An interesting comparison / contrast between a recent USA Today article and a Strategypage.com post on how the M1 is fairing in Iraq.
| USA Today |
Strategy Page |
Tanks take a beating in Iraq
WASHINGTON — The U.S. military's Abrams tank, designed during the Cold War to withstand the fiercest blows from the best Soviet tanks, is getting knocked out at surprising rates by the low-tech bombs and rocket-propelled grenades of Iraqi insurgents.
In the all-out battles of the 1991 Gulf War, only 18 Abrams tanks were lost and no soldiers in them killed. But since the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, with tanks in daily combat against the unexpectedly fierce insurgency, the Army says 80 of the 69-ton behemoths have been damaged so badly they had to be shipped back to the United States.
|
April 6, 2005: Of the 1,100 American M-1 tanks that have served in Iraq, about seven percent have been badly damaged, at least badly enough to get them shipped back to the factory for rebuilding.
|
| At least five soldiers have been killed inside the tanks when they hit roadside bombs, according to figures from the Army's Armor Center at Fort Knox, Ky. At least 10 more have died while riding partially exposed from open hatches. |
As infantry have known since World War I, tanks draw fire. But they are well protected, and fewer than twenty of the 4,400 tank crewmen involved have been killed, two thirds of those while standing up in a turret hatch, with at least head and shoulders exposed.
|
We're talking about the same data. But stratpage reports the context (e.g. how many tanks in Iraq total? how many tank crew total?) while USA Today reports just the raw number (80 tanks lost; ~15 soldiers killed). I'm not going to go screaming "media bias" on this one but it is instructive on why Stratpage gets such a high trust / approval rating from me -- it's simply more informative.
Comments [
] :: Main :: Archives
