Article

2007-01-16 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2007-01-16 00:00|| || Front Page|| [8 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Pfeh. Wait until the ultimate weapon is used - telemarketers.

Posted by Pappy 2007-01-16 00:44|| 2007-01-16 00:44|| Front Page Top

#2 The US will target the oil installations

Are they really dumb enough to think we are going to attack oil installations?

This has got to be an attempt by OPEC to get their profits up.

Posted by Mike N. 2007-01-16 01:12|| 2007-01-16 01:12|| Front Page Top

#3 Not necessarily so, Mike N; The US knows that every drop of oil that could get out of Iran after the first attack will go straight to China or(ie, any adversary of America), so to even the global playing field of hegemony, it will be shut down, albeit briefly until the US feels that the Iranians have 'come around' from their nuclear threats!

Posted by smn 2007-01-16 01:42|| 2007-01-16 01:42|| Front Page Top

#4 Attacks by Patriot missiles can be devastating

Well, actually --- as I understad it, most of the damage in Tel Aviv 1991 was due to pieces of Patriots.

Posted by gromgoru 2007-01-16 04:44|| 2007-01-16 04:44|| Front Page Top

#5 Nope, most of that damage was due to the jerry-rigging Saddam's scientists did to the Scuds to extend their range, Gromgoru. The official Israeli after action report showed that the Iraqis had done a whole series of modifications to the Scuds including adding sections and extra fuel tanks to extend their range. Because of that, those Scuds tended to breakup on their descent due to the stresses of flight, spreading pieces over a wide area. That is what made it hard to hit the warhead of the Scuds; at least, at first. But after studying the tapes of previous attacks, the Patriot crews noticed subtle tracking differences for the warheads and were able to target them more cleanly. Still, the shade tree mechanic mods of the Iraqi Scuds made them breakup on descent and spread junk over a large downrange footprint.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2007-01-16 05:10|| 2007-01-16 05:10|| Front Page Top

#6 I am all for the attack on Iran as i wish regime change but we must not forget the Saudis!!!!

I watched a programme on C4 in UK which shows the growing Saudi influence in British mosques which is teaching hatred/isolation.They are taught from the Grand Mufti downwards to hate Christians and Jews and not respect democracy.This is been openly paid by the Saudi Government.What is Bush doing about this??????

Posted by Ebbolump Glomotle9608 2007-01-16 05:53|| 2007-01-16 05:53|| Front Page Top

#7 Nice picture.

No Parking Zone?

Posted by bigjim-ky 2007-01-16 08:06|| 2007-01-16 08:06|| Front Page Top

#8 EG9608 - good question. But a better question is what is Blair going to do about it? Especially at home where he has (should have at least) some influence.

Posted by Spot">Spot 2007-01-16 08:33|| 2007-01-16 08:33|| Front Page Top

Finding a parking space is easy when you have a Sherman Tank!

Posted by Bright Pebbles in Blairistan 2007-01-16 08:49|| 2007-01-16 08:49|| Front Page Top

#10 Spot

The problemn with Blair is he encouraged all this multi culturism so he feels a hypocrite if he asked to deport muslims.From watching the programme it is more widespread than i thourght!!!!.

The source of ideology comes from Saudi.Is Bush and Blair telling the Saudis to reform or else.That country would be alot easier to invade/take than Iran which has little say in Al Qaeda and Pakistan!!!!!

Posted by Ebbolump Glomotle9608 2007-01-16 09:34|| 2007-01-16 09:34|| Front Page Top

#11 That looks like a tank destroyer. M-10?

Posted by mrp 2007-01-16 10:00|| 2007-01-16 10:00|| Front Page Top

#12 The angle is not very good but the hull looks quite Sherman-like to me. The gun is very long so this is no ordinary Sherman, probably an "anti-tank" Sherman with the 76 high velocity gun instead of the 75 medium velocity one.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2007-01-16 10:50|| 2007-01-16 10:50|| Front Page Top

#13 JFM -

The M10 TD used the M4A2 or M4A3 tank chassis, the same as the Sherman M4 series - so we're both right :) I'm pretty sure the AFV in the pic is a M10

Wiki M10 article.

Posted by mrp 2007-01-16 11:34|| 2007-01-16 11:34|| Front Page Top

#14 It was "Kenny Everett Telvision Show" (U.K.) sketch where he solved his parking problems by "parking" over a car.

Posted by Bright Pebbles in Blairistan 2007-01-16 11:46|| 2007-01-16 11:46|| Front Page Top

#15 Yep M10 with the 3 inch gun. Notice the open top.

Posted by ed 2007-01-16 11:57|| 2007-01-16 11:57|| Front Page Top

#16 You can't see if that's an open top or somebody popping up out of a hatch which is out of sight on the photo. But yes, that looks more like an M-10 than an "Easy Eight" Sherman. I'm not as familiar with the other Sherman heavy-gun mods (Israeli, most of 'em), but that turret looks like the one they used for the M-10.

I've never really figured out why an open turret was a good idea for a tank destroyer - as I understand it, the crews usually kitbashed some armor to keep out the random shrapnel anyways. The German equivalent were cheap-and-dirty guncarriers which were actually cheaper than the tanks they were displacing (or more wishfully, the towed anti-tank guns they were *supposed* to be replacing), and didn't splurge on things like rotating turrets which made the M-10 and its better-designed brethren almost as expensive as a real tank.

Posted by Mitch H.">Mitch H. 2007-01-16 14:47|| http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/]">[http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/] 2007-01-16 14:47|| Front Page Top

#17 Notice also there's no hull mounted machine gun as would be found on the M4 Sherman

Posted by Rob06">Rob06 2007-01-16 15:50|| 2007-01-16 15:50|| Front Page Top

#18 Politics determined the open top on tank destroyers, Mitch. If they had an open top, they were a tank destroyer; enclosed top, a tank. Back in the 1930s, the Army was allowed to fund research on a variety of different armor but the money was small for each category. So, to get the most money and research, the Army came up with graven-in-stone definitions of vehicles that were carried through the entirety of WWII. FDR and his Sec of Defense played along with the sham, which is why it continued.
Notice that after Truman took over and got elected on his own, the Army switched over to light, medium, and heavy tanks, and slowly phased out references to tank destroyers. After the experiences in Korea, the Army under Ike and JFK once again did a switch and came up with the Main Battle Tank {MBT} concept.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2007-01-16 15:53|| 2007-01-16 15:53|| Front Page Top

#19 Back in the 1930s, the Army was allowed to fund research on a variety of different armor but the money was small for each category.

Interesting, especially after our discussion the other day of why the F-117 was an F- and not an A- or B-something. Maybe the Army should have designated their tank destroyer as a Cookstove,Armoured,Self-propelled and gone about their business.

Posted by SteveS 2007-01-16 19:43|| 2007-01-16 19:43|| Front Page Top

23:45 Verlaine
23:39 ex-lib
23:34 ex-lib
23:32 ex-lib
23:12 Anguper Hupomosing9418
23:12 Elmert Crosh5077
23:05 Anguper Hupomosing9418
22:59 Mike N.
22:55 Anguper Hupomosing9418
22:52 Spith Whinerong1263
22:42 Whiskey Mike
22:38 Angie Schultz
22:37 USN, ret.
22:30 Anguper Hupomosing9418
22:26 KBK
22:25 USN, ret.
22:01 DMFD
21:50 Penguin
21:48 Pappy
21:47 Chuck Darwin
21:43 Shieldwolf
21:39 Shieldwolf
21:31 trailing wife
21:31 Shieldwolf