Wasn’t there a Challenger destroyed by RPG29 in Iraq, somewhere in 2007?
later it was said that it was a friendly fire but…
Ok penetrated, not fully destroyed
Up to the destruction of this Cr2 in Ukraine, only 2 had been destroyed as I have highlighted in several other threads here. One was a friendly fire incident involving another Cr2 and the other was on the ranges in the UK with a turret accident.
2 Cr2 while in Iraq survived attacks with multiple types of RPG - The one you have highlighted in that report and another that in one instance survived at least 50 direct hits. Both tanks survived, were repaired and back in service in a short space of time.
9 Likes
Up to the destruction of this Cr2 in Ukraine, only 2 had been destroyed as I have highlighted in several other threads here. One was a friendly fire incident involving another Cr2 and the other was on the ranges in the UK with a turret accident.
2 Cr2 while in Iraq survived attacks with multiple types of RPG - The one you have highlighted in that report and another that in one instance survived at least 50 direct hits. Both tanks survived, were repaired and back in service in a short space of time.
8 Likes
Some NATO countries were in Iraq, some were not. Those that were there, were not there under the NATO banner.
My point being that suddenly after we have seen pictures of 1000 russian tanks blown to pieces, there is talk about destroyed NATO hardware in Iraq ? Im from a NATO country. I dont remember seing any our hardware in Iraq, let alone destroyed.
1 Like
That’s just being pedantic, NATO countries were in Iraq, even if NATO as an organisation wasn’t, NATO hardware refers to vehicles used predominantly by NATO as Russian vehicles refer to vehicles used predominantly by Russia.
I’m not picking on the M1, it’s just what comes up the most, if you search NATO vehicles destroyed in Iraq.
2 Likes
Two Years ago, the green party in Germany would disband the Bundeswehr if they could, now they are like: We need F35s !
3 Likes
Well, let’s just say that the US found out which NATO members were more than treaty signatories in Iraq. Some showed up, at least for awhile, others didn’t at all.
M113s served in Iraq. Nowadays they serve in Ukraine. They have been in combat now for just over 60 years since South Vietnam first took them into battle in 1962… Quite a long service record for an AFV.
2 Likes
As I recall, NATO was/is (at least in theory) a defensive alliance with a limited area of operations (signatory nations territory and that of an aggressor). The case of dependent territories of signatories was somewhat vague as France (part of NATO, but not - theoretically - part of the unified command structure) had overseas departments which they regarded as parts of France proper, not colonies. British overseas territories/protectorates were out (especially where sovereignty was disputed, except Gibraltar where both claimants were members of NATO); the U.K. could not invoke NATO assistance in the Falklands, although it certainly received it from some members (particularly the U.S) and Commonwealth nations but that had to be outside the area of hostilities. NATO partner involvement in the break-up of Yugoslavia was out-of-theater but U.N. sanctioned and, in the case of Kosovo, over the objection of one NATO member (Greece) and possibly in contravention of international law. Iraq and Afghanistan were cases of having a war and your true friends turn up (and minor participants who want to be friends, like the Kingdom of Sardinia did in the Crimean War).
Cheers,
M
1 Like
I guess you have forgotten about Afghanistan. We have lost a lot of good men there.
Collecting some posts extracted from the Modelling Armour in Ukraine crisis topic
2 Likes
Well If You are realy living in a NATO country You should know that NATO was not present in Iraq.
3 Likes
Sure. Those Pratt and Whitney turbofans can run off bio-diesel. 
3 Likes
That’s more what I was getting at, but trying to be polite. Many NATO countries did show up in Afghanistan. Only a handful did in Iraq. I think one reason that many Americans are so so on supporting NATO over the past decade or so is that we saw that. Now that the Russian Bear is aggressive again, suddenly defense budgets in certain NATO countries are back on the rise to match their treaty obligations. It’s funny how the thinking changed so rapidly.
@Naseby, In regards to German deaths in Afghanistan, online figures show a total of 59 over 20 years. The US lost 2,448 service members, plus another 3,846 contractors during the same time period. Contractors need to be included in the totals, as contractors today do support and security functions previously done by service members in previous wars. No disrespect intended for those Germans who fought and died in Afghanistan. Just a bit of perspective.
Same phenomenon as in the years between WW I and WW II.
Nobody keeps the wartime budget when peace comes, they all have their hands out hoping for some nice “peace dividends”.
This is one single example of the ups and downs of spending:
Pick any country and the same pattern can be found.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Good advice but don’t prepare too much, there is a small chance that idle forces will start looking for something to do …
1 Like
Do you happen to have the percentages?
Casualties / total force committed …
I’d have to look for that information of a force to casualties ratio. And in the case of US forces those numbers can be a bit misleading, as a servicemember can do multiple rotations into and out of the combat theater, and therefor be counted several times. Only one person, but having served there say two or three times, they count as that number on a statistic sheet. Can only be killed once, but can be deployed and wounded multiple times.
1 Like