Jump to content

Cold War ear Tank Battle Info (Iran-Iraq)


Recommended Posts

https://steamcommunity.com/app/312980/discussions/0/3051734893994833911/?ctp=2#c3056238885199008946

An interesting post about 115mm (T-62) penetration and damage to Iranian Chieftain tanks.  Appears to be mostly from Iranian sources.  There is some info from British post battle investigations of Chieftain performance.   If you look through other posts in that thread there are a few other points of info.  Note the comment about damage to gunner sights.  Thats been the topic of more than a few CM discussions.

Might give some perspective on T-62 performance in CMCW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Thewood1 said:

Might give some perspective on T-62 performance in CMCW.

You know everyone bashes the poor ol '62 but that little beast can get the job done if handled with nuance.  It is as blind as a mole, true, but that little gun can punch a hole in an M60A3 at 1500ms.  It is also cheap and unstoppable if you swarm them.  It may be the dumb kid in the class but damn it...it really tries harder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is most interesting is that Iran and Iraq were working with a lot of the same hardware represented in CMCW.  Especially late in the war, you had T-72s, T-62s, and T-55s fighting each other.  And some of the crews were more experienced in actual combat than any of the sides in CMCW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Thewood1 said:

https://steamcommunity.com/app/312980/discussions/0/3051734893994833911/?ctp=2#c3056238885199008946

An interesting post about 115mm (T-62) penetration and damage to Iranian Chieftain tanks.  Appears to be mostly from Iranian sources.  There is some info from British post battle investigations of Chieftain performance.   If you look through other posts in that thread there are a few other points of info.  Note the comment about damage to gunner sights.  Thats been the topic of more than a few CM discussions.

Might give some perspective on T-62 performance in CMCW.

It's mostly from Iraqi sorces, because the chieftains were captured by them and shown to British specialists? (Or else, it's not clear from the post indeed).

Gives an impression that t62 was quite effective against chieftain. 

In fact, t62 has a good reputation in the army, because it has bigger crew compartment and can sustain more penetrations without blowing up, like t72 does sometimes due to autoloader ignition. 

Edited by dbsapp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aside from the usual caveats of seeing the Russian export equipment being used by non-Soviet actors, T-62 was certainly effective against the Chieftain (as it should be against the M60 and Leopard-1).

Indeed, the BMP-1's 73mm main gun fires a HEAT round which is sufficient to penetrate the three main NATO tanks of the period frontally. There was, after all, a reason why the Abrams, Challenger and Leopard-2 existed.

In Cold War, the T-62 is pretty much in the same class as the M60A1 - they should be a fairly even match for each other, and trade with each other fairly well. The later M60's gain better optics and ultimately thermals, but the armour protection remains - it took until the next generation of NATO tanks for that to change,

The same can't be said for the T-64. There is a massive uptick in armour capability between the T-62 and T-64 - it's not uncommon to see a T-64 shrugging off multiple hits to the turret for no appreciable effect, and the same applies to the T-72 and the T-80 variants.  

The Abrams is cheating, obviously, and represents a generational leap that the Soviet equipment never caught up to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, domfluff said:

Aside from the usual caveats of seeing the Russian export equipment being used by non-Soviet actors, T-62 was certainly effective against the Chieftain (as it should be against the M60 and Leopard-1).

Indeed, the BMP-1's 73mm main gun fires a HEAT round which is sufficient to penetrate the three main NATO tanks of the period frontally. There was, after all, a reason why the Abrams, Challenger and Leopard-2 existed.

In Cold War, the T-62 is pretty much in the same class as the M60A1 - they should be a fairly even match for each other, and trade with each other fairly well. The later M60's gain better optics and ultimately thermals, but the armour protection remains - it took until the next generation of NATO tanks for that to change,

The same can't be said for the T-64. There is a massive uptick in armour capability between the T-62 and T-64 - it's not uncommon to see a T-64 shrugging off multiple hits to the turret for no appreciable effect, and the same applies to the T-72 and the T-80 variants.  

The Abrams is cheating, obviously, and represents a generational leap that the Soviet equipment never caught up to.

I never understood this Abrams worship. The first m1 with 105mm gun were quite mediocre. 

The real deal was thermal sight, but it was not restricted to Abrams alone. M60s etc could use them as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It could, and the M60A3 TTS is basically an Abrams turret on an M60 hull, but that hull is the issue - you're moving from a glass cannon, which can out-spot everything Soviet, but will die to everything it's engaged with, to one which can out-spot and survive being shot. That's a massive uptick in capability.

"Abrams worship" is a stupid way to put that, of course, but it's more the point of capability - the transition from M60 to the M1 is a generational one, and it's as much of a leap as T-62 to T-64, and probably more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your emotional reaction proves that abrams worship is more than real.

No doubt, abrams is a pretty decent tank and it's better than the previous generation machines like m60 or t62. 

It can be argued that US merely closed the gap with t64 by producing it.

What so special about it? German gun? Or armor, which qualities are as unknow as of the rest of moderm tanks. 

With all that being said Abrams is portrayed in modern pop culture as some divine impenetrable chariot. It could be shown on many examples that it formed some sort of cult (with a little help from Pentagon and Hollywood propaganda).

Unfortunately, CM games is a remarkable example of Abrams worship cult. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Thewood1 said:

What is most interesting is that Iran and Iraq were working with a lot of the same hardware represented in CMCW.  Especially late in the war, you had T-72s, T-62s, and T-55s fighting each other.  And some of the crews were more experienced in actual combat than any of the sides in CMCW.

Hm, if you consider the time frame and duration from 1980 to 1988, that’s not too surprising. Especially that the guys gathered some combat experience over the 8 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/images/thumb/0/00/M1armour.jpg/600px-M1armour.jpg

M1 (105mm)

 

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/images/thumb/f/f0/M60frontarmour.jpg/600px-M60frontarmour.jpg

M-60A3 TTS

This is from Steel Beasts.  M1 plain vs M60A3.  Most of the guys doing this are non-US tankers who actually measured the physical armor for older tanks.  Even without the TIS, the M1 was a significant armor upgrade over the M60A3.

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/images/thumb/d/d8/T62armour.jpg/700px-T62armour.jpg

T-62

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/images/thumb/9/9c/T72frontLOS.jpg/700px-T72frontLOS.jpg

T-72A

T-62 and T-72A for comparison.

The Steel Beast guys aren't perfect, but they know their armor and how its used.  For a tank to be playable, they have to have access to the specs and usually the tank itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dbsapp said:

Your emotional reaction proves that abrams worship is more than real.

Emotional reaction?

That wasn't emotional. You are delusional. 

The Abrams' turret could probably do 1.5 rotations and still land a kill on a t80 before the t80 can rotate in .5 or even .25 rotations. 

You need to start thinking and replying like a big boy. 

Edited by Artkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Artkin said:

Emotional reaction?

That wasn't emotional. You are delusional. 

The Abrams' turret could probably do 1.5 rotations and still land a kill on a t80 before the t80 can rotate in .5 or even .25 rotations. 

You need to start thinking and replying like a big boy. 

Oh, thank you for returning me back to reality. I almost forgot that it's an internet forum, and not a place where grown up persons can exchange informed opinions in polite manner. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love the M1, it's like the 80's Tiger tank. 

Back on topic. Lots of cold war hardware got pitted together in the Iran/Iraq war, but they were still using WW1 doctrine. Trench lines, human waves and gas. Fascinating conflict, to be sure -- but I don't know if it is a relevant basis for comparison.

I cry when I see Iraqi T62s dug into the ground like pill boxes.

800px-Iraqi_T-62.JPEG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually Saddam's strategy wasn't all that bad in theory.  He correctly saw the Center of Gravity for the Alliance as its cohesion, problem was what he bet on to break that cohesion.  Based on what we can tell, the plan was to attrit the Alliance to a breaking point, while at the same time try and get a reaction out of Israel (and a pretty weak IO campaign).  He was not entirely wrong, I can remember a whole lotta "no blood for oil" marches going on back in late 1990, even though Kuwaitis were being slaughtered (I really do not have significant leaning but that was one time where the left kinda lost the bubble, in my opinion). 

But his underlying theory of "how" was really antiquated and largely based on the Iran-Iraq war conflict.  Line steel up and put disposables out front, a lot of world class obstacles (seriously, talk to guys who were there) and when the alliance show up hurt them bad enough to split it, even if you have to take more losses.  Lotta assumption went wrong there and frankly he missed a lot of opportunities to actually win the thing but there we go.  The devil in the details included: airpower w precision strike, GPS = maneuver warfare, Patriots and yes, the mighty M1 and its baby brother the M2/M3.   He was playing a different game and assumed the alliance would play the same game too. 

S'ok, feels like pretty much the last time we out-thought our opponent because it was pretty much downhill from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An aside, but I still chuckle at Schwarzkopf's quote about Saddam:

Quote

As far as Saddam Hussein being a great military strategist, he is neither a strategist, nor is he schooled in the operational arts, nor is he a tactician, nor is he a general, nor is he a soldier. Other than that, he's a great military man, I want you to know that.


