Note from 13th to 27th September the T-72: The Definitive Guide to the Soviet Workhhorse is 20 % off and all our other books are about 10 % off, see them here: militaryhistorygroup.com.
C Co. 2/34 AR 1st ID Desert Storm vet (M1A1HA)... All our tank vs tank engagements were at night, most notably against Republican Guard T72s in the battle at phase line Norfolk. They never stood a chance, our TIS picked them up before they could even see us much less return fire. At 1800 - 2000 meters we were getting full pens, tracers often bounced off the ground on the far side of the target. Many of them had ammo detonations immediately after the pen, and all of them caught fire. The T72M1 was simply outmatched in every way that mattered.
"Sure, you'll see some tank battles. But fighting in desert is very different from fighting in canopy jungle. I mean 'nam was a foot soldier's war. Whereas, this thing should, you know, should be a piece of cake. I mean, I had an M16, Jacko. Not an Abrams fucking tank. Me and Charlie, eyeball to eyeball. Yeah. That's fuckin' combat. The man in the black pajamas, Dude. Worthy fuckin' adversary. Who's in pajamas, Walter? Shut the fuck up, Donny. Whereas what we have here? A bunch of fig-eaters wearing towels on their heads, trying to find reverse in a Soviet tank. This is not a worthy adversary." Walter Sobchak
Big in paper terms. The Iraqi army fought each other more than anyone else, but you'd have to be in the know on local gangs to know who was fighting who
As a Terrian Analyst, one of our tasks was finding, via remote sensing, and plotting the location of "revetments". Prepared locations where Iraqi tanks had already dug emplacements. Holy crap, they were everywhere! I don't recall if they actually utilized any of them. The 24th ID out flanking them kinda messed up their plans...
Except they could avoid them because you found them. Your counterparts in Iraqi intelligence were useless because most of their spying was on other Iraqis and they lacked equipment and expertise.
I was assigned to 4th Bn 70th Armor, 2nd Brigade, 1st Armored Division, during Desert Shield/Desert Storm. My unit along with the entirety of the units that deployed from Germany to Saudi Arabia had the standard M1A1. When the equipment arrived in Saudi Arabia, all of these tanks had a DU plate welded to the front glacis of the turret before being given a quick coat of desert sand paint.
My understanding is even the Bradleys took out a lot of Iraqi tanks, the issue being that the Bradleys detected the Iraqi tanks long before the Iraqis knew what was going on. My brother was 101st Airborne. They were helicoptered deep into Iraq with a mission of preventing return of Iraqi units along the Baghdad Basra highway. I assume they took had sufficient weaponry to take out Iraqi armor if necessary.
Equipment argument doesn't matter anyways, you did absolutely nothing. The war was won in a day with just the air force then you rolled in, played pretend to feel big and strong.
@@jintsuubest9331 that is what we were told. It wasn’t a bunch of army guys doing some field expediant mods. It was a lot of civilian contractors that had a lot of expensive looking equipment.
Another thing people often forget or don't talk about is that by most accounts those very same T-72M1s did pretty well for themselves in the first gulf war against equally mismanaged Iranian tanks of a similar technical vintage. So it seems to be a perfectly decent machine against the threats it was intended to fight, all other factors being equal.
Yep that's what people love to ignore. People saying the M1A1 Abrams beating T-72M1 is impressive is like saying a T-90M beating a M60A3 or a T-14 beating a M1A1 Abrams is impressive
The Iraqis struggled against the Iranians who at that time had to cannibalize parts from vehicles due to arms embargoes. This is while Iraq received top notch equipment and intelligence from NATO countries and the Soviet Union. The Iraqis were just poorly lead and trained and had low morale plus they were fighting major militaries.
The fun y thing is the most deadly vehicule in iraq it was the f-111, then the brandly destroy a lot of t72 even when they are just scouts (the bradley scout version)
The problem with a tank digging itself in is, the soil it turns over tends to be of a different color and temperature then the topsoil. This means the resulting berm becomes a "kill me mound", making enemy tanks easy to identify visually or through TTS.
@@Duncomradecan’t speak for certain, but t72’s have atrocious revering speed. At least if you were in the open you could potentially use forward gears and reposition. If you have to rely on the t72’s reverse speed to get you out of a bad position you’re gonna have a bad time.
Would T-72A model 1979 have done better? Better armor was not much better and better round had a margin of advantage but nothing revolutionary. Explosive armor could help against TOW missiles if you got lucky but not effective against KE round. The crew training might be a factor but do not forget how good thermal sights are in dry air over long ranges.
I think the biggest problem with the Iraqi T-72s was the training and tactics, not entirely the technology. They mostly used their best tank as self-propelled assault guns in fixed positions, which proved effective against Iranian human wave tactics. That said, very lack of training in mobile warfare, like counter-attack and etc. The T-72s would have more chance of success if they used them in a more mobile, shock tactic instead of sitting duck in their fixed spider holes.
There's also the issue that many of their troops were demoralized, especially from the constant air attacks. The one story about a few M1s destroying numerous Iraqi tanks was mainly because of a dust storm, I believe, and the Iraqis lacking in the proper equipment to see through it like the US had. There was also the fact that many of the best troops and tanks were held back.
The Iraqis were screwed either way because the US had total air superiority. Apache helicopters, A-10's, F-16's, you name it, were pounding the Iraqis for a month before the end run by the ground forces. So either get destroyed in their fixed defiladed positions or get destroyed out in the open. I also remember also a well publiziced amphibious exercise to keep the Iraqis guessing. The Iraqis had been schooled in Soviet doctrine and the US had spent fifteen years figuring out how to specifically defeat that doctrine.
@@kurt9395 And then the US ended up fighting an enemy decades behind even the Red Army. Like training with weighted gloves to fight a heavyweight, then finding out you're actually fighting the contender's tweaker cousin.
*civilian truck blows up* “Who put an anti-tank mine on the main road?” “But it’s an anti-tank mine, it shouldn’t have gone off…” “Oh my God ARE YOU SERIOUS? YOU PUT AN ANTI-TANK MINE ON THE MAIN ROAD. THE MAIN FUCKING ROAD.” “But it’s an anti-tank mine. Thats not a tank.” “HOW DUMB ARE YOU!”
Sadly when I hear some people talk of aircraft and tanks they assume they're all the same, not even thinking about the countless variants of the vehicles. Leading them to blame faults or issues on the entire group instead of the one with the problem.
I always credited the victory on the Abrams on the Coalition’s access to GPS. It was the deciding factor as we could see where the all the T-72s were while they lacked a similar capability.
A.k.a. newest top of the line vehicle, backed up by all the support assets of a large multinational coalition, vs. a decade old export version of a mass-production vehicle.
@gansior4744 Yes, but comparatively speaking, IIRC USA produced about 7000 M1s in the 80s, while USSR produced about 25000 T-64s, T-72s, and T-80s (on top of about 13000 produced in the 70s).
2:25 It could also be noted that contemporary production T-72A were already better than T-72M1 and closer to T-72B, receiving the 1A40 FCS with the mentioned lead calculator in 1982, and improved turret with NERA composite plates and 5-layer UFP in 1983.
M1A1s could spot, acquire, and accurately hit T-72M1s before T-72s could lase. Not like the T-72s could take a hit from the 120 either, nor dish out effective return fire with 3BM9, thus engagements were very 1-sided.
Whilst tanks played an important role in the swift and successful ground phase of the war, air power was the decisive factor in Operation Desert Storm. It not only crippled Iraq’s ability to fight but also ensured that the ground campaign was brief and overwhelmingly successful.
A cool collab in the context of discussing armor pen would be to bring in SY Simulation and / or Dejmian XYZ Simulation to model the M1A1 on T-72 and the T-72 on M1A1 at the 2km ranges.
We don't know anything about m1 armor. There is 1 cia document, and it is a scanning of a drawing thats scanned incorrectly (slanted). Also, the image is not to scale. The original m1 armor has acceptable performance against the likes of 3bm22 using some assumption based on understanding of basic rod armor interaction. We know more than enough about t72 armor. They struggle against m900 and m829, period. Especially the hull, I believed field testing said the projectile pass through the armor and the vehicle from a distance that's at least 2000m away.
In the US Army and Marine tank crews mirror each other. The most important part in crew training was gunnery, US tank crews would spend many hours in the MCOFT simulator prior to any gunnery qualification. The MCOFT is the Tank Commander and Gunner combination which emphasizes both to complete an engagement at the fastest time from identifying the target then destroying it. Fire commands, gunners manipulating controls from selecting ammunition, using the Gunners Auxiliary Sight as an emergency procedure with no power and only manual controls. The MCOFT system behaves exactly like the real controls in the M1 series tank. As a gunner and commander the best thing training with it was the emphasis on training using the Thermal Imager in all engagements in different environments. This training is done under time constraints in order to advance to the next phase of engagement, it consists of over if I remember right over 60 types of engagements in the program. It requires a lot of mental stamina to endure hours of making mistakes of being to slow or failing and have to re- do an engagement over and over until as TC and Gunner complete and reach Reticle Aim 201 at the end which is completion. When I went to my first gunnery as a gunner our tank Q-1 meaning first time qualification and 3rd place as a crew. The MCOFT is an excellent training device. Many NATO countries have similar systems for their appropriate tank model.
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere in the past that they were using crap ammunition too, it wasn't even tungsten. They were shooting Steel training rounds.
Comparing US military equipment since ww2 to other nations is so interesting because it fits their country's methods of war so well but often is underwhelming when used by others (Sherman, Abrams, even small arms) I always found the arms and tactics and logistical race in the cold war fascinating
@@me67galaxylifeWell, the M1A1 is the first US tank that clearly outperforms most foreign tanks and would for a good generation. Before that the US army was dealing with stop gaps M26, M46, M47, M48 until M60. And M60 was def. a different design philosophy, with some distinctive downsides to go with its upsides, compared to Centurion, Chieftain, Leopard 1 and the sovjet MBTs. But the US industry surely was able to keep her up to date on the key area's where M60 performed well. This is offcourse somewhat more difficult for some foreign operators.
1) Iraqis were nowhere nearly as well trained as the Americans. 2) My understanding of the T-72 is that it was primarily intended as a more affordable, export tank, whereas in the 80s, the Soviets primarily used the T-80s and T-64s, so really wasn't necessarily intended to take on front-line American tanks. I can't remember where I saw it, but I remember once reading that a veteran of the 1991 tank battles stated that if the US Forces were equipped with M60A3s instead of Abrams, the result would have likely been very similar, due to the massive training/morale disparity in favor of the Americans
No, it's intended as a more easily mass produced T-64 like AKM to Ak-47. There are export variant T-72s and domestic use productions so no, it's not intended for export
@flarvin8945 Only the Marines had M60A3's with appliqué armour. The only armour on armour engagement, including M60s, was Kafji before the ground war had actually started. And I believe that were Saudi operated M60's. The Marines only fired HE against infantry, according to their war diaries, all the armour they encountered had been destroyed before the tanks got in range.
I think the scenario we should ask about is what if the war had been a few years earlier, or the US introduced the M1 a few years later, so it was mostly an M60 vs T-72 fight. That was the scenario the Russian tank was built for. Now its a tank with thick, but still steel armor, and the older style of ammunition handling (a few ready rounds on the walls, and the others in less coinvent parts of the tank) vs an auto-loader that doesn't slow down. Spin stabilized shells (albeit good ones) vs a smooth bore. Now from a point of training and money - I'd still say the US has the edge (remember, Iraq was mostly bankrupt from a war it fought from 1980-88, and grabbing the treasure of Kuwait was a way to pay its debts.)
Well, the M60s the marines used in GW1 had no trouble at all versus Iraqi tanks of all types. Russian kit, in Iraqi hands, was just not very good. If every Abrams were a late M60, there would have been a few dozen lost. But it'd still be deeply one sided as a war. A lot, and I mean a lot, of the Iraqi tanks got side shot, or rear. M60 circa 1990 was still able to fire on the move and could have used similar tactics. They would have suffered more from counter fire hits, to be sure, and would have taken more hits, too, due to being slower, but most of what won GW1 was better training, tactics, better strategy, better optics, and better networking. Folks insist front line Russian kit from the era would have done much better... I don't really think so. Bradleys with basically the same overall kit (relative to their foe) as in 1990 has gone up against much better than late soviet tanks, often head on, and come out very positive in KD. Often while outnumbered and without strategic surprise. Russian hardware is almost always wildly overhyped, and under delivers. Then, and now. But it does still deliver deadly effects, and if not treated with respect and the right tools to counter them, it will kill you very dead.
M60 used in desert storm had capabilities to shoot on the move, had good optics and fire control systems and were able to shoot modern munitions. Its not like M60 was somehow a tank equal to M48 from Vietnam
@@Eleolius "Bradley has gone up against much better than late soviet tanks, often head on, and come out very positive in KD." And where did that happen? In some computer simulation?
There is also the post penetration results. If a tank were to be penetrated what were the likely results be? In the case of a T-72 you might get an ammunition cookoff and a turret in the road.
I'm going to let you know if a tank is penetrated frontally it really doesn't matter most of the crew are dead. Only tanks with segregated crew compartments can say otherwise.
You’re a war thunder player. If a tank gets penetrated anywhere, the crew are abandoning that thing ASAP. IRL people don’t behave like your war thunder crew
I wonder how much any of this mattered against air power interdiction? I was under the impression that most of these were destroyed by air power. Not the 30mm Warthog gun, but bombs, missiles, etc.
I don't even know why this is a discussion point. GAO NSIAD-92-94, Page 4: "In fact, the enemy destroyed no Abrams tanks during the Persian Gulf war, according to the Army." Regardless of all other factors, dumb luck should have accounted for at least a few enemy kills.
My buddies dad was on a m60 during the gulf war. They took a t72 out at night, they could see the Iraqis what he described as they looked like they were floating but they standing on top the tank at night, they could see them with thermal used a he round because the crew was outside. The next day when the sun was up he noted the tank was pretty small and it looked like it hadnt been taken care of at all.
I remember arguing on tank forums years ago about the Abrams superiority to t-72, I remembered the main argument for the t-72 was “these were Iraqi crews and not well trained Russians”. This defense did not age well.
The Russian Army from now is quite different from the Soviet Army. After the fall of the Soviet Union there was basically no money for the military for a long time, this would have broken every other army as well. More details here: th-cam.com/video/R98I-kD2vcQ/w-d-xo.html
In basic Iraqi T-72s couldn't penetrate another T-72M1 armor frontally. As far as I have seen(read) from the memoares of the US tank commanders, the ammo for the Iraqi T-72 were just upscaled ammo from the T-62, old steel core APFSDS. I know that they aren't experts on the Soviet ammo (some even claimed that is a training ammo), but killing Chieftains in Iran service and disable M1A1HA is another thing. Remember even partial penetration near the gun is enough to dislocate the gun from its cradle and remove the tank from the battle. Edit: The US had GPS abd the thermals, so the night engagements were no problem on 1800-2000 m while T-72 couldn't even see the tank on more than 300 m....
Except Ukraine has shown that this belief is the myth. Chieftain and Lazerpig and others have talked about hard and soft factors on tanks and Western, especially U.S. tanks have killed it over eastern designs on soft factors for almost 60 years while hard factors have never been so lop sided (until today).
@@chadblake7142 The myth is that there's a war in Ukraine. The fighting lasted less than a month and now both sides are just firing at nothing for the glamor shots
@@chadblake7142 Except it hasnt shown that because neither side is using massed airpower. Ukraine is dirt poor and could never afford a proper airforce and the russians lack the training and tactics to do what the US did in Iraq
The M2 Bradleys destroyed more Iraqi armored vehicles than the M1 Abrams tanks during Operation Desert Storm. Some 2,200 Bradley vehicles were deployed, and only three were lost to enemy fire.
Excellent brief summary that is definitely a vital addition to the real understanding of tank warfare. I think though, that you should have pointed out that the US possessed two very critical things the Iraqis lacked: 1. good ISR and 2. Complete air supremacy. While in the Gulf War they were not the critical issues like training and maintenance, they did contribute to the overall success. In Ukraine, NATO began the conflict with superior ISR but the Russians made vest improvements in theirs. Also, it should be noted that early in the Ukrainian conflict, Russia possessed air tactical advantage in the conflict areas only by using their air elements combined with their GTA and used missile and drone strikes to perform the deeper penetration strikes thus minimizing Russian aircraft losses. As the conflict dragged on, Russian strikes against the Ukrainian GTA defense systems resulted in such degradation of Ukraine's air defense systems that Russia had no difficulty in eventually achieving full air supremacy over all of Ukraine. This air supremacy resulted in making drone kills on armored vehicles to almost become accomplished facts once a Ukrainian armored unit was spotted.
Something that many people forget is that the air power is what gives victory over the enemy, even the best tank is trash without planes, you have scenarios like the one in Ukraine where tanks change owners every five minutes, that if the tanks survive
@@pluemas And a Bradley was taken out by 12.7mm bullet in the Gulf War. So whats your point? Btw that T90 "kill" was the autocannons destroying the optics, not the entire tank, nafotard. The tank was destroyed by drones long after the crew left it.
@@captainfreedom3649 you realise that the Bradley's taking out the optics (and the turret control, which you conveniently left out) is a mission kill, right? This isn't war thunder, a majority of the time all you have to do is damage the opposition to the point where it forces the crew to bail as the vehicle is no longer able to function. The Bradley's killed the T90, the drones just prevented its recovery and repair. I've not been able to find a source for your claim about a 50cal taking out a Bradley, but tbh it's an IFV and it's reasonable that if it got caught being hit in the rear (the rear doors are much more lightly armoured) it could penetrate. Bradley's are not magic, they're an old IFV and outdated by modern IFVs like Puma and CV90. That arguably makes it even more embarrassing that the most modern tank that Russia has got mission killed by two old IFVs that are vulnerable to 50 cals.
Oh the good old times, when tanks could be tanks and there were no swarm of drones flying around. I have my doubts that such a pure tank-mechanized warfare as DS can be repeated anymore.
@@copter2000 True, but they could be warded away (temporarily) with anti-air systems. Such weapons are much less effective against swarms of cheap, low-flying drones.
At least one Abrams was actually penetrated, suffering a side penetration from enemy fire after being hit in the rear by a Hellfire that did not detonate. B23 of 1-37AR. Other than that no penetrations ever occurred from T72 fire it seems.
The Iraqi T-72 may have been a particularly crappy version of the Tank with sub par ammo but I think Ukraine has proven that the fundamental takeaways are the same.
I know for a fact most of our armored troops spent several months on the firing line before they deployed so I know their skills were up to snuff . I have to wonder if the op forces even got to fire the main gun to even sight it in .
T-72s were pretty capable tanks, and a very credible threat to their designed adversaries - problem is the M1 Abrams, Challenger 1, Leopard 2, etc were not on the cards when the T-72 was developed. It was designed to beat Pattons and Chieftains and Leopard 1s, and while the Chieftains might have been a pretty tough nut to crack, the other two at least would almost certainly be the under-dog in that matchup. All 3 had to be wary of the T72 and give it it's fair shake. Thing is, western tank design was already beginning to seriously outpace the Russians. When Abrams and Leopard 2 and challenger show up, the T-72 looks like it's from the wrong war, and even T80s look dated. T90 shows up as a sort of stop-gap answer, but around the same time the west is upgrading their armour too, Leopard 2 is onto A4 and looking at A5, Challenger II is in the works, and the Abrams is bedding in as A2 (with whatever other over acronymic designation the yanks give it at the time). I've got to say though, it all feels a little pre WWII battleship design at the moment. Lots of tanks are being upgraded and improved, but Ukraine is casting a bit of a light on their vulnerability. Autocannons on APCs and IFVs seem to be more highly valued. Could it be that the tank's day at the spearhead is coming to a close? Are FPV drones and Precision artillery to tanks what Aircraft carriers were to battleships?
When did the -M suffix on Russian vehicles change from designating terrible export models to modernized variants? I'm assuming the change stemmed form some sort of maskirovka.
I mean in some regards, it was an updated version, also about a year ago, I think a friend told me that there are actually at least two T-72 variants that have the same suffix but are different... And for the T-55 as far as I know, I think the AB in the Soviet Union was quite different to the AB in Germany and/or Poland...
@@PeterMuskrat6968the designations are consistent if you know the logic. The type of weapon is the first letter, the number of the model, the next letter is the factory variant, the next number is a modification of such variant, the next letter is an upgrade and the next number says the package upgrade if more were made. T-72 is tank model 72. A is the first variant over the original factory Ural, all first letters after the model number indicate newly built variants. T-72M is the export version, a downgraded A that was. M1 was a modification of the M variant increasing armor by 15%. The T-72B was a newer variant with 40% more armor equivalency, better gun, FCS, engine, etc. T-72B2 was a modification of the B base made in the factory. The T-72B2M means B2 variant modernized, is an upgrade over existing units, not newly made tanks. If a Number follows the M for modernized like T-72B3M2 it means is an upgrade with a new pack of modernized upgrades very different to the previous M. Now if the M is followed by a letter it means is just a minor add on or mod on the standard Modernitsiya. Like MV being just add on armor.
From what i heard and read, the US mostly won the tank Engangements due to night vision. They could see and fire at the T72s before they even saw the Abrams.
Kind of strange that you didn't refer to the CGSC study simulating the various factors involved in the US victory at 73 Easting. Everything in this video is true, but there were also other factors closely related to the things you mentioned -- the Iraqi tank revetments actually made the vehicles _more_ visible rather than less, US air strikes conditioned Iraqi tank crews to respond by getting out of their vehicles and sheltering in trenches at first (so many of the Iraqi vehicles were unmanned for the first few crucial minutes), and so on. Without all of the factors coming together in the US forces' favour and against the Iraqis, the study posited that the results wouldn't have been as lopsided.
Did those T-72s even have thermals at all or at least a basic night vision?? For the night battles that they were, it was like beating blind elderly people in a dark room with lashes. They may hear the boom/spank sound, but have no idea where the thing came from.
What Desert Storm showed is what happens when a force designed to fight World War III goes against a tinpot regional dictator. I'm sure if the USSR gathered a coalition and sent a dozen Corps against an isolated South Korea(or other suitable western aligned secondary power) circa 1990 the result would be similar. T-80U vs K1 is about as mismatched as M1A1HA vs T-72M1.
That is very wrong. K1 being derived from later prototypes of the Abrams, were much superior to T-80's from that era. You also talk like Russians in the 1990's had good training, experience or well serviced equipment. South Korea in the 90's was outmatching Russia, maybe not in numbers, but in capabilities. Also not like Iraqi forces with T-72's were untrained. Those were some of the best forces in the region on the soviet side
@@SergyMilitaryRankings I'm comparing T-80U to M1A1HA, since both were the first rate tanks for their respective superpowers. Or do you not know how to read?
@@gansior4744 The early K1 still had the underpowered 105mm gun, no depleted uranium armor, but decent FCS. So while it could likely hit the T-80U better, penetrating it or surviving hits is another matter. Also bulk of ROK army is conscripts/reservists whose training and motivation is dubious. Capital Division might be better but I wouldn't bet on it against a Soviet Guard's Tank Corp.
Before the upgraded k1 actually got build up in numbers, the south korean decided to station t80u on the border. The upgraded k1 is most certainly better but Im not sure about the original k1.
@@samsonsoturian6013 When and IFC/APC kills the your tanks, that's a problem. When it happens AGAIN in another county and on another continent in another decade....well, LOL. Yes I am referring to the Ukraine incident.
@@xxxlonewolf49it's kinda funny how because of this, bradley was advertised as t series killer, which led to complete overestimation of it's capabilities, not only it's mostly outranged by Russian IFVs like bmp3 and bmp2m but it's only documented use against a tank was shooting t90s optics and damaging it
@ryssa2409 Uh no. Go look up the Iraq invasion dude. The brads had more tank kills than the M1 tanks & no it wasn't just the TOW missiles, they made cannon KILLs.
Zaloga proposed M1A1HA armor ages ago, pre 2010. Since then we have so many more primary sources that have been surficing that put DU armor protection levels within much more reasonable figures, for KE its anywhere between 600-650mm of RHA equivalent.
The T-72 was not second tier behind the T-80. Or more precisely, the T-72/T-72A which corresponds to the T-72M1 was under the T-72B and/or the T-64B/V. The T-72M1 matches the T-72A only in protection and mobility, not in shooting capabilities due to the computer or ammunition that the M1 users had or rather did not have. The Soviet tank line for 1991 from the best will be T-80U model 1990, T-80U, T-80UD, T-80BV, T-72B model 1989, T-72B model 1985, T-64BV, T-72AV and then only will come T-72/A, which is the most similar to M1, these models will be together with T-64A, then only T-62 and T-55 variants below. You say the bigger picture, but you don't mention at all factors like air supremacy, which NATO would not be able to have to such an extent as in Iraq, both because of the number and quality of planes or pilots, and mainly because the 4 largest armies actually only had anti-aircraft artillery, no medium and long range missiles. From a tank point of view, the Soviet ones were designed to fight 1500m, while the western tanks could handle twice that, which proved to be a big factor on the steppes or in the desert like here, but the European geography, from Poland to France, where those tanks were supposed to fight, doesn't have many of those distances due to the curvature of the terain or forests, high urbanization, using in the transferred example a tank as a sniper rifle against the enemy without optics would not be possible to such a level here, in the same way NATO tanks would face much larger artillery, which the Warsaw states were able to protect at a much larger level from the air than Iraq was able to, same for tanks and infantry.
another reason for why i enjoy your works. opinions given are listed from the people giving them, along with technical data easy to digest as a layman. I will say that taking everything as is, i do still think the soviets would be under massive pressure simply because nearing the collapse, the soviet military was, for lack of a better term, a sleepy and diseased bear (similar to how it is now prior to the current conflict). i fully expect the degradation of the various soviet militaries to have been in rather poor states outside of Guard regiments and or parade regiments. from anecdotal stories i have heard, tanks were not stored in bunkers or out of the elements but rather out in random fields. Becoming a tank crew would oft necessitate going into said field and getting one of the machines to start and run. Now, whether such claims are true or not, ultimately is irrelevant. If a ww3 scenario/major conflict between east and western powers sparked, the numbers of conscripts that would field said tanks verses trained men would make any prediction on feasibility a difficult sell. Especially when the vast majority of tank numbers in the soviet arsenal would be older model tanks which would be out of date by the conflict. Sure western powers would have similar issues, but i suspect the sheer technological edge plus we have also seen the sheer efectiveness of weapons designed for a conflict at that time, has cut swathes through the eastern armoured forces
The Russian Army from now is quite different from the Soviet Army. After the fall of the Soviet Union there was basically no money for the military for a long time, this would have broken every other army as well. More Details here: th-cam.com/video/R98I-kD2vcQ/w-d-xo.html
Off topic, but based on real world results I feel like if politicians could horse trade the US should buy Leopards and the EU should buy US IFVs. Not saying the Abrams should go away, but I think it fits better as a specialty unit spread across all NATO countries with Leopards as the Main Battle Tank of NATO. And Bradleys have been punching WAY above their weight. There is no reason every EU NATO country shouldn't have 500 such vehicles.
The Abrams has as a foundation the same kind of limits that the Sherman had, i.e. It is much more likely that the U.S. has to transport them by boat or plane to the theater of operations than it is that they will be needed to defend Nebraska. The Abrams has lots of support equipment that is built around carrying them all over.
Maintaining a single fleet of mbt is already expensive and complicated as is. Who in their right mind will intentionally complicate stuff by introducing another type, especially when the other type has a different fuel requirement. Unless you are in a rush, it is much better to keep it slow. Then there is the ifv. Why but oversea when they can buy local? Especially when some of your local sub contractor is involved in supplying parts for the local product.
@@jintsuubest9331 NATO already has to be able to transport and service all of these different types of equipment. And I'm aware politicians want to buy from local contractors. But in a major conflict, this fragmentation and protectionism means problems with a variety of equipment, most of which we now know to be inferior.
Do you think it would have been wise for the Iraqis to close the distance for a close-range battle, given their impotent ammo and weaker armour? At a closer range, both parties would have been able to penetrate each other's armour more easily, which helps the Iraqi T-72s and doesn't benefit the M1A1 since it could already penetrate the T-72 from further away.
Closing the range across flat open desert didn't do the Britsh forces a lot of good in the Western Desert, so I can't see the Iraqis fairing any better.
t-72 is not a bad tank. but the t72 used by the Iraqis is old and of poor quality and while the Russians add armor to protect the t-72s, the Iraqi asad babil tank does not even have an era. In addition to this, they were destroyed because the Iraqis lost air superiority and Iraqi tank crews poorly trained
Interesting to mention how China never wanted to buy or copy any T-62 or T-72 variants. They studied what had happened in Iraq, and never wanted to spend a single dollar on such outclassed tanks. Also, some people mentioned here how later T-72 variants were much better 😂 Seriously, if no modern, industrialized nation buys them even for ten percent of the price of a western tank, there must be good reasons.
2 issues Iraq and Russia both have deep training and logistics issues, its not just an Iraqi thing. Neither had/has interoperability and communication between their units anywhere jear America's Secondly, you said America took the offensive early, and Iraq didnt maneuver much. This is misleading, in truth they COULDN'T maneuver much. What a wickedly fast war... Those yanks know their work
The Russian tanks in general are shitbox editions the paper 📃 statistics are often never correct as when mass production starts standards drop drastically. All of the captured goodies from Ukraine confirmed what we knew from the Gulf war what goes on the paper 📃 and what we see in combat is completely different however the T-72 is finished it will never again be considered a threat to NATO troops no amount of modernization could keep it relevant. Simply put in its most basic terms a group of motivated infantry properly equiped need not fear it as ATGM Drones artillery can Simply erase its existence.
nooooooo the iraqis used them wrong thats why they got destroyed sounds stupid isnt it ? well thats what every single western tank fan is yaping all the time as soon a western tank gets destroyed
While i do think that MHV is correct in arguing that desert storm was quite a unique scenario, soviet tanks have still performed poorly in all other conflicts were they have been used like in modern day ukraine or in the yom kippur war, and its not only because those countries "didn't adopt soviet tactics" its because soviet tanks are abysmal to operate, this is something chieftain has talked quite a bit and it doesn't matter how much you improve the armor or improve ammunition, if the crew is uncomfortable, exhausted and almost blind before even getting to the battlefield they will perform poorly in return.
All the other conflicts like...Yom kippur where they were ok and Israel won by airpower, Ukraine 40 years after USSR is gone. Do you even realize what tanks Israeli had?
@@Ihavpickle Even in Yom Kippur the Arabs had poorly equipped tanks, lacked training, and suffered from incompetent and restrictive chain of command. Not to mention that Israel had good air superiority. So no, that's not a good example to prove your point. Same thing is true about Ukraine: poorly maintained tanks are used by poorly trained crews in a modern battlefield dominated by ATGMS and drones. So again, that can't be used to prove your point
The hull front of the abrams DOES NOT have 600mm protection against apfsds. It is well known that the armor aray is dated and it is actually publically available. There are ANSYS simulation videos out there qhich show that the hull front of the abrams can just barely stop the jagtiger 128mm gun and surely any apfsds with more than 350 to 400 mm of penetration would cut through it like butter. Again it is publically available info which is why people have made a lot of ansys simulation videos of the hull against apfsds and other rounds and it actually isnt that good.
Without air superiority Abrams would not fare much better than it had fared in Ukraine. It is slow, heavy and large target. There were no drones back then, but Iraq had large number of guided and even bigger number of unguided AT weapons. In fact, Abrams was vulnerable and was destroyed in significant numbers by Iraqi insurgents after Second Gulf War. US way of waging war since WW2 was always to establish air superiority first. Against USSR that would not work, thus they never attempted outright conflict.
Quite a lot of soviet armor fans made this claim that if crewed by russians this would have turned different. But now reality showed us otherwise for more than two years. And before some people with fragile egos start with the " BuT MuH W3St taNk5 AlSO g0T Lo5T In UkRAIn3 " whataboutism ( because they always resort to that ), that was not the point. The point was that even the " best " soviet tanks ( I won't call them russian because all their tanks were designed and built in the USSR ) crewed by " elite " russians had their turret tossed in the atmosphere. They are vulnerable ( any tank is and that includes western tanks of course, but those are still superior ).
Reality has also shown us that the Abrams are little more than rusted cans, at this point I don't know why we argue about tanks in the first place if all tanks are vulnerable in the 21st century
@@armandoventura9043 Such a rusted car that all dementive ruZZian propagandists started threatening with nukes when Abrams were announced. Why ? If the Abrams is so bad ? If its so worthless, why did all the pro russian bots were celebrating like they were taking Kyiv when a few western tanks were lost ? Meanwhile Ukraine pops turrest of T90 and latest T80 like is bussiness as usual. And it is bussiness as usual for the to pop turrets of soviet tanks.
Yes, T 72 in all variants is terrible. It was not terrible in the early 1970s, but has been close to operationally useless against a British or US force since at least 1982. Yes, the Abrams was, and continues to be superior to any T 72 or T 80 variant. It has better armor, better optics, better fire control, and most importantly, better munitions. No, it was not Iraqi crews that caused this. That argument would have to assume Russian crews would be better than US and British crews. No one should make that argument. No, the US Army does not "fear" Russian tanks of any variant. The US does not fight tank vs tank. Russian tactics suck, Russian equipment sucks, and therefore, Russian equipped and trained armies will suck.
@@basemanawakens6089 They have taken more territory this year in Kursk alone than what russia have taken since the start of this year. So you should try to consume some other information than only pro-russian junk. Fact remains that if Ukraine suffered the same losses as russia have done the last 2 years, then this war would have been over long ago. Because Ukraine does not have 10.000 tanks that it can lose like russia does.
@@basemanawakens6089 i mean i wouldnt call successfully fighting back against a supposed great power in a conventional war with a major materiel and manpower disadvantages losing but you do you
Nah, T72 was regarding firepower superior to M1 and just later there was a draw between M1A1 and T72B. In a hot cold war the t72 was only slightly inferior, mainly to crew ergonomics, firecontrol and sensors, but not in firepower or armor (that changed only later with the M1A1HA). In total something like a factor of 1.5 to 2.
The T-72 was superior to every British tank till maybe the Challenger 2. Chieftain Mk.5s were getting frontally penetrated by T-62s of all tanks, forget fighting a T-72.
Note from 13th to 27th September the T-72: The Definitive Guide to the Soviet Workhhorse is 20 % off and all our other books are about 10 % off, see them here: militaryhistorygroup.com.
C Co. 2/34 AR 1st ID Desert Storm vet (M1A1HA)... All our tank vs tank engagements were at night, most notably against Republican Guard T72s in the battle at phase line Norfolk. They never stood a chance, our TIS picked them up before they could even see us much less return fire. At 1800 - 2000 meters we were getting full pens, tracers often bounced off the ground on the far side of the target. Many of them had ammo detonations immediately after the pen, and all of them caught fire. The T72M1 was simply outmatched in every way that mattered.
Crazy what happens when you fight a tank with early 70s technology
That carousel auto loader in the middle of the crew compartment seemed like a good idea at the time...
@@SergyMilitaryRankings the Abrams was also designed at that time.
@@pluemasNo, the Abrahams entered both design and production roughly 8-9 years after the T-72
@@pluemas But not the upgraded version that was actually there. Did you even watch the video?
"Sure, you'll see some tank battles. But fighting in desert is very different from fighting in canopy jungle. I mean 'nam was a foot soldier's war. Whereas, this thing should, you know, should be a piece of cake. I mean, I had an M16, Jacko. Not an Abrams fucking tank. Me and Charlie, eyeball to eyeball. Yeah. That's fuckin' combat. The man in the black pajamas, Dude. Worthy fuckin' adversary.
Who's in pajamas, Walter?
Shut the fuck up, Donny.
Whereas what we have here? A bunch of fig-eaters wearing towels on their heads, trying to find reverse in a Soviet tank. This is not a worthy adversary."
Walter Sobchak
Thank you. Best movie ever.
@@Shotty262 , the Dude abides ☺️
"Saddam Hussein went from having the fourth largest army in the world to having the second largest army in Iraq." - General Norman Schwartzkopf
Big in paper terms. The Iraqi army fought each other more than anyone else, but you'd have to be in the know on local gangs to know who was fighting who
Same happen recently in 2022
Iraq did not have the 4th most powerful army
@@Slycarlo goofy delusional comment
@@SergyMilitaryRankings they did just look at the numbers before the firdt gulf war
As a Terrian Analyst, one of our tasks was finding, via remote sensing, and plotting the location of "revetments". Prepared locations where Iraqi tanks had already dug emplacements. Holy crap, they were everywhere!
I don't recall if they actually utilized any of them. The 24th ID out flanking them kinda messed up their plans...
Except they could avoid them because you found them. Your counterparts in Iraqi intelligence were useless because most of their spying was on other Iraqis and they lacked equipment and expertise.
They are all over Iraq. Our base in 2010 still had the fighting positions dug out by the Iraqis in the 80s.
I was assigned to 4th Bn 70th Armor, 2nd Brigade, 1st Armored Division, during Desert Shield/Desert Storm. My unit along with the entirety of the units that deployed from Germany to Saudi Arabia had the standard M1A1. When the equipment arrived in Saudi Arabia, all of these tanks had a DU plate welded to the front glacis of the turret before being given a quick coat of desert sand paint.
My understanding is even the Bradleys took out a lot of Iraqi tanks, the issue being that the Bradleys detected the Iraqi tanks long before the Iraqis knew what was going on.
My brother was 101st Airborne. They were helicoptered deep into Iraq with a mission of preventing return of Iraqi units along the Baghdad Basra highway. I assume they took had sufficient weaponry to take out Iraqi armor if necessary.
Equipment argument doesn't matter anyways, you did absolutely nothing. The war was won in a day with just the air force then you rolled in, played pretend to feel big and strong.
@@channeldud What's the temperature in Moscow these days?
You cannot weld du plate on top of steel plate, at least not without very expensive welding.
@@jintsuubest9331 that is what we were told. It wasn’t a bunch of army guys doing some field expediant mods. It was a lot of civilian contractors that had a lot of expensive looking equipment.
Another thing people often forget or don't talk about is that by most accounts those very same T-72M1s did pretty well for themselves in the first gulf war against equally mismanaged Iranian tanks of a similar technical vintage. So it seems to be a perfectly decent machine against the threats it was intended to fight, all other factors being equal.
