Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Suicide Car Bomber Kills 7 Near Fallujah

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
cal04 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 04:46 AM
Original message
Suicide Car Bomber Kills 7 Near Fallujah
A suicide bomber detonated an explosives-packed truck at a checkpoint at the edge of Fallujah on Friday, killing seven civilians and wounding five, police said.

The bomber attacked as many cars waited to pass through the security checkpoint into the city, 40 miles west of Baghdad, said police Lt. Mohammed Taha. Two of the wounded were police.

In east Baghdad on Friday, a large explosion set fire to a U.S. tank, Iraqi police Lt. Ali Abbas said. There was no immediate word on casualties.

AP Television News footage showed the Abrams battle tank in flames, its tracks blown off. There was no sign of the vehicle's occupants. The U.S. military had no immediate information on the incident.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5675767...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
maddezmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 06:20 AM
Response to Original message
1. any word on the tank yet?
doesn't look good :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. It was a US/Iraqi checkpoint in Fallujah
no word on US casualties....



Smoke rises behind row of houses after a suicide bomb attack in Falluja, 50 km (30 miles) west of Baghdad March 10, 2006. A suicide truck bomb struck a checkpoint manned by U.S. soldiers and Iraqi security forces in the former Sunni stronghold of Falluja on Friday, killing at least 11, including five police, police said. There was no immediate word from the U.S. military on the blast in eastern Falluja. REUTERS/Mohanned Faisal
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maddezmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 08:08 AM
Response to Original message
2. New Iraq Violence Leaves at Least 17 Dead
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Bombings and shootings Friday killed at least 17 people around Iraq on Friday. A suicide truck bomb ripped through a line of vehicles waiting at a checkpoint Friday in Fallujah, killing at least seven civilians.

Authorities in the capital discovered the bodies of six men who were blindfolded, handcuffed and shot in the back of the head, police said.

Car bombs killed three people in Samarra, where an attack on a Shiite shrine last month ignited nearly two weeks of sectarian violence.

A bomb hit a U.S. tank in east Baghdad, setting it afire and blowing off the treads, police said. The American military said the M1A2 Abrams tank hit a roadside bomb and the crew escaped unharmed.

A policeman in Tikrit died disarming a roadside bomb when a second explosive device detonated, also wounding two others.

more:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060310/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq ;_
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maddezmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 02:02 AM
Response to Original message
4. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deadparrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 02:02 AM
Response to Original message
5. Blast Sets U.S. Tank on Fire in Baghdad
BAGHDAD, Iraq - A large explosion Friday in east Baghdad set fire to a U.S. tank, Iraqi police Lt. Ali Abbas said. There was no immediate word on casualties.

AP Television News footage showed the Abrams battle tank in flames, its tracks blown off. There was no sign of the vehicle's occupants.

The U.S. military had no immediate information on the incident

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/iraq_tank
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYdemocrat089 Donating Member (614 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. They aired that on CNN this morning.
I hope the occupants are okay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. These were described as moving forts - no one could scratch them. ooops.
Apparently no one was hurt. But it does tell you that our most powerful and protected bit of equipment is now

how do I put this nicely?

A BLOODY TARGET IN A CIVIL WAR!

This must be giving the civilians in the DOD ulcers. Ever read the description of these things? They were sold as impregnable. before Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. "A moving foxhole attracts they eye." Willie and Joe, 1944. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #7
14. They are moving forts...
The Abrams is by far the best tank in the world with ridiculous survivability. In the 1st Gulf war they lost less than 20.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MetsMatt Donating Member (19 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #7
22. "Impregnable"
While no tank is comepletely impervious to enemy fire the Abrams, along with its British, French and German counterparts are considered to be the closestthing to indestructible there is on the battlefield. Its long been known that a large enough mine, a hit in the tracks, or a hit in the engine can knock one out. What's noteworthy is that the latest news from NPR said the crew was unharmed. Its protection systems tend to work very well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benburch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. Depleted Uranium Everywhere...
That's what those are armored with...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpj1962 Donating Member (123 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. M1-A! Abraham's
The M-1-A1 is not armored with depleted uranium. Depleted uranium is what is in the sabot which is the most commonly used anti tank weapon in the Abraham's. Currently there is not a single enemy tank in the world that can knock out a M1-A1 with a sabot. However if you disable the track then the tank basically becomes a steel pill box. Tracks are the weak link on all tanks. The one bad thing about the Abraham is that it doesn't have a trap door. This was done so that mines would not be able to penetrate a weak point in the armour.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saigon68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. I guess they burn pretty good
once they get going
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
atreides1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. Just one correction
It's Abrams not Abraham. The tank is named in honor of General Creighton Abrams.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpj1962 Donating Member (123 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #15
18. spelling
Sometimes even spell check doesn;t help. Sorry about that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. I read that sandwiched in certain key locations, they do use DU
between thick sheets of rolled high chrome steel.

If they lightened them up, I can see them removing the DU sandwich armor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benburch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #16
20. Right.
That's what I was referring to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #16
21. "all M1A1 tanks in active service have been upgraded to" DU armor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams

Beginning in 1988, M1A1 tanks received improved armor packages that incorporated depleted uranium mesh in their armor at the front of the turret and the front of the hull. Armor thus reinforced offers significantly increased resistance towards all types of anti-tank weaponry, but at the expense of adding considerable weight to the tank. The first M1A1 tanks to receive this upgrade were tanks stationed in Germany, since they were the first line of defense against the Soviet Union. US tankers participating in Operation Desert Storm received an emergency program to upgrade their tanks with depleted uranium armor immediately before the onset of the campaign. M1A2 tanks uniformly incorporate depleted uranium armor, and all M1A1 tanks in active service have been upgraded to this standard as well.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saigon68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. NOTHING TO SEE HERE
'Please move along and be quiet"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tocqueville Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #5
10. not the first time
During the Gulf War only 18 Abrams tanks were taken out of service due to battle damage: nine were permanent losses, and another nine suffered repairable damage, mostly from mines.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmakaze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #10
17. Not even the first time in THIS Iraq war...
Edited on Fri Mar-10-06 03:55 PM by Karmakaze
In fact dozens of Abrams have been lost including ones lost to sophisticated anti-tank missiles. The propaganda says the Abrams is indestructible, the reality says "if the bang is big enough...".

I have seen pictures of dozens of burnt out Abrams tanks being transported on trains in the US for dismantling, because the armour does indeed include DU, and thus the wreckage is, in essence, toxic waste.

Here is a little quote for you:

FOR EXAMPLE, ANNOTATED PHOTOS OF AN ABRAMS TANK PENETRATED BY AN RPG ARE EASILY FOUND ON THE INTERNET.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2005/08/usa0805.html

The fact is even certain RPG's can take out an Abrams. And many have.

Here are some more quotes:

<SNIP>

But then something happened that none of them had experienced something, in fact, that no American soldier had ever experienced. And it happened twice in the space of a few seconds.

A projectile, now thought to be a rocket-propelled grenade, hurtled with the force of a freight train into the back of the tank commanded by Sgt. 1st Class Curtis Anderson, 38, of Sacramento, Calif

Almost simultaneously, a similar jolt rocked Smalls tank, 35 yards behind Andersons.

<SNIP>

Andersons tank was knocked out, but its engine was still running. Its crew had abandoned it and jumped into a Bradley. Smalls tank was burning fiercely.

<SNIP>

The two tanks were total losses the first Abrams tanks ever destroyed in their 20 years of service by enemy fire.
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1717992.p...

The statement about these tanks being the first destroyed by enemy fire is questionable, but clearly in this case, early in the current Iraq war, two of the "indestructible" Abrams were destroyed by two RPG's, and they weren't the last.

On edit hit post accidentally.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tocqueville Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. tanks are vulnerable if you hit the weak spot
Infantry
The tank is still vulnerable to infantry, especially in close country or built up areas. The armour and mobility of tanks, while usually notable assets, also makes them large and noisy. This can give enemy infantry the initiative, allowing them to spot, track and evade tanks until an opportunity presents itself for a stealthy counter-attack. This is why modern tactics insist on tanks being closely supported by friendly infantry.

For veteran troops, it is relatively easy for an infantry man to get close to a tank, especially if it is fully closed down (that is, the commander is fully inside the turret) as tanks have very poor visibility close in and especially to the sides and rear, unless the turret is pointing in that direction. If the crew commander is not closed down, that is, has exposed his head and perhaps upper body for the better view it affords him, then he can of course be shot.

Once an infantry man is close to a tank he cannot be targeted by its main weaponry unless the crew expose themselves to attack him, as the main gun and coaxial machine gun can not depress sufficiently to engage the close-in infantry man. Where tanks are operating in groups this is less of a problem, since they can call on nearby tanks to fire on themselves with machine guns and other light weapons which are unlikely to damage a tank but which will drive off infantry.

Whilst many handheld infantry antitank rockets, missiles and grenades will not penetrate the front armour of a tank, they will, generally speaking, penetrate the weaker, rear, top and perhaps sides, as well as being able to easily damage the running gear to inflict an "M" (mobility) kill. Tanks are also vulnerable to hand placed antitank mines.

In addition in built up areas the tank is very vulnerable to attack from abovethe roof and floor of the tank being traditionally the thinnest and weakest armoured surfaces.

snip

Mines

The tank is still vulnerable to mines. Mines have the advantage of attacking the thinnest armour of the tank and can be well concealed.

In addition with modern scatterable mines, and in particular artillery scatterable mines, it is actually possible to lay a mine field around a moving tank formation.

As well as the traditional bottom attack mine, the scatter mine, the artillery delivered mine, or air delivered mine, there are also a number of side attack or "off route" mines available. These are mines that can be mounted on a vertical surface such as a wall, or tree, or mounted on a stand and are intended to be aimed at a road, track to other point a tank is likely to pass. Choke points such as bridges, fords, gates, underpasses, etc. are all likely spots. When the tank passes they fire into the side of the tank. The two common warheads for these mines are the ubiquitous HEAT and less commonly a platter charge. These mines can be fired by a human operator, simple mechanical actuator such as a tripwire or pressure plate, or by more sophisticated systems, such as seismic, IR or other electronic fusing systems. Some of the fusing systems are sophisticated enough to be able to discriminate between different classes of target and only attack specified classes of vehicles, e.g., ignore wheeled vehicles. Obviously a well placed off route mine will attempt to attack the rear or at worst the side of the tank, if at all possible. Some infantry antitank weapons can also be configured to act as off-route mines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zech Marquis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #5
23. nothing's 100 percent invuernable
an abrams has really good protection for the crew, but even so, i read somewhere that the DoD is trying to figure out who is supplying a new rpg that can penetrate and disable M1A1s... :-(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Apr 19th 2014, 10:31 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC