read the site over its amazing, especially that article.
The T-90's even seem to have some sort of tank ECM, ah just check it out
The Iraqis didn't have T-64s. The T-64 was never exported outside the Soviet Union, ever. It was the predecessor of the T-80.
If we were to replace every Iraqi tank with a T-90, Soviet crew and Soviet ammo, casualties on the coalition side would rise considerably, and casualties among the 'Iraqi' tankers would be much lower (the T-90 is far more heavily protected than the T-72M used by the Iraqis). This would not affect the outcome of the war however- Iraqis would still get owned.
If you recall, I originally posted the Kontakts-5 heavy/integral ERA article. It'd be cool if Lord Wong could post on the physics of it.
read the site over its amazing, especially that article.
The T-90's even seem to have some sort of tank ECM, ah just check it out
They have infrared jammer's which fuck over any command guided ATGW and smoke grenade launchers, which can disrupt laser guidance systems. I don’t think they'd work very well against a high angel attack such as that from a Apache at 10K or a 15K F-15E.
Iraq had no T-64's, the tank was never exported. The T-90's would destroy perhapes 100-200 AFV's, mabey more. However Iraq would likely act as historical and pull out most of them.
Bombing against them would also be much much heavier, I can imagin several extra days worth of strikes being thrown against the Republican guard units easily.
This much greater threat also gives alot mroe reason to keep the war going. an extra day. A few hundred remaining T-90's are a very big threat, the hundred of monkey model T-72's far less so.
Expect the ground war to last at least five days. One extra day to take care of the stronger defences, one to finish off more of Iraq's armed forces.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
read the site over its amazing, especially that article.
The T-90's even seem to have some sort of tank ECM, ah just check it out
The Iraqis didn't have T-64s. The T-64 was never exported outside the Soviet Union, ever. It was the predecessor of the T-80.
If we were to replace every Iraqi tank with a T-90, Soviet crew and Soviet ammo, casualties on the coalition side would rise considerably, and casualties among the 'Iraqi' tankers would be much lower (the T-90 is far more heavily protected than the T-72M used by the Iraqis). This would not affect the outcome of the war however- Iraqis would still get owned.
If you recall, I originally posted the Kontakts-5 heavy/integral ERA article. It'd be cool if Lord Wong could post on the physics of it.
He said T-72's, so basically where reequipping the Republican Guard with them, not the whole 4500-7000 unit Iraq tank fleet. I once considered a scenario like this. I figured the rule of thumb is that the Soviets where about a decade behind America, less so now a days though most high en d Russian equipment only exists in tiny numbers.
My Idea was to upgrade everything Iraq had to its top of the line Russian equivalent today. T-55's become T-72's, T-72's T-90's ect.. MiG-29A's turn to SMT's or M's. BMP goes to BMP-3. F-1 to Mirage 2000 or Rafael. SA-13 to SA-15 and all that other fun air defense equipment.
I stopped when I realized this was creating a force nearly something like half as strong as the Soviet Forces in Germany. It was just to much combat power for the scenario to work realistically, though I'd expect the Collation would still win, after a very hard fight.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
With the more advanced tanks, the Iraqis may inflict heavier casualties on the Allied forces, but the outcome will not be altered because the Iraqis will still be as tactically inept as they were in the actual war, just as they were in the nearly decade-long Iran/Iraq War. It hasn't helped that Saddam's shot just about any general with actual military talent just to ensure his own stability on the throne.
Also the American use of combined arms will swing things to their advantage. send in the A-10s and AH-64s to wreck shop along with the M1s. Although it won't be a easy victory because the Iraqis have decent numbers of tanks and equipment.
Believe in the sign of Hentai.
BotM - Hentai Tentacle Monkey/Warwolves - Evil-minded Medic/JL - Medical Jounin/Mecha Maniacs - Fuchikoma Grope Attack!/AYVB - Bloody Bastards.../GALE Force - Purveyor of Anal Justice/HAB - Combat Medical Orderly
Combat Medical Orderly(Also Nameless Test-tube Washer) : SD.Net Dept. of Biological Sciences
read the site over its amazing, especially that article.
The T-90's even seem to have some sort of tank ECM, ah just check it out
The Iraqis didn't have T-64s. The T-64 was never exported outside the Soviet Union, ever. It was the predecessor of the T-80.
If we were to replace every Iraqi tank with a T-90, Soviet crew and Soviet ammo, casualties on the coalition side would rise considerably, and casualties among the 'Iraqi' tankers would be much lower (the T-90 is far more heavily protected than the T-72M used by the Iraqis). This would not affect the outcome of the war however- Iraqis would still get owned.
If you recall, I originally posted the Kontakts-5 heavy/integral ERA article. It'd be cool if Lord Wong could post on the physics of it.
He said T-72's, so basically where reequipping the Republican Guard with them, not the whole 4500-7000 unit Iraq tank fleet. I once considered a scenario like this. I figured the rule of thumb is that the Soviets where about a decade behind America, less so now a days though most high en d Russian equipment only exists in tiny numbers.
My Idea was to upgrade everything Iraq had to its top of the line Russian equivalent today. T-55's become T-72's, T-72's T-90's ect.. MiG-29A's turn to SMT's or M's. BMP goes to BMP-3. F-1 to Mirage 2000 or Rafael. SA-13 to SA-15 and all that other fun air defense equipment.
I stopped when I realized this was creating a force nearly something like half as strong as the Soviet Forces in Germany. It was just to much combat power for the scenario to work realistically, though I'd expect the Collation would still win, after a very hard fight.
I tried the EXACT same thing in Operational Art of War Century of Warfare. But replacing each piece of equipment piece by piece was simply too difficult
Regarding SA-13 to SA-15, the progression is actually SA-8 (divisional level) to SA-15. The SA-13 is the successor of the SA-9 (regimental level)
Vympel wrote:
The Iraqis didn't have T-64s. The T-64 was never exported outside the Soviet Union, ever. It was the predecessor of the T-80.
If we were to replace every Iraqi tank with a T-90, Soviet crew and Soviet ammo, casualties on the coalition side would rise considerably, and casualties among the 'Iraqi' tankers would be much lower (the T-90 is far more heavily protected than the T-72M used by the Iraqis). This would not affect the outcome of the war however- Iraqis would still get owned.
If you recall, I originally posted the Kontakts-5 heavy/integral ERA article. It'd be cool if Lord Wong could post on the physics of it.
He said T-72's, so basically where reequipping the Republican Guard with them, not the whole 4500-7000 unit Iraq tank fleet. I once considered a scenario like this. I figured the rule of thumb is that the Soviets where about a decade behind America, less so now a days though most high en d Russian equipment only exists in tiny numbers.
My Idea was to upgrade everything Iraq had to its top of the line Russian equivalent today. T-55's become T-72's, T-72's T-90's ect.. MiG-29A's turn to SMT's or M's. BMP goes to BMP-3. F-1 to Mirage 2000 or Rafael. SA-13 to SA-15 and all that other fun air defense equipment.
I stopped when I realized this was creating a force nearly something like half as strong as the Soviet Forces in Germany. It was just to much combat power for the scenario to work realistically, though I'd expect the Collation would still win, after a very hard fight.
I tried the EXACT same thing in Operational Art of War Century of Warfare. But replacing each piece of equipment piece by piece was simply too difficult
Regarding SA-13 to SA-15, the progression is actually SA-8 (divisional level) to SA-15. The SA-13 is the successor of the SA-9 (regimental level)
I was going to the most advanced possibul equipment that fit. SA-15 can do the job of the SA-13 and SA-8 in one unit, thus I used it universally. The reaility of cost means it would not happen in real life of course.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
You know....I'm just going to respond to the comment about russia being 10 years behind the Americans in tech...
I was talking to a few Russians at work about this subject and things like that, and they made me stop and think, i quote them as saying,
"America is only a super power in America"
It really hits home, Russians don't talk a lot of 'shit' as they call it, or don't brag and have cnn documentary's on how good their equipment is,
makes you think.
Omega-13 wrote:You know....I'm just going to respond to the comment about russia being 10 years behind the Americans in tech...
I was talking to a few Russians at work about this subject and things like that, and they made me stop and think, i quote them as saying,
"America is only a super power in America"
It really hits home, Russians don't talk a lot of 'shit' as they call it, or don't brag and have cnn documentary's on how good their equipment is,
makes you think.
Not really. Little thing is, all the weapons which come even close to Western equipment exist in tiny numbers at best. The US and NATO on the other hand has all of its more advanced weapons on hand in large numbers. The US has three times more M1A2's then Russia has T-90's for example. And only about twenty Ka-50's have been built.
They may not want to face reality, but the fact it the US is well ahead of Russia and is the worlds sole Superpower. There not as bad as the French and there "the four superpowers" bullshit though.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
Omega-13 wrote:You know....I'm just going to respond to the comment about russia being 10 years behind the Americans in tech...
I was talking to a few Russians at work about this subject and things like that, and they made me stop and think, i quote them as saying,
"America is only a super power in America"
It really hits home, Russians don't talk a lot of 'shit' as they call it, or don't brag and have cnn documentary's on how good their equipment is,
makes you think.
Not really. Little thing is, all the weapons which come even close to Western equipment exist in tiny numbers at best. The US and NATO on the other hand has all of its more advanced weapons on hand in large numbers. The US has three times more M1A2's then Russia has T-90's for example. And only about twenty Ka-50's have been built.
They may not want to face reality, but the fact it the US is well ahead of Russia and is the worlds sole Superpower. There not as bad as the French and there "the four superpowers" bullshit though.
problem is, this is all from a 'western' perspective,
I agree that russia doesn't have as many numbers for top of the line, but the russians do have some stuff thats even more advanced than their american counter parts, they just dont have TLC "extreme machines" to back it up
just stuff like this we should be mindful of, I'm canadian, so I'm trying to look at it from both sides of the coin
Russia claims to have many more advanced weapons then America, but in reality it can never demonstrate them. Plasma stealth comes to mind, Russia has claimed to have a working model for eight years now, yet has never demonstrated it. On the other hand American stealth aircraft have been in combat for twelve years. Then we have the supercativiting torpedo, which is actually a three-mile range unguided weapon with a nuclear warhead. Rea impressive, only torpedo that can guarantee two kills per round expended
The only thing which they can claim is more advanced and any is anywhere near being in service is heavy reactive armor. Of course American tanks are already near immune to Russian tank fire frontally with no ERA in the first place.
Even the best of Russian tech like the T-90, BMP-3, Ka-50, Su-34 ect.. Is still generally inferior, especially in terms of the all-important electronics, to its American and Western counter parts. Combine that with inferior numbers and its nothing to be impressed by.
Its far far more likely we'd see American troops fighting with Russians troops then against each other, and Russia's far more likely to be fighting China then anyone else anyway. Aginst the Type 98 swarm the Russian T-80U hoard is sufficient.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
While I honestly dont give a rat arse about this I just thought Id say a little something...
Russia claims to have many more advanced weapons then America, but in reality it can never demonstrate them. Plasma stealth comes to mind, Russia has claimed to have a working model for eight years now, yet has never demonstrated it. On the other hand American stealth aircraft have been in combat for twelve years.
Just because they don't like to flash their stuff around doesn't mean they don't have it. State secret and all that...
Allied AFV losses would be alittle higher. I dont think the Marines borrowed enough M-1's to replace all their M-60's so they might have lost a few. The Iraqi's simply did not understand that we were not going to engage them in a giant trench battle.
Russian equipment is *in general* not as good as Western equipment- sometimes this is just plain facts, other times its design philosophy at work, and sometimes it's better. Please can this thread not devolve into a pissing contest. As for advanced Russian tech, they are working on some very interesting stuff (plasma stealth, the next-generation tank, the PAK FA 5th generation fighter program, the Project 885 SSN and Project 955 SSBN)- but I'm not going to contend that they are hiding their most advanced tech. If it hasn't been revealed, it doesn't enter into it. Please no arguments from ignorance fallacies!
About hiding though- the Nizhniy Tagil next generation tank was first heard of in 1999. It's never been seen. Although its existence has been conclusively admitted.
TrailerParkJawa wrote:Allied AFV losses would be alittle higher. I dont think the Marines borrowed enough M-1's to replace all their M-60's so they might have lost a few. The Iraqi's simply did not understand that we were not going to engage them in a giant trench battle.
I don't believe the Marines ever encountered any T-72's. Just a single T-55 swarm and some other scattered armored battalions with similar equipment. They had one or twos battalion of there own M1A1's and the US Army's Tiger brigade with them though. That’s on top of 120 or so M60's.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
I dont remember if the Marines ran into any T-72's either. They did have some close up armor fights in and around the Kuwaiti Airport. I read one account of an Iraqi tank that surrendered by driving up to a Marine HQ. Scarred the shit out of one of the Marine commanders because the tank just popped out of the smoke from the oil fires without any warning.
It would have not made a huge difference, causaltys could have been higher, and the war would have lasted a few more days, but nothing the normal viewer watching it on CNN would have noticed. The main reason: Air Power. Most of the tanks destroyed were not in tank vs tank battles, but through air assualts.
The US toots its horn only after it has enough to toot about. When was the stealth fighters actually made? Wasn't it like being developed in 1977 (the year the first star wars film came out), and took its first flight in 1981. Most of us did not even know they existed until around the gulf war.
TrailerParkJawa wrote:I dont remember if the Marines ran into any T-72's either. They did have some close up armor fights in and around the Kuwaiti Airport. I read one account of an Iraqi tank that surrendered by driving up to a Marine HQ. Scarred the shit out of one of the Marine commanders because the tank just popped out of the smoke from the oil fires without any warning.
There was a great case with the 24th Mech when a lone solider got his hummer stuck in the mud. A T-72 and BMP came by rolling, the tank pulled him out of the mud and then both crews surrendered to him.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
It would have not made a huge difference, causaltys could have been higher, and the war would have lasted a few more days, but nothing the normal viewer watching it on CNN would have noticed. The main reason: Air Power. Most of the tanks destroyed were not in tank vs tank battles, but through air assualts.
I think the amount of AFV kills were evenly split between air power and ground power. The difference is that the ground troops did it in 100 hours and air power was over 3-4 weeks.
It would have not made a huge difference, causaltys could have been higher, and the war would have lasted a few more days, but nothing the normal viewer watching it on CNN would have noticed. The main reason: Air Power. Most of the tanks destroyed were not in tank vs tank battles, but through air assualts.
I think the amount of AFV kills were evenly split between air power and ground power. The difference is that the ground troops did it in 100 hours and air power was over 3-4 weeks.
Ground combat destroyed more armor then air strikes, but if we count just tank kills its would be about even.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