Yep that's what people love to ignore. People saying the M1A1 Abrams beating T-72M1 is impressive is like saying a T-90M beating a M60A3 or a T-14 beating a M1A1 Abrams is impressive
@@SergyMilitaryRankingsthe t14 isn’t even impressive
@@Rokaizeit isn't hardly even real lol
The Iraqis struggled against the Iranians who at that time had to cannibalize parts from vehicles due to arms embargoes. This is while Iraq received top notch equipment and intelligence from NATO countries and the Soviet Union. The Iraqis were just poorly lead and trained and had low morale plus they were fighting major militaries.
It is. Stop coping. @@Rokaize
Don’t think even better T 72s would have changed the outcome of Desert Storm very much
They need better training and numerical superiority with the better t-72.
Once the Coalition had air superiority it was game over on the ground.
Even alien weaponry would have performed poorly when Iraqis were using them
The fun y thing is the most deadly vehicule in iraq it was the f-111, then the brandly destroy a lot of t72 even when they are just scouts (the bradley scout version)
True Iraq needed way more than just better tanks
The problem with a tank digging itself in is, the soil it turns over tends to be of a different color and temperature then the topsoil. This means the resulting berm becomes a "kill me mound", making enemy tanks easy to identify visually or through TTS.
so it's better to just sit in the open?
@@Duncomradecan’t speak for certain, but t72’s have atrocious revering speed. At least if you were in the open you could potentially use forward gears and reposition. If you have to rely on the t72’s reverse speed to get you out of a bad position you’re gonna have a bad time.
It was literally the T-72 in its worst state vs the M1 in its best state.
Cool collab!
How was it like? Crowded? Or just darkness and messy
AND the majority of Iraqi tank were t-55
@@mr.waffentrager4400 as an Iraqi many people were mistaken we had the 4th LARGEST army not the strongest quality is better than quantity
Would T-72A model 1979 have done better? Better armor was not much better and better round had a margin of advantage but nothing revolutionary. Explosive armor could help against TOW missiles if you got lucky but not effective against KE round.
The crew training might be a factor but do not forget how good thermal sights are in dry air over long ranges.
@@MarcinP2 no matter how much armour you have a tank could always penatrate it if not a tank then definitely bombs and missiles of any sort
Fun fact: there were two battalions that fought with M1IPs. (1-64AR, and 3-67AR IIRC.)
I think the biggest problem with the Iraqi T-72s was the training and tactics, not entirely the technology. They mostly used their best tank as self-propelled assault guns in fixed positions, which proved effective against Iranian human wave tactics.
That said, very lack of training in mobile warfare, like counter-attack and etc. The T-72s would have more chance of success if they used them in a more mobile, shock tactic instead of sitting duck in their fixed spider holes.
Ive read they also foucused on armour rather then ifv they should have hit supporting infantry.
Agains a enemy with total manpower and material superiority being dare is risky and hard but unpredictable too
There's also the issue that many of their troops were demoralized, especially from the constant air attacks. The one story about a few M1s destroying numerous Iraqi tanks was mainly because of a dust storm, I believe, and the Iraqis lacking in the proper equipment to see through it like the US had. There was also the fact that many of the best troops and tanks were held back.
The Iraqis were screwed either way because the US had total air superiority. Apache helicopters, A-10's, F-16's, you name it, were pounding the Iraqis for a month before the end run by the ground forces. So either get destroyed in their fixed defiladed positions or get destroyed out in the open. I also remember also a well publiziced amphibious exercise to keep the Iraqis guessing. The Iraqis had been schooled in Soviet doctrine and the US had spent fifteen years figuring out how to specifically defeat that doctrine.
@@kurt9395 And then the US ended up fighting an enemy decades behind even the Red Army. Like training with weighted gloves to fight a heavyweight, then finding out you're actually fighting the contender's tweaker cousin.
Poor sovietwomble. His logo being shown at the mention of low attention or training. lol
*civilian truck blows up*
“Who put an anti-tank mine on the main road?”
“But it’s an anti-tank mine, it shouldn’t have gone off…”
“Oh my God ARE YOU SERIOUS? YOU PUT AN ANTI-TANK MINE ON THE MAIN ROAD. THE MAIN FUCKING ROAD.”
“But it’s an anti-tank mine. Thats not a tank.”
“HOW DUMB ARE YOU!”
I’m glad somebody else noticed that
I mean..... it's on point xP
Sadly when I hear some people talk of aircraft and tanks they assume they're all the same, not even thinking about the countless variants of the vehicles. Leading them to blame faults or issues on the entire group instead of the one with the problem.
I always credited the victory on the Abrams on the Coalition’s access to GPS. It was the deciding factor as we could see where the all the T-72s were while they lacked a similar capability.
A.k.a. newest top of the line vehicle, backed up by all the support assets of a large multinational coalition, vs. a decade old export version of a mass-production vehicle.
Abrams was and is a mass-production vehicle. It was also made is mind boggling amounts
Yup, about right.
Still one of the best military campaigns in human history.
bUt iRaQ wAs tHE 4th lArGeSt aRmY iN dA w0Rld!!!111!
@gansior4744 Yes, but comparatively speaking, IIRC USA produced about 7000 M1s in the 80s, while USSR produced about 25000 T-64s, T-72s, and T-80s (on top of about 13000 produced in the 70s).
@@captainfreedom3649 so mad
2:25 It could also be noted that contemporary production T-72A were already better than T-72M1 and closer to T-72B, receiving the 1A40 FCS with the mentioned lead calculator in 1982, and improved turret with NERA composite plates and 5-layer UFP in 1983.
8:45 "low amount of training and attention" *picture of Soviet womble for reference*
guess I'm buying new books now
Very grateful when you veer into modern military topics. Thank you for the content!
M1A1s could spot, acquire, and accurately hit T-72M1s before T-72s could lase. Not like the T-72s could take a hit from the 120 either, nor dish out effective return fire with 3BM9, thus engagements were very 1-sided.
Whilst tanks played an important role in the swift and successful ground phase of the war, air power was the decisive factor in Operation Desert Storm. It not only crippled Iraq’s ability to fight but also ensured that the ground campaign was brief and overwhelmingly successful.
Don’t forget GPS.
A cool collab in the context of discussing armor pen would be to bring in SY Simulation and / or Dejmian XYZ Simulation to model the M1A1 on T-72 and the T-72 on M1A1 at the 2km ranges.
We don't know anything about m1 armor. There is 1 cia document, and it is a scanning of a drawing thats scanned incorrectly (slanted). Also, the image is not to scale.
The original m1 armor has acceptable performance against the likes of 3bm22 using some assumption based on understanding of basic rod armor interaction.
We know more than enough about t72 armor. They struggle against m900 and m829, period. Especially the hull, I believed field testing said the projectile pass through the armor and the vehicle from a distance that's at least 2000m away.
In the US Army and Marine tank crews mirror each other. The most important part in crew training was gunnery, US tank crews would spend many hours in the MCOFT simulator prior to any gunnery qualification. The MCOFT is the Tank Commander and Gunner combination which emphasizes both to complete an engagement at the fastest time from identifying the target then destroying it. Fire commands, gunners manipulating controls from selecting ammunition, using the Gunners Auxiliary Sight as an emergency procedure with no power and only manual controls. The MCOFT system behaves exactly like the real controls in the M1 series tank. As a gunner and commander the best thing training with it was the emphasis on training using the Thermal Imager in all engagements in different environments. This training is done under time constraints in order to advance to the next phase of engagement, it consists of over if I remember right over 60 types of engagements in the program. It requires a lot of mental stamina to endure hours of making mistakes of being to slow or failing and have to re- do an engagement over and over until as TC and Gunner complete and reach Reticle Aim 201 at the end which is completion. When I went to my first gunnery as a gunner our tank Q-1 meaning first time qualification and 3rd place as a crew. The MCOFT is an excellent training device. Many NATO countries have similar systems for their appropriate tank model.
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere in the past that they were using crap ammunition too, it wasn't even tungsten. They were shooting Steel training rounds.
Comparing US military equipment since ww2 to other nations is so interesting because it fits their country's methods of war so well but often is underwhelming when used by others (Sherman, Abrams, even small arms)
I always found the arms and tactics and logistical race in the cold war fascinating
War is logistics by other means. Tens of thousands of Shermans works a lot better than a few hundred!
The contrast in tank philosophies is none more apparent than the Leopard 1 vs. the T-60 models.
How were any of these underwhelming when used by other nations ?
@@me67galaxylife Have you looked at the Saudi Abrams losses in Yemen? They have done horrendously with the Abrams.
@@me67galaxylifeWell, the M1A1 is the first US tank that clearly outperforms most foreign tanks and would for a good generation. Before that the US army was dealing with stop gaps M26, M46, M47, M48 until M60. And M60 was def. a different design philosophy, with some distinctive downsides to go with its upsides, compared to Centurion, Chieftain, Leopard 1 and the sovjet MBTs. But the US industry surely was able to keep her up to date on the key area's where M60 performed well. This is offcourse somewhat more difficult for some foreign operators.
1) Iraqis were nowhere nearly as well trained as the Americans. 2) My understanding of the T-72 is that it was primarily intended as a more affordable, export tank, whereas in the 80s, the Soviets primarily used the T-80s and T-64s, so really wasn't necessarily intended to take on front-line American tanks. I can't remember where I saw it, but I remember once reading that a veteran of the 1991 tank battles stated that if the US Forces were equipped with M60A3s instead of Abrams, the result would have likely been very similar, due to the massive training/morale disparity in favor of the Americans
No, it's intended as a more easily mass produced T-64 like AKM to Ak-47. There are export variant T-72s and domestic use productions so no, it's not intended for export
Some US Forces were equipped with M60s during Desert Storm. And the main advantage was complete air control over Kuwait and Iraq.
@flarvin8945 Only the Marines had M60A3's with appliqué armour. The only armour on armour engagement, including M60s, was Kafji before the ground war had actually started.
And I believe that were Saudi operated M60's.
The Marines only fired HE against infantry, according to their war diaries, all the armour they encountered had been destroyed before the tanks got in range.
@@flarvin8945only the Marines had M60 series tanks. All active duty army tank forces were equipped with M1A1 tanks.
@@johnm9002 US Marines are not part of the US Forces?
I think the scenario we should ask about is what if the war had been a few years earlier, or the US introduced the M1 a few years later, so it was mostly an M60 vs T-72 fight. That was the scenario the Russian tank was built for. Now its a tank with thick, but still steel armor, and the older style of ammunition handling (a few ready rounds on the walls, and the others in less coinvent parts of the tank) vs an auto-loader that doesn't slow down. Spin stabilized shells (albeit good ones) vs a smooth bore. Now from a point of training and money - I'd still say the US has the edge (remember, Iraq was mostly bankrupt from a war it fought from 1980-88, and grabbing the treasure of Kuwait was a way to pay its debts.)
Well, the M60s the marines used in GW1 had no trouble at all versus Iraqi tanks of all types.
Russian kit, in Iraqi hands, was just not very good. If every Abrams were a late M60, there would have been a few dozen lost. But it'd still be deeply one sided as a war. A lot, and I mean a lot, of the Iraqi tanks got side shot, or rear. M60 circa 1990 was still able to fire on the move and could have used similar tactics. They would have suffered more from counter fire hits, to be sure, and would have taken more hits, too, due to being slower, but most of what won GW1 was better training, tactics, better strategy, better optics, and better networking.
Folks insist front line Russian kit from the era would have done much better...
I don't really think so. Bradleys with basically the same overall kit (relative to their foe) as in 1990 has gone up against much better than late soviet tanks, often head on, and come out very positive in KD. Often while outnumbered and without strategic surprise. Russian hardware is almost always wildly overhyped, and under delivers. Then, and now. But it does still deliver deadly effects, and if not treated with respect and the right tools to counter them, it will kill you very dead.
M60 used in desert storm had capabilities to shoot on the move, had good optics and fire control systems and were able to shoot modern munitions. Its not like M60 was somehow a tank equal to M48 from Vietnam
@@Eleolius "Bradley has gone up against much better than late soviet tanks, often head on, and come out very positive in KD." And where did that happen? In some computer simulation?
@@captainfreedom3649You could use that same argument for Soviet vehicles lmao
I just bought Ryan’s T72 book, great author
Thank you!
The Soviets never offered the best equipment to export. Imagine if the Germans did the same…
There is also the post penetration results. If a tank were to be penetrated what were the likely results be? In the case of a T-72 you might get an ammunition cookoff and a turret in the road.
I'm going to let you know if a tank is penetrated frontally it really doesn't matter most of the crew are dead.
Only tanks with segregated crew compartments can say otherwise.
You’re a war thunder player. If a tank gets penetrated anywhere, the crew are abandoning that thing ASAP. IRL people don’t behave like your war thunder crew
I wonder how much any of this mattered against air power interdiction? I was under the impression that most of these were destroyed by air power. Not the 30mm Warthog gun, but bombs, missiles, etc.
I don't even know why this is a discussion point. GAO NSIAD-92-94, Page 4: "In fact, the enemy destroyed no Abrams tanks during the Persian Gulf war, according to the Army." Regardless of all other factors, dumb luck should have accounted for at least a few enemy kills.
My buddies dad was on a m60 during the gulf war. They took a t72 out at night, they could see the Iraqis what he described as they looked like they were floating but they standing on top the tank at night, they could see them with thermal used a he round because the crew was outside. The next day when the sun was up he noted the tank was pretty small and it looked like it hadnt been taken care of at all.
I remember arguing on tank forums years ago about the Abrams superiority to t-72, I remembered the main argument for the t-72 was “these were Iraqi crews and not well trained Russians”. This defense did not age well.
Well of course there are different levels of training for Russian tank crews. The best used the T-80 around this time.
The Russian Army from now is quite different from the Soviet Army. After the fall of the Soviet Union there was basically no money for the military for a long time, this would have broken every other army as well. More details here: th-cam.com/video/R98I-kD2vcQ/w-d-xo.html
In basic Iraqi T-72s couldn't penetrate another T-72M1 armor frontally. As far as I have seen(read) from the memoares of the US tank commanders, the ammo for the Iraqi T-72 were just upscaled ammo from the T-62, old steel core APFSDS. I know that they aren't experts on the Soviet ammo (some even claimed that is a training ammo), but killing Chieftains in Iran service and disable M1A1HA is another thing. Remember even partial penetration near the gun is enough to dislocate the gun from its cradle and remove the tank from the battle.
Edit: The US had GPS abd the thermals, so the night engagements were no problem on 1800-2000 m while T-72 couldn't even see the tank on more than 300 m....
Danke 👍
The battlefield was shaped by airpower so the performance of the m1s agaisnt t72 is even more exaggerated
Except Ukraine has shown that this belief is the myth.
Chieftain and Lazerpig and others have talked about hard and soft factors on tanks and Western, especially U.S. tanks have killed it over eastern designs on soft factors for almost 60 years while hard factors have never been so lop sided (until today).
@@chadblake7142 The myth is that there's a war in Ukraine. The fighting lasted less than a month and now both sides are just firing at nothing for the glamor shots
@@chadblake7142 Except it hasnt shown that because neither side is using massed airpower. Ukraine is dirt poor and could never afford a proper airforce and the russians lack the training and tactics to do what the US did in Iraq
@@stranger299a I dont think people realize how corrupted and poorly armed Ukraine was prior to 2014
@@chadblake7142 quoting Lazerpig unironically is like declaring yourself mentally ill
The M2 Bradleys destroyed more Iraqi armored vehicles than the M1 Abrams tanks during Operation Desert Storm. Some 2,200 Bradley vehicles were deployed, and only three were lost to enemy fire.
Better fuel economy doesn’t amount to much if it’s on fire.
“Low amount of training and attention” SovietWomble pictured for reference
Interesting.
Excellent brief summary that is definitely a vital addition to the real understanding of tank warfare. I think though, that you should have pointed out that the US possessed two very critical things the Iraqis lacked: 1. good ISR and 2. Complete air supremacy. While in the Gulf War they were not the critical issues like training and maintenance, they did contribute to the overall success. In Ukraine, NATO began the conflict with superior ISR but the Russians made vest improvements in theirs. Also, it should be noted that early in the Ukrainian conflict, Russia possessed air tactical advantage in the conflict areas only by using their air elements combined with their GTA and used missile and drone strikes to perform the deeper penetration strikes thus minimizing Russian aircraft losses. As the conflict dragged on, Russian strikes against the Ukrainian GTA defense systems resulted in such degradation of Ukraine's air defense systems that Russia had no difficulty in eventually achieving full air supremacy over all of Ukraine. This air supremacy resulted in making drone kills on armored vehicles to almost become accomplished facts once a Ukrainian armored unit was spotted.
Thanks Bernhard.
Something that many people forget is that the air power is what gives victory over the enemy, even the best tank is trash without planes, you have scenarios like the one in Ukraine where tanks change owners every five minutes, that if the tanks survive
Highly doubt the Russian 13 SABOTA does as well as they claim
Russia has wrecked NATO equipment
@@SergyMilitaryRankings Bro a T90 got smoked by Bradley's... Keep huffing the copium.
@@SergyMilitaryRankings Russia has trouble countering western equipment from the 80's and 90's. Russia stopped being relevant in the '89
@@pluemas And a Bradley was taken out by 12.7mm bullet in the Gulf War. So whats your point? Btw that T90 "kill" was the autocannons destroying the optics, not the entire tank, nafotard. The tank was destroyed by drones long after the crew left it.
@@captainfreedom3649 you realise that the Bradley's taking out the optics (and the turret control, which you conveniently left out) is a mission kill, right?
This isn't war thunder, a majority of the time all you have to do is damage the opposition to the point where it forces the crew to bail as the vehicle is no longer able to function. The Bradley's killed the T90, the drones just prevented its recovery and repair.
I've not been able to find a source for your claim about a 50cal taking out a Bradley, but tbh it's an IFV and it's reasonable that if it got caught being hit in the rear (the rear doors are much more lightly armoured) it could penetrate. Bradley's are not magic, they're an old IFV and outdated by modern IFVs like Puma and CV90.
That arguably makes it even more embarrassing that the most modern tank that Russia has got mission killed by two old IFVs that are vulnerable to 50 cals.
Genuine question
How did tanks in WW2 actually hit anything? The calculations are hellishly complex. It's a wonder there were any hits at all!
Oh the good old times, when tanks could be tanks and there were no swarm of drones flying around. I have my doubts that such a pure tank-mechanized warfare as DS can be repeated anymore.
There's a swarm of F-16s and Apaches back then.
@@copter2000 True, but they could be warded away (temporarily) with anti-air systems. Such weapons are much less effective against swarms of cheap, low-flying drones.
@@Jupiter__001_ for now
At least one Abrams was actually penetrated, suffering a side penetration from enemy fire after being hit in the rear by a Hellfire that did not detonate. B23 of 1-37AR. Other than that no penetrations ever occurred from T72 fire it seems.
The Iraqi T-72 may have been a particularly crappy version of the Tank with sub par ammo but I think Ukraine has proven that the fundamental takeaways are the same.
I know for a fact most of our armored troops spent several months on the firing line before they deployed so I know their skills were up to snuff . I have to wonder if the op forces even got to fire the main gun to even sight it in .
T-72s were pretty capable tanks, and a very credible threat to their designed adversaries - problem is the M1 Abrams, Challenger 1, Leopard 2, etc were not on the cards when the T-72 was developed. It was designed to beat Pattons and Chieftains and Leopard 1s, and while the Chieftains might have been a pretty tough nut to crack, the other two at least would almost certainly be the under-dog in that matchup. All 3 had to be wary of the T72 and give it it's fair shake.
Thing is, western tank design was already beginning to seriously outpace the Russians. When Abrams and Leopard 2 and challenger show up, the T-72 looks like it's from the wrong war, and even T80s look dated. T90 shows up as a sort of stop-gap answer, but around the same time the west is upgrading their armour too, Leopard 2 is onto A4 and looking at A5, Challenger II is in the works, and the Abrams is bedding in as A2 (with whatever other over acronymic designation the yanks give it at the time).
I've got to say though, it all feels a little pre WWII battleship design at the moment. Lots of tanks are being upgraded and improved, but Ukraine is casting a bit of a light on their vulnerability. Autocannons on APCs and IFVs seem to be more highly valued. Could it be that the tank's day at the spearhead is coming to a close? Are FPV drones and Precision artillery to tanks what Aircraft carriers were to battleships?
When did the -M suffix on Russian vehicles change from designating terrible export models to modernized variants? I'm assuming the change stemmed form some sort of maskirovka.
I mean in some regards, it was an updated version, also about a year ago, I think a friend told me that there are actually at least two T-72 variants that have the same suffix but are different...
And for the T-55 as far as I know, I think the AB in the Soviet Union was quite different to the AB in Germany and/or Poland...
How many so called T72 might have been Asad Babil boilerplate iraqi tanks?
t72m(1) specifically are export
in other cases its modernized
t72m is worse t72a and t72m1 is around same as t72a iirc
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Ahh, soviet designations being completely inconsistent and insane. I'll take calling something an M1 any day of the week.
@@PeterMuskrat6968the designations are consistent if you know the logic.
The type of weapon is the first letter, the number of the model, the next letter is the factory variant, the next number is a modification of such variant, the next letter is an upgrade and the next number says the package upgrade if more were made.
T-72 is tank model 72. A is the first variant over the original factory Ural, all first letters after the model number indicate newly built variants.
T-72M is the export version, a downgraded A that was. M1 was a modification of the M variant increasing armor by 15%.
The T-72B was a newer variant with 40% more armor equivalency, better gun, FCS, engine, etc. T-72B2 was a modification of the B base made in the factory.
The T-72B2M means B2 variant modernized, is an upgrade over existing units, not newly made tanks.
If a Number follows the M for modernized like T-72B3M2 it means is an upgrade with a new pack of modernized upgrades very different to the previous M. Now if the M is followed by a letter it means is just a minor add on or mod on the standard Modernitsiya. Like MV being just add on armor.
From what i heard and read, the US mostly won the tank Engangements due to night vision. They could see and fire at the T72s before they even saw the Abrams.
Kind of strange that you didn't refer to the CGSC study simulating the various factors involved in the US victory at 73 Easting. Everything in this video is true, but there were also other factors closely related to the things you mentioned -- the Iraqi tank revetments actually made the vehicles _more_ visible rather than less, US air strikes conditioned Iraqi tank crews to respond by getting out of their vehicles and sheltering in trenches at first (so many of the Iraqi vehicles were unmanned for the first few crucial minutes), and so on. Without all of the factors coming together in the US forces' favour and against the Iraqis, the study posited that the results wouldn't have been as lopsided.
Heavy cavalry.
Did those T-72s even have thermals at all or at least a basic night vision?? For the night battles that they were, it was like beating blind elderly people in a dark room with lashes. They may hear the boom/spank sound, but have no idea where the thing came from.
What Desert Storm showed is what happens when a force designed to fight World War III goes against a tinpot regional dictator. I'm sure if the USSR gathered a coalition and sent a dozen Corps against an isolated South Korea(or other suitable western aligned secondary power) circa 1990 the result would be similar. T-80U vs K1 is about as mismatched as M1A1HA vs T-72M1.
Comparing a T-80U as if it's even remotely similar to a T-72M1 shows how utterly clueless you are about tanks
That is very wrong. K1 being derived from later prototypes of the Abrams, were much superior to T-80's from that era. You also talk like Russians in the 1990's had good training, experience or well serviced equipment. South Korea in the 90's was outmatching Russia, maybe not in numbers, but in capabilities. Also not like Iraqi forces with T-72's were untrained. Those were some of the best forces in the region on the soviet side
@@SergyMilitaryRankings I'm comparing T-80U to M1A1HA, since both were the first rate tanks for their respective superpowers. Or do you not know how to read?
@@gansior4744 The early K1 still had the underpowered 105mm gun, no depleted uranium armor, but decent FCS. So while it could likely hit the T-80U better, penetrating it or surviving hits is another matter.
Also bulk of ROK army is conscripts/reservists whose training and motivation is dubious. Capital Division might be better but I wouldn't bet on it against a Soviet Guard's Tank Corp.
Before the upgraded k1 actually got build up in numbers, the south korean decided to station t80u on the border.
The upgraded k1 is most certainly better but Im not sure about the original k1.
Bradleys destroyed more Iraqi armor than Abrams tanks. The TOW missile had already 4km range at that time.
Bad training can't overcome meh gear.
Also, the Bradly kicked the shit out them as well.
In the handful of tank vs tank engagements that occurred
@@samsonsoturian6013 When and IFC/APC kills the your tanks, that's a problem. When it happens AGAIN in another county and on another continent in another decade....well, LOL. Yes I am referring to the Ukraine incident.
@@xxxlonewolf49 you're clueless
@@xxxlonewolf49it's kinda funny how because of this, bradley was advertised as t series killer, which led to complete overestimation of it's capabilities, not only it's mostly outranged by Russian IFVs like bmp3 and bmp2m but it's only documented use against a tank was shooting t90s optics and damaging it
@ryssa2409 Uh no. Go look up the Iraq invasion dude. The brads had more tank kills than the M1 tanks & no it wasn't just the TOW missiles, they made cannon KILLs.
Zaloga proposed M1A1HA armor ages ago, pre 2010. Since then we have so many more primary sources that have been surficing that put DU armor protection levels within much more reasonable figures, for KE its anywhere between 600-650mm of RHA equivalent.
The Iraqi army had the worse versions of the T 72 plus ammo also they did a poor job maintaining their vehicles
Grains of salt is a very small mesure i prefer buckets, Barrels, tonnes, Containers, Freighers :P
Slight uptier
The Marines still had the M-60,they performed far worse than the Army.
TANKOGRAD!
The T-72 was not second tier behind the T-80. Or more precisely, the T-72/T-72A which corresponds to the T-72M1 was under the T-72B and/or the T-64B/V. The T-72M1 matches the T-72A only in protection and mobility, not in shooting capabilities due to the computer or ammunition that the M1 users had or rather did not have. The Soviet tank line for 1991 from the best will be T-80U model 1990, T-80U, T-80UD, T-80BV, T-72B model 1989, T-72B model 1985, T-64BV, T-72AV and then only will come T-72/A, which is the most similar to M1, these models will be together with T-64A, then only T-62 and T-55 variants below. You say the bigger picture, but you don't mention at all factors like air supremacy, which NATO would not be able to have to such an extent as in Iraq, both because of the number and quality of planes or pilots, and mainly because the 4 largest armies actually only had anti-aircraft artillery, no medium and long range missiles. From a tank point of view, the Soviet ones were designed to fight 1500m, while the western tanks could handle twice that, which proved to be a big factor on the steppes or in the desert like here, but the European geography, from Poland to France, where those tanks were supposed to fight, doesn't have many of those distances due to the curvature of the terain or forests, high urbanization, using in the transferred example a tank as a sniper rifle against the enemy without optics would not be possible to such a level here, in the same way NATO tanks would face much larger artillery, which the Warsaw states were able to protect at a much larger level from the air than Iraq was able to, same for tanks and infantry.
Why'd you do SovietWomble like that? He's accurate with rifle grenades now..
No Thermal sight advantage?
Yes, and GPS and land nav training that allowed US armor to perform complex maneuvers in the desert impossible to the Iraqis
Thermals ? Most of their tanks didn't even have 1st Generation Night Vision 😂
This was interesting one again.
Maybe could You making a similar video about what could achieve some Königtiger against an early T72..?
another reason for why i enjoy your works.
opinions given are listed from the people giving them, along with technical data easy to digest as a layman.
I will say that taking everything as is, i do still think the soviets would be under massive pressure simply because nearing the collapse, the soviet military was, for lack of a better term, a sleepy and diseased bear (similar to how it is now prior to the current conflict).
i fully expect the degradation of the various soviet militaries to have been in rather poor states outside of Guard regiments and or parade regiments. from anecdotal stories i have heard, tanks were not stored in bunkers or out of the elements but rather out in random fields. Becoming a tank crew would oft necessitate going into said field and getting one of the machines to start and run. Now, whether such claims are true or not, ultimately is irrelevant.
If a ww3 scenario/major conflict between east and western powers sparked, the numbers of conscripts that would field said tanks verses trained men would make any prediction on feasibility a difficult sell. Especially when the vast majority of tank numbers in the soviet arsenal would be older model tanks which would be out of date by the conflict.
Sure western powers would have similar issues, but i suspect the sheer technological edge plus we have also seen the sheer efectiveness of weapons designed for a conflict at that time, has cut swathes through the eastern armoured forces
You dont mention the T-72 reverse speed?
0:27 Looking at how the Russians perform in Ukraine, I'm dubious how well the Soviet troops were trained either.
The Russian Army from now is quite different from the Soviet Army. After the fall of the Soviet Union there was basically no money for the military for a long time, this would have broken every other army as well. More Details here: th-cam.com/video/R98I-kD2vcQ/w-d-xo.html
Off topic, but based on real world results I feel like if politicians could horse trade the US should buy Leopards and the EU should buy US IFVs. Not saying the Abrams should go away, but I think it fits better as a specialty unit spread across all NATO countries with Leopards as the Main Battle Tank of NATO. And Bradleys have been punching WAY above their weight. There is no reason every EU NATO country shouldn't have 500 such vehicles.
The Abrams has as a foundation the same kind of limits that the Sherman had, i.e. It is much more likely that the U.S. has to transport them by boat or plane to the theater of operations than it is that they will be needed to defend Nebraska. The Abrams has lots of support equipment that is built around carrying them all over.
Maintaining a single fleet of mbt is already expensive and complicated as is. Who in their right mind will intentionally complicate stuff by introducing another type, especially when the other type has a different fuel requirement.
Unless you are in a rush, it is much better to keep it slow.
Then there is the ifv. Why but oversea when they can buy local? Especially when some of your local sub contractor is involved in supplying parts for the local product.
@@jintsuubest9331 NATO already has to be able to transport and service all of these different types of equipment. And I'm aware politicians want to buy from local contractors. But in a major conflict, this fragmentation and protectionism means problems with a variety of equipment, most of which we now know to be inferior.
Do you think it would have been wise for the Iraqis to close the distance for a close-range battle, given their impotent ammo and weaker armour?
At a closer range, both parties would have been able to penetrate each other's armour more easily, which helps the Iraqi T-72s and doesn't benefit the M1A1 since it could already penetrate the T-72 from further away.
unlikely, especially with 3Bm15 being the common export sabot, which, was terrible to say the least
Closing the range across flat open desert didn't do the Britsh forces a lot of good in the Western Desert, so I can't see the Iraqis fairing any better.
t-72 is not a bad tank. but the t72 used by the Iraqis is old and of poor quality and while the Russians add armor to protect the t-72s, the Iraqi asad babil tank does not even have an era.
In addition to this, they were destroyed because the Iraqis lost air superiority and Iraqi tank crews poorly trained
Hydrogen bomb vs coughing baby ahh lineup
Interesting to mention how China never wanted to buy or copy any T-62 or T-72 variants. They studied what had happened in Iraq, and never wanted to spend a single dollar on such outclassed tanks. Also, some people mentioned here how later T-72 variants were much better 😂 Seriously, if no modern, industrialized nation buys them even for ten percent of the price of a western tank, there must be good reasons.
❤
2 issues
Iraq and Russia both have deep training and logistics issues, its not just an Iraqi thing. Neither had/has interoperability and communication between their units anywhere jear America's
Secondly, you said America took the offensive early, and Iraq didnt maneuver much.
This is misleading, in truth they COULDN'T maneuver much.
What a wickedly fast war... Those yanks know their work
Also, abrams had thermal sights, while T72 stuck with basic IR. That would made night fighting one sided even if there was firepower and armor parity.
But they are expert version and have 3bm9 rounds
T-72M1 was export downgrade of T-72A
One Abrams in Ukraine by the way got knocked out by a T72.
So yeah Keyboard warriors are always wrong.
Because one example proves the rule. The exceptions tend to prove the rule. The majority of times where Abrams goes against a T-72, the Abrams wins.
And Uncle Sam drops an elbow from the turnbuckle on Sadam!
Saddam ignoramus...
The Russian tanks in general are shitbox editions the paper 📃 statistics are often never correct as when mass production starts standards drop drastically. All of the captured goodies from Ukraine confirmed what we knew from the Gulf war what goes on the paper 📃 and what we see in combat is completely different however the T-72 is finished it will never again be considered a threat to NATO troops no amount of modernization could keep it relevant. Simply put in its most basic terms a group of motivated infantry properly equiped need not fear it as ATGM Drones artillery can Simply erase its existence.
Pedantic
Accurate T-72 graphics should show the turret laying upside down on the ground about 20m from the hull.
Modernish video let's go!
nooooooo the iraqis used them wrong thats why they got destroyed
sounds stupid isnt it ?
well thats what every single western tank fan is yaping all the time as soon a western tank gets destroyed
While i do think that MHV is correct in arguing that desert storm was quite a unique scenario, soviet tanks have still performed poorly in all other conflicts were they have been used like in modern day ukraine or in the yom kippur war, and its not only because those countries "didn't adopt soviet tactics" its because soviet tanks are abysmal to operate, this is something chieftain has talked quite a bit and it doesn't matter how much you improve the armor or improve ammunition, if the crew is uncomfortable, exhausted and almost blind before even getting to the battlefield they will perform poorly in return.
All the other conflicts like...Yom kippur where they were ok and Israel won by airpower, Ukraine 40 years after USSR is gone. Do you even realize what tanks Israeli had?
@@robertkalinic335M60 and Centurion? Anyways, what's your point?
@@Ihavpickle Even in Yom Kippur the Arabs had poorly equipped tanks, lacked training, and suffered from incompetent and restrictive chain of command. Not to mention that Israel had good air superiority. So no, that's not a good example to prove your point. Same thing is true about Ukraine: poorly maintained tanks are used by poorly trained crews in a modern battlefield dominated by ATGMS and drones. So again, that can't be used to prove your point
You say that like Western tanks aren’t getting completely and utterly demolished in Ukraine
The hull front of the abrams DOES NOT have 600mm protection against apfsds. It is well known that the armor aray is dated and it is actually publically available. There are ANSYS simulation videos out there qhich show that the hull front of the abrams can just barely stop the jagtiger 128mm gun and surely any apfsds with more than 350 to 400 mm of penetration would cut through it like butter. Again it is publically available info which is why people have made a lot of ansys simulation videos of the hull against apfsds and other rounds and it actually isnt that good.
Without air superiority Abrams would not fare much better than it had fared in Ukraine. It is slow, heavy and large target. There were no drones back then, but Iraq had large number of guided and even bigger number of unguided AT weapons. In fact, Abrams was vulnerable and was destroyed in significant numbers by Iraqi insurgents after Second Gulf War. US way of waging war since WW2 was always to establish air superiority first. Against USSR that would not work, thus they never attempted outright conflict.
Abrams tanks are getting easily destroyed in Ukraine so no better
Quite a lot of soviet armor fans made this claim that if crewed by russians this would have turned different.
But now reality showed us otherwise for more than two years.
And before some people with fragile egos start with the " BuT MuH W3St taNk5 AlSO g0T Lo5T In UkRAIn3 " whataboutism ( because they always resort to that ), that was not the point.
The point was that even the " best " soviet tanks ( I won't call them russian because all their tanks were designed and built in the USSR ) crewed by " elite " russians had their turret tossed in the atmosphere. They are vulnerable ( any tank is and that includes western tanks of course, but those are still superior ).
western tanks had their turret tossed aswell, leos, challengers etc
@@islamicstateofukraine There he is the little upset fanboy. Didn't take long.
@@Vlad_-_-_ i am a fasting jew no offense
Reality has also shown us that the Abrams are little more than rusted cans, at this point I don't know why we argue about tanks in the first place if all tanks are vulnerable in the 21st century
@@armandoventura9043 Such a rusted car that all dementive ruZZian propagandists started threatening with nukes when Abrams were announced. Why ? If the Abrams is so bad ? If its so worthless, why did all the pro russian bots were celebrating like they were taking Kyiv when a few western tanks were lost ?
Meanwhile Ukraine pops turrest of T90 and latest T80 like is bussiness as usual.
And it is bussiness as usual for the to pop turrets of soviet tanks.
Never bring a T-72 to a tank fight.
What tank fight? 45-day strategic bombing by a multinaitonal coalition + air supremacy vs T-72s.
LOL…Iraqi Vs. Russian training?!?!? Perhaps you should not point out Russian training.
Yeah Russia has actually fought a half modern military unlike USA
Yes, T 72 in all variants is terrible. It was not terrible in the early 1970s, but has been close to operationally useless against a British or US force since at least 1982.
Yes, the Abrams was, and continues to be superior to any T 72 or T 80 variant. It has better armor, better optics, better fire control, and most importantly, better munitions.
No, it was not Iraqi crews that caused this. That argument would have to assume Russian crews would be better than US and British crews. No one should make that argument.
No, the US Army does not "fear" Russian tanks of any variant. The US does not fight tank vs tank. Russian tactics suck, Russian equipment sucks, and therefore, Russian equipped and trained armies will suck.
But somehow the nato trained Ukrainian army is loosing? And the non army Talbian beat nato right?
@@basemanawakens6089 They have taken more territory this year in Kursk alone than what russia have taken since the start of this year. So you should try to consume some other information than only pro-russian junk.
Fact remains that if Ukraine suffered the same losses as russia have done the last 2 years, then this war would have been over long ago. Because Ukraine does not have 10.000 tanks that it can lose like russia does.
@@basemanawakens6089 i mean i wouldnt call successfully fighting back against a supposed great power in a conventional war with a major materiel and manpower disadvantages losing but you do you
Nah, T72 was regarding firepower superior to M1 and just later there was a draw between M1A1 and T72B.
In a hot cold war the t72 was only slightly inferior, mainly to crew ergonomics, firecontrol and sensors, but not in firepower or armor (that changed only later with the M1A1HA). In total something like a factor of 1.5 to 2.
The T-72 was superior to every British tank till maybe the Challenger 2. Chieftain Mk.5s were getting frontally penetrated by T-62s of all tanks, forget fighting a T-72.
Each of your videos is a story that touches the deepest feelings and emotions. Thank you for your sincerity and talent!🦛🎩🔥
OHHHHHH WE GOT A BOT HERE.