I do agree that the basic strategy was sound. Its implementation was not, and a lot of that practical application seems fundamentally unsound even before taking into account the revolution in weapons technologies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

S'ok, feels like pretty much the last time we out-thought our opponent because it was pretty much downhill from there.

I vaguely recall reading that the Iraqi tanks had been issued "practice ammo" and if that is true it would explain why the Abrams seemed impenetrable and had such a walk over in 73 Easting.  Have no idea where I read it and it was some time ago, so all I could fine today was this:  

Also... interesting analysis:

https://www.comw.org/rma/fulltext/victory.html

Edited by Erwin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, dbsapp said:

Oh, thank you for returning me back to reality. I almost forgot that it's an internet forum, and not a place where grown up persons can exchange informed opinions in polite manner. 

So did that post of armor values help clarify that the M1 was fairly superior to the M-60A3?  Just curious if you have a source that contradicts that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Thewood1 said:

So did that post of armor values help clarify that the M1 was fairly superior to the M-60A3?  Just curious if you have a source that contradicts that.

I never argued that M1 wasn't superior to M60. In fact I underlined it myself:

On 7/14/2021 at 11:00 PM, dbsapp said:

No doubt, abrams is a pretty decent tank and it's better than the previous generation machines like m60 or t62. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Erwin said:

I vaguely recall reading that the Iraqi tanks had been issued "practice ammo" and if that is true it would explain why the Abrams seemed impenetrable and had such a walk over in 73 Easting.  Have no idea where I read it and it was some time ago, so all I could fine today was this:  

Also... interesting analysis:

https://www.comw.org/rma/fulltext/victory.html

Not sure if this was universal.  I spoke with an SSM who was in an M1 during the Gulf War and he told a story of seeing a T-72 sabot round stick like a dart in the front armor of an M1.  Now Iraqis giving tanks a few real rounds and the rest as practice tracks, probably why they simply surrendered in droves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 7/14/2021 at 10:42 AM, domfluff said:

It could, and the M60A3 TTS is basically an Abrams turret on an M60 hull, but that hull is the issue - you're moving from a glass cannon, which can out-spot everything Soviet, but will die to everything it's engaged with, to one which can out-spot and survive being shot. That's a massive uptick in capability.

"Abrams worship" is a stupid way to put that, of course, but it's more the point of capability - the transition from M60 to the M1 is a generational one, and it's as much of a leap as T-62 to T-64, and probably more.

Sorry, I quoted the wrong person.

The point of my post was even the basic M1 was a massive step up in fire control and armor from almost anything before it.  The T-80A and Leopard 2 might be the only thing comparable.

Edited by Thewood1
Clarification
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Not sure if this was universal.  I spoke with an SSM who was in an M1 during the Gulf War and he told a story of seeing a T-72 sabot round stick like a dart in the front armor of an M1.  Now Iraqis giving tanks a few real rounds and the rest as practice tracks, probably why they simply surrendered in droves.

No - Combatintman was on the other side .... surprised they hung on for so long really ...

 

Granby Day One.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/14/2021 at 9:36 PM, Erwin said:

I vaguely recall reading that the Iraqi tanks had been issued "practice ammo" and if that is true it would explain why the Abrams seemed impenetrable and had such a walk over in 73 Easting.  Have no idea where I read it and it was some time ago, so all I could fine today was this:  

 

Well, the Iraqi T-72s were issued 3BM15 APFSDS rounds, that is an early '70s penetrator that had no chance, frontally, against the depleted uranium armour of an M1A1(HA).

So, there's no need to assume Iraqi tanks were issued practice rounds to explain their ineffectiveness, since their best round available was just as useless as a candy bar.

Maybe the fact that the obsolete/obsolescent 3BM15 was relegated to "practice round" role in the Soviet Army at the time of the US-Iraq Gulf War, gave origin to the story about the issue of "practice rounds" to Saddam's forces. But, AFAIK, no Soviet client state, outside the Warsaw Pact, had access to anything better than 3BM15 before 1991. 

Long story short, an M1A1(HA) was able to obtain first round hits and (catastrophic) kills on a T-72M1 at distance at which the T-72 wasn't even able to see the Abrams (at night), let alone hit it. If we factor also the difference in numbers, training, morale, air support etc. I simply don't see the need to explain the one-sided results of the 1991 with further unlikely assumptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/14/2021 at 1:22 PM, The_Capt said:

Actually Saddam's strategy wasn't all that bad in theory.

Maybe, by the standards of 1916. He dug in static defensive lines in open terrain, against an opponent with vast air superiority. Even the germans in WW2 knew to hide from bombing. The Soviets emphasized speed, maneuver and air defence in-depth. Saddam should have hid in cities and valleys, rather than challanging the US to Verdun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...