Many folks might know that 1-63 Armor flew tanks and other vehicles into northern Iraq during OIF1 in 2003, in order to apply pressure as the main invasion took place from the south. That started on April 7 and the last tank landed April 17. 1-63 AR tanks are of interest in themselves in part because they are NATOflage.
But, even less is known about Charlie Co, 2-70 AR. A company minus was flown from the south on April 2/3 to H1 in northwest Iraq after the Rangers captured it on March 28.
This is one of the tanks that flew into H1 and supported the Rangers, and later hurried to Haditha Dam to assist them when the Iraqis counterattacked.
This tank has it all going on. Three missing roadwheels on one side. A roller attachment. A damaged gun tube shroud from striking a wall - the crew used hundred mile an hour tape (duct tape) to protect it from vapors escaping and allowing uneven cooling. The crew knew they would be sent to the rear if this was discovered, and so not only did they duct tape their thermal shroud, so did the rest of the platoon. The same impact damaged the turret lock, which stabilizes the turret when the tank is moving or else it would just spin. To prevent this the gunner had to keep the "cadillacs" engaged which also brakes the turret.
Of further interest, since the airspace was not in complete control over H1 the tanks deplaned in an assault style - the tank turned its engine on during the descent, the aircrew removed the chains at this time, and after landing and while still moving, the ramp was down and the tank rolled off. Brad Pitt stuff right there!
This tank later rolled into Baghdad just after 1-64 AR took the city, and sat at the crossed sabres with 1-64 for a few days.
Hosted by Darren Baker
When Pigs Fly - Or Tanks Anyway...
Burik
New Jersey, United States
Joined: March 12, 2002
KitMaker: 1,437 posts
Armorama: 1,303 posts
Joined: March 12, 2002
KitMaker: 1,437 posts
Armorama: 1,303 posts
Posted: Monday, November 14, 2016 - 06:54 PM UTC
HeavyArty
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Monday, November 14, 2016 - 07:02 PM UTC
Great story and a great looking tank, Bob. Do you plan on building a model of it?
Burik
New Jersey, United States
Joined: March 12, 2002
KitMaker: 1,437 posts
Armorama: 1,303 posts
Joined: March 12, 2002
KitMaker: 1,437 posts
Armorama: 1,303 posts
Posted: Monday, November 14, 2016 - 07:15 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Great story and a great looking tank, Bob. Do you plan on building a model of it?
Well, I'd love to. I got to talk to the TC who gave me a lot of info, including the story above. I really want to do a Natoflage tank though. Maybe after I do the three tone Abrams. Maybe someone here will be inspired too. I am getting more info on C/1-70 AR and also 1-63 AR. The north is sort of an untold story. 1-63 had 5 M1A1s and 5 M2s among other support vehicles, and they were all three tone camo, some with netting on them. Markings were different too. C/1-70 had 10 Abrams and an M88.
SEDimmick
New Jersey, United States
Joined: March 15, 2002
KitMaker: 1,745 posts
Armorama: 1,483 posts
Joined: March 15, 2002
KitMaker: 1,745 posts
Armorama: 1,483 posts
Posted: Monday, November 14, 2016 - 07:45 PM UTC
I'm seem to recall seeing Bradley's with SFOR markings on them in Natoflage being deployed to Northern Iraq also...unless someone was using stock photos at the time
SEDimmick
New Jersey, United States
Joined: March 15, 2002
KitMaker: 1,745 posts
Armorama: 1,483 posts
Joined: March 15, 2002
KitMaker: 1,745 posts
Armorama: 1,483 posts
Posted: Monday, November 14, 2016 - 07:50 PM UTC
youngtiger1
California, United States
Joined: May 14, 2008
KitMaker: 534 posts
Armorama: 344 posts
Joined: May 14, 2008
KitMaker: 534 posts
Armorama: 344 posts
Posted: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 - 01:43 PM UTC
Interesting story and it sure would be nice to see a model of this. Does anyone have other photos this tank?
Burik
New Jersey, United States
Joined: March 12, 2002
KitMaker: 1,437 posts
Armorama: 1,303 posts
Joined: March 12, 2002
KitMaker: 1,437 posts
Armorama: 1,303 posts
Posted: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 - 09:29 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Interesting story and it sure would be nice to see a model of this. Does anyone have other photos this tank?
It is unlikely there are other photos. The TC lost all of his personal photos when he got back. The markings are pretty basic and can be figured out.
Of note, another story from this company-minus. The company commander's tank flipped over into the ditch during a night attack, trapping everybody inside for a couple of hours. The driver tunneled out somehow. The tank had to be shot like a horse when they decided it could not be recovered with the limited assets at hand. A HEAT round through the belly. After the war the burned out tank was recovered.
Tankrider
Oklahoma, United States
Joined: October 07, 2002
KitMaker: 1,280 posts
Armorama: 1,208 posts
Joined: October 07, 2002
KitMaker: 1,280 posts
Armorama: 1,208 posts
Posted: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 - 03:34 AM UTC
Bob,
I had a picture of that tank (C-66) but lost it in a HD crash, when I was in Kuwait... I heard about the story and conned the General that was in charge of Operations (C-3) aide into sending me the picture. The word then was the tank was destroyed with a thermite grenade. There was a couple of senior, 4-star level officers that were very concerned about the fact that there were multiple M1A1s being abandoned in the Iraqi desert, with C-66, 2-70 Armor being one of those abandoned US Army and USMC tanks...
FWIW
John
I had a picture of that tank (C-66) but lost it in a HD crash, when I was in Kuwait... I heard about the story and conned the General that was in charge of Operations (C-3) aide into sending me the picture. The word then was the tank was destroyed with a thermite grenade. There was a couple of senior, 4-star level officers that were very concerned about the fact that there were multiple M1A1s being abandoned in the Iraqi desert, with C-66, 2-70 Armor being one of those abandoned US Army and USMC tanks...
FWIW
John
Tank1812
North Carolina, United States
Joined: April 29, 2014
KitMaker: 1,112 posts
Armorama: 886 posts
Joined: April 29, 2014
KitMaker: 1,112 posts
Armorama: 886 posts
Posted: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 - 03:37 AM UTC
I could be wrong but something about firing up the hog in air just doesn't sound right to me.
Burik
New Jersey, United States
Joined: March 12, 2002
KitMaker: 1,437 posts
Armorama: 1,303 posts
Joined: March 12, 2002
KitMaker: 1,437 posts
Armorama: 1,303 posts
Posted: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 - 05:26 PM UTC
Quoted Text
I could be wrong but something about firing up the hog in air just doesn't sound right to me.
Everything the TC told me has been true. I have no reason to not believe him. The chains had to be undone as well during the descent/approach in order for the tank to roll off. The ramp was open during the descent.
John, I saw one pic of C66 in the ditch. A sad sight. There was a B Co, 1-64 tank that was disabled too in OIF1 and the company commander got all kind of grief when he suggested it had to be left. Ultimately they tore it apart for parts but he still got lots of negative feedback from senior leadership. He still seems pretty ticked off about it today.
Burik
New Jersey, United States
Joined: March 12, 2002
KitMaker: 1,437 posts
Armorama: 1,303 posts
Joined: March 12, 2002
KitMaker: 1,437 posts
Armorama: 1,303 posts
Posted: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 - 05:37 PM UTC
I mispoke - A HEAT round would not penetrate (I don't know if the CO meant they thought it would not penetrate or they tried and it did not). Anyway, it was a sabot that did the deed. The tank started to burn and they left.
4th ID later recovered it. Likely in those hazmat suits.
4th ID later recovered it. Likely in those hazmat suits.
youngtiger1
California, United States
Joined: May 14, 2008
KitMaker: 534 posts
Armorama: 344 posts
Joined: May 14, 2008
KitMaker: 534 posts
Armorama: 344 posts
Posted: Friday, November 18, 2016 - 10:56 AM UTC
Is that part of a mine plow or mine roller in the front of this tank?
Burik
New Jersey, United States
Joined: March 12, 2002
KitMaker: 1,437 posts
Armorama: 1,303 posts
Joined: March 12, 2002
KitMaker: 1,437 posts
Armorama: 1,303 posts
Posted: Friday, November 18, 2016 - 08:41 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Is that part of a mine plow or mine roller in the front of this tank?
That is a roller attachment. A number of tanks in OIF1 were supposed to get rollers and so the hull attachment was mounted. But for whatever reason, it does not appear any ever used the rollers. Plows were used extensively...
Tank1812
North Carolina, United States
Joined: April 29, 2014
KitMaker: 1,112 posts
Armorama: 886 posts
Joined: April 29, 2014
KitMaker: 1,112 posts
Armorama: 886 posts
Posted: Friday, November 18, 2016 - 09:48 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextI could be wrong but something about firing up the hog in air just doesn't sound right to me.
Everything the TC told me has been true. I have no reason to not believe him. The chains had to be undone as well during the descent/approach in order for the tank to roll off. The ramp was open during the descent.
I admit I am not up on the AF/Army assault operations but I can't see firing up a hog in a confined space while in the air and having that much weight unsecured on a landing in a hostile area. Just seems like a good way to kill a number of people and two expensive pieces of equipment but that's just me.
Burik
New Jersey, United States
Joined: March 12, 2002
KitMaker: 1,437 posts
Armorama: 1,303 posts
Joined: March 12, 2002
KitMaker: 1,437 posts
Armorama: 1,303 posts
Posted: Saturday, November 19, 2016 - 11:21 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextQuoted TextI could be wrong but something about firing up the hog in air just doesn't sound right to me.
Everything the TC told me has been true. I have no reason to not believe him. The chains had to be undone as well during the descent/approach in order for the tank to roll off. The ramp was open during the descent.
I admit I am not up on the AF/Army assault operations but I can't see firing up a hog in a confined space while in the air and having that much weight unsecured on a landing in a hostile area. Just seems like a good way to kill a number of people and two expensive pieces of equipment but that's just me.
There are major regulations and safety prohibitions in peacetime, but they are all waived during combat. I have discussed it with former airborne tankers and current tankers and all agree that as long as the back ramp was open during the engine start up they would do the same. And in this case that is exactly what happened. The ramp was opened, the aircraft was on approach, the engine started and the chains taken off. The crewchief used hand signals to tell the crew when to release the brakes and get off the aircraft - which was still moving at the time.
ReluctantRenegade
Wien, Austria
Joined: March 09, 2016
KitMaker: 2,408 posts
Armorama: 2,300 posts
Joined: March 09, 2016
KitMaker: 2,408 posts
Armorama: 2,300 posts
Posted: Saturday, November 19, 2016 - 11:50 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextQuoted TextQuoted TextI could be wrong but something about firing up the hog in air just doesn't sound right to me.
Everything the TC told me has been true. I have no reason to not believe him. The chains had to be undone as well during the descent/approach in order for the tank to roll off. The ramp was open during the descent.
I admit I am not up on the AF/Army assault operations but I can't see firing up a hog in a confined space while in the air and having that much weight unsecured on a landing in a hostile area. Just seems like a good way to kill a number of people and two expensive pieces of equipment but that's just me.
There are major regulations and safety prohibitions in peacetime, but they are all waived during combat. I have discussed it with former airborne tankers and current tankers and all agree that as long as the back ramp was open during the engine start up they would do the same. And in this case that is exactly what happened. The ramp was opened, the aircraft was on approach, the engine started and the chains taken off. The crewchief used hand signals to tell the crew when to release the brakes and get off the aircraft - which was still moving at the time.
As a pilot myself, that simply terrifies me. I would s#$% my underwear if I had to execute a G/A with 70+ tons of loose cargo in the bay...
This is what happens when the cargo (two APC's in this case) gets loose and rapidly shifts during a critical phase of the flight... https://youtu.be/eWeXgvot2TI
Burik
New Jersey, United States
Joined: March 12, 2002
KitMaker: 1,437 posts
Armorama: 1,303 posts
Joined: March 12, 2002
KitMaker: 1,437 posts
Armorama: 1,303 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 20, 2016 - 12:07 AM UTC
Yep. I never said this was the accepted safe way to do it. This is what happened in a combat zone and is worth telling for the mere reason that an Abrams (10 of them) was airlifted into an airfield that was not totally secured due to a developing situation at Haditha Dam.
On March 31 Charlie Co was fighting in southern Iraq, on April 1 they were told they were being airlifted to a remote airfield that the Rangers just took, and on April 2 the tankers were on the airfield and gearing up for their different missions (not all went to the dam).
Not a lot of preparation for the tankers and other members of the company, but in wartime in a combat zone you do what you have to do.
In Grenada paratroopers jumped at extremely low (and never practiced or allowed) altitudes due to AA and other factors, but they did it because the time and situation dictated it.
The fact that people do not want to believe it happened just speaks to the abilities and balls that these warriors had - the aircrew and the tankers.
On March 31 Charlie Co was fighting in southern Iraq, on April 1 they were told they were being airlifted to a remote airfield that the Rangers just took, and on April 2 the tankers were on the airfield and gearing up for their different missions (not all went to the dam).
Not a lot of preparation for the tankers and other members of the company, but in wartime in a combat zone you do what you have to do.
In Grenada paratroopers jumped at extremely low (and never practiced or allowed) altitudes due to AA and other factors, but they did it because the time and situation dictated it.
The fact that people do not want to believe it happened just speaks to the abilities and balls that these warriors had - the aircrew and the tankers.
ReluctantRenegade
Wien, Austria
Joined: March 09, 2016
KitMaker: 2,408 posts
Armorama: 2,300 posts
Joined: March 09, 2016
KitMaker: 2,408 posts
Armorama: 2,300 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 20, 2016 - 12:28 AM UTC
Quoted Text
The fact that people do not want to believe it happened just speaks to the abilities and balls that these warriors had - the aircrew and the tankers.
Of course I believe the story - actually as a former tanker and an active pilot I find it fascinating...but still scares the c#$% out of me...
Burik
New Jersey, United States
Joined: March 12, 2002
KitMaker: 1,437 posts
Armorama: 1,303 posts
Joined: March 12, 2002
KitMaker: 1,437 posts
Armorama: 1,303 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 20, 2016 - 05:49 AM UTC
When the 82nd Airborne responded to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1991 something similar occurred. Humvees were on C-131s and as they made their approach they were unchained and were only on their parking brakes when they landed, with the Humvee engines running. The ramps were down and when the C-131s landed the fully loaded Humvees rolled off into the darkness.
There is a chance that Sheridans did something like this in Somalia. They were flown into Somalia after the Blackhawk Down battle. But I think the airport was pretty secure at the time, but maybe not.
There is a chance that Sheridans did something like this in Somalia. They were flown into Somalia after the Blackhawk Down battle. But I think the airport was pretty secure at the time, but maybe not.
Burik
New Jersey, United States
Joined: March 12, 2002
KitMaker: 1,437 posts
Armorama: 1,303 posts
Joined: March 12, 2002
KitMaker: 1,437 posts
Armorama: 1,303 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 20, 2016 - 08:28 AM UTC
Sorry - C130s.