![]() |
SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997 |
![]() |
#1 |
Soaring
|
Why the Iraqis had a problem with US tanks at night
Okay, not just at night.
![]() 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.
__________________
If you feel nuts, consult an expert. Last edited by Skybird; 07-23-12 at 07:08 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
The Old Man
![]() Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Norseland
Posts: 1,355
Downloads: 253
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
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.
__________________
![]() ![]() Find my mods here: https://www.mediafire.com/folder/lzgciodldp58p/SH4_Mods My SH4 blog here: http://karle94.blogspot.com/ |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Lucky Jack
![]() |
![]()
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Soaring
|
![]()
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
The Old Man
![]() Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Norseland
Posts: 1,355
Downloads: 253
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
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.
__________________
![]() ![]() Find my mods here: https://www.mediafire.com/folder/lzgciodldp58p/SH4_Mods My SH4 blog here: http://karle94.blogspot.com/ |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |
Soaring
|
![]() Quote:
![]() 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.
__________________
If you feel nuts, consult an expert. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |
Navy Seal
![]() Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 5,421
Downloads: 85
Uploads: 0
|
![]() Quote:
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. Last edited by Stealhead; 07-24-12 at 12:40 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
The Old Man
![]() Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Sin City
Posts: 1,364
Downloads: 55
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
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 .
__________________
![]() A popular Government without popular information nor the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives - James Madison |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 | |
Navy Seal
![]() |
![]() Quote:
There was a Roland kill on an A-10 during OIF. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 | |
Soaring
|
![]() Quote:
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. ![]()
__________________
If you feel nuts, consult an expert. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 | |
Lucky Jack
![]() |
![]() Quote:
![]() 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! ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 | |
Ocean Warrior
![]() Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,184
Downloads: 248
Uploads: 0
|
![]() Quote:
Ambient light NVG compared to thermal is like switching to HDTV ![]() Yet things get better all the time. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 | |
Navy Seal
![]() |
![]() Quote:
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
Fleet Admiral
|
![]()
Do you think it would have mattered if they, the T-72s, were manned by Russian crews?
__________________
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 | |
Lucky Jack
![]() |
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|