Tanks In The Current War

Belisarius · Post by **Belisarius** » Tue Apr 08, 2003 10:54 pm

Just because we haven't seen them doesn't mean they're not there. The Republican Guard might hold them within Bagdad, which is reasonable seeing as everything that moves into open ground is dead meat.

Not that living is easy in Baghdad either. :rolleyes:

Yeah, I heard that a lone B-1 dropped 4 2000-pound bombs on a building. A reporter for one of our national channels said "well, if they really got Saddam, they won't be able to tell"...

bigtroutz · Post by **bigtroutz** » Tue Apr 08, 2003 10:58 pm

Originally posted by Vetkin
Why haven't we seen any Iraqi T-72s? Shouldn't they have been deployed to block the highway to Baghdad?

The T-72s have AT-8 missiles which have a much longer range than handheld AT missiles. Not even BMPs or a single BRDM... where is all the Iraqi armor??

BTW the building where Saddam and his sons and all high ranking officers are staying was bombed with 8,000 pounds of bombs...

I don't think we'll be seeing the information minister giving out rallying speeches anymore... :rolleyes:

There have been a number of T-72s shown on CNN, etc, mostly brewing up, like those used in the Bagdad Intl Airport counterattack and some others encountered by the Marines from Al KUT to Bagdad.

I have heard some interesting speculation from analysts that those so-called "surrender" talks early in the war were in fact executed by the Iragi brass having the units walk away from their equipment. Others say that the vast majority of the 900 approx tanks left in their inventory were simply bombed before they could be used against US troops. You pick.

tracer · Post by **tracer** » Tue Apr 08, 2003 11:12 pm

This story: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20030408/ts_usatoday/5045372 quotes a Pentagon source and says out of their pre-war inventory of 800 tanks the Republican Guard has 'a handful' left. I saw another story this morning that put that number at 19, almost all of which are north of the city.

Seems to me that infantry-AT weapons would yeild better results on the current (urban) battlefield.

tracer · Post by **tracer** » Tue Apr 08, 2003 11:18 pm

Originally posted by Belisarius

Yeah, I heard that a lone B-1 dropped 4 2000-pound bombs on a building. A reporter for one of our national channels said "well, if they really got Saddam, they won't be able to tell"...

Too true! Two had hardened penetrators and the other 2 had delayed fuses...4 tons

...if he was there they'll be lucky if they find his moustache intact.

fireball · Post by **fireball** » Wed Apr 09, 2003 5:34 am

Originally posted by Voriax
'may not'??? You mean 'will not', right?

Although these russian reports feel much more reliable than the official pentagon or western news agency reports, the truth is somewhere in between. I'd say.

I personally wouldn't be surprised if eventually these russian reports are more accurate...

For example, during the previous Iraq war about 85% of CNN's 'hot news' items were wrong and they usually didn't send any corrections...the need to be 'first' overrode the need for accurate reporting.

Voriax

The data on that site is from www.iraqwar.ru , which is widely regarded by the serious as propaganda coming from a fellow named Venik. The same guy claimed that Allied forces had lost hundreds of aircraft in 1999 over the FRY, when in fact two were lost. There is absolutely nothing to back up his claims.

fireball

Irinami · Post by **Irinami** » Wed Apr 09, 2003 6:59 am

True, fireball. Would anyone be terribly surprised if Russia--with the rather hefty debt owed to them by Iraq--would want this war to turn out in the proverbial history books to be worse than it is? Sure they won't get their money back, but there is a satisfaction and vengeance.

fireball · Post by **fireball** » Wed Apr 09, 2003 7:36 am

Originally posted by Irinami
True, fireball. Would anyone be terribly surprised if Russia--with the rather hefty debt owed to them by Iraq--would want this war to turn out in the proverbial history books to be worse than it is? Sure they won't get their money back, but there is a satisfaction and vengeance.

It's not that so much as the rest of the world seeing their military equipment is, for the most part, ****.

The Iraqis payed (or at least agreed to pay) billions of dollars for those mighty Russian tanks and airplanes and you can see what they got for it: depleted uranium enemas.

All the military equipment that they produced is a matter of pride really for the Russians, and to some extent the Ukranians.

fireball

tohoku · Post by **tohoku** » Wed Apr 09, 2003 8:40 am

Originally posted by fireball
It's not that so much as the rest of the world seeing their military equipment is, for the most part, ****.

That's unfair. They've not been supplied with proper parts for years, the crews receive awful training and they are stuck using domestically produced rounds. I'd be surprised if they managed to do anything with them. Hell, during the first war in Kuwait they were reduced at one point to firing practice rounds instead of proper live rounds; it's not wonder they're doing so poorly after twelve years of sanctions.

But don't disrespect the equipment just because it came from Russia. In good hands it should make anything else on the battlefield (if it has the sense) pause for thought. The 125mm *is* a powerful gun.

BTW, since when did the *T72* start using missles?! You're all thinking of later (T80BD/U and T90 etc) models - ones the Iraqis simply don't *have* IIRC.

Vetkin · Post by **Vetkin** » Wed Apr 09, 2003 8:41 am

I'm wondering what if Russia suddenly decides to back Iraq in some way, now that US troops has attacked the Russian ambassador & consul that were fleeing from Baghdad... It's far-fetched but you never know.

BTW does anybody here know if the T-95 is already in use? It's rumored to have a 135mm gun that has the range of the M1's 120mm but have better penetration. It also has enough armor to stop an APFSDS round (supposedly, or at least make it bounce off)

Imagine if the US and Russia goes to war (theoretical)
Not that I would want them to..

M1A2 vs T-95
Mi-28 Havoc vs Ah-64D Apache
MiG-29/Su-27 vs F-18/F-16/F-15
M2A2 vs BMP-3

It's gonna be crazy

BTW, why haven't I seen a single F-16 Falcon in the news? Favorite fighter-bomber of mine

fireball · Post by **fireball** » Wed Apr 09, 2003 9:01 am

Originally posted by tohoku
That's unfair. They've not been supplied with proper parts for years, the crews receive awful training and they are stuck using domestically produced rounds. I'd be surprised if they managed to do anything with them. Hell, during the first war in Kuwait they were reduced at one point to firing practice rounds instead of proper live rounds; it's not wonder they're doing so poorly after twelve years of sanctions.

But don't disrespect the equipment just because it came from Russia. In good hands it should make anything else on the battlefield (if it has the sense) pause for thought. The 125mm *is* a powerful gun.

BTW, since when did the *T72* start using missles?! You're all thinking of later (T80BD/U and T90 etc) models - ones the Iraqis simply don't *have* IIRC.

They've not been supplied with the right parts BECAUSE they chose to buy from Russia. When you buy from the Russians, don't expect anything but the tank itself. Getting training on it, spair parts, and ammo after the purchase from the Russians is iffy unless you keep throwing money at them or you're a (former)Warsaw Pact member. Even then...

And if they had had all these things, seriously, what would they have done with those T-72s? We dominated the air and with JSTARS and other assets we could see wherever they were the MOMENT they moved and direct ground/air forces to deal with them before the Iraqis figured out they had any idea we knew where they were. We had the Iraqis beaten before the war started, they just didn't know it. Once we had massed our forces in Saudi there was nothing they could do.

And about Russian equipment. Even the latest Russian tanks are trash when compared to modern western stuff. Not because they are worse platforms, they just don't have the whole system backing up their armed forces like the U.S. Army does. No matter how powerful that gun is on your MBT, you still have to find the enemy, communicate it your forces, and maneuver for the kill. All preferably without the other guy knowing what 'you' are doing and how many of 'you' there are.

fireball

fireball · Post by **fireball** » Wed Apr 09, 2003 9:07 am

Originally posted by Vetkin
I'm wondering what if Russia suddenly decides to back Iraq in some way, now that US troops has attacked the Russian ambassador & consul that were fleeing from Baghdad... It's far-fetched but you never know.

BTW does anybody here know if the T-95 is already in use? It's rumored to have a 135mm gun that has the range of the M1's 120mm but have better penetration. It also has enough armor to stop an APFSDS round (supposedly, or at least make it bounce off)

Imagine if the US and Russia goes to war (theoretical)
Not that I would want them to..

M1A2 vs T-95
Mi-28 Havoc vs Ah-64D Apache
MiG-29/Su-27 vs F-18/F-16/F-15
M2A2 vs BMP-3

It's gonna be crazy
BTW, why haven't I seen a single F-16 Falcon in the news? Favorite fighter-bomber of mine

Their armed forces are in a horrible shape due to lack of $$$. Deploying a Russian force of any size to the Gulf would be pretty difficult as it is now, let alone them taking on any U.S. forces.

As I said earlier, the Russian system is inferior to the U.S. one. It's not the individual platforms that are the problem (at least on land), but how they are all integrated into one big picture and directed.

Oh, and as for the F-16s, they are definitely there (deployed in Qatar I believe). I agree though, you don't see or hear as much of them as you did in '91.

fireball

Belisarius · Post by **Belisarius** » Wed Apr 09, 2003 10:38 am

As for the Russian equipment, I'll let that pass. :p Just don't underestimate it. It's not as high-tech or fancy as their U.S. counterparts, but they're effective.... blah.

About the F-16s... I'm just pulling this out of my a$$, but there doesn't seem to be that many deployed? I'm thinking that they're letting the Navy and B-bombers take the major part of the strike sorties and the F-16s take more of an escort/ patrol duty?

At the Navy page, there's one photo in the "current photos" section showing a F-18 refueling over Iraq - with snow-covered mountains below. They're all over the area, apparently.

Irinami · Post by **Irinami** » Wed Apr 09, 2003 5:45 pm

Uh, guys. It's not Russian equipment so much as dated equipment. The T-72 is a 1970's-early-80's piece of equipment. The M1 series comes from the same time frame... but the A1 is a 1980's vehicle, the A2 is a 1990's weapon. That makes quite a difference as well.

Vetkin · Post by **Vetkin** » Wed Apr 09, 2003 6:09 pm

Yeah, try playing SP3 with "basic" M1 tanks with L7 105s, they really suck... well, they're equals with the T-80s and can even be delayed by T-72s. The M256 120mm smoothbore really made a big difference.

And you're right, the T-72A doesn't have missiles but the T-72Bs do have them,including heavy armor (almost as heavy as T-80)
6 At-11 "Svir" missiles, with a range of !5,000! meters... 1,000 meters more than the M256

These missiles have a penetration of 700mm! The M1A2 has frontal armor of 670mm... so for all you SP:WAW tank buffs out there, calculate the chance of it penetrating M1A2 armor (probably 40-45 degrees slope in the front) No range penalties since its HEAT. I wanna know the chances hehehe

fireball · Post by **fireball** » Thu Apr 10, 2003 1:37 am

Originally posted by Vetkin
Yeah, try playing SP3 with "basic" M1 tanks with L7 105s, they really suck... well, they're equals with the T-80s and can even be delayed by T-72s. The M256 120mm smoothbore really made a big difference.

And you're right, the T-72A doesn't have missiles but the T-72Bs do have them,including heavy armor (almost as heavy as T-80)
6 At-11 "Svir" missiles, with a range of !5,000! meters... 1,000 meters more than the M256

These missiles have a penetration of 700mm! The M1A2 has frontal armor of 670mm... so for all you SP:WAW tank buffs out there, calculate the chance of it penetrating M1A2 armor (probably 40-45 degrees slope in the front) No range penalties since its HEAT. I wanna know the chances hehehe

Is there a site on the internet I can learn how to calculate armor penetration from?

fireball

Wolfleader · Post by **Wolfleader** » Thu Apr 10, 2003 6:03 am

Haven't heard about the T-95 yet, can anyone provide me with linkage to more info.

I wouldn't exactly dismiss Russian equipment as of poor quality, while it's certainly not as sophisticated as most of our equipment its certainly much more rugged and sturdy and can likely perform just as well as any AFV used by NATO and the US at the hands of a well trained and capable crew.

It has to be kept in mind that most of the times that the NATO forces faced off against Russian weaponry, they were usually manned by conscript troops who were not as well trained and skilled as their more professional opponents.

Vetkin · Post by **Vetkin** » Thu Apr 10, 2003 9:03 am

Russian tanks are lightly armored, you can almost say they are light tanks. They usually have half the armor. The new T-95 is being developed at Nizhny Tagil

Here are some good sites on its development:

http://www.russia-news.com/freeaccess/new_tank.html

There's a schematic-type drawing of it here:

http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/MBT/t-95.html

It's supposed to have been out now but due to lack of funds it's still in its testing stage. It's really impressive looking, with a 152mm gun and a very unique turret and crew protection.

Voriax · Post by **Voriax** » Thu Apr 10, 2003 11:47 am

Originally posted by Vetkin
Russian tanks are lightly armored, you can almost say they are light tanks.

Well...light tanks...then that applies to just about all the contemporary western tanks.

If you look at the service entry years and weight:

T-54: 1947, 41 tons
T-10: 1956, 52 tons
T-55: late 50's, 41 tons
T-62: 1963, 40 tons
T-64: late 60's, 42 tons
T-72: 1973, 41 tons
Take these with a grain of salt..I've seen several other numbers, depending of source

Western:

Leo-1: 1965, 42 t.
AMX-30: 1967, 36t.
M47: 1950, 46t.
M48: 1953, 47t.
M60A3, 1960, 49t.
Centurion, 1947, 52t.
Chieftain, 1967, 55t.

So, when you look at it, the Soviet tanks were pretty much same weight than western ones. British tanks can be seen bit of an exception in design philosophy. Also soviet tanks tend to be smaller than western so they don't have to coat so much surface with armour.

I guess the problem with Sov/russian tanks later on was that for some reason (logistics, road/bridge strengths?) they kept their tanks about same size/weight while western designers made Leo 2's, Challenger 1 and 2's and Abrams.

Voriax

Irinami · Post by **Irinami** » Thu Apr 10, 2003 6:42 pm

Originally posted by Wolfleader
Haven't heard about the T-95 yet, can anyone provide me with linkage to more info.

No, but I can provide you with a link to buy one when they come out, and hook yourself up with a T-90S, some BMD-3's, a 125mm 2S25 SPRUT-SD self-propelled AT gun, and all the small arms and other equipment you need. As the site says, serious inquiries only.

Rosoboronexport: "The Rosoboronexport State Corporation is the sole state intermediary agency for Russia's military exports/imports."

Have fun.

Wolfleader · Post by **Wolfleader** » Fri Apr 11, 2003 1:46 am

Thanks for the links. I am so going to have a field day with MobHack now.

IRT Irinami

I hope they have student discounts at that site.