Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Desert Storm (1991): Why this success?

    Share

    sheytanelkebir
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 479
    Points : 496
    Join date : 2013-09-16

    Re: Desert Storm (1991): Why this success?

    Post  sheytanelkebir on Wed Apr 16, 2014 10:01 am

    nemrod wrote:
    sheytanelkebir wrote:my 2 cents on this important and often overlooked topic.

    ....Iraq's fighter interceptors were "not bad" by regional standards:
    MiG23ML with R24 (about 40 aircraft)
    MiG29 with R27R (about 35 aircraft)
    MiG25 with R40 (about 20 aircraft)
    Mirage F1 with Super530F (about 60 aircraft)

    That gave the Iraqis a quite formidable self-defence capability against the likes of Iran, Turkey or Syria... but it was nothing against the USA of course.


    Thx for you contribution.
    Could you please tell us more about Iraqis fighters performances ?
    Regards.

    fighter performance? very limited, in the first 3-4 days they sent up piecemeal some fighter interceptors (why? because the air defence command was not authorised to send them up without saddam's approval - and in some instances fighters launched without approval). they shot down maybe 3-5 fighters but lost nearly 20 aircraft in the process. GCI was jammed heavily by the allies which effectively blinded the Iraqi fighter interceptors and the super-530 missiles on the Mirages simply would not "launch" at all, except in one instance at the beginning of the war Wink

    Most of the "kills" that the allies attributed to "SA2" were by fighter interceptors (though they're loath to admit it). Iraqi air defence found the SA2 "S75" completely useless and the type was withdrawn from service completely as soon as the war ended.

    by the 3-4th day saddam had "decided" to save his precious planes by flying them to Iran... so all the fighter interceptor efforts were diverted away from self defence to escorting the transports and attack planes to safety in Iran. quite a clever decision by the "field marshal" LOL! So from about the 4th day most of the fighter interceptor duties were simply escorting the ferrying aircraft to safety, creating "diversions" for US F15s away from the planes going to Iran etc...


    anyway there were many many "lessons learned" from that brief war.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Desert Storm (1991): Why this success?

    Post  TR1 on Wed Apr 16, 2014 10:46 am

    Will we ever find out why Sadaam thought the Iranian exodus was a good idea?

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: Desert Storm (1991): Why this success?

    Post  nemrod on Wed Apr 16, 2014 2:01 pm

    sheytanelkebir wrote:
    ...anyway there were many many "lessons learned" from that brief war.

    Could you tell us more.
    Could you, if it is possible provide a scale of the true US-Nato losses. Because, their famous of figures about 72 aircrafts, I know as Boat could run in the earth faster than a Ferrari.... Laughing 



    sheytanelkebir
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 479
    Points : 496
    Join date : 2013-09-16

    Re: Desert Storm (1991): Why this success?

    Post  sheytanelkebir on Wed Apr 16, 2014 2:56 pm

    true losses were reported quite accurately by the allies AFAIK. just sometimes the "cause" of losses were not accurate (which is understandable as its rarely clear how "the other" shot down your aircraft).

    The allies on the other hand overclaimed their kills against the Iraqis (also natural, as many shots were BVR and no physical way to "verify" the kills)... and they UNDERCOUNTED the number of aircraft they destroyed on the ground in Hardened aircraft shelters (the true "destroyer" of the Iraqi AF).. also understandable since they didn't have access to those HAS after the war to count how many planes were inside...

    sheytanelkebir
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 479
    Points : 496
    Join date : 2013-09-16

    Re: Desert Storm (1991): Why this success?

    Post  sheytanelkebir on Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:50 am

    TR1 wrote:Will we ever find out why Sadaam thought the Iranian exodus was a good idea?

    it was simply one more example of his complete ineptitude in "international relations". He had many other (far worse) examples!

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: Desert Storm (1991): Why this success?

    Post  nemrod on Thu Apr 17, 2014 12:37 pm

    sheytanelkebir wrote:true losses were reported quite accurately by the allies AFAIK. just sometimes the "cause" of losses were not accurate (which is understandable as its rarely clear how "the other" shot down your aircraft).

    The allies on the other hand overclaimed their kills against the Iraqis (also natural, as many shots were BVR and no physical way to "verify" the kills)... and they UNDERCOUNTED the number of aircraft they destroyed on the ground in Hardened aircraft shelters (the true "destroyer" of the Iraqi AF).. also understandable since they didn't have access to those HAS after the war to count how many planes were inside...

    Thx Great Satan.

    Nevertheless when you said

    ...true losses were reported quite accurately by the allies AFAIK
    True ? And  accuretly ?
    Were you deceive in use of Antonym ? Or is it only Humour ? If humour, I share your point of view. Very Happy 
    Just a crisp piece of joke from US Dod explaining how B-52 disapeared, oviously longtime after 1991.

    On 2 February 1991, B-52G Hulk 46, assigned to the 4300th Bomb Wing (Provisional), Diego Garcia, British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) crashed while returning from a bombing mission in Iraq during the Persian Gulf War. The crash was eventually blamed on a catastrophic failure of the aircraft's electrical system. Three of the six crew members on board were killed


    ...a catastrophic failure of the aircraft's electrical system...Mwahahahahahahahaha  lol! lol! lol!lol!lol!lol!
    Even in Mr Bean show I did not laugh as  this stupid explanation. Did they lack of imagination ? Did they loose their ability to use hoax ?

    The best synonym that could match with Mr US Dod is "Lie". I believed it before, because I had, we had no choice, but impossible now as Internet is running.

    I wish to know the real scale of US losses, I used to think that if US Dod said Y number of something are lost, I generally put 2Y, but in Desert Storm, it is harder to represent the true number, because of the context.
    I know that, as Vladimir ilyin said, several F-117 -so called stealth, and supposed to be invisible- were spotted several times by iraqis radars, moreover, he said at least one F-117 was downed by Iraqis, but the fighter crashed somewhere in Saudi Arabia. Obviously, you can rely on US to bring you this kind of informations

    It is interresting to know the true scale of US losses, because as you -thx to all-explained me, most iraqis radar were still actives -I used to believe the contrar-, obliging coalition fighters to fly at high altitude, implying less accuracy in bombing campaign.

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: Desert Storm (1991): Why this success?

    Post  nemrod on Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:18 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Su-15 was a PVO interceptor and AFAIK was never exported outside the Soviet Union.

    Garry I spent my youth reading every news, or books relating soviets weaponneries. I can certify you that, it was written -maybe it was errors ?- black on white "The Su-15 has distinguished under the egyptian roundels. The Su-15 was very efficient during the Kippur war."
    Iam far to be specialist Garry, nevertheless, I've seen this news, I read this news.
    Moreover, seeing the large scale of Israelis losses during october 1973, do you think it is just only the facts of the -while- very efficient Mig 21 alone ?
    Do not forget too, that at this time soviets were present with Mig 25, and Mig 23 that were far better than any US/Israelis aircrafts.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Desert Storm (1991): Why this success?

    Post  GarryB on Fri Apr 18, 2014 2:19 am

    If it went to Egypt there is no way it was flown by Egyptians... no disrespect to Egyptian pilots... these were the aircraft defending Soviet Air Space... there is no way they would want to compromise them to anyone.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: Desert Storm (1991): Why this success?

    Post  nemrod on Fri Apr 18, 2014 12:38 pm

    GarryB wrote:If it went to Egypt there is no way it was flown by Egyptians... no disrespect to Egyptian pilots... these were the aircraft defending Soviet Air Space... there is no way they would want to compromise them to anyone.

    Many soviet aircrafts were piloted by soviet's staff.
    If I recall, the Mig-25  flew several times above Israel with soviet pilots. Moreover, Mig 23 were there too, piloted by soviet pilots. I suspect the high US/Israelis losses were due to Su-15, maybe -?- Mig 23, and Mig 25.
    It is worth to mention that US air force took part in the conflict with Israelis.
    We saw in this war that the Phantom II's approach as with F-105 lead nowhere. Nevertheless, it did not deter US to continue in its approach with F-15, F-16, F-18, and F-14.
    During the air war in Lebanon, if indeed Israelis downed several Mig 23 -BN for the most-, Mig 21, SU-22, as these model had not any MAWS, the things changed completly, once syrians had Mig 23 ML.
    And Either F-15 or F-16 could be easily downed.

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: Desert Storm (1991): Why this success?

    Post  nemrod on Sun Apr 20, 2014 9:47 pm

    Hey guys there are something I did not understand about this Desert'so-called success.
    Why, and how did around 140 aircrafts fled to Iran, among them 2 illyushin 76 Mainstay Awacs dubbed "Adnan".
    If US had the total master of iraq' sky how these aircrafts fled ? Did US coalition bombed at low altitude ? Medium altitude ? Did US coalition bombing campaign sucessfull ?
    Did all iraq's Radar were completly disabled ? How could they allow this fled of hundreds aircrafts ?
    I believed untill now that once Kari destroyed, the all Iraq air defense disabled ? If so yes, isn't exist a contradiction ?
    Can someone tell me more about the scenarios please.

    Regards.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Desert Storm (1991): Why this success?

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 21, 2014 10:36 am

    Iraq is not a small country and when US forces operate in the region they don't have full radar coverage of Iraq 24/7.

    Even in areas where they do have good radar coverage it is coverage of air targets, not targets on the ground.

    Generally in war time if you see planes take off you will generally direct aircraft to intercept them... if however they are heading for Iran... in this case a neutral country, then you don't waste resources chasing them... let them go... it costs them pilots and aircraft.

    If Iran was allowing them to land and then operate from Iranian territory then by all means shoot them down to prevent a sneak attack.

    But they kept them... mostly as war reparation for the Gulf war in the 1980s.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    sheytanelkebir
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 479
    Points : 496
    Join date : 2013-09-16

    Re: Desert Storm (1991): Why this success?

    Post  sheytanelkebir on Mon Apr 21, 2014 2:03 pm

    like I wrote before.

    The Iraqi Air Force interceptors were tasked with "convoy protection" for the planes flying to Iran.

    This included 2 tasks.

    1- escorting the aircraft to the border
    2- creating diversions for the US Air Force interceptors away from the convoy.

    Most of the evacuating aircraft left and arrived in Iran intact, there were 2-3 exceptions (1 Su-25, 1x Su22 and another one).
    Most of the Escort and diversion missions of the air force did their "job" OK within that silly constraint. i.e. the "ruse" managed to get the AWACS to send all the F15s towards the "MiG25" or "MiG29" whilst the SU22 / Mirage / Il76s made their ferry flight in safety.

    Of course it meant that the air force literally left the army to be slaughtered from the air... but the idiot saddam didn't seem too bothered... his sons weren't the ones getting plastered by B52s.

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    iraq war success

    Post  nemrod on Mon Mar 16, 2015 11:16 pm

    http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Media/Slideshow/2013/12/06/5-Expensive-Weapons-Programs-No-One-Wants

    The Iraq war is the best witness about the so-called successfulll of the M1 Abrams. Aside, the M1, it is usefull to add AH-64 Apache, and the M2 Bradley, as the M-16. No use to tell more.
    Concerning the A-10, I've already wrote an article about its so-called success. It is noteworthy to recall that A-10, and Apache indeed destroyed several hundreds if not thousands of iraqi military vehicles during the 1991 Desert Storm,  in highway of death. Why ? Because, once the ceasefire, and agreement signed by Iraqi president Saddam Hussayin, and Soviet Union, iraqi army started to withdraw from Kuwait. On each vehicles there was white flag, and the iraqis were honnest, they deactivated all their anti aircraft defense. Fatal error! Once the Anti Aircraft Defense deactivated, iraqi army fall in the trap, US corwardly sent their Apache, and A-10, F-15 E, Tornado GR1 to slaughter defenseless iraqi army. This is the brillant courage of US army. This is their true value. And they sold their filthy A-10 as effective. We saw A-10' effectiveness during Serbia War in 1999, nearly null.
    Concerning the so-called anti missile shield, it is a mere hollywood science fiction movie. This so called shield is useless against modern MIRV, MARV russian, chinese, iranian, north korean missiles.

    In this list it is usefull to add the F-22, F-15, F-18, AMRAAM, JDAM bombs etc... and of course the mega-king sitting duck aka JSF, the F-35.

    sheytanelkebir
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 479
    Points : 496
    Join date : 2013-09-16

    Re: Desert Storm (1991): Why this success?

    Post  sheytanelkebir on Tue Jun 23, 2015 12:28 am

    Just to continue on the topic of the mythical iraqi made T72 tanks "assad babil".

    Iraqis over on the iraqi military forum whonwere active officers and in taji say that not a single T72 was built in Iraq. Some were assembled from complete knock down kits where every single part down to nuts and bolts were made in Poland and Russia. Yet there persists the factoid of the "inferior iraqi made T72" perhaps as a way of explaining away it's lack of success against Abrams tanks .. Yet so far the proponents of this view have not show actual evidence of such a tank... And we now have plenty of pics of taji and iraqi tanks and modifications of all type... (SEE iraqi military forum).

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Desert Storm (1991): Why this success?

    Post  Mike E on Tue Jun 23, 2015 12:48 am

    sheytanelkebir wrote:Just to continue on the topic of the mythical iraqi made T72 tanks "assad babil".

    Iraqis over on the iraqi military forum whonwere active officers and in taji say that not a single T72 was built in Iraq. Some were assembled from complete knock down kits where every single part down to nuts and bolts were made in Poland and Russia. Yet there persists the factoid of the "inferior iraqi made T72" perhaps as a way of explaining away it's lack of success against Abrams tanks ..  Yet so far the proponents of this view have not show actual evidence of such a tank... And we now have plenty of pics of taji and iraqi tanks and modifications of all type... (SEE iraqi military forum).
    They were assembled *in Iraq* using parts from *Poland/Russia* and *Iraq*. It is an Iraqi modification, as I have been saying. Simply looking at it shows you its inferiority to Soviet and post-Soviet -72's.


    http://www.kentimmerman.com/news/tdl16.htm


    "The Taji weapons complex provided one of the keys to Saddam's ambition. Already, Thyssen Rheinstahl of West Germany had built a steel plant at Taji, which was churning out the basic materials needed for a wide variety of weapons. Since 1986, Ferrostaal and dozens of West German subcontractors were building a "universal forge" at Taji, with the full knowledge and approval of the Bonn government. According to documents quoted Hans Leyendecker and Richard Rickelmann of Der Spiegel and interviews with German customs officials, the plan was to build 1,000 artillery pieces per year at Taji, in calibers ranging from 105 mm to 203 mm.
    And in a separate production unit built by Kloeckner Industries of West Germany, Iraqi tanks were being rebuilt. In addition to retrofitting older T-54 and T-62, Iraqi officials say they began to assembly the newer T-72 in Taji in early 1989, in a license agreement signed with Bumar-Labedy of Poland. They called the new tank the "Asad Babil," or Lion of Babylon. But Iraqi armaments engineers, such as Lt. General Amer Rashid, were not content with just assembling the tanks from knock-down kits. They argued that once you factored in the cost of building the plant, kit assembly did not lead to any appreciable savings in the overall unit cost of the tank. He and his colleagues at MIMI wanted Taji to become a huge military and civilian steel manufacturing center for all sorts of applications, including tank bodies and tank armor. To finance it all, they turned to the BNL branch in Atlanta." 


    Taji was a production powerhouse... You claim no Asad's were built there but everything points to the exact opposite. In fact, from what I've heard, T-72M's were stationed there after Saddam's downfall because they could receive maintenance and new parts *from the Taji production facility*. 


    Iraq had the steel needed to produce vehicles...and captured Asad's seem to make it apparent they were indeed made using Iraqi steel. Iraq even laminated more steel on top as I'm sure you know. 


    Nothing points to the Asad not being an Iraqi vehicle except for a few members on a forum. 

    sheytanelkebir
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 479
    Points : 496
    Join date : 2013-09-16

    Re: Desert Storm (1991): Why this success?

    Post  sheytanelkebir on Tue Jun 23, 2015 10:43 am

    There is no forge in Taji to make tanks hulls / turrets. If there is show me a picture.

    Like I said. the tanks are 100% imported. by "kits" the tanks came assembled mechanically only electronics were installed etc locally.

    There is not a single "iraqi made" T72 tank ever built. Every single T72 tank that fought in 1991 and 2003 was built in USSR or Czechoslovakia or Poland.


    The fact that a simple "lie" was propagated and copied and circulated for so long doesn't make it fact. The US occupied Taji for 9 years. They never seem to have found this mythical tank forge... because it didn't exist. Taji has warehouses for overhaul of all types of equipment. Next door there is a factory for making missiles (its outside Taji)... they also make "add on armour" for different vehicles there as well as make their "franken" models (BTR-50 with EE-9 turret etc...), but they never ever built (as in FORGED STEEL) a single T72 tank there.

    and the onus is on providing "positive" evidence... the quotation you wrote above is from a book released in 1990... (imagine if we, today insisted that what happened in USSR was in line with a book written in the US in 1990). Wink



    just a disclaimer from me. I worked in a company in Baghdad in 2011, and one of the projects our company did was building the mil helicopter overhaul facility at Taji so I had the opportunity to interact with Taji insiders. I personally never went inside Taji though (i worked on different projects).



    there are of course many similar lies propagated about Iraq from the 1990 gulf war period that seem to have lingered purely because no one is interested in debunking them ... for example Iraq's "baghdad tunnel networks" (a small semi-recessed bomb shelter between the rasheed hotel and Conference Centre) amongst other howlers which were designed to "present" Iraq more as a 4th Reich in 1990 than as a small developing country (which it was).

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: Desert Storm (1991): Why this success?

    Post  sepheronx on Tue Jun 23, 2015 2:24 pm

    Then Iraq got ripped off by Poland/USSR on such tanks. Which sucks of course.

    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1149
    Points : 1162
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Desert Storm (1991): Why this success?

    Post  AlfaT8 on Tue Jun 23, 2015 5:20 pm

    Mike E wrote:
    sheytanelkebir wrote:Just to continue on the topic of the mythical iraqi made T72 tanks "assad babil".

    Iraqis over on the iraqi military forum whonwere active officers and in taji say that not a single T72 was built in Iraq. Some were assembled from complete knock down kits where every single part down to nuts and bolts were made in Poland and Russia. Yet there persists the factoid of the "inferior iraqi made T72" perhaps as a way of explaining away it's lack of success against Abrams tanks ..  Yet so far the proponents of this view have not show actual evidence of such a tank... And we now have plenty of pics of taji and iraqi tanks and modifications of all type... (SEE iraqi military forum).
    They were assembled *in Iraq* using parts from *Poland/Russia* and *Iraq*. It is an Iraqi modification, as I have been saying. Simply looking at it shows you its inferiority to Soviet and post-Soviet -72's.


    http://www.kentimmerman.com/news/tdl16.htm


    "The Taji weapons complex provided one of the keys to Saddam's ambition. Already, Thyssen Rheinstahl of West Germany had built a steel plant at Taji, which was churning out the basic materials needed for a wide variety of weapons. Since 1986, Ferrostaal and dozens of West German subcontractors were building a "universal forge" at Taji, with the full knowledge and approval of the Bonn government. According to documents quoted Hans Leyendecker and Richard Rickelmann of Der Spiegel and interviews with German customs officials, the plan was to build 1,000 artillery pieces per year at Taji, in calibers ranging from 105 mm to 203 mm.
    And in a separate production unit built by Kloeckner Industries of West Germany, Iraqi tanks were being rebuilt. In addition to retrofitting older T-54 and T-62, Iraqi officials say they began to assembly the newer T-72 in Taji in early 1989, in a license agreement signed with Bumar-Labedy of Poland. They called the new tank the "Asad Babil," or Lion of Babylon. But Iraqi armaments engineers, such as Lt. General Amer Rashid, were not content with just assembling the tanks from knock-down kits. They argued that once you factored in the cost of building the plant, kit assembly did not lead to any appreciable savings in the overall unit cost of the tank. He and his colleagues at MIMI wanted Taji to become a huge military and civilian steel manufacturing center for all sorts of applications, including tank bodies and tank armor. To finance it all, they turned to the BNL branch in Atlanta."


    Taji was a production powerhouse... You claim no Asad's were built there but everything points to the exact opposite. In fact, from what I've heard, T-72M's were stationed there after Saddam's downfall because they could receive maintenance and new parts *from the Taji production facility*.


    Iraq had the steel needed to produce vehicles...and captured Asad's seem to make it apparent they were indeed made using Iraqi steel. Iraq even laminated more steel on top as I'm sure you know.


    Nothing points to the Asad not being an Iraqi vehicle except for a few members on a forum.


    sheytanelkebir wrote:There is no forge in Taji to make tanks hulls / turrets. If there is show me a picture.

    Like I said. the tanks are 100% imported. by "kits" the tanks came assembled mechanically only electronics were installed etc locally.

    There is not a single "iraqi made" T72 tank ever built. Every single T72 tank that fought in 1991 and 2003 was built in USSR or Czechoslovakia or Poland.


    The fact that a simple "lie" was propagated and copied and circulated for so long doesn't make it fact. The US occupied Taji for 9 years. They never seem to have found this mythical tank forge... because it didn't exist. Taji has warehouses for overhaul of all types of equipment. Next door there is a factory for making missiles (its outside Taji)... they also make "add on armour" for different vehicles there as well as make their "franken" models (BTR-50 with EE-9 turret etc...), but they never ever built (as in FORGED STEEL) a single T72 tank there.

    and the onus is on providing "positive" evidence... the quotation you wrote above is from a book released in 1990... (imagine if we, today insisted that what happened in USSR was in line with a book written in the US in 1990). Wink



    just a disclaimer from me. I worked in a company in Baghdad in 2011, and one of the projects our company did was building the mil helicopter overhaul facility at Taji so I had the opportunity to interact with Taji insiders. I personally never went inside Taji though (i worked on different projects).



    there are of course many similar lies propagated about Iraq from the 1990 gulf war period that seem to have lingered purely because no one is interested in debunking them ... for example Iraq's "baghdad tunnel networks" (a small semi-recessed bomb shelter between the rasheed hotel and Conference Centre) amongst other howlers which were designed to "present" Iraq more as a 4th Reich in 1990 than as a small developing country (which it was).
    Hmmm... we need Iraqidabab to weigh in on this one. Neutral

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Desert Storm (1991): Why this success?

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:22 am

    Whether Iraq made the T-72s that were used in DS or just assembled parts made elsewhere is not that important.

    What is important is that the models they had in DS were very different from the models the Soviets had in service, and that fighting in open desert terrain with no air cover and the enemy controlling the skies just compounded their problems.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    sheytanelkebir
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 479
    Points : 496
    Join date : 2013-09-16

    Re: Desert Storm (1991): Why this success?

    Post  sheytanelkebir on Wed Jun 24, 2015 3:13 pm

    GarryB wrote:Whether Iraq made the T-72s that were used in DS or just assembled parts made elsewhere is not that important.

    What is important is that the models they had in DS were very different from the models the Soviets had in service, and that fighting in open desert terrain with no air cover and the enemy controlling the skies just compounded their problems.

    yes. that is 100% correct. the Iraqi tanks were simple export versions and operating against the full might of a superpower in very open terrain... ripe for slaughter.

    In fact the number of tanks that were "assembled" locally (NOT produced) never exceeded more than 10% of the total number of T72s that Iraq operated... the other 90% of the T72s could not even be blamed on Iraqis wrongly fitting bolts and screws, and were directly imported as complete assembled tanks from USSR, Poland and Czechoslovakia.

    There's really no need to therefore invent "mythical" excuses for the export version of the T72 such as "they built a copy themselves with inferior metallurgy" etc... in fact the T72 did pretty well against Iranian and kuwaiti chieftains, M60s etc... over a combat period of 10 years in Iraqi service alone... the fact that they couldn't survive a massed assault by apaches A10s and M1A1s is not a surprise, nor an indication that the tanks themselves are bad for the job they were designed for.

    The keenest point of that is that the Iraqis, after 2003, continued buying and renovating T72s and were not themselves overly impressed when operating the M1A1s... (of which they US offered them hundreds after the first batch and they declined the offers).

    That fact should be highlighted to illustrate that contrary to popular belief the T72 was not considered a failure or a bad tank, by the Iraqis themselves even after they operated M1A1s...

    Walther von Oldenburg
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 895
    Points : 952
    Join date : 2015-01-23
    Age : 25
    Location : Oldenburg

    Re: Desert Storm (1991): Why this success?

    Post  Walther von Oldenburg on Wed Jun 24, 2015 4:23 pm

    Iraqi T-72s were almost the same as Soviet T-72A from late 1970s=early 1980s. Only T-72B (introduced in 1985) was better. These tanks would fare excellent against M60s and early model M1s or Leo2s with some poor ammo - but my understanding is that only T-80U and T-72B could fight with M1A1 on equal grounds.

    Information is also crucial - if you know where your enemy is but he does not know where you are - you can dictate where and how to fight

    I wonder - if Iraqis were more competent (let's say, like Serbs in 1999) - would they be able to inflict high casualties on the coalition forces - a few thousand dead for example? AFAIK the most pessimistic analysts predicted 700 killed and most estimates were in the range of 3000-7000 killed coalition soldiers - while the entire campaign concluded with less than 400 casualties. This war is easily in the top 10 of the most lopsided conflcits in the history of mankind.

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3188
    Points : 3316
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Desert Storm (1991): Why this success?

    Post  flamming_python on Wed Jun 24, 2015 5:36 pm

    Walther von Oldenburg wrote:Iraqi T-72s were almost the same as Soviet T-72A from late 1970s=early 1980s. Only T-72B (introduced in 1985) was better. These tanks would fare excellent against M60s and early model M1s or Leo2s with some poor ammo - but my understanding is that only T-80U and T-72B could fight with M1A1 on equal grounds.

    Information is also crucial - if you know where your enemy is but he does not know where you are - you can dictate where and how to fight

    I wonder - if Iraqis were more competent (let's say, like Serbs in 1999) - would they be able to inflict high casualties on the coalition forces - a few thousand dead for example? AFAIK the most pessimistic analysts predicted 700 killed and most estimates were in the range of 3000-7000 killed coalition soldiers - while the entire campaign concluded with less than 400 casualties. This war is easily in the top 10 of the most lopsided conflcits in the history of mankind.

    You're a funny guy.

    Due to UN Sanctions, Iraq wasn't able to receive T-72M/T-72M1s whole; so they sourced parts from different Warsaw Pact nations in order to assemble these tanks on their own territory.
    The end tanks tended to vary in their features, with the better ones going to the Republican Guard; they were somewhere between the T-72M and T-72M1 in their capabilities.

    However, you can't compare them to T-72As - the Iraqi T-72s had similar armour; but optical rangefinders as opposed to laser ones, and no electronic FCS. Also they had obsolete night-vision equipment. Another thing was their ammo, which was subpar compared to standard Soviet tank rounds at the time.

    However that's only part of the story; the Iraqis in fact only managed to get a few hundred such locally assembled T-72M/T-72M1s in service.

    The rest of their T-72s were actually hybrids that the Iraqis later built due to difficulty acquiring parts, with even more downgraded capabilities and using local components.
    The first of these was the Saddam, with low-quality local parts, no shock absorbers and simplified electronic systems, with an IR searchlight in lieu of a proper night-vision system.
    But this was nothing compared to the Asad Babil; with severely downgraded armour due to the front-hull and turret armour array supplies having run out; and Iraq having to improvise with its own industries. The Asad Babil also had a normal searchlight instead of an IR one.

    Another detail is that Soviet T-72As went through several factory iterations, the last edition to be produced before the introduction of the T-72B had stronger base armour compared to the '79 T-72As, anti-radiation lining and Kontakt-1 ERA.

    Walther von Oldenburg
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 895
    Points : 952
    Join date : 2015-01-23
    Age : 25
    Location : Oldenburg

    Re: Desert Storm (1991): Why this success?

    Post  Walther von Oldenburg on Wed Jun 24, 2015 7:21 pm

    Some rangefinder would not change much. I think the only chance for Iraqis to inflict heavy casualties on US armor would be via ambushes

    ... but pulling it off on a large scale would be tough - and would require a masterfully prepared deception operation executed with no mistakes.

    sheytanelkebir
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 479
    Points : 496
    Join date : 2013-09-16

    Re: Desert Storm (1991): Why this success?

    Post  sheytanelkebir on Wed Jun 24, 2015 9:46 pm

    flamming_python wrote:
    Walther von Oldenburg wrote:Iraqi T-72s were almost the same as Soviet T-72A from late 1970s=early 1980s. Only T-72B (introduced in 1985) was better. These tanks would fare excellent against M60s and early model M1s or Leo2s with some poor ammo - but my understanding is that only T-80U and T-72B could fight with M1A1 on equal grounds.

    Information is also crucial - if you know where your enemy is but he does not know where you are - you can dictate where and how to fight

    I wonder - if Iraqis were more competent (let's say, like Serbs in 1999) - would they be able to inflict high casualties on the coalition forces - a few thousand dead for example? AFAIK the most pessimistic analysts predicted 700 killed and most estimates were in the range of 3000-7000 killed coalition soldiers - while the entire campaign concluded with less than 400 casualties. This war is easily in the top 10 of the most lopsided conflcits in the history of mankind.

    You're a funny guy.

    Due to UN Sanctions, Iraq wasn't able to receive T-72M/T-72M1s whole; so they sourced parts from different Warsaw Pact nations in order to assemble these tanks on their own territory.
    The end tanks tended to vary in their features, with the better ones going to the Republican Guard; they were somewhere between the T-72M and T-72M1 in their capabilities.

    However, you can't compare them to T-72As - the Iraqi T-72s had similar armour; but optical rangefinders as opposed to laser ones, and no electronic FCS. Also they had obsolete night-vision equipment. Another thing was their ammo, which was subpar compared to standard Soviet tank rounds at the time.

    However that's only part of the story; the Iraqis in fact only managed to get a few hundred such locally assembled T-72M/T-72M1s in service.

    The rest of their T-72s were actually hybrids that the Iraqis later built due to difficulty acquiring parts, with even more downgraded capabilities and using local components.
    The first of these was the Saddam, with low-quality local parts, no shock absorbers and simplified electronic systems, with an IR searchlight in lieu of a proper night-vision system.
    But this was nothing compared to the Asad Babil; with severely downgraded armour due to the front-hull and turret armour array supplies having run out; and Iraq having to improvise with its own industries. The Asad Babil also had a normal searchlight instead of an IR one.

    Another detail is that Soviet T-72As went through several factory iterations, the last edition to be produced before the introduction of the T-72B had stronger base armour compared to the '79 T-72As, anti-radiation lining and Kontakt-1 ERA.


    Iraq acquired it's t72 tanks during the 1980s.  They certainly bought black market spares during sanctions but they did not build any tanks apart from the few kits they had disassembled from the 80s (one or two dozen... A minute number compared to overall fleet).

    The entire story of Iraqi indigenous t72 with inferior metallurgy and parts is myth. By 2003 most of the tanks were nearly 20 years old and he newest ones were about 14 years old. All heavily used and abused in a series of wars. None were built from parts bought after 1990.

    Also 90% of iraqi T72 were supplied complete and ready built by USSR Poland and czechoslovakia. Local assembly was less than 100 kits in total. Iraqi T72 was a simplenimported t72m and T72m1. The T72m1 did lave laser range finder (even type 69 had laser range finder) they had simple infra red night vision... No thermals or anything. .. No era etc... But the metallurgy and manufacturing was 100% Warsaw Pact.

    VladimirSahin
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 362
    Points : 382
    Join date : 2013-11-29
    Age : 25
    Location : Some redneck state in the US.

    Re: Desert Storm (1991): Why this success?

    Post  VladimirSahin on Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:17 pm

    Quick question on Desert Storm, What were successes achieved by the Iraqi armed forces in this war?

    Sponsored content

    Re: Desert Storm (1991): Why this success?

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 8:17 pm


      Current date/time is Fri Dec 09, 2016 8:17 pm