The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - September 8, 2008

Advertisement


Advertisement



New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Squad Battles: Winter War
2.Silent War
3.Manoeuvre
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies

Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Armor Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: What if the Iraqis had T-72 AG tanks instead of regular T-72 tanks during the '91 Gulf War?
GreyJackal    12/21/2007 1:15:09 AM
What do you think the outcome of the tank battles would have been in this alternate scenario?
 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

patroclus       12/21/2007 1:21:50 AM

What do you think the outcome of the tank battles would have been in this alternate scenario?

3 factors.
a. gun-still ineffective.
b. ammunition-Russian ammunition would be a problem, but not that serious a problem. Iraqi [export] ammunition will still shatter on American plate.
c. Iraqi crew training and armor tactics-still ineffective.
No difference.
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

GreyJackal       12/21/2007 1:53:52 AM
What about the gun launched ATGMs?
 
Quote    Reply

Jeff_F_F       12/21/2007 9:53:01 AM
If your forces are caught flat footed while armed with ATGMs as opposed to being caught flat footed while armed only with guns they are still going to get wiped out before they get their act together.
 
The Iraqis biggest problem was lack of training and lousy leadership. Their technological inferiority just made the consequences of those problems far starker. If the Iraqis had been armed with M1s and the US had been armed with T72s the results would have been largely the same, albiet with higher casualty counts for the US.
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       12/21/2007 10:02:21 AM
Was the Refleks available for '91?
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe       12/21/2007 11:04:41 AM
Was the Refleks available for '91?
 
Yes it was Produced in 1986.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY       12/21/2007 11:06:17 AM
The wreckage left strewn about in the desert would have just been more expensive.....It wasn't TECHNICAL inferiority that defeated the Iraqi's.  As someone else has written had the US had T-72's and the Iraqi's the M-1's the end result would have been the same, only the US cost would have changed.

 

 

If you want a changed outcome, you need to change:

1) Iraq's National Command Authority (Saddam)

2) Change Iraq's military strategy (Mobile Warfare)

3) Iraq's personnel policies (AVF, with professional NCO's)

4) Iraq's training doctrine (Unified Training, not Stove-Piped Training, with realistic simulated combat a la NTC);
 
5) Iraq's training budget
 
6) Iraq's Equipment (Western designed for moderate to heavy use, rather than short-term war usage).
 
Simply giving the Iraqi Army better "toys" was not going to produce a better outcome.  The Iraqi Army was a sub-optimal grouping of individuals and units, from 1980 until 2003 that was not going to be improved without drastic SOFTWARE changes, not hardware patches.
 
 
Quote    Reply

andyf       12/22/2007 12:17:03 AM
what was that saying?
Men Matter Most
 
myself Id have played decoys, a LOT
id have had my guys polled for proper nutjobs, and had them drive old cars, modded up to look like tanks.
 
look how well the serbians did  under the nato bombardment
they lost 9 tanks
and hundreds of decoys
each was as expensive to destroy
 
Quote    Reply

earlm    Huge difference   12/22/2007 12:35:08 AM
Russian Fanboy could not come on SP and other boards and say GW1 doesn't count because the monkey model got beat, not the real thing.  Instead of Massive number: zero kill ratio M1 has massive number: single digit number kill ratio.
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       12/22/2007 1:25:48 AM

What about the gun launched ATGMs?


Had the Soviets field the versions with tandem warheads yet?  Or did this only happen after they saw the results in Iraq?
 
If not, then they would not have pieced the front armor of the M1A1's anyway.
 
Quote    Reply

Jeff_F_F       12/22/2007 9:25:43 AM
The difference between a gun fired ATGM and a HEAT round is performance at long range. Any performance at long range requires being able to aquire your target at long range. Considering how often tactical suprise was achieved by the attacking coalition forces (the fact that the Iraqis were often suprised--in a desert--should give you an idea how incopetent they were) you cannot expect the Iraqis to have been doing a lot of long range target aquisition. Technology is not a substitute for training--it just increases the edge posessed by well trained forces. Bolos are still bolos, regardless of what whizbang toys they may pack.
 
Quote    Reply

verong    jeff got close   12/22/2007 11:09:43 PM
the Iraqi equipment was designed by the soviets for 500m or less engagements which was deemed long enough. the M1 had 3000m capability when matched in an open desert it became a strategic fault that costed allot of Iraqi lives for very little US
 
Sincerely,
 
Keith
 
Quote    Reply

Jeff_F_F       12/24/2007 2:00:17 PM
There were also numerous training and leadership issues which were frequently encountered which made the technology discrepancy more devastating, such as:
 
Terrible sentry procedures which resulted in dug in units with sentry outposts placed not being alerted when the centrys were engaged, allowing them to be caught completely off guard.
 
Tanks that were dug in by having loose sand--which provides no protection against APFSDS penetrators--mounded in front of them instead of below-grade positions being dug with both hull down and turret down positions--note that this would have greatly reduced, perhaps even nullified the engagement range advantage if the Iraqi tanks had been in turret down positions and only driven up to hull down when their commanders spotted targets to engage.
 
Vehicle crews that sheltered in air-raid trenches instead of mounting their vehicles when they started hearing vehicles exploding because there was no system in place to alert them that they were receiving a ground attack rather than an air attack, so many Iraqi tanks weren't even crewed, and other crews were just scrambling into their vehicles when they were attacked.
 
Quote    Reply

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2008StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy