Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

DU shells versus chobam armor?

Discussion in 'Post-World War 2 Armour' started by liang, Sep 26, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    What would you say to this? (Anyone else that cares to answer also)

    Imagine you are an allied infantryman fighting in the streets of Fallujah.
    Your squad(you are the SGT in command of that squad) is pinned down by AK and RPG fire coming from down the street near the corner.
    Across the street another squad in your platoon has taken cover behind a low wall..substantial enough to stop a rifle round perhaps but no match for an RPG.
    The fire slackens up and stops..just at that moment a woman walks out of an alley near the other squad..she yells something in Arabic and points down at several of the maen crouching behind the wall..whereupon she steps back into the alley..the RPG gunner fires and takes out the men behind that portion of the wall.
    Twice she performs this same maneuver and each time some of the men in your platoon are killed or wounded.

    The next time she steps out of the alley one of the men in your squad aims at here and asks if he can shoot her.

    What do you tell him?
     
  2. Jens Knudsen

    Jens Knudsen New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Denmark
    via TanksinWW2
    As you desripe it there it seem to me that she is take active part in the fighting, not by shooting, but helping by pointing out targets, just like when a soldier with a laser pointer 'paint' targes for laserguided bombs, and that would make her a legitimate target, so I think I would tell him to shoot....
    If it only happen one time that she pointed on our position, then the problem is that you really dont know if it was her that pointed out the target if you did not understand what she was yelling, but after 2. or 3. time I would have my suspicion on her and that would make me give the order to shoot, trying to save my men.....

    The moment you take active part in the fighting you can no longer call you self a civilian
     
  3. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Jens Knudsen wrote:

    Bravo Sir. You're analysis is spot on correct (and also in line with the thinking of the US military as well). You analyzed it thoroughly so there is nothing more to add. A noncombatants immunity ceases the moment they take an active role in the hostilities.

    BTW this scenario in different words was No. 7 on the ROE (rules of engagements) cards handed out to American soldiers in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Despite what some would have you believe American troops are trained extensively in following the ever changing ROEs (different missions require different ROEs). Every ROE I have ever seen stresses the importance of avoiding collateral damage and not harming noncombatants as well as respecting the provisions of the Geneva accords.
    In the so called Apache video it may very well turn out that one or more of the crewmembers violated the ROEs. You might wonder why I would say that after defending the people in the alleged incident against charges by misinformed individuals that they had committed "murder".
    I will tell you why. The fact is that the ROEs of most every mission are more restrictive than the Geneva Accords require. i.e. they could violate the ROE without violating the Geneva Accords.
    Without knowing the terms of their specific mission's ROE one cannot judge whether or not they violated the ROE.
     
  4. Jeffrey phpbb3

    Jeffrey phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    476
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    He is trowing SOMETHING in the field, not sure what it is, it could be a weapon, but almost every Iraqi has atleast 1 weapon with him/at his home, this is nothing special, but again, not sure its a weapon as explained on that website.


    The dialogue in red is apparently the other crewmember not the one aiming the crosshairs.
    Despite what the other crewmember said the gunner placed the crosshairs on the cab of the small truck rather than on the man on the ground. The fact that the rounds aoppeared to strike the man also and the fact that the other crewmember wanted him to hit the man on the ground also doesn't change that fact.


    sure, sure, the pilot is also known as the commander in an Apache, so your so called ''other crewmember'' is THE comander, his superior, and you can clearly see he goes over the car with his gun and then forward over de man lying on the ground, the 30mm gun is also stabilised just like a tank-cannon, but go on with your denial, i'm still not convinced they did not murder these 3 people (atleast 1 of them, 2 others stay unclear)
     
  5. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Jeffrey wrote:

    You don't have to be sure it was a weapon. What you are sure of or not is immaterial because you weren't there. As long as the alleged Apache crew were reasonable in their expressed belief that it was a weapon then that is all that matters. They reasonably believed that they were engaging enemy soldiers, and most likely were (as far as an objective observer can tell anyway) thus there is no evidence of the intent that would be necessary for a charge of murder furthermore if their belief that they were engaging soldiers is held to be reasonable then there is no evidence of negligence that would justify a lesser charge of manslaughter or even negligent homicide.

    Once again you speak without sufficient knowledge of the subject. In the US Army Apache units are organized as battalions, companies and platoons. The platoon commander might be a CPG (copilot gunner) or he might be a PLT (pilot). Could be either.
    In any case it doesn't matter. It isn't a crime to issue a order, if that order is never carried out. IMO the gunner placed his crosshairs on the cab of the small truck and did not shift his aim point forward to the man on the ground. (Always keeping in mind that the crew clearly thought that they were engaging enemy soldiers)
    Just as you could not determine if the item was a weapon, the crew clearly was convinced that it was indeed a weapon..they didn't hesitate. Their vantage point was certainly superior to yours.

    Another point that would have to be explored in more depth is that it is US Army doctrine for Apache units to never fight alone. As I mentioned earlier they fight in platoons and larger units. We would need to know what the other helos in that platoon were seeing and doing before any definitive judgement could be made.
    But then some people are quick to condemn, try and convict with nothing but the flimisiest of evidence. Their minds are made up, the facts and the evidence be damned.

    ps...I give thanks that I live in a country where accused persons are presumed to be innocent until the state has proven otherwise.
     
  6. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Jeffrey does as well. :wink:
    It is just that, in his opinion, the evidence seems to show that they were guilty.

    Right - back to the debate!
     
  7. Jeffrey phpbb3

    Jeffrey phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    476
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    ps...I give thanks that I live in a country where accused persons are presumed to be innocent until the state has proven otherwise.

    Yeah, right...
    And still hondreds of people are given the death-penalty that afterwards seem to be completely innocent...


    Jeffrey does as well.
    It is just that, in his opinion, the evidence seems to show that they were guilty.


    Yes, I do that ass well, thanks for explaining :wink:
     
  8. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Ricky wrote:

    I didn't know whether such a presumption of innocence was codified in Dutch law..wasn't saying that it wasn't just that in the US it is a right of all accused and one we cherish. In any case no mention was made of the laws of the netherlands or any other nation in my comment.

    No one is given the death penalty until they have been proven guilty and their case reviewed multiple times. Please point to a single case where an innocent person was executed..I cannot seem to locate one.
     
  9. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    I know, I just thought I'd point it out.

    Um, well, it did happen in England when we had the death penalty, I wonder if that was what inspired him.

    But, back to the debate please! :wink:

    In summary, from the evidence we have:

    1) the men are seen to drop something, possibly a weapon.
    2) The Apache crew decide / are told that they are enemy combatants, and open fire on them.

    Is that accurate?

    (just to be a real pain, and for a giggle only - did the Apache crew believe that the men were innocent until guilt was proved? :grin: :wink: )
    This is not a serious point.
     
  10. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Ricky wrote:

    More accurate:

    1. the men are seen to drop something, the crewmembers identify it as a weapon.

    2. Based on that identification, clearance is given to engage the men and they do so.

    Unless we can achive a better vantage point than the crewmembers and conclusively establish that the object was not a weapon the benefit of the doubt should be accorded to the men who were actually there i.e. the burden of proof needed to overturn that identification should be considerable.
    Even if one were to overcome that burden of proof one must realize that a mistake made by the crewmembers does not, under the law, convert them into murderers as Jeffrey has labelled them. Murder requires a specific intent, a mens rea (mental state that the defendant intended the crime to happen ) in adition to the actus reus (that a crime actually occurred). It is these basic principles of crimianl law that led to my statements regarding presumption of innocence.

    Not even the most critical observer, with the slighest bit of objectivity could impute the malicious intent necessary to characterize these men, carrying out their duties under difficult and dangerous circumstances, as murders.
    Under the law there is a considerable difference between murder and negligent homicide. At the very worst one could make a (weak) case for a negligent homicide.
    Inasmuch as there is zero evidence indicating a murder could have taken place it is irresponsible to continue labelling these men as murders while failing to even attempt to lay out the facts that would conceivably justify such a charge.
    I welcome anyone here with the legal knowledge or background to make a case based on the evidence available for a murder chargebased on this set of facts.

    Some people might consider it a valid point despite your profession of jesting. An accused under the law and an enemy soldier encountered in combat (lawfully authorized by the political and military leadership) are not accorded the same rights and priviliges. Of course it would not be feasible or practical to do so even if one were so inclined.
     
  11. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    I know (people are odd, aren't they :roll: ), which was why I made quite clear that I was making the point in jest.
     
  12. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Going back a bit to an earlier debate... how about this info?

    http://www.raf.mod.uk/gulf/operations.html

    yes, a website, but it is the MoD website (and therefore fairly official!).
    It does seem to say that there were many missions carried out at medium level during the war by RAF Tornadoes and Buccaneers...

    Or have I misunderstood your point?
     
  13. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Ricky wrote:

    Perhaps. The statement was made that a "floor" of 15,000 feet was established and maintained throughtout the conflict, implying that because of that situation fratricide was inevitable.
    Actually the RAF was initially tasked with runway interdiction missions most flown at low level however that was changed to medium level after unacceptable losses. The change to a medium altitude floor was concurred with(perhaps even proposed) by the British leadership.

    In any case the major point was that this floor was only in effect during the air war period and was lifted after the ground war began. The CAS missions were not required to remain above 15,000 feet as was indicated by another poster.
     
  14. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Regarding the RAF moving from low to medium level... :wink:

    Extract from interview with Interview with General Buster Glosson, Chief of CENTCOM offensive air campaign.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... son/1.html

    Q: With regard to the RAF and the low flying issue..., can you tell me what happened over that....

    Glosson: The low flying issue the most sensitive part is associated with the RAF. Everyone should understand that we asked the RAF to use the particular munition that would close those airfields for four, five, six hours at a time. No-one else had the capability nor the munition to do that. They very willingly accepted that mission.

    To continue to have done that mission after it was no longer necessary, when the Iraqis for all practical purposes weren't even flying, would have been criminal. That's why we stopped the mission. For no other reason.

    The RAF would have continued that mission until General Horner said that he no longer had a need for it but after the Iraqis basically stopped flying and were not that much of a threat to us, it would have been foolish to continue that low altitude mission and attacking those airfields like that and that's why we made that decision.

    We thought that would be the decision we'd made before the war ever started and it turned out to be exactly right that it was.
     
  15. GP

    GP New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,432
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Here you speak as though I should know this as fact when I have provided proof that the decision to stop low level flying was because the mission requiring them was effectively over.

    As for the latter part of you statement you indicate that during the land battle the medium level ceiling was raised putting the US planes above 15 000 (The difference between medium and high level being between 15,000 and 20,000).

    It is a mystery to me how someone could write this, quoting names in this fashion, as though some directive was made public when it wasn't.

    As for chobham armour.

    How can you claim this when it is classified?
    Even if steel is used it could be thicker and therefore have greater protection, if tungsten is used then this has a greater density but is more expensive. Where is your proof they have made it so much more superior and not just cheaper through using inferior metals?

    How do you know this it is classified?

    If this was the case then the you would effectively have layered metal armour making the armour less effective to heat.

    On the thread of DU didn't Boeing stop using it about 1980 after a crash between 2 jets caused 3000kg of DU to go up in smoke?


     
  16. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    GP wrote:

    Proof? Where did you supply proof? I reread your posts and didn't see it please point it out again.


    You need to do some rereading yourself. I said nothing about an altitude ceiling. I said an altitude floor. Big difference.
    The floor that did not permit flying at low level was put in place after the low level runway interdiction missions of the RAF caused unacceptable losses (or the mission was complete depending upon who's spin you wish to accept..the RAFs or the USAFs. This floor was kept in place until the beginning of the ground war. The change order of Jan 31 permitted flying beneath that floor.
    Are you beginnig to understand the difference yet between a floor and a ceiling?
    The change order was indeed made public. The orders were issued and the logs of the units involved reflect that order. Since that time all these records have been made available.


    As I indicated in my post there is no "proof" to be had. It is classified.
    However the information that is available is based on the best estimates by defense analysts.


    fromhttp://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm


    [/quote]

    These sites were readily available. there's tons more information avialable on composite armor. Look for yourself.



    Your supposition only not necessarily fact. Not "layered metal" as you call it but composite armor. This isn't new stuff we aren talking about here..why am I having to go back and explain the most basic information?

    Starmet Corp. was making DU counterweights for Boeing aircraft at least as late as 2003 AFAIK. What is your point?
     
  17. GP

    GP New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,432
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    With respect to the following are you saying the floor was raised or lowered.


    From your post it would seem that you mean from 31 Jan to the start of the land battle there was a meduim level floor but after there wasn't. Was this lowered or raised?
     
  18. GP

    GP New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,432
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2


    Sorry the point is you claimed that the m1 does not use chobham armour, who is correct you or the website?
     
  19. GP

    GP New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,432
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Aircraft may also contain depleted uranium counterweights (a Boeing 747 may contain 400–1,500kg). However there is some controversy about its use in this application because of concern about the uranium entering the environment should the aircraft crash, particularly as the metal is pyrophoric. This was highlighted by the collision of two Boeing 747s at Tenerife Airport in 1977 when the resulting fire consumed 3000kg of the material. Consequently its use has been phased out in many newer aircraft, for example both Boeing and McDonnell-Douglas discontinued using DU counterweights in the 1980s.

    from

    http://www.physicsdaily.com/physics/Depleted_uranium

    one of your trusted websites.
     
  20. Jeffrey phpbb3

    Jeffrey phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    476
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Tghe M1 doesn't use Chobham armor, it uses a variation of the Chobam armor, call it American Chobam armor, this way you can also call the German Leopard2a4 armor Chobham because its about the same.

    The Chobham armor is a British design, and is kinda ''adopted'' by aother countries.

    That website is not correct at all, today there are over 80 Abrams disabled/defeated by enemy fire, and many of them where disabled by RPG's on his engine compartment, so only one penetrated by RPG-7 is very old information or just falls.

    because of lack of training and inferior optics.

    This however is a known fact, most Iraqi armor was destroyed before they even had a change to get the Abrams or Challengers in there gun range.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page