Why the Iraqis had a problem with US tanks at night
 

Okay, not just at night. :) It is about the infrared sights - not to be mistaken for the thermal sights or NVGs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DFKZsmxzng

Although SBP is a sim, I read the night sight visuals here are quite realistic, and it gives you an idea of what it was like when you were sitting in a tank on the receiving end of the fight. Those infrared sights are simply - masochistic, compared to modern thermal sights. Nice representation - but you are left chanceless against a modern tank.

These T-72s are really rolling coffins.

This visuals from the infrared illustrate also why tanks at night could get so hilariously close to each other in the 60s and 70s.

Even if they had seen the Abrams tanks moving in, there is absolutely no way those T-72s could have damaged, musch less destroyed as much as a single Abrams. The armor of an Abrams is extremely difficult at best to penetrate. The only place an Abrams can penetrate another Abrams with a DU enhanced sabot round is the aft armor. That says a lot as one of those shells could easily go through two or three Iraqi T-72s.

The Whispering Death.

It can see you, you can't see it, you can't hear it, and then it reaches out and touches you.

M1A2 Abrams, soiling Middle Eastern underpants since 1991.

Well, I would throw in some variables into the formula: like range, angle, ammo, vehicle version, and part of the tank that gets hit. If you want to tell me an Abrams is immune to a T-72 at any range, then I would have difficulties to believe that. From some range on and below, Western tanks are inside kind of an overkill zone of Russian guns, and thus it is recommendable to stay out of such close-range infights, so to make use of the advantage Western tanks have in the medium and medium-long range witrhout compromising their advantages due to allowing russian guns to have penetrationn power nevertheless.

But Chally-2s, Abrams and Leo-2s are very tough bugs to crack, no doubt. But invulnerable - they are not, though. While apparently no Abrams got lost in Iraq to direct fire by a T-72 tank gun, several were damaged, some so severly that they were left behind. They survived because the enemy was not capable to gain superiority of the battlefield and roll over them.

Also: T-72 is not the same like T-72. There are many versions, and ammo types fielded, and the ones the Iraqis had , were export versions with weaker armour for the most, and even greater manufacturing tolerances (although the T-72 already has unbelievably high manufacturing tolerances) and old, very less potent ammunition types. The small red dot in the sight you see in the video, is the lasing point for that sight and tank - and in every T-72, it is set diffrent, because every sight has so great tolerances that you need to aim with another poart of the overall sight to correctly lase from different tanks. And clearances (=Spaltmaße) - these also are greater in Russian equipment at least of the past then in Western platforms: tanks, ships, airplanes, it doesn't matter.

Even by Eastern standards, the Iraqis were armed with pretty sub-mediocre platforms. And then the training standard of their crews... A Russian army probbaly also would hav ebeen wiped out, but it would have perforemed better: with tougher T-72, better ammuntiioon, and better rtained crews. The onyl thing the Iraqis really had on theri side was that some of their unit commanders in 91 were said to have been able to set up some really nasty tactical surprises - which speaks for them considering the equipement they had.

So, it is all a bit more complex and there are more variables in the formula.

I did`t say it`s impossible to destroy an Abrams, just that Iraqi tanks could`t do it. There were one case where an Abrams engaged three-four Iraqi T-72s at point-blank-range without any damage at all. Also, American forces could and can call in close air support, which is something very few militaries in the world can. And the best thing one can possible imagine is the A-10. Nothing can survive that, no tank, American, British, German or Russian.

You can. By downing it first. ;)

And there are some systems capable to do that, from Tunguskas to Gepards, plus many shoulder-launched missiles.

However. Infrared sights. That's why I posted that video, and not just in the tank forum.

The M1A2 must be pretty wicked then because it did not enter service until 1992.

They had no problem taking a few out with powerful IEDs though lot of good the thermal vision did then.Every weapon has an Achilles heel.There was a thread a while back that mentioned this.In some cases crewman where killed.

