StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Suppose that the 1991 Gulf War were fought between Iraqi forces just as they existed at the time, versus the US military of the Vietnam era. Instead of F-15s and Apaches, you've got F-4s and Cobras, and so forth. How does it go?

They still die horribly but we take a few more casualities...

We need to be messier, but the end result is really not in doubt.

1971 eh? Most of the advantages the US had in 1991 go straight out the window. The Iraqi Air Force still goes down for the count, but takes a lot more aircraft with them.

On the ground ... messy, very messy. For one, T-72M1 tanks in 1971 is baddd mojo. BMP-1s/2s also will be a problem. Iraqi anti-tank missiles will take a significant toll. Iraqi air defense will also be MUCH more effective.

Things would probably stalemate in the desert ground war with massive losses on both sides, while Iraq eventually withdraws from Kuwait because of continued air attacks. The US doesn't have the ability to instantly cripple Iraqi air defence C4I, and no BLU-109 means most of Saddams bunkers will survive but they'll lose control of the air if only from running out of anti aircraft ammunition. Once that happens the US is going to win one way or another, at least so much that Kuwait will be liberated.

Though it is convincible that if both sides deploy the same way, the US could make a lung straight for Baghdad, something which was proposed, and also greatly feared by Saddam. The rest of the collation and US forces would fight a holding action. If this happened, its unlikely the single though also strongest Republican Guard division protecting the capital could hold out, they'd probably be hit with a corps sized assault and this would very likely bring out a full scale rebellion as happened historically. I suspect many Iraqi units will still be quite eager to surrender, most of the Iraqi regular armies equipment is only the equal or inferior to M60's, and while we can't knock out tanks nearly as easily from the air a vast number of extra B-52's are around to soften things up.

The US would probobly win due to attrition. They would take heavy losses however. US might even lose an aircraft carrier if the Iraqis can hit it with their Russian built anti-ship missiles.

evilcat4000 wrote:The US would probobly win due to attrition. They would take heavy losses however. US might even lose an aircraft carrier if the Iraqis can hit it with their Russian built anti-ship missiles.

No, there is zero threat of that. The best Iraq can muster are Osa class missile boats. Those things are vulnerable to attack by WW2 aircraft; any form of fast jet will tear them apart. Even if they avoided the even greater number of aircraft then was deployed in 1991, the boats would still need to run a gantlet of missile and gun armed warships to the extreme edge of there range to try and hit one of the carriers.

The thought suddenly occurred to me though, that given Iraq's huge chemical and biological capability its possibul the US, depending on whose in charge, might use nuclear weapons in an opening strike, and its very likely that if things stalemate Saddam will use his chemical weapons at least on the battlefield. His forces will be far better able to do so if ordered. That will certainly bring a US chemical counter attack, and we'd probably nuke known NBC weapons site immediately afterwards as well. Not to mention any Iraqi units, which happen to be in general vicinity of the Arabian Peninsula and southern Iraq.

Hmm. How many T-72s did Iraq have in '91? If I recall, a substantial portion of their forces were T-55s, that are still going to eat it badly in this scenario. As for the air war, I really think pilot skill would show through for the US.

GrandAdmiralPrawn wrote:Hmm. How many T-72s did Iraq have in '91?

1,000.

If I recall, a substantial portion of their forces were T-55s, that are still going to eat it badly in this scenario. As for the air war, I really think pilot skill would show through for the US.

1,500 T-55s, 1,500 T-62s.

Unlike vs the M1, the T-55 is still a threat to an M60- see Israel's 1973 war, for example (I remember seeing a picture showing a column of M60s heading off, the caption informing the reader that they were subsequently all destroyed in fighting with T-55s). And the T-62 is of course superior to the T-55 in all departments.

The Wehrmacht in 1942 could beat the Iraqis. Albeit, with much more casulties than from American forces in either 71,91,or03

Lonestar wrote:The Wehrmacht in 1942 could beat the Iraqis. Albeit, with much more casulties than from American forces in either 71,91,or03

T-72, T-62 and T-55 are all by far superior to anything the Germans had in 1942 and RPG-7 can defeat the armour of any tank the Germans had in 1942. Iraqi jets are superior to German piston engine fighters. Even Iraqi infantry is better equipped then German infantry. The Wehrmacht goes down and hard.

Lonestar wrote:The Wehrmacht in 1942 could beat the Iraqis. Albeit, with much more casulties than from American forces in either 71,91,or03

The Wehrmacht would be destroyed. It cannot win, even the worst Iraqi equipment is a generation more advanced, and their troops won't be mass deserting when combat seems like playing a video game with god mode on.

Vympel wrote: 1,500 T-55s, 1,500 T-62s.

Unlike vs the M1, the T-55 is still a threat to an M60- see Israel's 1973 war, for example (I remember seeing a picture showing a column of M60s heading off, the caption informing the reader that they were subsequently all destroyed in fighting with T-55s). And the T-62 is of course superior to the T-55 in all departments.

All the Iraqi tanks can threaten the M60, but in turn the M60 can match all of them as well, even the T-72's are vulnerable to 105mm gunfire, a move which I expect was intentional on the part of the Soviets.

Sea Skimmer wrote:
All the Iraqi tanks can threaten the M60, but in turn the M60 can match all of them as well, even the T-72's are vulnerable to 105mm gunfire, a move which I expect was intentional on the part of the Soviets.

The T-55s and T-62s, yes, but not the T-72M1; almost certainly in Iraq the T-72M1s had "post-M60-trials" glacis armor mods that were fitted to Soviet and WarPac T-72s to ensure glacis immunity from (1980s) 105mm ammunition, but the turret was found to be impervious.

1971, US 105mm ammo would probably be mucho inadequate to the task. T-72 vulnerability to 105mm ammo didn't happen again till the new stuff in the late 80s/early 90s, IIRC.

Lonestar wrote:The Wehrmacht in 1942 could beat the Iraqis. Albeit, with much more casulties than from American forces in either 71,91,or03

The Germans dont stand a chance. Iraqi tanks would be virtualy impervious to their weapons and slaughter panzer regiments mercilessly. Even Iraqi infantry could destroy a lot of tanks with their RPGs. In infantry combat assault rifle armed Iraqi infantry would have an edge over slow firing rilfe armed German soldiers.

Vympel wrote: 1971, US 105mm ammo would probably be mucho inadequate to the task. T-72 vulnerability to 105mm ammo didn't happen again till the new stuff in the late 80s/early 90s, IIRC.

No, IDF M60's knocked out a number of Syrian T-72's in the early 80's. It is possibul that US shells of the time won't be effective though.

Sea Skimmer wrote: No, IDF M60's knocked out a number of Syrian T-72's in the early 80's. It is possibul that US shells of the time won't be effective though.

Those would be the battles where Syria got it's hands on the Israeli M60, who then sent it to the USSR, which resulted in the glacis armor mod, IIRC

(according to macarbe rumor, it had apparently not been erm ... washed out, when it arrived)

This is all from some really old tanknet discussion on the issue- IIRC, they got US 105mm ammo from smuggling some out of West Germany.

Did the monkey-model T-72s have this glacis plate mod?

Vympel wrote: Those would be the battles where Syria got it's hands on the Israeli M60, who then sent it to the USSR, which resulted in the glacis armor mod, IIRC

I've heard that as well. However according to tanknet the T-72 wasn't just vulnrabul on the glacis, a signficant, 25 or 40%, I can't recal which, section of the turret mantle around the gun could also be pierced by 105mm fire.

Sea Skimmer wrote:
The Wehrmacht would be destroyed. It cannot win, even the worst Iraqi equipment is a generation more advanced, and their troops won't be mass deserting when combat seems like playing a video game with god mode on.
.

Shipmate, I was refering to the superiority of Doctrine and more nuts and bolts stuff, like combined arms and making sure every tank has a fricking radio.

Lonestar wrote:
Shipmate, I was refering to the superiority of Doctrine and more nuts and bolts stuff, like combined arms and making sure every tank has a fricking radio.

Dude- every Soviet tank had a radio by the end of WW2, never mind by the time the T-72 was out.

Besides, only a tiny minority of the Wehrmact was ever even motorized, let alone mechanized- you're talking horse-drawn army vs an MBT/IFV/SPA combination, with untouchable air support (Su-25s and Mi-24s). Iraqi doctrine was *way* beyond anything the Germans cooked up 50 years before- seeing as how the Germans sure as hell wouldn't have even the C&C systems, let alone the weapons capability, to formulate a workable equivalent.

Vympel wrote:
Dude- every Soviet tank had a radio by the end of WW2, never mind by the time the T-72 was out.

Radio receivers anyway. I think only the US and British armies managed to get a two-way radio in every tank, and I'm not quite sure of that. Even the Germans only had a transmitter in company commander tanks as a matter of routine. Though all of there very heavy vehicles like the Tiger's got a two way set.

Besides, only a tiny minority of the Wehrmact was ever even motorized, let alone mechanized- you're talking horse-drawn army vs an MBT/IFV/SPA combination, with untouchable air support (Su-25s and Mi-24s).

Helicopters certainly wouldn't be untouchable nor would low level fixed wing aircraft. But they'd be devastating none the less.

Iraqi doctrine was *way* beyond anything the Germans cooked up 50 years before- seeing as how the Germans sure as hell wouldn't have even the C&C systems, let alone the weapons capability, to formulate a workable equivalent.

It should be noted that Iraqi doctrine and tactics were based off of those of the British army, not Soviet methods as is so often claimed.

Did the monkey-model T-72s have this glacis plate mod?

The T-72M and T-72M1 are both export (monkey model) versions of the T-72A used by the Soviet/Russian Army. The T-72M1 is a T-72M with the glacis mod applied. The Russians also applied the glacis mod to all their T-72As, but didn't change that tank's designation.

BTW Vympel, I thought only half of Iraq's T-72s were up to the T-72M1 standard during GW1?

Ma Deuce wrote:The T-72M and T-72M1 are both export (monkey model) versions of the T-72A used by the Soviet/Russian Army. The T-72M1 is a T-72M with the glacis mod applied. The Russians also applied the glacis mod to all their T-72As, but didn't change that tank's designation

A very annoying habit ... good for secrecy, bad for tank buffs.

BTW Vympel, I thought only half of Iraq's T-72s were up to the T-72M1 standard during GW1?

Yeah? I've never actually investigated the issue past references to Iraq's T-72M1 forces, I suppose it would be logical that they have some T-72M tanks as well.

Iraq's armor (excerpt)