environment just fine. Otherwise, OPERATION DESERT STORM would have flopped. Iraqi armed forces were routed from the ground, not through (shock & awe) aerial attacks.
OPERATION DESERT STORM:
Photos of US military convoys advancing towards Iraqi military positions in the desert environments:
During OPERATION DESERT STORM, American armored vehicles such as Bradley and Abrams spearheaded the offensive operations with such speed that the logistics assets were unable to keep up with their pace. Even the (widely used) M113 APC was unable to keep up with them.
I pointed out a fact that their are [conflicting] accounts in published literature about the reasons for cancellation of this deal.You further give credence to the claim by Zaloga that the deal went down due to Pakistan's nuclear issue while in the same breath you also state that after the tests the US representatives were very confident that the deal would be clinched......Disregarding the fact that you are now proposing that the US was stupid enough to send its tanks, those which they did not intend to sell to us, over to Pakistan for testing, you and Zaloga somehow forgot that in the same time period Pakistan was sold the F-16s which by every measure were a far more sensitive sale than the 60 odd M1A1s in contention.
I also speculated that the deal might have been cancelled due to [unexpected] death of Zia-ul-Huq. It was not a good time for the remainder of the military top brass to proceed with a deal under these circumstances. My point of contention is about the claims of M1A1 Abrams MBT being a failure; these claims do not sit well with the evidence at hand.
I provided additional evidence as well.Then you keep on rambling on about some "proofs" which you supposedly have given where in reality you have only shown that the BBC footage is not that of the Abrams' gun (which, frankly, I have no clue how it disproves the Pakistani claims) and a gif of a very recent accurate test (read the latest version of the tank)......
REPEAT:
During the war, the Abrams tank exhibited good reliability, lethality, survivability, and mobility, but limited range according to the observations of commanders, crews, maintenance personnel, and Army after action reports. Reported Army readiness rates for the Abrams were 90 percent or higher during the ground war - indicating a high availability to move, shoot, and communicate during combat. The Abrams was lethal, as crews said its 120-mm gun was accurate and its ammunition deadly against all forms of Iraqi Armor. Army observors attribute the gun's high degree to superior sights, high levels of tank readiness, and soldier training.The Abrams also survived well on the battlefield. For example, according to officials from the Center for Army Lessons Learned, several M1A1 crews reported receiving direct frontal hits from the Iraqi T-72s with minimal damage. In fact, the enemy destroyed no Abrams tanks during the Persian Gulf War, according to the army. Crews said Abrams damage were fast and maneuvered well in the sand.
Abrams crews were impressed with the power and performance of the Abram's turbine engine, but they were concerned about its high fuel consumption and the need to frequently clean air filters in the sandy desert environment.
Source: http://www.gao.gov/assets/220/215553.pdf
REPEAT:
The Gunner's Primary Sight-Line of Sight (GPS-LOS), was developed by the Electro-Optical Systems Division of Hughes Aircraft Company. The night vision Thermal Imaging System (TIS), also from Hughes, creates an image based on the differences of heat radiated by objects in the field of view. The thermal image is displayed in the eyepiece of the Gunner's sight together with the range measurement to within 10 meters of accuracy, from a Hughes laser range finder, which is integrated into all of the fire control systems. The Abrams also has an onboard digital fire control computer. Range data from the laser rangefinder is transferred directly to the fire control computer, which automatically calculates the fire control solution. The data includes 1) the lead angle measurement, 2) the bend of the gun measured by the muzzle reference system of the main armament, 3) wind velocity measurement from a wind sensor on the roof of the turret and 4) the data from a pendulum static cant sensor located at the center of the turret roof. The Gunner or Commander manually inputs the data on the ammunition type and temperature, and the barometric pressure and the weapon is prepared for engagement.
Source: M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank
Every thing crystal clear now?
But your best moment was when you compared a sand mound in this,
with this,
You are comparing a desert flat with a sand dune! Great.
Some photos of sand dunes in the US:
REPEAT:
Desert environments typically comprise of flats, hilly areas, watercourses and dunes. This is true for Cholistan desert as well. However, for comparison purpose, Jordanian desert environment is similar to that of Cholistan.
Last edited: