How Abrams and Bradleys CRUSHED Russia's tanks in Iraq
Vložit
- čas přidán 24. 04. 2023
- With 31 M1 Abrams main battle tanks now headed for Ukraine, there’s been a great deal of discussion about how these armored behemoths will fare against the Russian tanks they were originally designed to square off against. Fortunately, this won’t be the first time American Abrams will find themselves sighting in on dated Soviet-era armor, and few interactions better reflect this power mismatch than the legendary Battle of 73 Easting of the Persian Gulf War.
The Battle of 73 Easting is often referred to as one of the great tank battles of the 20th century, with just nine M1A1 Abrams tanks, 13 M3A2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and 120 American soldiers squaring off against a much larger force of well-trained Iraqi Republican Guard Tawakalna and 10th Armored Divisions.
To make matters worse for the numerically inferior American forces, the Iraqi troops and armor were embedded in a defensive posture, just waiting for the chance to sink their teeth into the as-yet unproven American tanks. When the fighting began, however, a combination of sound military strategy employed by a then-28-year-old H.R. McMaster and superior military technology laid waste to the Iraqi forces, proving unequivocally that the one-two punch of M1 Abrams main battle tanks and M3A2 Bradley fighting vehicles were more than just effective in the fight. They were downright devastating.
📱 Follow Sandboxx News on social
Twitter: / sandboxxnews
Instagram: / sandboxxnews
Facebook: / sandboxxnews
TikTok: / sandboxxnews
📱 Follow Alex Hollings on social
Twitter: / alexhollings52
Instagram: / alexhollings52
Facebook: / alexhollingswrites
TikTok: www.tiktok.com/alexhollings52
📱 Follow Hector Tinoco on social
Instagram: / tinoco.photography
LinkedIn: / hector-tinoco-75112a1b6
TikTok: / hector.tco
Further Reading:
Original Article: www.sandboxx.us/blog/how-amer...
Is the era of tanks over? www.sandboxx.us/blog/is-the-e...
UKR and Tanks: www.sandboxx.us/blog/how-ukra...
Citations:
McMaster's account: thestrategybridge.org/the-bri...
M289: www.globalsecurity.org/milita...
Sabot: www.warhistoryonline.com/weap...
Operations Room coverage: • Desert Storm - The Gro...
Battle: www.armyupress.army.mil/Journ...
Battle lessons: apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA253...
Context: coffeeordie.com/73-easting/
Citations:
A great story is from an Iraqi battalion commander. "I entered Kuwait with 53 tanks (they were using T-55s). After six weeks of air attacks I had 50. After 20 minutes of fighting M1s I had none."
T-55s? At that point they should've surrendered instead of letting somewhere around 212 tankers die in vain
sad but that’s the reality in the battlefield,if you don’t you’re dead and if you do then unfortunately he’s dead!
Matthew Murray - Depleted Uranium rounds are a war crime.
@@LeMeowAu Would you say that if they were American? The US started WWII with some really bad planes and other equipment.
Should the garrisons in the Philippines have just surrendered? Should the pilots of Brewster Buffalos have just given up? I could go on.
@@recoil53 There is nothing worth fighting in the Philippines. The filipino is not worth dying or fighting for. I am saying this as a Filipino, filipinos will never learn so there is no point.
"Tell them I'm sorry"
Dude legit thought this was going to be a disaster and he was going to lose a significant portion of his force. Or maybe his own life. The only way out was through aggression.
He made the right decision. Patton would have approved of it, except for the apology part. Patton probably would have have said something more colorful and less endearing hhahaaha
@@croftech7113 they certainly went through the Iraqis like "sheeet" through a goose😂
@@croftech7113 In the absence of orders, go find something and kill it.”- Erwin Rommel “There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time.” - General George S. Patton.
To be honest, I very much doubt that he thought it would be a disaster or that he was actually sorry. Someone who is already a captain at age 28 is a very hardcore person. Being in the cav (I was in 3 ACR,) is even MORE hardcore than most. Being a M1A1 tanker was off the charts. I personally have always believed that Navy SEALS and Army Rangers wished they could be as badass as we were! 😂 Not to mention that McMasters was always thinking about his career. That isn't a slight against him, most people who were lifers did.
I think the apology was more of an "oops, don't mad at me for not following orders" than it was any kind of regret or doubt in his mind
I remember this battle like it was yesterday! You were point on in everything with the exception of time. It all happened very much like you depicted, however crawling through the sandstorm felt like a lifetime. Minutes felt like hours, and we were sure we would be hit at every moment. Somehow, it was like they couldn't see us, we were invisible to them, because we opened up and never took a hit after sending all our money down field. This day I grew total respect for all my brothers.
Are you saying that the sandstorm was still happening during the battle?
We battled through the oil well fire smoke. It was so dark at night you literally could not see your hand in front of your face. We were ordered to hold hands while on roving guard. I strolled to close to a M109 paladin one time as it fired a round. It knocked me on my ass and blew my kevlar off lol
I wonder how effective the iraqis would have been had they been properly able to return fire. If I recall correctly the export ammunition they had available was not up to the task of penetrating the Abrams frontal armor.
Should of respected God
@@brianhawk1854What does that mean?
As a side note, McMaster later said that the sandstorm was reoccurring in that area and the Iraqi's knew where to place themselves to be right outside the wall of it.
The Abrams also ran over anti-tank mines with no issues.
God is in the affairs of man
The Abrams and Bradley’s hit anti personal mines, not AT. 18 pounds of explosive will even flip an Abrahms, it it doesn’t punch through its belly.
It was said that the mines explode itself upon seeing the Avraham
@@brianhawk1854 Yes, he always chooses the right high school football teams to win games and the right children to give cancer to. His decision making is all wise and all powerful. Blessed be our lord, amen.
Military planners: Don’t get drawn into a decisive engagement.
McMaster: Wins the decisive engagement he didn’t mean to be in
And apologizes. Lol
@@USS-SNAKE-ISLAND Superior Tactician and modest to boot. Respect!
Command: Welp I guess that works too
Ooops?
McMaster: Uhmmmm, I done messed up! (While looking behind him, watching the smoldering wreckage and wondering if there’s anything left for the main force coming up behind his unit).
There's a reason, as a wargamer, no one plays the first gulf war. Basically the most perfectly lopsided 'condition' to fight in, and superb training/reaction.
I've talked to both Bradley and M1 crew who trained against OpFor at Ft. Irwin and they told me that fighting OpFor was far tougher than fighting the Iraqis; that some of the engagements against OpFor seemed to be "Kobayashi Maru" level of "you weren't supposed to win, this was to see how well you'd do in a hopeless scenario"...and fighting the Iraqis was more of a "shoot at drones that occasionally pretended to shoot back, while their infantry surrendered in droves".
I heard the biggest risk for Coalition Tank crews was mental trauma from all the slaughtering 😮😮
@@phil3038 Yea that would take a toll on anyone. They were so overpowered for their numbers that they leveled a force 5 times theirs in size in under a half an hour with zero losses, despite taking multiple direct hits that would have absolutely leveled any prior model of tank (The Challenger 2 and Leopard 2 are similarly capable, though I believe the Leo slightly less so, and Ch2 i'm not sure exactly). Also, while the depleted uranium component of the tank's armor is being removed, that component is the rearmost layer of armor, meant to help absorb and otherwise prevent armor spalling, and as such can be made from other materials that will do the job well enough, albeit with some limitations (like needing more material and thus making the tank a bit heavier and less efficient). The M1s being sent to Ukraine are still going to absolutely kick ass and Russia is in for a world of pain, though by then they'll probably be all to familiar with that world, since Ch2 and Leo2 will both have been in theater for the better part of a year by then.
@@thedungeondelver I don't expect much more out of Russian mobiks than those Iraqi's
I played "Red Alert" and its sequels a lot years ago on my PC. One day I came upon a file that allowed you to modify attributes. Being the fun and fair guy I am, I modified my units to be inexpensive, strong and powerful and the bad guys, eh, I just left them alone. I would build up my forces into a cloud and sent out a few scouts. Once I found the enemy base, I would send my cloud to their base and rain pain upon their heads until all that remained were captured buildings. I typically would fight against as many AI opponents that I could with the largest maps possible. I like "sledgehammer vs ant swarm" battles.
I had a drill at Ft. Knox that had a different looking patch on his right shoulder...a 2nd Armor "Hell on Wheels" patch. Come to find out, this grizzled E7 was a gunner in E troop 2AR. To hear this man's stories about that battle....was eye opening. He carried himself a bit differently than any other NCO...or any NCO that I have met, and he backed it up. He was one of those guys you shut up and listen to when they speak. I watched that man shed tears over simple mistakes we made, and turned us all into the tankers we are.
Best job I ever had
You should do a video on the US crushing Wagner group in Syria....200+ casualties in around 2 minutes.
Old school tankers were the best and loved to hear their stories.
Well when one side has only ground troops and the other has AC-130, F-15Es , A-10s , HIMARs and M777 it is a one sided fight. Wagner vs US infantry alone would not be so one sided.
@@ilyasharin1976 what are you smoking bud? So because Russia destroyed a single empty Challenger 2 with a drone, the almighty Putin is God tier? And trust me...NATO pilots aren't scared of Russian aircraft, if anything, Russians are too afraid to attack any NATO planes outside of a drone....for such tough guys. The F22's in Poland give Putin nightmares at night, just simply being there
@@Archer89201you are correct. In a ground troops only encounter Wagner would last around 4 minutes rather than 2.
@@copasetic1 probably the same time as Navy Seals did against 20 Taliban during RedWings
You have a great voice, one fit for narration of military videos. You speak energetically about the topic at hand, and your interest in the subject matter being discussed is self-evident. I enjoy listening to you, as much as I enjoy learning about the material that you cover.
The most amazing part of this story is how a 28 year old was in charge of so much firepower. We enlisted guys make fun of young officers but they really are Americas best.
Yep, I used to hate the Butter Bar Lieutenants.😁
In many of these cases the youth provides a great advantage in reaction time.
@@CitiesTurnedToDust less experience and ego
Never underestimate the abilities of 19 year olds...England did and regretted it.
Some.. I had a 24yo absolute cluster fk of a butter bar platoon leader.. ego the size of Mt. Everest..
Alex, a few corrections from a tanker in Desert Storm (A troop 1/3 ACR.) First, not all vehicles had a GPS - only platoon leaders and higher, and as a side note, they didn't have maps on them, just the gps coordinates that then needed to be transfered to a paper map. Second, the laser range finder on the M1A1 read out in meters, not yards. Finally, sabot is pronounced "say-bow."
oui, sabot is French for shoe, also the etymological origin of "sabotage"
Thank you for your valuable insight and service 👍
I was going to make the same comment. Glad I read thru some comments first.
Gunner, SABOT TANK, 1 o'clock! "Identified" ""Up!"" Fire! "On the way!" Cease Fire!
@@Whiskey11Gaming Or, from a defensive position, (TC) Gunner, sabot tank, (G) Identified, (L) Up, (TC) Driver move out, gunner take over, (G when main gun cleared from burm via GAS) Driver Stop, (TC) Fire, (G) on the way (TC) Target, cease Fire, driver back up (then when back behind berm) Driver stop, battle carry sabot (L) up.
REALLY well narrated! I was on the edge of my seat, heart rate up - you did a great job with retelling this story!
Thank you Sandboxx, for a very detailed explanation of the 73 Eastings battle. Others have tried, this video had much more detail, without confusing this 91B.
Fun fact... The Bradley had more tank kills in desert storm than Abrams
For the same reason infantry tend to score more tank kills than tanks: numbers. AT is far inferior to a tank's cannon and more people need to understand this to know why the tank is not obsolete.
The tank isn't obsolete... It just need another evolution. Anti thermal armor, a laser trophy system and a docking combat drone system/loitering munitions will keep it alive and well far into the future. Most of these are being designed for the Abrams X
But the Abrams probably survived more direct hits than Bradleys.
@@tonysu8860 I wouldn't doubt it.... Especially if hit from the side. I watched Abrams get hit directly with RPGs in Iraq and it barely scratched them. I was at Bradley Gunner and later a Bradley Commander
@Tony Su That is a rather obvious fact given the difference in Bradley armor vs Abrams armor. They are not the same.
I remember a USArmy recruiting ad on TV from the late 80s. It showed the Abrams and its speed and maneuverability, and the voice over said something like this “It’s big, it gets 3 gallons to the mile, but it’s powerful.” 😂
Sounds like a Volvo ad.
I miss those kinds of ads.😟
😂
It took 6 gallons just to start it, lol I was a driver in Eagle Troop in Desert Storm
best 1 I've seen (so far) to lay out 73 Easting...good job 👍
Great article, I was near there in the 3rd Armored Div. CAB. part of an advanced team supporting the AH 64s and scouts OH 58Ds. We were a little further south during that engagement. At the time, we had no idea that our armor would be so successful. I'm very proud and fortunate to be part of that organization deployed from Germany.
Myself 3rd Armored Division 12th Cavalry. Budingen Germany 1976-1978. A troop. Commo. Spec 4 R. Bacon
Thank you both!
One of my employees was a machinist for the gun sights on the Abrams tank, stating it is so advanced one can hit a jack rabbit at night, miles away while traveling well over 30 mph.
The rounds are so advanced the tank can hit the international space station, while upside-down, underwater.
Nothing but net
I think I know why we can never find any jackalopes...
"Fast as fast can be, you'll never catch 💥... "
@@sirnukesalot24😂
@@swarmpope9608 After seeing first hand the nighttime search, target and destroy capabilities of the Abrams tank, I believe my employee’s statement to this day.
In any case, I would not like to be in the business end of the Abrams tank.
I'll add a detail about the complimentary nature of the Abrams and Bradley team. The Bradley's TOW missiles could outrange the main gun on an Abrams. So the Bradley's could start stripping away the lead enemy tanks while Abrams maneuvered to an advantageous firing position then go to work on whatever was left...usually BMPs or BTRs. With a well trained crew the Abrams could reload the main gun in 4-6 seconds. Then it's just a matter of target identification and acquisition. By comparison, the Bradley only had two ready TOWs at any one time.
who’s in front in the battlefield,Abram or Bradley?I thought Abram is the bad boy with Bradley carrying the flag,it sound like Abram got the short end of the metal honour!!
@@georgesikimeti2184 It depends. Back in the day Abrams and Brads would team up as hunter-killers. It's probable that the optics on Abrams are as good as Brads now.
@@chrishooge3442good to know,general macmaster did mention that his Abram battalion was always in front doing the dirty work,nothing against the Bradley but hey credit where it’s due,but thanks for the clarification.
Or more appropriately, if identified, Brads take out C2 and Artillery Command Reconnaissance Vehicles. In this fight, you really just "stand and deliver" if you're an Abrams.
@@georgesikimeti2184 scout squad for almost any armour battalion is AFV+dismount infantry. Most doctrine has AFVs screening and providing recon for armour
I’ve heard this story multiple times from the history channel, CZcamsr’s, and just plain ol history buffs and no matter how many times I hear it , it still gives me the chills and pride of a truly historic battle. They’ll always be legends.
Good job. I learned new things about this engagement.
I've been following the Bradley since 1979 since it was running around the FMC test track
While working for the company that designed and manufactured the M829A1 we utilized the former Deputy Undersecretary for Operations and Research (DUSA-OR), a legend named Dave Hardison. Dave was in the basement at the Pentagon during Desert Storm - modeling the battle in order to provide recommendations to Norman Schwarzkopf's staff, for later dissemination by the "Jedi Knights". Beyond the course of battle outlined in the video, he made clear this was possibly the best understood battle in tank warfare history. The day after the battle, TRADOC Analysis Center (TRAC) analysts dissected the battle on the ground, measuring, interviewing, and collecting raw data to inform analyses, doctrine, and designs for future use.
The tech advantage we had was so crazy. My uncle was a helicopter pilot in desert storm and had handheld videos of launching munitions at Iraqi forces he took in combat. Thats how relaxed and confident he was, it was shooting fish in a barrel
Why do you sound proud of that.
@@bundubashing2591 because he is. why should he not be proud that his country has the greatest military in the history of this planet.
@@bundubashing2591 he has every reason to be proud
The tech advantage was so real, that the hardline Soviets tried to overthrow their government. They were scared shitless at how vulnerable they were.
The last near peer war the USA had was last century decades ago. Everything else has been how your uncle described. Really nothing to brag about IMHO. Its why the focus is shifting as if there is another real war tactics will have to change because proxy wars aren't full scale.
Excellent video. I appreciate the professionalism of it being done. Thank you for the amazing information.
Thank you for yet another great video. I remember the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq and when I heard the incredible story you just told I had a difficult time believing it until we saw what was left of the Iraqi tanks. Having read about it later in college I realized as I watched your video that mere words don't do that battle justice. Your video, which combines words with video of the Abrams and the Bradleys as well as depictions of where the Iraqi's had dug in brings this incredible battle to life. I hope that this battle is taught to the Ukrainians because many are experiencing war fatigue and when asked how they feel and what are their plans are for the future they
simply reply that they want their "work" to end and then they will dream about the future. Slava Ukraine!
The abrams had much better armor and optics and better ammunition and we had better command and control and air superiority and rudimentrey gps. I served in an armor battalion in Desert Storm. I remember once the main column pulled up fairly close behind the M1s that were just North of us and were stopped. I saw the turret of one move and fire. Even with binoculars I could not see anything on the horizon for it to fire at. We were capable of seeing and hitting them before they could see us.
Wow you mean a tank that was more than a decade younger than cheap copies of an older design would win ? What a shock. If you look at the abrams when it was first put into service however well its was a pretty crappy tank
@@Silver_Prussian wow you need to dubmp your vatnik teas about something something?
@@benkr wow you need to dump down the nafo copium dont you know ? Its worse than doing drugs or staying without oxygen it kills braincells in an instant.
@@Silver_Prussian yep, the Abrams destroys the crappy Russian stuff.
That’s because Iraq didn’t run optics on 95% of their tanks aka they had no gun sights, the majority of their tanks were stripped down versions Russia sold them and stayed that way. That’s why you seen things like guys in pick up trucks speeding up to Abrams and tossing bags of explosives on them.
Even when HHQ states not to get into a decisive battle it all goes out when your basically fallen into an ambush. Knowing his capabilities it was the right choice to push through the trap.
yes the correct response is to always attack through the ambush: you're dead otherwise and are likelier to in fact outnumber the enemy! once you're out of the kill zone you are likelier to win but the quickest way out of the kill zone is to keep moving in the direction of travel, and thus going forward, attacking, is almost always the best response to a near ambush.
@QuizmasterLaw And General Patton would've kissed McMaster on the cheeks and declared him to be his own son for taking such decisive action!
You guys are absolute quality ♡♡♡
Please keep up the good work
Just found & fascinated with your videos. Never been in the Service, but have huge respect for the those who defend our country, and Thank You, to all that do/did. You have very interesting content, I appreciate the diversity. It’s nice to get a glimpse of your world.
I've heard this story before, but you REALLY brought it to life Alex! Amazing is an understatement when describing this tactical rout.
Thanks! This was the first account I've heard about 73 Easting. One point about the Soviet carousel ammo stowage, though. Against horizontal attack, the ammo in the carousel was well-protected; it was determined back in WWII that the safest place for ammo stowage was as low as possible in the hull. HOWEVER, there was also stowage for around 20 rounds up in the crew compartment, which was vulnerable. As M1 tanker Nicholas Moran (aka 'the Chieftain') indicated in a video, these are most likely the rounds that started the turret pop process.
@@MrTotalAhole I've seen some of their videos; a good channel indeed.
Even without the extra ammo lying around underfoot, the "carousels" didn't stand a chance against missile attacks that focused their explosive power onto the thinner armor on the top of the turret.
@@lordphullautosear Exactly; the carousel was designed back when top-attack was impractical, and unlikely.
Exactly, the Russians found out about this in Chechnya. They only loaded the autoloader and their tank losses went down by 80%.
Narration gave me goosebumps. Well done!
This was a very well laid out and well edited video. It had my attention the whole time. I love this kind of content. Keep up the amazing work
I know that I"ve never heard such an exciting tanker story presented with a great enthusiasm. Thank you Alex.
LOVED the narration, bro! More please! Instant subscriber!
Great video, thanks!
Watching presentations on this battle as a civilian over the years, my biggest takeaway is that this lopsided victory can also be defined as a contest between the automation of loading vs. the automation of aiming. The conclusion, of course, is that nobody wants to be an amateur cosmonaut.
How the rounds were loaded had nothing to do with the asa whipping.
@@rogerwilco5918 I am not an expert. However from what I have been able to gather about auto load systems vs human loader systems.
The first couple of shots might be faster out of the auto loader.
However the human loader has a better sustained rate of fire.
I doubt it had a all that much to do with how this battle went but.
If the USA was using auto loaders instead of human loaders the early hits would have been slightly faster but the engagement overall likely would have lasted longer.
Taking into account the increased loading time needed for auto feed tanks after the clip is finished.
Your not wrong what really kills it here is the lack of armor pen from the enemy tanks + immediate pen and speed of destruction wrought on the enemy.
@@gmanbo To my knowledge the US Army prefers auto-loading in their tanks. I think you are right. It might not have been the decisive reason for the victory but having a well-trained crew with sustained fire is powerful in tank warfare.
@@gmanbo I don't give a shit how fast you can load a round, it's useless if it bounces off of your target
@@keithgainey7853 no, the us doesn't use auto loaders on tanks.
God Bless America. This coming from a civilian army contractor (master electrician) that ended up spending 13 years in Iraq and Afghanistan supporting our American troups. I witnessed so many highs and so many lows for our fighting troops. They have my most highest respect and I was honored to support them.
You are aware that the last two illegal invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are war crimes under international law, as well as the presence of the United States in Syria. All the US is doing in Syria is stealing oil. Sometimes killing small ISIS leaders.
Military industrial complex shill
Go head on with domestic Russian tanks and have a lot of fun gettign targeted from 3 miles away! USA also claimed to go to the moon.
video made from a country that cant even hit iraqi scud missiles using its best patriot shitty system lol, wouldnt believe a word, just look at how nato pigs and ukrainian nazis only know how to advance backwards in ukraine lmao
@@rustystove8410 😂😂😂😂 cope harder puss
Wow! GREAT episode. Alex is the best.
Anyone here after the Russians took out the first Abrams after it being in combat for 2 days?😂😂
I love it when you do stories like this with substance and historical value!
Great account Alex. I had not heard of this battle before. Really enjoyed your telling of this historical battle.
Amazing story, thanks for the history lesson and video!
Sadly this gulf war just claimed my dads life by cancer im still proud of his service in 3AD keeping these bradleys and abrams fueled for battle. RIP Dad you were a badass with the m203!
Sorry for your loss, brother! But that reminds me- there are many that say chemical weapons were used and they are STILL SUFFERING. Did your dad suffer from same?
PS- I'm not certain why "they" don't talk about that fact!!!
@@johnrogers-ys2lwThere was so much depleted uranium used in Iraq, that the doctors told the women to stop having babies as they were being born grossly disfigured. If you have a strong stomach, you can Google, babies of fallujah.
Depleted uranium?
Unfortunately this is the issue about depleted uranium use. Sorry for your loss.
One if my favorite battles. Never get tired of watching videos retelling this story.
So very cool, the absolute best telling of 73 Easting...gratz! And what a great mesh of detail and story to showcase what difference a bold commander can make on the battlefield. Vastly superior odds vs. advantageous technology and quick thinking...thank you for the great historical account. /cheer
there's a better telling with interview footage with McMaster
To be fair, it's not just the Abrams. It's the crews and training.
Now that the Bradleys got recorded being burned in the dozens by the Russian artillery and mines, it's only a matter of time before the "invincible" Abrams follow suits
Exactly lol, and even if they got past the mines and artillery, the T-72B3s and T-80BVs would have wrecked them Bradleys before they even knew what was going on.
Dream on, Russian troll. You're a fanboy for one of the most pathetic countries on the face of the earth with a miserable military to match.
Unlike the Russian equivalents though, Bradley crew often survive and the hulls are more repairable when recovered. This is even more true with the Abrams, which have proven extremely difficult to destroy even when being scuttled in the field or used as target practice.
it is not only the tanks themselves, but how the forces actually use it tactically. If they are used in incorrectly or in wrong scenarios, it doesn't matter if a western tank or eastern block tank was used. Look at the abrams in the yemen war. They were easily destroyed due to bad strategy and training.
Western tanks are significantly better against other tanks. But both are vulnerable to top-attack munitions, which is what we have mostly seen in Yemen. Newer Abrams models have the Israeli Trophy system, which mitigates this threat. But the ones the Saudis have don’t have this system.
@@bluemarlin8138 even then, I don't believe we are supplying Ukraine with our most modern tanks, possibly old or export versions
@@wote2760 it’s pretty much a export version. It doesn’t have the standard armor either because we don’t want to lose a tank with the armor, have it captured by Russia and shipped to China and armor technology reproduced.
@@bluemarlin8138 what went wrong there?was it supported in any way via Bradley or equivalent or just bad attack plan, interesting!!
why are we sending this export version if it’s another t72 in later format?abram is send there to win battle!why dilute its capabilities just to be safe from the Chinese, stuff it !get the best Abram there to win not to lose!!!
I just realized a few minutes in what channel this was. I know there's some pivoting to ground armaments, just surprise.
Good job
Love it. Good show dude
I’ve heard this story countless times and it never gets old.
Yes!!! I love the new firepower series!
I never get tired of listening to this story. The History Channel has a good version as well.
Great video. Edge of your seat action!
Thanks for sharing
McMasters had the advantage over his opponents. He was able to shoot on the move while the T-72's had to stop to shoot
When that happened they were taking out of action by the M-1's and TOW's Missile Launchers on the Bradley🇺🇲💚
false, t64/72/90 all have two plane stabilisers just like the abrams.
@@ViinnySMT Russian tanks are capable of shooting on the move, but doing so causes serious damage to the transmission, so they're trained not to do it unless absolutely necessary.
@@jgreen802 clutch before firing to save the transmission.
Many of the Iraqi tanks had stabilized guns but they did not use their armor for mobile warfare and instead turned them into static pillboxes.
@@ViinnySMT false iraqi t72s had no fcs and horrendus optics. no way to shoot accuratly on the move
Just ran into this vid & by chance my unit was assigned to/2nd ACR & F Troop (McMaster's company). During 73 Easting we were in humvees so we stayed a few hundred meters behind the big boys. I remember lines from TOW missiles & sabot rounds lying on the ground. And lots of destroyed t62s, t55s, etc. McMaster wasn't much older than we were lol.
dude, your bumper music is so on point.
That was an excellent story. I won’t nitpick the details. Thanks.
The reason that the entire ammo rack would cook off was usually because crews operating soviet design tanks would place ammo and charges anywhere they could fit them in the turret.
Also, SABOT (say-bow)
I love filling up a small cramped area with several explosives and extra pieces of shrapnel, and i also love the once in a lifetime experience of flying in a russian ufo
@@LeMeowAu it's nickname is the Iraqi space program. I also love the slow cook-offs with the hatches open. There have been plenty of videos of those over the years. 40ft flames shooting from the top like something out of mad max.
As a retired Abrams Commander and Crewman I can tell you that none of the Soviet vehicles stood a chance. in my early years as a crewman, we had always trained to maneuver during the hours of darkness for the reason that the soviet vehicles did not have any type of night vision capabilities. What you cant see, you cant fight. that training continued into the OIF days I honestly believe the enemy still has issues engaging fights at night. Best Job I ever had, Bar none.
Iraq didn't really have many legit Russian tanks. You shot old trash tanks up.
@@JamesOMalley-hb4tf and now russia is using this shit on ukraine.
And don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of both sides. Both suck both shit both trash
Soviet vehicles had among the best night vision image intensifiers of the time. What they didn't have in any significant numbers were thermal sights, but thermal sights back then had a horrible resolution anyway. It's unknown whether Iraqis had night vision on their tanks or if they did, that it was working. Their military was in a pretty rough shape after a decade of war with Iran.
@@KekusMagnus Iraq CLEARLY did not have night vision equipment......
Aeesome you tell a good story glad i came
Well done! Had me glued all the way to the end! New sub earned! ❤
To be fair, the T55 wasn’t designed to take on Abrams considering it was designed in 1949. The Iraqi T72s we’re downgraded export versions so theoretically the Abrams has never really gone up against Soviet/Russian tanks that were built for the Soviet/Russian army.
Air superiority, night vision, precision guided bombs and probably the first time we saw the Patriot System in action because of Scud missile attacks it brings back a lot of memories.
Great history lesson. Thank you
Awesome episode Alex! I really enjoy your content. Cheers, - wright sublette
Your presentation is top notch and highly educational!
An interesting reason why the M1 Abrams tank has a smooth bore instead of a rifled bore like artillery is for the use of fin stabilized metal darts that are stored in a “sabot”, which is the French word for a wooden shoe or “clog”. US Army Tanker’s call it a “say-boh” which was developed in the 1930’s by engineers working for the French Edgar Brandt company who had to design an armor piercing projectile. The official name is the “armor piercing discarding sabot munition”.
Hence "sabotage" , clogs thrown in the works
Think you'll find it's FSAPDSDU. Fin Stabilized, Armor Piercing, Discarding Sabot, Depleted Uranium. It does usually get shortened though, to APDS in paperwork, or just Sabot in crew.
Yes, that's a really pedantic comment, but my OCD triggered, so, yeah.
Most tanks have smoothbore cannons nowadays.
We always pronounced the SABOT as "Say - Boh" in my Battalion. I served as a Gunner on an M1A1D and later as a Tank Commander on the M1A2 SEP, deployed to Iraq in the invasion in 2003 and again in 2005. 1-66 Armor, Iron Knights.
It's French for "shoe".
Great story telling!
"Tell them, I'm sorry!" Now that's real courage 💪.
INB4: "Those were export tanks, which were somehow 1000x less capable than the tanks used by the Russian military!"
How convenient. Well the newer Russian models seem to be exploding the same in Ukraine. So I think x1000 is the overstatement of the century.
@@benkeller4210 Feel like weapons in general are overcoming advances in armor.
"Wait what? You're telling me Tanks with shitty FCS and 70's ammunition performed worse than tanks from the 90's?" If you are too stupid to understand that nearly all Iraqi T-72's were T-72M's without downgraded Armor and a horrible FCS then you genuinely are coping hard lmfao.
I mean in this case the big disadvantage they had was a lack of thermal or night sights which I’m pretty sure the domestic Russian models had at the time, so that argument would make sense here.
@@jonathanpfeffer3716 Iraqi T-72M's also had far worse protection than soviet domestic models
i like the intro
I was an M48A5 TC, 1/26 Cav/B Trp. I love watching this stuff!
!!! WOW!!! Every time I hear that story, it just makes me go wow! What else can you say!
Bro... I watched this video probably 20 times now and countless other videos covering 73 easting. Plus i watched the battle of khasham Syria a few times. Nothing in recent history makes an American more proud of our military, our country and our temper than these....
🇺🇲⚔️ 🦅 🪖 ❤️
I don't think anyone is worried about how the Abrams will perform against the older Russian tanks. Preston Stewart laid it out pretty nicely in a fairly recent video of his. Go check out his video: Abrams Tanks Are Better Than T-72s - But It Doesn't Matter In Ukraine. The problem is, most of the tank losses to date, for either said, have come from artillery and drone attacks, anti-tank missiles, mines and aircraft. There hasn't been a lot of tank vs tank action, there's been some, but not a lot. The Abrams, or the Challenger, or the Leopard II, will all be in trouble if an artillery round lands on it. Now it's been reported on a lot that the Russian artillery fire isn't accurate, they just saturate an area, but an un-aimed artillery round is just as deadly as a precisely aimed round if it hits you.
I believed this podcast only concentrate on tank vs tank battle per se,but your point is absolutely spot on and would’ve been the first scenario to put on the war plan table.
This.
There is a common notion among many Western army fanatics that the M1 Abrams can effortlessly obliterate a T-72 tank, solely based on the fact that a T-72 was taken out by a munition that could equally wreak havoc on an Abrams. Many times, we only hear one side of the story (Ukraine 'kills'). I'm willing to bet that most of these Russian tanks endured multiple strikes before being completely destroyed.
There is a video of a T-80U of all tanks taking a hit from a Ukrainian Stugna-P ATGM, which, by the way, has like 1100 to 1200-mm of penetration. Nobody knows how a Western tank would fair from making such bold analysis. I recently witnessed a video of a Terminator BMPT-72 withstanding numerous hits from anti-tank FPV drones, only to succumb when it was struck from behind, yet remained impervious to frontal assaults. There is even a widely circulated video showing a Leopard 2 striking a Russian tank with a high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) round or high-explosive round for some reason (no APFSDS?), the tanks simply continued their movement, unaffected.
The Ukraine War is such a different war than the Persian Gulf War, it's just silly to compare them. Ukraine has been doing exponentially worse than Russia has been as well. Peace agreements were nearly reached just a few months after the war began; however, they were ultimately rejected.
I have heard this story multiple time and I always enjoy it.
Great content. Ukraine looks like a very different fight with artillery/mines everywhere and drones removing elements of surprise
US Army veterans of that battle must have been at once relieved that they had survived, and also in terrified awe of the power at their fingertips.
It's worth remembering that when Saudi Arabia used M1 Abrams tanks and M2 Bradley IFVs without combined arms support against the Houthi militia in Yemen, these vehicles suffered badly. Technology means nothing without tactics.
OUTSTANDING COVERAGE!!!
Fascinating!!! Thx
I remember the story of the two Bradley's going 2 v 15 against a group of T-72's and T-62's buried in the sand. Hearing how the Bradley's tow missiles absolutely obliterated those tanks just made my love for the Bradley grow even more. That beautiful little beast may be small and have a 25mm Autocannon as a main weapon, but my god can it do some MASSIVE damage with those TOW Missiles. My only wish is that our upper brass would figure out a way to make the TOW missiles reloadable more easily or have them in "packs" like the PATRIOT and HIMAR systems.
Edit: Also yes, I'm aware that each single missile weights roughly 50lbs so a "pack" of missiles would take more than 1 person to load(unless the loader is built like a brick shit house and can lift around 125-150lbs), but it would be faster than loading each 50lb missile one at a time.
73. Easting is a great story. I remember when it happened. We did not understand the entire scope of it. But it just portended the outcome of the beginning of that war. Goliath stomped the ant pile. Unfortunately, the ants came back.
Well told, Alex!
had the privilage of being a Crewmember in both of these weapons systems. Very nice! :)
Thank you so much for this video.
This was very impressive.
I had heard the name of this battle before, but never had I heard a detailed description of it. You would think the media would have shouted about it to the world (or, at least, made a movie about it), I wonder why they didn't?
There are some movies set in the Gulf War. Jarhead and Three Kings come to mind. They're not necessarily meant to provide historical accuracy though. A historically accurate movie of 73 Easting would be kinda like Superman, but kryptonite doesn't exist at all, so he wins the day, every day, at no risk to himself.
Do a CZcams search for "73 Easting". You'll get at least a few hits with some of them animated.
I'd love to see a movie about this, but I think it would come off as "American gloating".
Now that I'm watching Jarhead again, one thing that is probably accurate about it is the boredom during Desert Shield, and the war ended so fast that the main characters didn't even get to shoot at anyone.
@Thud Thud Thank you. I did, and you are right.
You need to remember, all the senior officers and NCOs trained for years to defeat a large Soviet force. In addition to training, they had access to advanced simulators and several months in the desert with nothing to do but train. At the start of Desert Storm allied western tankers were the best in the world with the best equipment designed to kill T-72s.
I think Ukraine will be successful with modern tanks, etc. They always seem to do better than the experts predict, but it won't be bloodless. Especially for the Russians.
Ukrainians seem to have already gained quite a bit of insight on how to use their current weapon systems to maximum effect against the Russians. They also seem to have far better training and cohesion than Russian forces. Giving them better equipment at this point seems to me to only further expand their current capabilities and enable them to hit that much harder.
Infantry and tank fighting in the desert versus in a forested/treed environment, or worse an urban destruction hellscape are vastly more challenging scenarios. They surmise the Russian Ministry of Defense have created stand alone ATGM crews to offset this UAF equipment advantage when the heavy armor counter-offensive begins.
Western tanks and ifv's are burning in Ukraine😅😅
Columns of bradleys destroyed by russki T-72s.
@@eliasziad7864 lol. Lmao.
We were so proud of these guys. I was with the amphibious forces (4th MEB) aboard USS Nassau LHA-4 when this went down. We couldn't get the details in real time, but by the time we got the news, we were cheering like we were at a football game.
This was really informative and I applaud your balanced coverage. Thank you for posting this… it helps in understanding what’s going on in Ukraine. Respect to all those who serve, and to the legacy they have created. 🙏
Was a crazy rout. We definitely had the better weapons systems and ammunition! The advanced optics and gps definitely were a huge game changer as well. ALSO….. Real great informative video! Well done!
That retelling gave me chills
This legendary engagement never ceases to give me a "B0#@ER" everytime I hear about it.
I'm glad I live and was able to serve this great country of ours! America...
Then, the a-1 was a lot lighter. They would get about 200-240 miles per tank . They had to stop and wait for fuel and resupply to catch up. It was pretty going after the first 50 miles. I ran ahead in a humvee as a scout sniper and radioed Intel back to the Abrams. The Bradley's stayed close with the tanks and could kill 2 t-72 before they could get there shot dialed in. It was a slaughter. The sabo rounds would pop a hole through the enemy armour and suck everything not bolted down out the exit hole. The hole was about the size of an orange. One guy was half out the hole burned to a crisp. Everyone who got hit was a crispy critter.
"The sabo rounds would pop a hole through the enemy armor and suck everything not bolted down out the exit hole. The hole was about the size of an orange. One guy was half out the hole burned to a crisp. Everyone who got hit was a crispy critter. " That's physically impossible. APFSDS doesn't create "vacuum effect" when it penetrates armor. If a crewman doesn't get hit with frag or sabot itself nothing will happened to him accept potentially getting cancer in the future from DU explosion if depleted uranium sabot is used. On the other, hand ammo explosion would absolutely throw everything bolted or no bolted out the tank.
@@fortweek_7389 fuck nut. I saw it. I'm not commenting for shuts and giggles. You can tell yourself anything you want. But when you see in real life, it's very real. I was damn glad we had them. I had pics . I need to find that stuff. It's been thirty years.
Fortweek....Just basic physics should inform you the incredible heat released from the kinetic energy and penetration of armor confined in a small compartment......your kidding right?
@@dananorth895 Took me a while to find videos but here you go.
czcams.com/video/ZF3IZ6t4Yno/video.html
czcams.com/video/URCtPPdslXk/video.html
czcams.com/video/KU0_9ika42o/video.html Note, if there was so much pressure, that water container wouldn't be sitting there with it's lid still on.
"APFSDS (aka sabot aka the main modern tank shell) is designed to pierce through armor and kill crew through spalling, which is when pieces of the tank fly off inside and ricochet around. Occasionally, the penetrator itself can shatter and produce white hot fragments that can produce the illusion of a fire or explosion." "If a crew member was hit by an APFSDS round he would most likely be killed. Then again, an APFSDS round might very well hit a tank, cause considerable damage and yet crew members could survive. Depends on the point of impact and the compartmentalisation of the target. A depleted uranium penetrator has a strong incendiary (pyrophoric) effect which often leads to secondary ignitions of combustible materials such as fuel or ammo. Contrary to common belief APFSDS and shaped-charge/HEAT warheads do not ignite matter away from their path. The ambient temperature only changes a little after penetration. Any combustion and incapacitating effect is created by direct impact of dispersed warhead particles, spalling and shrapnel."
...
"Bad design usually makes the target go kaboom Hollywood style. And there is no vacuum effect."
Claim was that tankers and everything not bolted down would get sucked out through a APFSDS hole.
Wow. I had heard this story, but I had no idea of the magnitude. I thought it was more like 13 or so M1A's destroyed about twice than many T72's and a few trucks. Thanks for the details.
To add. They didnt fight T-72s. Only T-55 and T-62s
@@Ephys They fought over 30 T-72s
@@sourrrrrrrr export models at that as well. The Americans to be fair still did a damned good job.
@Ephys Whewners That is false almost all of the Iraqi tanks at 73 Easting were T-72M, T-72M1, or even a very small amount of T-72A. It was the battle of Norfolk were most of the Iraqi tanks were T-55 and T-62.
We took out about 80 vehicles in 90 minutes
Positively inspiring!
Thanks!
*It's the men and training behind the equipment that matters most.*
Before the ground war, we were told to fear the T-72. After a hundred hours, we just felt sorry for it.
You faced the Monkey Model version of the T-72, many built by the Iraqis themselves. (Lion of Babylon) Those were not the T-72s the Soviet Union had at the time
@@Tree-lo3py So the ones in Ukrain right now with their turrets also popped off are the high speed, low drag models?
@Tree-lo3py I have to point out that I was MI. Because your average class of Iraqi school girls was likely more heavily armed than an MI collection and jamming team, our SOP when faced with anything other than a class of belligerent Iraqi school girls was to run and hide. That said, there were some high points. Because our systems vehicles were absolutely incapable of keeping up with the armor, my unit became entangled in accepting hundreds of surrendering Iraqi soldiers, a task none of us was trained to do. So there we were, rifles at the ready, herding these guys together, all the while hoping that they really meant it, because they outnumbered us twenty to one. We were much relieved when the MPs, also bogged down with prisoners, arrived to make a professional job of it. In retrospect, it was one of the few substantive contributions that we made to the operation.
So what happend ?? Today?? How many Abrams left??
@@richardbale3278 The Abrams and the Leopard 2 also have the turret ejection capability. T-72's are getting destroyed in Ukraine because that's what happens in a war. Tanks are disabled or destroyed frequently during large wars, this has been a staple of warfare since The First World War. Here's an example: During WW2 the British lost 2,712 Sherman tanks, with the US losing about 4,295. During the battles for the city of El-Bab, which Turkey fought ISIS, Turkey lost ten Leopard 2A4 tanks, with half of all losses falling on enemy anti-tank missile systems, which caused serious damage to tanks. The turrets ejecting off of the T-72 is not due to the autoloader, it is due to 17 shells that are crammed into random spaces around the turret. This is because crews often load their tanks with the full 39 shells, of which only 22 are able to fit in the ammo carousel, the rest are scattered around the turret, and even are put into slots in the front fuel containers. The T-72 entered production in 1971, during that time it was one of the best tanks in the entire world, frontally immune from almost all other tanks at that time. in 2003, during the invasion of Iraq, the T-72 was already 32 years old. The Lion of Babylon (Iraq domestic version of T-72M) was a worse version of a downgraded version of T-72, which already had none of the updates that the T-72B had received. Additionally, the T-72M's used by Iraq did not have ammo capable of penetrating the Abrams frontally, as the Soviet Union did not export 3БM22, so Iraq's best shell for the T-72 was only 3БM15 which had penetration of only 400mm according to Боеприпасы: учебник для вузов : в 2 т. / Бабкин А. В., Велданов В. А., Грязнов Е. Ф. [и др.] ; общ. ред. Селиванов В. В. - М. : Изд-во МГТУ им. Н. Э.Баумана, 2016. Comparing the original T-72 to a modern Abrams is just sad, so instead, let's compare Original production T-72 to original Abrams of the same time period... Oh wait... that's not actually possible because Abrams entered production 8 years after the T-72 did. We can compare T-72 to XM1, but XM1 is worse in almost all ways. If you find an error in my argument, please feel free to express it to me.