the gulf war if the iraqis had the m1s and the coalition had t72s

Same Result

Iraq would have lost. Just because Iraq has better tanks doesn't mean that its army is a whole lot better (Coalition has better manpower, money, supplies, airforce, everything)


:tank::tank::tank: against
:biggun::biggun::biggun::biggun::biggun::biggun::biggun::biggun:
who would win?
 
a10.jpg


Would have gotten more trigger time.

a lot more. I'd have to assume the Iraqi's in the Abrams are semi skilled,so the US probably finds ways to NOT get in a punch out with the one component where they were weaker. At any of a number of distances, the M-1 had a better ability to hit and a better probability a hit is a kill. Hardly any T-72 was able to get to a position good enough to make a killing hit.

I don't know if there has been an actual test attacking am M-i with the GAU-8 ,a Maverick,Hellfire,TOW...and if there was...the results would be classified. I'd assume the Abrams would hold up better than a t-72,but if you pound something hard enough,it eventually breaks. The Yamato sank under the attack of planes much less lethal than a Warthog.
 
Maybe we will see a variant of this hypothetical scenario in the future, should e.g. the islamists take over in Egypt.

Egypt has (from memory, so take with a grain of salt) around 1000 M1s, has Patriots, sophisticated and hardened comms, 200+ F16s, a huge number of TOW ATGMs, and on top around half of its officers have been trained in the US.

If they decide to take on Israel this might give you your answers.

Rattler
 
1. Casialties would have been higher.
2. War might've taken longer
3. War might've been more expensive.
4. Almost certainly not enough to save the iraqis when you remember that the Bradley and it's missiles knocked out more tanks than the abrahams, though I am unsure if the bradley TOW-II's would have taken out the abrahams.
5. Complete air supremacy didn't hurt either.
 
Back
Top