Great Tank Battles

[2ndACR]

Kuwaiti Liberation Medals......from the Saudi and Kuwaiti Govt's. Big gaudy things. LOL

Well, we were trained to fight the Russian Bear. My Regiment spent 200+ days of the year in the field. Border 30 days, back 2 weeks, Graf 30 days, back 2 weeks, Hoenfelds 30 days......repeat. We (VII Corps) actually wanted to leave our tanks and Brads painted forest green so that the Iraqi's knew they were fighting the 1st String. LOL

Current will be too close to politics so will leave it alone. But sort of hard to fight an enemy who doesn't "play" by the rules yet you are hampered by rules out the wazoo. Expensive was the dumb re-building. Go in, whip butt, leave. They will get the message sooner or later. I would have given it to the Kurds myself.

OOPS, I went and answered.

[Fred98]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Nope, Iran would be no different. I highly doubt any ME country would even try to combat the US in a straight up fight ala GW1.

Iran would not try to combat the US in a straight up fight ala GW1.

Instead Iran would do something clever.

I dont know what but it would be designed to counter the superior US men and the superior US weapons.

-

[2ndACR]

They would fade away and hide like little girls behind civilians and launch attacks against our civilians here.

[Fred98]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

They would fade away and hide like little girls behind civilians and launch attacks against our civilians here.

In which case you will hold you're fire.

-

[2ndACR]

Hence the "hamstrung by rules" when they don't heed them. One reason why they should not receive any Geneva Convention protections. Remove the uniform in combat and you cease being a soldier protected and become a mad dog that needs to be put down. 

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

But sort of hard to fight an enemy who doesn't "play" by the rules yet you are hampered by rules out the wazoo.

On the other hand, you aren't hampered by lack of training, weapons, tons of life-saving technology, etc. that was bought by the same public that wants you to follow the rules. I'm not sure if they'd bother to spend as much money on minimizing losses if they wouldn't have that life cult mentality.

The main problem with the enemy is that they don't value human life. It means that they can just sacrifice tens of thousands of their fighters and murder people left and right just to keep you spending money on guided munitions, repairing/replacing extremely expensive hardware, developing specialised weapon systems and staying there for years or even decades. It's basically like fighting against a computer gamer. I don't think it would be possible to influence them just by breaking the rules unless it would be something like wholesale genocide.

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Expensive was the dumb re-building. Go in, whip butt, leave. They will get the message sooner or later. I would have given it to the Kurds myself.

I agree. I have accurately predicted that lots of bombings and suicide bombings would be the most probable reaction to occupation, no matter how noble are the reasons for it.

[2ndACR]

A lot of the animosity we faced in the South was due to the 1st GW. Bush Sr had been calling for them to rise up and rebel all the time. When they did, we turned our backs on them while they got massacred almost in front of us. The culture over there says to hold a grudge. heck I had 1st Crusade stuff tossed at me while there. Of course they did not want to hear that the 1st Crusade was a retaliation of the Muslim invasion of Europe.[8|][8|]

I am just hard core enough to get banned, so will leave the rest of this alone if I can. It is not nice so use imagination.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Perturabo
What I have found bizarre was that it wasn't just a question of technology ... but also a question of cultural flaws that make their military function completely irrationally.

That was the Soviet excuse: blame the iraqis and their islamic culture to explain away the relatively poor performance of Warsaw Pact armaments against that of the coalition during ODS.

Many of us didn't buy it then, and still don't accept it today.

ORIGINAL: Perturabo
But did he predict that their refusal to give up would make wars with middle eastern countries very expensive?

Keegen is a military historian and analyst, not a macro-economist.

ORIGINAL: Perturabo
KLMs? Also, I didn't mean the ODS. I meant the latter wars that actually involved a government change ...

Then you should have said so; The Mil Channel's "Greatest Tank Battles" depiction of the battle of 73 Easting was during Gulf War I under Schwarzkopf when GW Sr. was Cdr in Chief.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR
... One reason why they should not receive any Geneva Convention protections. Remove the uniform in combat and you cease being a soldier ...

Actually there are several Geneva Conventions; the document you refer to defines a soldier as wearing a recognizable uniform with visible rank insignia and weapon and who is responsible to superiors in an established chain of command, but I recall reading that later Conventions required participating nations to grant Geneva protection status even if these rules aren't followed, and supposedly the US signed-off on this as well.

[2ndACR]

Would not surprise me at all that we would agree to this. But if IIRC, if the other party does not follow the conventions then the other warring party is not bound by them either. Not that we would ever be allowed to do that.[8|]

[HansHafen]

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: cantona2

Gulf War great tank battle?!??! Air supremacy vs tanks = no tank battle! ...

Actually it was the battle of 73 easting: Bradleys w/TOWs and M1 Abrams vs. stationary Soviet arm'd vehicles, and I don't recall that any "Warthogs" were involved.

I've read a study of that battle. It would be a pretty bloody battle for Americans if there weren't three factors involved:
1. The Iraqi didn't know how to dig in properly. They made sand berms instead of properly digging in their tanks. A properly dug tank "trench" should be deep enough to hide the whole tank with a part where tank can drive forward and show just a turret to fire at enemies.
Result: Americans could see the tanks and fire through sand berms.
2. A big part of Iraqi weren't in their tanks. They stayed outside from fear of air-strikes. A lot of tanks were destroyed without crew inside.
3. They didn't set up early warning posts that would warn them that Americans are coming and would allow them to get into tanks.

Apparently it's because the Middle East has a culture of treasuring knowledge for personal advantage and not passing it to subordinates.

Do you really believe the complete destruction of the Iraqi Army is explained by not digging in properly? Do you believe the Iraqi's couldn't HEAR 100 mechanized vehicles coming their way? No, the Iraqi's would have been destroyed even if they were dug in like ticks and they slept in their vehicles.

[HansHafen]

ORIGINAL: bairdlander

USA will never attack an adversary that they think will give them a bloody nose.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Sounds like a good policy to me. Of course, anyone out there that thinks they have big pants on can attack us any time they like, right?

[HansHafen]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: Perturabo
What I have found bizarre was that it wasn't just a question of technology ... but also a question of cultural flaws that make their military function completely irrationally.

That was the Soviet excuse: blame the iraqis and their islamic culture to explain away the relatively poor performance of Warsaw Pact armaments against that of the coalition during ODS.

Many of us didn't buy it then, and still don't accept it today.

ORIGINAL: Perturabo
But did he predict that their refusal to give up would make wars with middle eastern countries very expensive?

Keegen is a military historian and analyst, not a macro-economist.

ORIGINAL: Perturabo
KLMs? Also, I didn't mean the ODS. I meant the latter wars that actually involved a government change ...

Then you should have said so; The Mil Channel's "Greatest Tank Battles" depiction of the battle of 73 Easting was during Gulf War I under Schwarzkopf when GW Sr. was Cdr in Chief.

I recommend taking a look at a small book by Osprey called M1 Abrams vs T-72 Ural: Operation Desert Storm 1991. It argues the US MBT went up against a Warsaw Pact T-72 that was slightly outdated comparatively. As you would imagine, the Iraqi's didn't get the latest and greatest T-72. Those were in Russia's hands. Also, the Iraqi's had less training and older ammunition and no gyro stabilizers either (iirc).

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: Perturabo
What I have found bizarre was that it wasn't just a question of technology ... but also a question of cultural flaws that make their military function completely irrationally.

That was the Soviet excuse: blame the iraqis and their islamic culture to explain away the relatively poor performance of Warsaw Pact armaments against that of the coalition during ODS.

Why would they need an excuse for performance of downgraded export versions of their hardware? It's not like they were advertising their stuff by saying that it will perform well against arms used by a world super-power.
Also, it the explanation wasn't created by the Soviets. It's an American explanation of why Americans took much lower losses in reality than in computer simulations of that battle. The point of that explanation was that skills of soldiers and leaders are as important as technology and that the myth of technology alone deciding about results of battles is harmful.
While Warsaw Pact tanks couldn't pierce the armour of M1 Abrams tanks, they certainly could pierce armour of Bradleys and only one Bradley was lost to enemy fire.

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: Perturabo
But did he predict that their refusal to give up would make wars with middle eastern countries very expensive?

Keegen is a military historian and analyst, not a macro-economist.

ORIGINAL: Perturabo
KLMs? Also, I didn't mean the ODS. I meant the latter wars that actually involved a government change ...

Then you should have said so; The Mil Channel's "Greatest Tank Battles" depiction of the battle of 73 Easting was during Gulf War I under Schwarzkopf when GW Sr. was Cdr in Chief.

You were talking about predictions about how no 3rd world army would pose a problem to a modern western army. Getting bogged down in 6 years of an expensive counterinsurgency campaign proves that it's patently false.

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Would not surprise me at all that we would agree to this. But if IIRC, if the other party does not follow the conventions then the other warring party is not bound by them either. Not that we would ever be allowed to do that.[8|]

Shouldn't they get tried for war crimes anyway?

ORIGINAL: HansHafen

Do you really believe the complete destruction of the Iraqi Army is explained by not digging in properly? Do you believe the Iraqi's couldn't HEAR 100 mechanized vehicles coming their way? No, the Iraqi's would have been destroyed even if they were dug in like ticks and they slept in their vehicles.

I never claimed they wouldn't be destroyed.

