Re: Opfire (no, not about the draining problem...)
Marek_Tucan:
"Reaction doesn't always come first. It comes first in this given scenario because you have here a large difference in training and equipment"
So, what's the formula (algorithm) for reaction fire? Or is it classified :X
"No, he hints that such one-sided battles happened IRL even if the Abramses worked in real-time and not with the opfire (which appears to be your beef here ) Btw Iraqui tanks couldn't resist 120mm APFSDSDU"
Opposite info in Russian sources, to sum up
1. USA didn't want to loose market for their tanks so they didn't let the "harsh" truth into the news.
2. Losses of T-72s overexaggerated, most of them destroyed with TOWs (from more than 3000 m), Iraqi destroyed most of tanks themselves during the retreat (due to lack of supplies), which were ascribed to the American tanks.
3. The 20 000 uranium rounds found in the desert (from which Kuwait children took the radiation sickness) prove that anyway M1A1s were not that accurate.
4. Controversial info about the Iraqi's losses in the Western sources.
|