T-90 in Comparison to Western Armour

Status
Not open for further replies.

shimmy

New Member
Impoortance of training

At this level of comparison isn't good training much more important than other considerations?That T-72's were destroyed in ODS says more about poor manning and training than the capabilities of the tank, I think. Intense training and good trainees are a top priority.
 

Chrom

New Member
At this level of comparison isn't good training much more important than other considerations?That T-72's were destroyed in ODS says more about poor manning and training than the capabilities of the tank, I think. Intense training and good trainees are a top priority.
Its only partially true. For example, no amount of training would enable 30-years old BM-15 rounds penetrate M1A2 armor. No amount of training would enable weared off guns shoot where they aimed. It would be also very hard to get any training without actually shooting from main gun - and Iraq couldnt allow that as they didnt had any replacement for main guns due to sanctions... Of course, with better taining Iraq army could inflict more losses to USA - but the outcome would be same in the end.
 

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Its only partially true. For example, no amount of training would enable 30-years old BM-15 rounds penetrate M1A2 armor. No amount of training would enable weared off guns shoot where they aimed. It would be also very hard to get any training without actually shooting from main gun - and Iraq couldnt allow that as they didnt had any replacement for main guns due to sanctions... Of course, with better taining Iraq army could inflict more losses to USA - but the outcome would be same in the end.
that holds some clout during the second conflict, during the first conflict poor training was a big factor, granted they were outclassed in weapons capabilities but a well trained army with good unit cohesion can rise up to the occasion and give you a bloody nose, good example would be U.S tanks during WW2 against German armor, head on they did not stand a chance causing the U.S to learn to hit them in the rear and flanks. The U.S military would of still defeated Iraq, but with better training the Iraqi`s could of made us pay the price as to where we would of noticed it.
 

Chrom

New Member
that holds some clout during the second conflict, during the first conflict poor training was a big factor, granted they were outclassed in weapons capabilities but a well trained army with good unit cohesion can rise up to the occasion and give you a bloody nose, good example would be U.S tanks during WW2 against German armor, head on they did not stand a chance causing the U.S to learn to hit them in the rear and flanks. The U.S military would of still defeated Iraq, but with better training the Iraqi`s could of made us pay the price as to where we would of noticed it.
But, in the first war, Iraqi tanks didnt have much chances to meet USA armor. Its was almost exclusively air-compaign... We dont know WHAT would happened IF USA decided to commit ground campaign against much better trained, motivated and supplied Iraq army in 1990x. They might well get that bloody nose... It was a very wise decision from Mj. Bush to NOT begin ground attack. Sadly, his son wasnt as smart as father...
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
In the end there were enough battles during ODS were US and allied armor performed very well against Iraqi tanks units without air support.
There are examples of Iraqi units which just lost a handfull of tanks during the air campaign but were crushed into the ground in some hours by advancing US tank units.

Both during day and night.

In the end the Iraqis had just no advantage on their side.

BTW, I think ODS is a good example how much more important training is than real battle experience.

The allied forces were totally "green" when it comes to real mech engagements but still performed very good.
 

Chrom

New Member
BTW, I think ODS is a good example how much more important training is than real battle experience.
You cant really compare one to the other. These are completely different things - and training is NOT substitute for battle experience. The reverse is also true thougth. As for ground skirmishes during ODS... hard to say - its much easer to kill hastly retreating enemy what moves back in chaos without clear command. Things could turn much different once Iraq army got to they prepared positions and regrouped. In fact, recently published documents uncovers what in 2003 Iraq war USA planned what Iraq army would surrender almost instantly, they bribed many Iraq's generals. But plan wasnt going that smooth in the end and USA got surprised by Iraq army resistance (suprised what was ANY resistance at all!) and were forced to imporvise on the fly.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I did not say that it is a substitute but I said that training is in my eyes more important (I would say much more) than battle experience.
 

Chrom

New Member
I did not say that it is a substitute but I said that training is in my eyes more important (I would say much more) than battle experience.
Well, you again trying to generalize. In reality its all about what training and how much battle experience, as one tends to include other.
 

TrangleC

New Member
I agree with Waylander. From my experience with matial arts i can say it really is a fact that when you train a lot, then in a unexpected serious situation, your body seems to do the right thing all by itself. I know there is a difference between some asshole threatening you with a knife on the parking lot of a movie theater and being in war, but the principle of doing the right thing in a dangerous situation (and being enabled to do that by a lot of training) is pretty much the same, i guess.
 

Chrom

New Member
I agree with Waylander. From my experience with matial arts i can say it really is a fact that when you train a lot, then in a unexpected serious situation, your body seems to do the right thing all by itself. I know there is a difference between some asshole threatening you with a knife on the parking lot of a movie theater and being in war, but the principle of doing the right thing in a dangerous situation (and being enabled to do that by a lot of training) is pretty much the same, i guess.
But are you sure what someone who never trained MA but was fighting street fights all year long will be much worse than you? Then think about someone who trained MA only 1 year but having 3 years real fighting experience vs someone ONLY training say 3 years? Think about it...
 

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Well, you again trying to generalize. In reality its all about what training and how much battle experience, as one tends to include other.
But if you look at it, Iraqi forces actually had more combat experience over ODS forces, did they not just get done fighting Iran for eight years, granted for the conscripts the majority were pretty much gone, but still they had NCO`s and their officer soldiers still in place. When you have good solid training it can pay off.
 

FutureTank

Banned Member
Its only partially true. For example, no amount of training would enable 30-years old BM-15 rounds penetrate M1A2 armor. No amount of training would enable weared off guns shoot where they aimed. It would be also very hard to get any training without actually shooting from main gun - and Iraq couldnt allow that as they didnt had any replacement for main guns due to sanctions... Of course, with better taining Iraq army could inflict more losses to USA - but the outcome would be same in the end.
Not true.
I know of at least one case where during WW2 a disabled T-34/76 destroyed three Tiger Is singlehandedly. The factor in that engagement was leadership on the part of the Soviet tank crew.

This is why I tend to stay out of these 'comparative' discussions. A tank is just a hunk of materials without its crew, and the crew have been known to do some amazing things with thier 'steeds' in all sorts of armies in all sorts of conflicts. Its not something that can be generalised to say that tank X is better then tank Y. Moreover, WW2 had shown that crews can make baest use of enemy designs if they have the combat expereince.

The problem with the Iraqi Army was leadership, not training, and its a problem endemic in the Islamic countries because it reflects social structuring and organisation.
 

Chrom

New Member
But if you look at it, Iraqi forces actually had more combat experience over ODS forces, did they not just get done fighting Iran for eight years, granted for the conscripts the majority were pretty much gone, but still they had NCO`s and their officer soldiers still in place. When you have good solid training it can pay off.
But the very same could be said about USA commanders left from Vietnam war. No? I agree with you what USA soldiers and officers was so much better trained & equipped what it didnt matter if they had less battle experience than Iraq soldier. But here we are speaking about overhelming advantage on all levels - not only just training. Training was only a part of advantage.
 

FutureTank

Banned Member
But the very same could be said about USA commanders left from Vietnam war. No?
Nothing can be sais about the amount of expereince Irai creqs gained during war with Iran. By and large it was not a war of manoeuvre where mechanised forces were able to practice operational doctrines like those developed by Soviet Union and NATO.

The expereince of US tankers in Vietnam is even less illustrative of the effect of systems on combat. US tank unit performance ows most of its success almost entirely to leadership and professionalism of its crews since they were operating in terrain generally unintended for operation by their units at least until 1966, and in vehicles that were being replaced throughout the US forces even as they deployed. In fact I think the Vietnam tank units were the last in US force tructure to use 90mm guns (outside of ANG). The expereince gained in Vietnam would have been useless in Europe and visa versa.
 

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
But the very same could be said about USA commanders left from Vietnam war. No?
During that time there wasn`t alot of Vietnam vets still in the system except for some high ranking field grade officers, when I first entered the U.S Army in the early eighties there were loads of them especially NCO`s, but after putting in twenty years they pretty much retired. When we still had them serving they were a valuable asset for us, especially in training.
 

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Nothing can be sais about the amount of expereince Irai creqs gained during war with Iran. By and large it was not a war of manoeuvre where mechanised forces were able to practice operational doctrines like those developed by Soviet Union and NATO.