Another huge factor in 1991 is that the Americans had far far superior training and had trained to fight a very determined foe.The IRG was the best of Iraq but nothing compared to the skill of the US Army tank crews who had been trained to be highly accurate and rapid in order to attempt to deal with masses of Warsaw Pact tanks.No tank is invisible and if you took an M1A2 and put people that had little training they would perform very poorly in combat and likely allow a T-72 even to get near enough that it could disable or destroy an Abrams.

In 1991 an Abrams did get disabled by a T-72 on 73 Easting it did not get noticed and laid in wait and fired into the back rear of an M1A1 it destroyed the engine and the ammo storage as it burned the crew was able to get out unharmed.The T-72 got killed by other M1A1s as soon as it had fired its main gun but it did pretty much destroy the Abrams.The Abrams was designed to have high mobility high accuracy and high crew survivability those things it does have but there are men that served as crewman in them that where killed by enemy action.

The Abrams is impressive but there is a whee bit too much legend around it.

This will give you an idea just how hard US tank crews train and this only the basic school active tankers must take a gunnery range test that is very demanding if they fail they will not deploy.I have some good friends from Old Iron Sides which had Abrams stationed in Germany up until a few years ago these guys are very good at what they do without them the Abrams is a high priced hunk of metal.
An impressive machine is nothing without a highly skilled and motivated crew the US military and the Israeli military have proven this fact.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rr1bd...eature=related

The IRG were poorly trained, poorly equipped, and were taken completely by surprise. The few T-72s that were ready and waiting were quickly dispatched. the IRG had substandard T-72s, the Speed and swiftness of the Abrams and their crews completely rolled over the IRG before many had a chance to get in their tanks and start them. Once they started them, they had to manually crank the turret to turn it, and still yet, they were poorly trained. If the Russians had been operating those tanks we mightve seen a few casualties due to direct fire. Had we been facing any modernized country, with modern tanks and skilled crewman, there wouldve been many more casualties .

Yea as I recall in the 6 Days War the IDF spotted tanks with those sights using their NVGs when ever the Syrians turned them on.

There was a Roland kill on an A-10 during OIF.

The torchlight effect, yes. And even without that - even if you cannot ID at maximum distance, a thermal still tells you there is something out there at - how great a distance? 2000 meters? 2500, maybe even 3000 ? An infrared tells you there is something at 300, 400, 500 meters or so.

Guess who marks the first hit!

I have so far not tried the T-72 in SBP, just did so yesterday night after that video, to see how the sim models infrared sightings. You feel blind, naked, exposed and defenceless, I tell you that. Infrared sights are very nicely visualised indeed.

Will not try the T-72 again. :D

See?! It's so impressive it can even travel through time!

:oops:

There's no doubting that the Abrams is an impressive tank, although I didn't say that it's the best tank in the world, because that would be inviting a thread derailing debate on the merits of the big four (Challenger, M1 Abrams, Leopard 2 and the T-80/90) which all have their good and bad parts.

A lot of it comes down to how you use it, and the IRG was outclassed by miles. I didn't know about the T-72 at 73 Eastings though, a clever, if somewhat short lived, Iraqi tank commander there.

I do wonder how the Abrams would have performed in its intended role in the south of West Germany, with the knowledge that the sabot of the time would not have been as effective against Soviet ERA as was first thought. Thankfully though, that's something we'll never know for real.

Besides, the Challie is obviously the superior tank...it has a kettle in it for making tea! :salute:

Ambient light NVG compared to thermal is like switching to HDTV:haha:
Yet things get better all the time.

How does ERA effect Sabot rounds? ERA effects HEAT rounds. :hmm2:

Do you think it would have mattered if they, the T-72s, were manned by Russian crews?

This is the reason why the M829 series was upgraded following the end of the Cold War, well, one of the reasons anyway, the US discovered that Soviet ERA was better than they thought.

