DU shells versus chobam armor?

Read an account of British night fighters once it included a story from late war. A mosquito night fighter having suffered a radar failure which also took out their IFF. They were attacked and shot down, not just by another mosquito but one of their own squadron to boot. Fortunately for them they bailed out on the friendly side of the front line. The guys that shot them down had to stand them a drink at the bar.

 

Unfortuately the pilots are not always punished, also there is a big difference between being too scared to shoot and shooting at everything.

 

As Ricky said it, armies usually train their men to be more aggressive. When in doubt, shoot first and ask questions later. Friendly casualties are inevitable part of wars, just like "collateral" civilian casualties. Even the "smartest" weapons are still programmed and controlled by humans.

 

The British army is taught to positivley identify your target first, then destroy it.

 

So I take it there no incidence of "friendly fire" by the Brits in the 2 gulf conflicts.

 

Yes there was - in the second war, a Chally 2 blew another Chally 2's turret off.
There was a sandstorm happening at the time...

 

bad luck... but that wasn't during the Gulf wars, as Liang stated. 8)

 

Well, the recent invasion of Iraq, if you're gonna be picky!

 

I never said that as you will always get people who will fire without thinking, the teaching is identify first.

 

I know of two incidents during the 1991 gulf war, it is just because of the gung ho attitude of the Americans highlights their attitudes.

During a programme about the present gulf conflict, the American col repesponsible for the compensation of innocent victems said if he heard gun fire he would assume it was directed at him and would return fire.

This was in response to the Iraqi wedding that was shot at by an American convoy.

The Americans tend to fire first then findout if the target is really a target or just people enjoying themselves. A British convoy shouldn't just open fire first but identify a target then fire. This happened in the Balkans, a sniper opened fire on a convoy from the Duke of Boots, They identified the sniper and returned with 39,000 rounds. Sniper fire against the Brits was suddenly reduced.

 

The problem is the Americans have steadily built up a rep as trigger happy.

It is a brutal reality but you can't go into a place with armed troops and not kill some civilians. I recall hearing on the news a reporter mention during the invasion of Iraq American troops were fighting in a built up area they noticed a women would walk cross the road and few second later a guy would pop out and shoot at them with an RPG. After this happened a few times they realized that the woman was being used to recon them and they shot her the next time she appeared. Brutal yes and quiet possibly she was being forced at gun point to do this but it hard to see what alternatives there would be

But then we get the screw ups where somebody pulls the trigger or pushes the button without looking first. In the last ten years the Americans have racked up some truly unforgivable mistakes, bombing the Chinese embassy, bombing or strafing allied troops of various nations, putting a shell into a hotel full of journalists.

Whether the picture of the US Military this paints is correct is besides the point. The point is the US Military gives the impression that it works on the 'if in doubt empty the mag' approach.

The bullet will win the war but it won't win the peace.

 

I always wondered, how come the white house was so upset when their spy planes were bumped off the coast of South China Sea, yet at the same time didn't seem to have much remorse in dropping a bomb on someone else's embassy.

 

To go back to topic sort of....if a A-10 can destroy a (clobham armored)tank with it's gun (30mm DU rounds cooming out of a giant GAU-8 cannon!), why should'n't another tank be capable of penetrating the armor of a (clobham armored) tank with it's even bigger gun(than the a-10)??

 

A-10 usually shoots tanks from above, hitting vulnerable roofs etc.

 

Correct, also you have to realise that if the A10 fires it's cannon for more that seconds it runs the risk of stalling, That fire power and rate of fire has to hurt.

 

Well, GAU-8 recoil power equals to thrust of one engine of A-10. Therefore I think its a bit wrong to say it will stall, especially if engines are running with maximum power. I'm sure A-10 will fly with only half of the thrust available.

 

Not completly correct!!!
When an A-10 is flying at tree top level it can hardly shoot on top of the tank...

 

That would depend on how the gun is mounted - I would imagine that it can fire slightly downwards...

 

The A10s that killed the British Fusiliers flew at 15000.

 

I don't think WWII typhoons or thunderbolts had any trouble in dispatching tanks with their forward facing machine guns (not angled downward) during low level straffing runs.

Even when flying near tree top level, most ground attack aircrafts will straffe its victims at an angle anyway (helps with aiming), thus creating a natural downward firing angle for its guns/cannons. For the A-10, the incredible firing rate of the 30mm gattling gun will ensure that with a press of the trigger, you should have no trouble putting a few DU shells on top of a tank's bald spot.