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

A lot of the animosity we faced in the South was due to the 1st GW. Bush Sr had been calling for them to rise up and rebel all the time. When they did, we turned our backs on them while they got massacred almost in front of us.

So, they don't like USA because USA has no honour and turns its back on their allies? That's almost unheard of! How can they hold grudge for being lied to and getting massacred? How it's even possible[8|]?

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

heck I had 1st Crusade stuff tossed at me while there. Of course they did not want to hear that the 1st Crusade was a retaliation of the Muslim invasion of Europe.[8|][8|]

1st Crusade wasn't a retaliation for the Muslim invasion of Europe. Reconquista was and it happened several centuries earlier.
1st Crusade happened because the Pope has decided to help the Byzantine Emperor to repel the Seljuk Turk invaders and to get rid of thousands of armed troublemakers from Europe at the same time.

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Nope, no A10's. We actually fought (all of 2nd ACR) 3 brigades. 1 from Tawakana, 1 from Medina, 1 from Hamarabi divisions. Eagle 2/2 hit the stationary, but we also had Fox, Ghost and Hawk company engaged. Hawk tangled with a brigade that was fleeing the Brit's and 1st Cav and almost ran into our combat trains.

We lost a gunner in a Ghost troop Brad during the fight. Our M109 battery fired 2600 shells during the battle. Almost 12 hours long. Visibility sucked massively. Even with thermals. Towards the end of the battle we passed 1st Inf thru our lines during the battle at night. We then went into Corp reserve.

Our S2 recorded a broadcast from the radio that said "we have found, fixed and destroyed the 2nd ACR" and at that moment you can hear in the background our contact reports coming in.

Is there scenario about that for WinSPMBT? Or any other wargame?

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Perturabo
Why would they need an excuse for performance of downgraded export versions of their hardware? It's not like they were advertising their stuff by saying that it will perform well against arms used by a world super-power

Most nations, including the former Sovet Union, sold their mil hardware to other nations, esp. in the 3rd world.

ORIGINAL: Perturabo
You were talking about predictions about how no 3rd world army would pose a problem to a modern western army. Getting bogged down in 6 years of an expensive counterinsurgency campaign proves that it's patently false.

Apples and oranges: the context of my comparison was on the actual battlefield, as was that of the Greatest Tank Battles program: both have nothing to do with counterinsurgencies or military-industrial complexes.

[Jeffrey H.]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Well, not bloody at all really. We took a mission kill M1a1 (engine took a hit and part of the track gone, missing 2 road wheels) backed a captured T72 about 400 meters away and shot it from the side. Did not penetrate the armor. Spalling would have hurt the crew. The Iraqi's were using home made in Iraq ammo for the tanks, they lacked the punch of true Russian tank rounds. Plus the Iraqi tankers really did not know how to fight their vehicles.

2nd Day of ground war, we rolled thru a bunker complex (thought it was abandoned), stopped to prepare to do a fast sweep, when up pops an Iraqi soldier out of a bunker, he dove back in, and you could hear the shouting, seconds later, all kinds of weapons were being thrown out of bunkers all over the place. 275 or so prisoners. Our Saudi interpreter said they had a report of us being 30 miles away about 2 hours before we got there. They figured we would arrive the next day. Never thought we could move that fast. But my memory is foggy after all these years. The distance could have been further.

After 73 Easting, when ever we came upon Iraqi armor (or any vehicles for that matter) we would pop a round nearby, the Iraqi would stop, bail out, run about 300 meters and plop to the ground, then we would destroy the vehicle. They learned that being in the vehicle was certain death. I honestly cannot remember if we ever had any air support outside our own attack helicopter squadron and the Apache Battalion we had assigned to us. We rolled thru areas that had been B52 strikes on them, and there were craters everywhere, but alot of times we never could figure out what they were hitting.

But the Iraqi's were terrified of the A10 and Apache. Not to mention any of our M1a1's or Brads. I know it is not politically correct, but I hold all Arab/Middle east armies in extremely low regard. Except the Israel army. All the others, well, I do not fear them in the least, at all.

Seriously, you should write a book. I'll bet it would really be a great read.

[2ndACR]

Nah, not a writer. Love to read them. Plus my view was a really small part. I can only go by what I saw and such.

Thanks though.

[ilovestrategy]

ORIGINAL: bairdlander

USA will never attack an adversary that they think will give them a bloody nose.

This is pretty good military advice for any country. Why do you think we left Japanese garrisons stranded on islands in the Pacific?

When I was in the Marines we were taught to "Never fight a battle you don't need to fight."

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

But the Iraqi's were terrified of the A10 and Apache ...

After an A-10 mistakenly "lit-up" a Marine LAV killing its crew, we ALL were afraid of them.