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

[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?

 

[The Other Guy]

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

 

[Zastava-Arms]

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

 

[SHERMAN]

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.

 

[Panzercracker]

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.

 

[5.56X45mm]

Would have gotten more trigger time.

 

[Fox]

Coalition airpowers > Iraqi M1 Abrams.....

 

[Titanium]

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.

 

[A Can of Man]

Would have gotten more trigger time.

The truth!

 

[redwood]

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.

 

[19kilo30K4]

First of all, no tank (no matter how good) can survive in the open desert as long as the enemy maintains air superiority. The combination of AH-64s and A10s took out a lot of tanks. Secondly, the performance of the T-72 is completely irrelevent in the Gulf War, since most of our units were killing T-54/55 and T-62 tanks. Only the Republican Guard was outfitted with T-72s and (other than the Battle of the 73rd Easting) was rarely seen by our troops. Casualties higher for Coalition? I seriously doubt that since if we knew we were going in with inferior tanks, we would never have went toe to toe with the enemy tanks. That is just not how the American Army operates. I don't think you appreciate the sheer destruction that occurred. 42 Iraqi Divisions were rendered combat ineffective in just 100 hours. The Iraqis lost 3,700 out of 4,280 tanks deployed, 2,400 out of 2,880 APCs and 2,600 out of 3,100 arty pieces. The M1 Abrams didn't account for all of that. According to documentation (Gulf War Foreign Policy No. 90) the air attack killed 1,600 tanks, 900 APCs and 1,400 arty pieces. Think giving Iraqis the M1 would have helped? Come on.

 

[SHERMAN]

When i said higher casualties I meant slightly higher, not somthing dramatic.

 

[Britney]

Well, i think the outcome would have been the same. Allied airpower was tearing Iraqi armor a new one every day, but the tank battles fought.would have been much different. The M1's greatest advantage was that it had a more powerful gun and outraged them- but allied tanks would have suffered heavy losses if engaged the same way. I do think they would have spent a few more months destroying the M1s from the air before doing the ground hook to help balance it out.

It would have been a lot like WW2 when the allies fought the Tiger. The Tiger would knock out the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Shermans- but the 4th would knock out the Tiger.

 

[FO Seaman]

Agreed, outcome would have been similar, due to airpower and intel, but I also would say that even if the US had T series tanks, the crews are better trained, and orientated with armor than any Iraqi.

 

[LeMask]

I think that answer is obvious. We should try other questions like...
If there was no air support and the Iraquis had better tanks. Then the allies would have had more casulties, and the difference in training would have decided if there was a possible allied victory or not.

But I think that there would have been no war if the Iraqis had any effective defense. The war was a big joke, and no US government can risk losing an unnecessary war.

But I would have a question too... What If the Iraqi troops (infantry) had good anti tank weapons... Like Javelins and such... And if they had Western light weapons with modern optics and such...

That would be interesting...

 

[Panzercracker]

Not really, now if Iraqis had modern communications, adequately trained and commanded troops, an efficient chain of command and a coherent tactic then yes, thing could be different.

Prior to war in Iraq US army conducted a number of tests in Poland in "Pustynia Błędowska" (same place Rommel trained his Africa Corpse), the Polish army which used similar equipment (slightly more modern) was in an OPFOR role.

Out of 7 scenarios Americans managed to win only 3, in all cases the loses were extreme, it shows the importance of training, command and communication over equipment, an army with third rate equipment but first rate training/command structure can still be a mean enemy, Iraqis were just a bunch of conscripts.

 

[FO Seaman]

Not really, now if Iraqis had modern communications, adequately trained and commanded troops, an efficient chain of command and a coherent tactic then yes, thing could be different.

Prior to war in Iraq US army conducted a number of tests in Poland in "Pustynia Błędowska" (same place Rommel trained his Africa Corpse), the Polish army which used similar equipment (slightly more modern) was in an OPFOR role.

Out of 7 scenarios Americans managed to win only 3, in all cases the loses were extreme, it shows the importance of training, command and communication over equipment, an army with third rate equipment but first rate training/command structure can still be a mean enemy, Iraqis were just a bunch of conscripts.

Are you referring to the Reforager Exercises? That was training for a different era under different conditions. Not only was the US Army at a time of low personnel and recruitment, but the bulk of armor was the M60 Series MBT, at that point in time the Army was undergoing a very big transformation, the M1 steel pot was still in issue.

All about nuclear war and mass armor confrontation.

 

[Panzercracker]

Are you referring to the Reforager Exercises? That was training for a different era under different conditions. Not only was the US Army at a time of low personnel and recruitment, but the bulk of armor was the M60 Series MBT, at that point in time the Army was undergoing a very big transformation, the M1 steel pot was still in issue.

All about nuclear war and mass armor confrontation.

No they ran a series of tests prior to Desert Storm, it was fairly known in Poland since our radars found their stealth bombers and we "blew up" in excess of 50% of their choppers, there was armor (M1s) but there was no media coverage so i assume that went smoothly, i called a friend who took part in it so he can shed more light, and no it was not Reforger.

 

[FO Seaman]

No they ran a series of tests prior to Desert Storm, it was fairly known in Poland since our radars found their stealth bombers and we "blew up" in excess of 50% of their choppers, there was armor (M1s) but there was no media coverage so i assume that went smoothly, i called a friend who took part in it so he can shed more light, and no it was not Reforger.

About how far prior to ODS was the exercise?

 

[Panzercracker]

About how far prior to ODS was the exercise?

A few months, either my friend calls back or i'll browse my press collection when i get back home the day after tomorrow, i know they ran some more in Germany, the general conclusion was that assault copters are f*cked when facing competent AA.