The expereince of US tankers in Vietnam is even less illustrative of the effect of systems on combat. US tank unit performance ows most of its success almost entirely to leadership and professionalism of its crews since they were operating in terrain generally unintended for operation by their units at least until 1966, and in vehicles that were being replaced throughout the US forces even as they deployed. In fact I think the Vietnam tank units were the last in US force tructure to use 90mm guns (outside of ANG). The expereince gained in Vietnam would have been useless in Europe and visa versa.
Good points - I can honestly say that the only thing that I could learn in-regards to Vietnam was small leader and engagement tactics up to platoon strength, and even that was minimal.
 

TrangleC

New Member
But are you sure what someone who never trained MA but was fighting street fights all year long will be much worse than you? Then think about someone who trained MA only 1 year but having 3 years real fighting experience vs someone ONLY training say 3 years? Think about it...
Well, that might sound over confident or arogant, but yes, i'm pretty sure i could defeat a experienced street fighter who is tough and fast, but has no MA education. After all, MA was invented to defend yourself against tough and fast attackers and there would be no point in all those centuries of people inventing and evolving MA if it wouldn't give you an advantage.

The most effective MAs are based on real science and basic principles. In the Wing Tzun system and some modernised Karate systems, you rather learn how to utilize those basic principles instead of just training ritualized movements.

One of that principles is, for example, not to block fists, but to block ellbows. When somebody tries to hit you, his ellbow moves 2.5 times slower than his fist. So if you use your full speed to intercept not his fist but his ellbow, you have a hughe speed advantage.
And if you are good enough you don't block anything, but divert the energy of your opponent's movement into a direction that suits you, without needing much energy. That way you can even defeat people who are not only stronger but even faster than you.
It's things like that you don't learn in street fights and pub brawls.

It's applied science and the experience generations of people made in fist fights before you that makes up the things you learn and train in a decent MA school.

And here we got the similarity to military training. Sure, experience is a good thing, but in the end every single soldier can only accumulate a very limited amount of experience, even if he sees many battles. Every situation is different and what one soldier learned by his own experience is different from what another has learned.
Training means to learn and to profit from the experience of many soldiers that came before you.

I think the main advantage of battle experience is less that seasoned soldiers really know so much more about what to do in a battle than a well trained but inexperienced soldier, but more that they are more used to the stress and terror of combat and keep a cool head. But i think the way very well trained soldiers tend to do the things they have learned in a state of being somehow emotional detached, compensates for that. You somehow slip into "the zone" and it's a bit as if you would step outside yourself and watch what you are doing from the outside when you apply what you have learned in a lot of training.
I guess you know how that feels too, from work or maybe from playing a computer game very often till you are able to do things without thinking about it anymore.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
There was nearly no experience in mechanised/tank maneuver warfare in the west since 40 years (Except from looking at the Israeli-Arab wars).


Let's take for example NATO forces like the Netherlands, Denmark or Germany.

I don't think that they would significantly perform less successfull against battle experienced US forces which fought during desert storm (Given roughly the same equipment for both sides).

I don't want to say that it has no influence but it has much less than some might think.

@Future Tank
This is a nice example but it is not a statistic.
For sure training, courage and battle experience can help you overcome many disadvantages.

But your goal should be that even if you face somebody who is nearly equal in training and numbers you should have an technological edge.
And tech helps you to minimize casualties even if you would have won with less capable tech.

It has been said before. The overall outcome of ODS would have been the same with the US fielding M60A3s for example but it would have caused more casualties.
 

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
There was nearly no experience in mechanised/tank maneuver warfare in the west since 40 years (Except from looking at the Israeli-Arab wars).


Let's take for example NATO forces like the Netherlands, Denmark or Germany.

I don't think that they would significantly perform less successfull against battle experienced US forces which fought during desert storm (Given roughly the same equipment for both sides).

I don't want to say that it has no influence but it has much less than some might think.

@Future Tank
This is a nice example but it is not a statistic.
For sure training, courage and battle experience can help you overcome many disadvantages.

But your goal should be that even if you face somebody who is nearly equal in training and numbers you should have an technological edge.
And tech helps you to minimize casualties even if you would have won with less capable tech.

It has been said before. The overall outcome of ODS would have been the same with the US fielding M60A3s for example but it would have caused more casualties.
I for one would not look forward to fighting Germany or the UK in a meeting engagement, especially after training with some of their units. Let me also say that I never would ever under estimate any country in combat, a bullet doesn`t discriminate who it hits after it leaves the barrel. I hear alot of folks out there that under estimate North Korean capabilities due to not having alot of technical type weapons systems, but their training and high moral would play a major factor into any future battle.:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top