This photo grabbed my attention...its a 4ID vehicle, but its not a M1A2 or M1A2 SEP..it looks like M1A1. I thought the 4ID had nothing but M1A2s?

hmm looked closer at the photo and noticed that it looks like the photo was cropped down on it! Notice that the GPS is barely there in front of the Tank Commander on the left and there's a sharp cut on the left hand side of the turret where the turret rails are.

ah ok I was right the first time around....

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/031117/photos_wl_me_afp/031117161719_y3ojjosq_photo1

yep its a M1A1

I think both of the photos have been photoshopped. In any case it is not the same tank in both pictures.







In the top picture, notice the strange gray square in the circle. Follow the line across the top of the turret and you can see where the tank was cropped into the picture.
I think the guy walking in front of the tank in the bottom picture was pasted in. Notice the wavy line down the front of his body. Any the Maytag Repair Man, don't get me started.

Shaun

Yeah, this was definitely edited, but why? It's not like there aren't enough pics of Abrams in Tikrit.

Rob

BTW look close, no shadow for the gun.

Sedimmick and Keenan,
I think you are reading too much into the photos. They do seem distorted, but still genuine. 4ID does have M1A2s, however, due to battle and maintenance losses, I'm sure they have had to replace some with M1A1s out of prepo stocks from Kuwait. There are no M1A2s in prepo stocks. I think the grey box you are referring to is a spare road wheel on the side of the tank, or a box to store personal gear. Also, M1s riding down the street and people walking/driving in fromt of them in Iraq is a common sight. And the Maytag Repairman is an Iraqi civilian policeman, they have new uniforms to distinguish them from the old regime.

All I am saying is the first picture is definately altered, second one probably. I don't have clue why either. The tops of the smoke grenade launchers have been cropped right out of the picture of the first tank. The civilian policeman at the bottom right of the second picture looks a little too "pasted" for me, too.
Again, I don't know why anyone would bother, I just think the photos have beem altered.

Shaun

I think I saw a gunman on the grassy knowl as well






Maybe the guy in the turbin was Elvis

Gluesniffer,
I was only trying to say that I think the photos were altered. I clearly stated that I did not have any idea why anyone would make the effort. I stand by that. I think the first photo has been poorly cropped. Don't know why. Don't care why because it has damn little to with modeling.
That said, it could not have been Elvis in the turban because I recently got him a job sacking groceries at the Sam's Club in Muncie, Indiana. As far as the grassy knoll is concerned I am fairly certain it was Peter Lawford and Sammy Davis Jr. up there...

Putting on my tin foil hat now.

Shaun

I saw some footage today on the evening news that had the same vechicles. Also another possiblity someone stated on another DG is that 4ID doesnt have M1A2 for every Armor battaltion it has....

Guess well have to do some investagting....

Keenan,

LOL ! - you've met Elvis ? - Too funny !


Sorry about the comment - couldn't help it.

I agree with you. It is strange. When it comes to the media and goverment - you don't know who's blowing smoke where.

It's darn observant of you to notice! Oliver Stone would be proud.

According to my Nov-Dec 2003 Armor magazine (read about it in a post a few days ago), 4th ID has three non-M1A2 armor battalions. They are:
1-66 Armor (Hood)
3-66 Armor (Hood)
1-68 Armor (Carson)
Its M1A2 armor battalions are:
1-67 Armor (Hood)
3-67 Armor (Hood)
1-10 CAV (DIV CAV) (Hood)

Interesting to note that although 4th ID is a mechanized infantry division by name, they have the armor to infantry battalion ratio of an armor division (5:4 vs 4:5). This could be due to the fact that they are the former 2AD (Hell on Wheels) reflagged, but only speculation on my part.

It's a shame that the 4th ID reflagged the 2nd Armored museum at Ft. Hood as their own. Patton must have rolled over in his grave.

It's good to see that 3/66 made it back from Garlstedt and has survived.

Paul
HHC 3/66 AR 2AD/2AD(FWD) '87-'89

I agree with SEDimmick, the first photo is altered. This is very evident when enlarged. Why? Only the cropper knows for sure. Maybe the original had some naughty bits paintedon the front of the turret and the commander of the unit didn't want these shown to the general public.

This is a wild guess, but maybe the American government wants to make it look like Iraq is a safe place where tank crews can be in the open in the middle of a city. where's the reality is that their normally locking inside scared for their life's.

Just a thought, not trying to offend anyone

So in the case of the second photo, for some reason the AFP(AGENCE FRANCE PRESSE) to which the photograph is attributed to, would doctor the photograph to make it appear that Iraq is safer.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/031117/photos_wl_me_afp/031117161719_y3ojjosq_photo1

Ah, the model glue is making conspiracies appear in my head.

Paul

The 4th ID was armor heavy when I was a tanker in 1984 with 3/68th armor at FT Carson. Then we just recieved the M60A3TTS. The Photo you show is a M1A1 Heavy. The armys goal was to have a few M1A2 s in every Battalion but couldnt equip the whole battalion becaues of the cost of this monster.

I could not directly recognize any tricks played on the second picture, but the first one is definitely some odd construction of minimum 2 vehicles...

Look at the way how the "doghouse", the gunners prim. sight in front of the TC's hatch got its lower half cut off....

Why does anyone think the photos are altered? I see no evidence of this after a very quick glance.

Wondering why anyone would waste the time to mess with a ho-hum, boring, generic tank in the street photo that you could take a 101 times a day there?

If you do think it has been changed, please tell me where and why you think so.

I do this kind of thing for a living, so it is of interest to me other than modeling!

Steve

Take a look at the gunner's primary sight in the post of the two tanks (keenan's). The gunner's primary sight or "GPS" is also referred to as the "doghouse" because of its large boxlike shape. The bottom photo with the men in it shows the doghouse as it should look with the ballistic doors open (see the shiny bluish glass?).

The top photos have the doghouse almost gone. Only the slightest indication of the doghouse is forward of the tank commander. Looks like the photo was cropped there. For what reasons, I can't speculate.

I think I'm getting confused by the word cropped. Maybe you mean altered or erased.

If the images were changed, enchanced, etc. I don't see why. To be honest, the photos suck other than showing a tank on the street. There's nothing going on in either photo and any goof with a camera could have taken these. I'm sure as these moved across the wire, editors had many stronger images to choose from.

I would hope any shooter there would not risk their reputation and job on such a lousy shot. If you were going to alter a photo (which is a huge no-no) at least you'd want to do it to something worth the time. The guy fired from the LA Times during the war last April comes to mind.

Steve

Actually they are two differant pictures. A t least taken at differant times and locations. if you look in the first picture the turret is pointing to the right. The car behind it is white in color. The military vehicle following the M1 is a M113 series, most likely a FST.

Furthermore, and the KEY differance is that the picture was taken from the side of the road in an oblique angle. While in the second photo the angle is more from the front taken on the road.

I won't go into more detail such as background details, etc.