Why the Iraqis had a problem with US tanks at night

[Skybird]

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



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.

[Karle94]

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.

[Oberon]

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.

[Skybird]

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.

[Karle94]

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.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Karle94

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.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Oberon

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.

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.

[CaptainMattJ.]

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 .

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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

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.

Originally Posted by Skybird

You can. By downing it first.

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

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

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

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.

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.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

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

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



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!

[MH]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

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

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Oberon

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.

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

[nikimcbee]

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

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

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

The effectiveness of Kontakt-5 ERA was confirmed by tests run by the German Bundeswehr and the US Army. The Germans tested the K-5, mounted on older T-72 tanks, and in the US, Jane's IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness confirmed that "when fitted to T-72 tanks, the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the depleted uranium penetrators of M829 APFSDS, fired by the 120 mm guns of the US M1 Abrams tanks, which were among the most formidable tank gun projectiles at the time." This is of course, provided that the round strikes the ERA, which only covers 60% of the frontal aspect of the T-72 series tank mounted with it.

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.