What if, completely hypothetically, the gulf war played out entirely the same, but the iraqis were equipped with the m1 abrams and the coalition with the t72. would the iraqis have done better? would the m1 save them?

in essence would the superior tank have won the battle or would the coalition's tactics and strategy, although armed with the inferior tank, still beat the iraqis using the m1?

again this is completely hypothetical...but basically which is more important, the tank itself or the strategy and battle tactics?

Would have taken longer, but victory would have still been achieved.

Depends what condition the tanks were in, do you mean swapping the very same tanks the Iraqis used [The monkey-model T-72] with the very tanks the COalition have?

If so, Im not sure.

Coalition T-72's would be like:

Moving > Sees Abrams > Stops > Aims through the sights > Fire

If the only diffrence was the tanks than the outcome would be very similar. Probably more casualties for the Coalition. What won the war was airpower and intel gathering abileties. The tanks were there mainly to seal the deal.

Originally Posted by benaakatz

What if, completely hypothetically, the gulf war played out entirely the same, but the iraqis were equipped with the m1 abrams and the coalition with the t72. would the iraqis have done better? would the m1 save them?

in essence would the superior tank have won the battle or would the coalition's tactics and strategy, although armed with the inferior tank, still beat the iraqis using the m1?

again this is completely hypothetical...but basically which is more important, the tank itself or the strategy and battle tactics?

Nothing would change, US had complete air dominance.

Would have gotten more trigger time.

Coalition airpowers > Iraqi M1 Abrams.....

Originally Posted by benaakatz

again this is completely hypothetical...but basically which is more important, the tank itself or the strategy and battle tactics?

I think means are very important, but how do you use them is much more important.

Talking from memory about the conflict, Irak seemed to me that was poorly defended in reality against what was said in the media before the war, it was explained that there were several and important defense lines, traps and trenches, difficult to pass, all resulted a fake as the war advanced.

So adding that claimed defense lines to that hypothetical scenario, things would turn more difficult for the coalition, IMO.

Originally Posted by 5.56X45mm

Would have gotten more trigger time.

The truth!

Originally Posted by 5.56X45mm

Would have gotten more trigger time.

A LOT more. In open terrain it would be hard to advance on a tank with advantages in armor,mobility,gun range and accuracy. EACH of those factors multiplies the others. The Iraqi's thought berms would let them change the odds,but they guessed wrong.

In WWII there was a BIG edge favoring the Panther or Tiger vs a Sherman but it was not open terrain and the Sherman at least was more mobile. WW II tanks generally were limited visibility when closed up, and turrets traversed slow. Mostly, there were a lot more Shermans. Air power took quite a toll on German tanks,weather permitting.