SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post - Why the Iraqis had a problem with US tanks at night

Skybird · 07-23-12, 06:57 PM

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.

07-23-12, 06:57 PM	#12
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,683 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.