Yes. Russian crews would have sat in better versions of the T-72 and in the T-80, and would have had better ammo. As I said, they probably would have been eaten in 91 and 03 nevertheless, but they would have set up more of a fight, and I expect they would have caused higher losses. And where the Russian tank crews would have been, there also would have been Russian infantry, Russian infantry-fired SAMs, Russian Flak-tanks, and other Russian army material. The latest Russian Panzerfausts/RPGs are anything but subtle on tanks. And who knows - maybe there would have been plenty of Russian artillery as well. Plus Russian satellite intel and ELINT.

It makes little sense to single out a single variable only and by that judging the outcome of a complete war, which is a complex formula with much more than just variable. And if their tacticval analysts are worth their payment, they have learned from the Mujaheddin during their Afghanistan war what Panzerfausts can do to overwhelming tank forces, if the right tactics are used. Panjshir valley, anyone? The Russians lost dozens and dozens of Ts and BMPs there.

The Russians would not have been sitting in fixed potions waiting for the Americans to come they would have been ramming every single tank they had through 73 Easting trying to overwhelm the Americans.

In fact the roles where reversed from the norm in Fulda the NATO tanks would have moved from position to position trying to destroy as many T-72s/80s as possible they would likely have performed tactical retreats(realistically) to move into better defensive positions more or less extending the hour of doomday by perhaps a few days.

The IRG foolishly thought that our crews would not be able to hit the low profile that the turrets of their tanks made while inside their dugouts.I guess the did not get the memo that US crews train on the range to find identify and engage targets in mere seconds they also likely had no idea the true accuracy of of guns they must have had a good idea of our optical capability because they did try to hide the T-72s as much as possible.They more than likely hoped that the Abrams crews would within very close range where they actually have a chance of doing some damage.

Interesting side note the ballistics computers in the Abrams can also work with the commanders .50 cal and the coaxial M240.A Marine Abrams in 2003 saw some Saddam Fedayeen rounding up towns people likely to use as human shields so they crew decided to take out one of the Fedayeen with one round from the .50 cal they where over a mile away and hit and obviously killed the man the towns people figured out that something was blowing away the unwanted with amazing accuracy so they kept luring more and more Fedayeen into the center of town and the Abrams kept icking them off with one shot from the .50 and the coaxial 7.62mm(they where slowly moving closer to the town) .I wonder if they even knew that there was a tank doing all the killing?Allah strikes down our foes they likely thought. Cant think of the name of the book I read this in it was written by a former USMC general Bing West I think the author witnessed the event.

Over 1 mile - a .50, and no dispersion, no spray and so precise on target that it picks a selected person within a group of persons and with just one and the first round? Very hard to believe, I admit.

Even more, the cal .50 is the commander'S weapon that doe snot get operated by the gunner'S primary sights. He can give a more precise range by lasing the target of course, but still the TC needs to use the purely optical sight for the .50. Without magnification. Elevation done via handcranks, not by just pointing and swinging the weapon like a LMG on a tripod. And then just one shot? Heck, this is no sharpshooting rifle, this is no M107.

You can see auxiliary sight'S design from various vehicles (LAV, M2, M1, Leo1, Leo2) in this essay, scroll down the text a bit.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=191272

I check that with the eSim forums. Many tankers there, probably somebody there has heared the story if it is true. But I have a hard time that you even can use the tank'S main aiming devices to precisley pick a single person in a group of person at over 1 mile and avoid the dispersion, always hitting with just one round.

Up until Irqaq in 2003, the longest kill ever by a gun was in Vietnam, and the weapon; a Ma Deuce with a sniper scope. The weapon is well capable of making those shots, even at almost 2,5 kilometers.

It is about the .50's sight of the TC that is anything but a sniper scope, the inevitable dispersion, the likelihhod of repatedly hitting on first shoit, with a single round fired only. The rahnge of the .50 is not the question here. I question is if with that setup such a precision could be reliably acchieved over that distance. And there my difficulty starts to believe this story. 1 mile, that is 1600 meters! He says the range was in excess of that! Aiming a human without a scoped precision rifle, hitting with just one round, no salvo, no dispersion. There are heavier callibres, autocannons, that inevitably see disperson patterns at that range.