Lets get the 260 batch completed with training before we can think of additional M1A1 purchases.
Iraq to Receive M1's?!
- Thread starter Feanor
- Start date
Russian tanks are not completely rubbish. During the Cold War, they could have defeated NATO tanks if used properly. Your country had the poor fortune of buying Soviet Monkey Models for a cheap price. Saddam Hussein seems to prefer quantity of tanks over quality. (That's why he has so many outdated T-55s, T-62s, and T-72M1s. How'd you expect him to win a fight against an Abrams?)
Quality was terrible. You guys used substandard munitions ( if you could get them) like the 3BM17/18 without their tungsten cores. Instead, you've got steel-sheathed sabots instead. Some of your tanks also used training munitions I've heard.
Moreover, the lack of real tactical use of these tanks in maneuver warfare and the very poor training of your brethren in operating these tanks further exacerbated your losses. Assuming they were slightly modified to at least a T-72B standard, they might've (and that is a very big if) stood a slightly bigger chance.
Quality was terrible. You guys used substandard munitions ( if you could get them) like the 3BM17/18 without their tungsten cores. Instead, you've got steel-sheathed sabots instead. Some of your tanks also used training munitions I've heard.
Moreover, the lack of real tactical use of these tanks in maneuver warfare and the very poor training of your brethren in operating these tanks further exacerbated your losses. Assuming they were slightly modified to at least a T-72B standard, they might've (and that is a very big if) stood a slightly bigger chance.
True.
Please tell me more? Please consider providing the source that leads you to an opinion, as stated above.
Source please?
Please remember, eckherl is very different from hobbyists like you and me. He can teach you how to operate and employ a tank. Further, he is privy to non-open source information.
Please explain. Don't understand your logic yet...
I wasn't referring to echkerl, as you state that he is a professional, not like us hobbyists. I respect that. I won't interfere or say anything about that. But I wasn't referring to him, rather I was talking to Almaleki. Just to get that cleared up if you thought I was talking to echkerlTrue.
Please tell me more? Please consider providing the source that leads you to an opinion, as stated above.
Source please?
Please explain. Don't understand you logic yet...
Well, to tell you the truth, I have this book written by some western guy. Forgot his name. It belonged to my dad. So anyway, the book was named something like Soviet Ground Forces Guide or some other. In that book, I've read that the East German Soviet Forces Group was capable of overwhelming tanks in the even of a full-scale military conventional war breaking out in Central Europe as planned by Soviet Tacticians. The author suggested that such a plan would be successful if several other factors (notably being AA coverage, control of the seas and what not) were present. But of course, I forgot to mention that this book was written in the 70s, where the Abrams was just entering prototype (possibly even production stage) already. At that time, the author noted (to my great pleasure
) that western MBTs were still equipped with L/7 (or was it L/6?), better known as the M68 for you Americans, 105 mm Rifled Gun by Royal Ordinance and some already had the L-44 120mm guns as well. The 125 mm smoothbore D-81T introduction on the T-72 and T-64 which were already mass-produced at the time (as the author states again) since the late 60s and early 70s were more than capable of handling the Leo 1s and Chieftains and Challi Ones of the time. Don't know how far this was true but the book was released in the US during that time period, I'll have to assume the author did his homework. You may contest his info if you wish, I have nothing to lie about anyway. Almaleki cites his Defense Minister claiming Russian weapons to be "rubbish." I'd interpret that he was implying that he agrees. They are not rubbish, it's just that they got monkey models. And, a Wikipedia (not the most accurate website on earth, but it's for my convenience) cites that there about 1500 T-62s in 1990 before the war for the Iraqi Army. There is no solid number for the T-55 or T-72, but I'd assume that both would be around above 500. (correct me if I am wrong)
The websites :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-62#Models
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-72
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-54/T-55_operators_and_variants#Iraq
Gotta scroll down a bit a take look.
And most importantly, the use of these tanks in a static manner was wrong of Iraqi Command. Tanks are clearly used for dynamic warfare. That's how they came about in 1917-1918. If you used them as pillboxes, you're at a disadvantage. I also point out later that if the T-72s were moved up to the B standard, their chances of survival would slightly increase. (Though still prone to lose in a fight against the abrams I assure you)
I notice that Almaleki likes to call all weapons as 'rubbish' (in a mocking way). Almaleki has been told not to do that.
When I asked you for sources and said 'please explain', it was a kinder way of telling you you don't make sense in some parts of your post and that you should read more. So go flip you father's book and check again before replying.
In the way that you have described Iraqi Command, it seems to me that you assume that the Iraqi tank commanders were stupid. That was not the case. They certainly knew more than you (and their survival depended on it). Do you think they wanted to die? They did not have air superiority, their platforms (T-72s) were more than over matched by coalition tanks and the Iraqi commanders faced constrains that you cannot easily imagine. They were facing the American/coalition forces, which was an army with arguably the BEST tank tactics in the world and the best tank killers. In informational terms, the American/coalition forces had superior intelligence, were able to achieve tactical surprise in some cases and were also able to engage in maneuver warfare. Other armies are still studying how American/coalition forces did it.
So please do not assume.
Read a little more, it would make your posts more interesting.
Last edited:
Just a sideline to add to this, try playing the game Steel Panthers II, specifically the real-life 1991 scenario which puts you in charge of an Iraqi armoured force against the US which clearly shows you how overmatched the Iraqis were in the encounter, anyone who won that scenario probably hacked the game somehow
@Tavarisch, don't feel bad, just learn and try not to repeat the same mistakes.I never thought of it that way before.... I guess I have been humbled. (I deserve it)
I wanted to show you a sample of what I mean by reading more and having data to support your argument. Please see my post in the RMAF thread on data on the the expanding battlefield from WWII to the GW. And you'll see what I mean when I say "other armies are still studying how American/coalition forces did it."
This way, I hope you will find that my above criticism is not destructive but constructive in enabling you to learn more. IMHO, this data supports my argument in that thread on the importance of the coherence of the logistics system to a modern military.
Last edited: