T-72 in Gulf War. Was it any good?
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 03. 2017
- Today we take a look at the performance of T-72 tank in 1991 Gulf War.
All information is taken from the book "M1 Abrams vs T-72 Ural - Operation Desert Storm 1991" by Steven J. Zaloga
Also I forgot to mention in the video that Russian most modern round during Gulf War was 3VBM-13 "Vant" with 500mm penetration at 2km.
Same logic applies to Saudis, Egyptian and Iraqi who drove Abrams. One wouldn't say it's a crap tank because of performance in wrong hands. Great video!
Thanks man!
Ye, that is absolutely true.
Strizhi no Egyptian abrams have been destroyed before
As far as I know, saudi M1's are earlier versions with steel armor instead of depleted uranium plates. There was something with the engine and aiming systems too. In other words, this is an export version, not the full juice american tank. Both M1 and T72 series tanks are not to be fcked with when in full gear.
i've reading in some military and historical Books the Iraqi T-72 crews was the best ! especially (10th division) of RG in Iraq-Iran war they got best training by Russian experts and in few weeks this crews attacked the Iranian 16th & 77th division in Jan 1981 , in this battle the Iranians has lost 200 tank's of M-60 and Chieftain ! even the Iranain thought it's a new tank with Soveit crews ! you should be truthful the T-72 it is bad tank not the hands !
You say that but the 105mm L7A1 was smashing the living shit out of the T-72 in Israel , I dont see how the 120mm Armed chieftain would be worse.
They weren't in good condition when we found them. They were either destroyed, found abandoned with no fuel or broken down. This is from my own experience in the 1st Gulf War.
I am a little surprised to not find anyone responding saying that the Gulf War was fake, or that the T-72 destroyed trillions of UN task force tanks and other stuff...
@@spamuraigranatabru1149 dude! The Gulf war was fake!
T72s killed TRILLIONS of UN Task Force tanks.
And other stuff.
@@robc4191 AcTuAlLy ThEy WeRe T-72S NoT T-72M
And other stuff.
@@spamuraigranatabru1149 the lower case 's' is for pluralization... and anyway IT WAS A JOKE!
The difference between the coalition forces (mainly US and UK) and Iraqui's was way more than this. The US and UK had superior weapons and air cover yes, they had vastly superior training as well. However in a few places Sadam Hussain effectively defeated his own army. Does anyone remember the large number of troops that surrendered to a corporal and two nurses in a landrover because they had no food for two weeks and only half rations for two weeks before that? There was also an incident of about a brigade trying to surrender to a pair of Apache helecopters before a single round was fired? Again the same reason. It is hard to imagine morale being anything but rock bottom under those circumstances.
Gordon Lawrence hell they were even surrendering to unarmed predator drones.
I must have missed that.
Gordon Lawrence one of the incidences of this was a gun fire spotting drone from the u.s. battleship bombardment Force
not to mention iraq is a artificial country so the people dont really have true patriotism like other countries
One guy at my mosque is a veteran of Desert Storm... from the Iraqi side. He said: "We just wanted to go home. Our officer was an idiot, we had no food, we barely had any water, we barely had ammunition, and nobody wanted to be there or even knew why. Some Americans came, we put our hands up, and we got to leave alive."
A friend of mine was an engineer working for the British ministry of defence and after Gulf 1 she was give some steel samples to test, which turned out to be mild steel.
“Well that explains a lot,” she was told, “Those samples came from Revolutionary Guard T72 glacis plates, no wonder the 30mm shells from our Warrior APCs were going straight through them”!
GREAT Video! Loved it!
Thanks man :D I am so glad you liked it :)
really?
This guys vids are pretty good IMO, and anti Russian peeps keep trolling him. I prefer science, which uses measurement and experimentation, not just opinion. That's a better way of getting to the truth.
Matsimus it's business
Matsimus- I don't see how this is a great video when he made so many mistakes. I know because I served over 10 years in the US army and know a lot about armor, tactics and history. This video basically is trying to make excuses for why Russian tactics and the T-72 were way out classed..
US generals at the time of the gulf war are on record saying that they could have swapped all their equipment with the Iraqi forces and still whooped them due to the overall crap training, tactics and upkeep. Pretty sure the Abrams still would outclass a T72 but the abject failure in GW1 was more on the Iraqi forces.
Jason Price and that's true because what exactly? Are you saying that the US could've won a 10 to 1 engagement with outdated equipment and completely no air dominance and foreign support? With equipment that's even unusable in some cases to begin with? Are you that naive? Seems like American officials were blowing crap all the way from Washington to Shanghai.
You're forgetting the terrible state of Iraqi military leadership.
Which is why they are engaged in glorified live fire exercises against Yemen. The US is trying to pump them up and get them blooded a bit so the Saudis will fight a war with Iran for them.
Moe Ali Jaber. The Americans were well fed. So were the British. There were instances of Iraquis surrendering because they had zero food for two weeks and half rations for two weeks before that. You also need to remember that the plane that some of the fighting was on was seriously cold - the coldest for decades. So morale would have been zero.
Gordon Lawrence exactly! And these guys think the American army could've sustained this type of absolute rubbish conditions.
T-72 did not perform poorly. If U.S also used T-72 do you think the result would have been any different? Crew, training, planing, morale...
Helicopter
ok vatnik
It would have made some difference. If the Coalition went in equipped purely with the same models of T72 that the Iraqis had their casualties would certainly have been inflated. Equipment is not unimportant. But you are right that crew training and tactics are the most important factors, so it still would have been an overwhelming victory for the Coalition with a heavily lopsided loss exchange ratio. But I seriously doubt that you would be seeing exchanges of 200-300 Iraqi tanks destroyed for 1-2 Coalition tanks. Perhaps 20-30 Iraqi tanks for 1-2 Coalition tanks would have been more likely under this scenario.
Now if they had gone in with the models of T-72 that the Russians had at the time then things would have been pretty much the same. The T72B(1989) can take a punch from a T72 Ural or T72M1 any day, and with modern Soviet ammunition it would brew up the Iraqi T72 without any trouble.
Elendal have you heard about M84 Kuwait its perform very nice in 1991
Yugoslav variant of T-72, M-84 mentioned in the video and used by Kuwait, had equivalent of ~700 mm of armor for turret front and ~650 mm for the hull glacis. Just an example how poor were the Iraqi T-72s.
That's even better than the first models of M1 Abrams. And from around the same time period. The Soviets have always been ahead of the curve on tanks after ww2 and I believe the Russians always will be a step ahead, despite the speed bump that the collapse of the Soviet Union created.
@@shockwave6213 The M-84 was Designed in Yugoslavia, it was based on the T-72, but not the same tank. Without any modernization done to the: M-84, T-72 and T-90. The M-84 is on par with the T-90. Yes, it's that big of a difference between the M-84 and the T-72. And, I am talking about the Soviet T-72's and Russian T-90's - not the export ones.
Maybe against heat. The M-84 had 450mm vs apfsds without ERA for the turret. and 370 something against the glacis. The M-84 was just a T-72M and the CIA has had the stats for the 72M since 1984.
@@yanuchiuchihaanimegamesand3907 as a Croatian, M-84 is not comparable to T-90 by any means. Not even to T-72B (1989) because M-84 is a T-72M1, renamed and made by Đuro Đaković.
@@stilpa1 No need to be salty about it, just because Croatian tanks aren't as good as M84s even tho you had some of them leftover from Yugoslavia
Do a video on the T-54/55, T-62 and the T-72's of the Syrian civil war.
1. tactics, 2. air domination, etc
3. T-72s there all shitty export versions of the T-72
4. Crappy crew
3. Low quality and outdated tanks
@@Maperator outdated you say? T-72 was feared till the late end of the cold war. The export variants and crew quality were worse compared to their American counterparts which is the opposite of Iraqis. If Soviet crew and Soviet T-72 variants like the T-72B3 and T-72B were brought into Gulf war it would certainly be a bloody combat.
@@mr.laughington5740 I’m pretty sure the b3 didn’t exist at the time of the gulf war
@@Justin-zi5io T-72B mod 1989 haved similar or same protection but firing control system was worst.
those tanks "Assad Babil" were finished and used in combat.. my mother was one of the those who worked on creating it... but they were crude and badly made for the lack of resources necessary.
really?
@@NEY-uu3lx yes I know his mother
Yea thats true.. Its not like the original t72... Its a low spec t72
@@mirwellduo8986 dont underestimate the manufacturing resources needed to build a tank. You're not going to get far with a bridgeport and a drill press. Thats very heavy, very specialized manufacturing that just doesnt exist in every corner of the world. Kudos to the Iraqi engineers for even trying.
@@robc4191 good point
The T-72 performed well in the 8 year war, The Iraqi's never had a chance in the first Gulf War because it was early 1970's tech (Them) vs early 1990's Tech (Us) and wasn't just in Tanks it was in everything. If anything that's one of the few Criticisms of the Abrams that still holds water...it's never fought any of it's contemporaries, All it's done is roll around and shoot up a bunch of Antiques. It's never faced another 3rd Gen Battletank. It would be interesting to see how the T-72B3 performed against it
Something that seems to escape nearly ALL commenters is that Russians use an entirely different doctrine when it comes to tanks. Vast majority thinks that tanks exist to fight one another, when reality is that for Soviets and now Russians, that's not the case. Soviets and now Russians always viewed tanks as highly mobile artillery pieces that exist to attack the enemy fortifications and defenses in support of attacking infantry. That's why their primary ammunition load consists of HE-FRAG rounds. Fighting enemy tanks is a secondary task, one that is taken on when enemy tanks choose to come at them. Russian tanks kill pillboxes, fortifications, revetments, buildings, artillery nests, etc. Enemy tanks are the target of CAS aircraft and own artillery. In fact if one looks at statistics of when militaries fought head to head, majority of tanks, well over 75%, were killed from the air and by artillery if not more. So in case of Russians, their tanks would be unlikely to face an Abrams since, in a correctly planned and executed operation, most of the Abramses would be killed from the air. Given modern MLRS rounds with clusters of self-aiming anti-tank EFP bomblets, it'd REALLY suck to be a tanker on a modern battlefield.
@@Max_Da_G Yeah. The War in Ukraine has proved that tanks worst enemy is not other tanks, it's artillery, mines and drones.
it's intresting to see how RedEffect's english has improved
Good video man! I always enjoy an analysis of such equipment.
DizzyWillow \
Thanks, glad you enjoyed it :)
You are my best tank analyst so far- Keep up the good work!
Yeah, I don't like it how some people here in US assume that the Russian military is weak because of the success in the Gulf War. Of course when you pit one of the best tanks of the time with highly trained crews (US) against outdated export models with poorly trained crews (Iraq), the US is going to dominate. If the Russian army was fighting in place of the US, their tech and training advantages would have led to the same stunning victory that the US had.
Anyways great video as usual!
When you have 2600 combat aircraft against a 3rd world banana republic that has no capable air defenses, tanks do not matter.
BTW M. Held's group found only 14 Iraqi T-72s with any kind of combat damage.
Conser pov , they had capable air defense, the US just made it useless.
What if I told you, Russian generals didn't believe US claims of KIA after the Gulf War?
They were as shocked as anyone by the result. But perhaps not surprised -- it was a validation of the fears wrought on by America's revolution in military affairs in the 80's which got them to economically surrender the Cold War without a fight.
RT TH The air-defences were capable fighting against aircraft made in the 60s and 70s. Not 80s and 90s.
Pablo Burritochi not at all....it wasn't russia after all, it was iraq. Simply not a real comparison....anyone who says it's telling of anything....is a complete amateur, and should be ignored accordingly...lol. russia is STILL the #2 ranked military power on earth. It would be acme of fools to assume the're weak.
99% of T-72 destroyed by Fighter bombers and helicopters, the other 1% destroyed by huge number of enemy tanks...
Wrong. Army Bradleys destroyed more armor than any other weapon platform.
Despite its shortcomings and due to its sleek appearance, I always thought of the T-72 as a tank version of a sports scar.
I'd say the T-80 is more of a "Soviet Sports-Car MBT" with the T-72 being a sturdy truck with a tune
I'd say its more like one of those tiny two seater cars, because while its small and light, its also got a weak engine, so its actually pretty slow by the standards of a modern mbt
5:22 That's an M60 tank in the background.
The Marines were quite effective against T-72s with their M60s and they only had a few M60A3s. Most were M60A1s
always broke ass no budget department of the navy
They were more than adequate... M833 APFSDS was capable taking out T72M1, while those M60A1 and A3 had very good fire control systems, so they could outrange iraqi T72 with ease...
Loved it. Your comments regarding training were spot on.
A good sensible presentation. I had a Heat round hit the front of our BFV, but the round failed ignite on contact, it knocked us senseless for a few seconds but didn't do any major damage. Iraqis also strapped as many barrels of fuel on their vehicles as they could fit onto the rear deck. We popped smoke, backed up and maneuvered to the right, the T-72 was in a revetment with only its turret and extra fuel showing. We advanced out of the smoke at max speed, flanked the tank, put 40 rounds of 7.62 coax into the fuel barrels and set the tank on fire.
Your right the M-84 was a very good Tank. If you get to inspect one next to a T-72, the quality of the welding was much better, the USA bought 4 from Croatia. The Serbian steel used was also superior to the T-72 export models.
Thats a awesome and scary tale.
Interesting fact, the turrets for the M-84 and later M-84A were made in Skopje, North Macedonia. Sadly, the manufacturing plant which was also used for all manners of steel casting went in ruin and was demolished. Thanks to corrupt politicians and idiotic management.
@@ravenouself4181 i have no direct experience with tanks and armor, but i run a mavhine shop and have dealt with steels from all over the world. The two worst countries for basic low carbon steel are Russia and The United States.
The US makes excellent alloy steels but for the cheap low carbon structurals etc we almost always have less problems with Canadian or even Chinese
Hah... They didn't even have proper apfsds rounds, they bought training rounds...... Imagine that
True
@@alancient8463 then why did they attack without proper equipment.
They were actually proper rounds...however they were seriously old Steel based kinetic penetrators that the Soviets had stopped using decades before.
Yes, terrific videos sir! Thank you for all you do!
Very informative my friends. Great vid.
I've always said that the 1991 Gulf war was like a top three Premier League side up against an average L1 (that's third tier) side with one player red carded minutes after kick off. Remember, Iraq was outnumbered too. The only thing in their favour was that they had home advantage.
Too bad the M2 bradley had 1000+ mm of pen on its TOW missiles
clear, sober, concise,to the point examination of the facts, great vid, thumbs up.
What a brilliant analysis, such an underrated channel
Command and control, gps, infrared, better computers, so many factors come into play other than simple tank vs tank. If we kept all same but swapped tank, coalition would still win, it would more difficult but they would mop the floor. For example look at the M1 performance in Yemen.
Exactly. Just like the fact that ISIS rolled over the new Iraqi army equipped with M1s had nothing to with what version of M1 was it and did it have a DU armor package or not...
uegvdczuVF I was in Baghdad at that time(2014), here is the full story: the army got a (corrupt) political order to the generals to leave the cities leaving the solders to die in their camps at the night and equipment to be taken by ISIS, so they stole about 5 Abrams tanks which were destroyed by air the first week. The federal police and a new organized mobilization stopped them from reaching Baghdad. After that, the gov. changed so Iraqi army started to recover and kicking ISIS' asses every day for 3 years now. talking about the golf war the tactics there were stupid cuz Saddam refused any help with planing them and anyone who stands against it will be killed+ the country was devastated from the Iranian war; a loaf of bead at that time was seen as an expensive cake
joao rosendo I kinda doubt that us would still win if equipped wit t72 instead and iraq had m1s as the M1 is immune to frontal cire in a 60 degree arc farther than 500 meters and with supperior optics on the abrams that can see about 3 times farther at night then the T72 I think we know who would win said engagement
uegvdczuVF and the iraqi army today their export model is cast steel im nearly 100% sure the m1s of the modern iraq army are no better than the t72 of the gulf war just wit computers and high tec night vision
Coalition had air supremacy, the numbers, moral... the Iraqi's had already been through a grueling 8 year war with Iran which they had almost lost on several occasions. If the US had not given Saddam chemical weapons and satellite intel, he would have lost to Iran early on in the war. That's why the Iranians were so reluctant to give up because they came so close on so many occasions.
In simple terms;
The T-72 is a solid and proven chassis that is designed to be modular (upgradable) .
When deployed correctly, with proper crew training/doctrine and updated gun- night and thermal fire control systems- engine - armor and munitions, it is still a potent threat.
perfect, exactly what I wanted to know. many thanks.
Very good video! Thanks for making it.
I think what the Ukraine war shows more than anything is that tanks are kind of reaching their limits. Top-attack munitions, loitering, and kamikaze drones that cost $30000 or less are easily destroying multi million dollar tanks and vehicles with ease. Tanks would have to shift most of their armor and protection to the roof.
It's interesting to see that the Kuwait forces using a similar/improved version of Iraqi tanks to better and more efficient effect. Crew Training and tactics really goes along way
what a good video, i always like to see actual pictures n accurate video footage especially when its a small subscriber channel (no offense:) cause its more often than not of much better quality then those channels with 100,000 to a million subs (i wont name names LoL)
keep up the good work n thanks
very informative. thanks for uploading.
TBH its not really the tanks fault the M1 Abrams completely dominated the battlefield. The Iraqi tank crews were poorly trained compared to the highly trained US tank crews and the Iraqi were still using outdated conventional shells!
ISTR the Challenger 1 put up a battlefield performance at least as good as the Abrams, better in terms of kill range and although slower it uses much less fuel..
The M-60 A2 of the U.S. Marines were scoring kills as well with their 105mm guns at 2K meters. The ammunition was probably the biggest factor between the two sides.
@@cejannuzi Really dude?
@@raff257 Technically they were...they had been in an 8 year long war with Iran. However Iran came out on top and Iraq was in a hole afterwards. While they had more actual combat experience (compared to highly trained but untested US troops - Few of the troops had ever been in a war before but had the training developed from many wars before their time)...their training left everything to be desired.
Its the soviets fault
They are the ones who trained the iraqi crews and they were the ones who sold shity tanks to iraq and refused to give them a good rounds
They did the same with iraqi air force thats why iraq stoped buying weapons from the soviets and started to buy nato weapons in 1988 mostly french weapons
Iraqi pilots were on par with is pilots causw most of them were trained by british and french pilots in the end of war instead of soveits bad training
The iraqi air force didnt do well in the gulf war cause of the soviets poor quality missiles
Out of 100 missiles iraq fired only 6 scored hits most of them were the r40 missiles used on mig25
I think the T-72 is a superb tank - extremely reliable. The real lesson of the gulf war was this: It is a fallacy to think that tanks will only fight tanks. Most Iraqi tanks were destroyed by TOW missiles.
I think the side with the all around maneuver advantage gets to choose the engagements and from there its just rock paper scissors. If America had T-72 export and Iraqis had the Abrams not to much would have changed imo.
Hell, we could have given them our tanks and done without and won. The T-72 was designed around Soviet needs in the west. Something to churn out cheaply and in massive numbers so as to overwhelm NATO. They wanted to out manoeuvre through superior numbers, speed, mobility and momentum. Iraq mostly just parked theirs up robbing them of their only real strengths that being small fast targets instead of sitting targets. This wasnt war, just shooting fish in a barrel
MrBiggrim basically the Iraqis used them the way the Abrams was meant to be used, parked in dugouts with only the turret showing to act as a semi mobile defensive wall.
The Abrams wasn't meant to be used the way it was, charging at the enemy at full tilt. Yet someone still won.
Full tilt....I always remember when in the 80's and NATO was churning out Challenger1's, M1,s and Leo2's, how the Challie was slated for being too slow by comparison, and yet in multinational exercises, such as the Lionhearts, it was found that the faster tanks tended to run into un-reconed enemy units at speed and by surprise, meaning that they were so close that the Armour advantage was deemed lost.
Nor will i forget the picture of a long line of M1's parked on the road with each of them spray painted in yellow with the legend "S.A.S." after being quietly ambushed during the night. Always best to keep on the move, but dont move to fast. LOL
Considering that other armies at the time still used old American M-60s, Soviet T-55s and even WWII-vintage Shermans and T-34s, the T-72 was one of the best out there, but it had the misfortune of going against the Abrams which was the best at the time. Combined with total air superiority, there was nothing the Iraqis could have done, even if they had much better equipment, or training.
MrBiggrim the chally is far too slow, hence it's barely sent anywhere and even Danish leopards were used to support British troops more often than challengers
GREAT VIDEO. SUPER INFORMATIVE !! THANK YOU FOR YOUR INSIGHT 👍👍
Subbed... I have always been interested in tanks and armored warfare.. I know quite a bit but redeffect and matsimus hsve taught me so much more#
imagine what would have happened if they had T-72B, T-80BV and T-80U and trained with Russian tank experts ?
It would likely have ended up the same way the Egyptians and Syrians ended up against Israel...
The tank is not better or worse than its crew, and although the troops might have been a bit better, the fundamental problems in the command structure as well as lack of air cover, as well as fundamental C3 meant that the first gulf war was pretty much decided from the get-go.
That being said, I am not convinced that the T-72 models are that great a platform (even for its time) that many claims it to be, nor am I convinced that it was "bad"... It looks to me like it was a decent platform, and that with a good crew, it can be a really devastating weapon in the most situations...
Usualy in these arguments between "fans" and "haters" the truth is somewhere in between.
It is likely that the US would still have easily won, because they would have known where the enemy units are and could have one-uped them with whatever was necessary. In any case whatever Iraq could have had was obsolete and very outnumbered.
like the experts who trained the syrian and egyptian armies?
The Tank-forces weren't trained by russian experts.
I love the T-72, the newest models with the latest ERA inserts are cool as Hell.
T72B3 with Relikt ERA that eats APFSDS 😁
Good video with a fair analysis :)
I would only put the correction of estimations of US armor thickness, which is about 500mm against APFSDS for M1A1 and about 600mm for M1A1HA. I used Andrei’s Tarasenko estimations, which are more close to be realistic, then pretty old Zaloga’s data (Zaloga comparing the withstanding of armor to very old soviet apfsds). You can find Tarasenko estimations with the detailed scetches of M1 turret and very detailed for all T series.
Looking on Wikipedia yesterday, and most Iraqi tanks were T62s and T55s it seems. Not sure how many T72s they had. And I don't think their tanks, or their entire military in general, were in much of a state to fight a war having fought one for 8 years with Iran. Certainly not against a massive coalition as was assembled against them in 1990.
The Iraqi army had the Soviet T-55A ,the Chinese T-69 (same T-55A) and only the Republican guards had the T-72 .
The T55 Enigma was their toughest tank....that says it all really.
The Iraqis had over 1,000 various T-72s including T-72 Urals, T-72Ms, T-72M1s, and Asad Babils prior to the invasion of Kuwait. More than 150 of these would be lost during the Gulf War.
How would a T-72 fitted with the latest ammunition and armour fair against the M1A1?
So the T-72 would need to be able to penetrate 800mm of armour while also defending from 570mm worth of penetration at 2 km. There is no argument concluding that under these scenarios that the T-72 would prevail or at least stand a chance. Every argument is baseless without providing actually evidence that the T-72 would be capable of defeating the M1A1.
What's the Armour penetration on the ATGMs. Also isn't the B3 the newest upgrade of the T-72?
its not really a t72 more a t90 with a t72 hull
also a lenghened autoloader for better shells
@eddie money
The latest T-72 variant is the T-72B3M aka B4. It's comparable to a T-90 but cheaper and there are plans to bring all existing T-72's in Russian service up to that standard. It was first unveiled to the public at the tank biathlon in 2014.
Well done presentation!
Well balanced video. Plenty of facts and data. Well done!
RedEffect: No mistakes on this video. Very good job and good analysis. I was impressed. I believe the biggest factor during the Gulf War and Operation Iraqi Freedom was the poor training and matiness of the Iraqi Tanks. Even a poor quality/older model tank is a danger to even the most modern armor especially with a well trained crew. With all types of ammunition, it is not important that you just hit the target but where you hit the target. Thank you for the video!
Only the assumption that lateat soviet tanks would fare any better... they wouldnt, because they had same shortcomings, just slightly better armor... but they would be as blind as iraqi tanks as they did not have access to thermal sights, while fire control systems on them was still lacking behind...
3.3k likes and 333 dislikes.
*Perfectly balanced, as all things should be*
What about the non electrical turret rotation?
This was the tank that's supposed to overrun European defenses in a few days after the war had started. We brought a few of them for forensic study back in the states after the gulf war. Some of the T72 we transported back to the states are mobile and fully operational the GI' s were saying those are gonna be used for target practice . The Iraqis find it the hard way that the safest place on a T - 72 are about a few hundred feet away from the damn thing.Those turrets fly off like a soda pop bottle caps . Good video thanks .
The T-72 was not a match for the Abrams 1 on 1. It was designed to be a 2 on 1 fight.
Have to mention Bradley's killed more Iraqi tanks than the Abrams.
That is the most generic and stupid "explination".Are you even aware how many T72 variants are ? What T72 exactly was no match ? Against what variant of the Abrams ? Fucking arm chair generals.
@@Vlad_-_-_ the last version was T-72M Iraq had at that time ,the Polish one I guess
The T 72 was in service well before the Abrams. The fact was the Soviets had the T-80s, which was superior to the A1 at the time.
for those saying soviet doctrine hurr durr remember when the t72 came out
in the 1960s
oh hello there m60 cheiftan and leopard one
whats this you have no composites or advanced shells
DELET
warthunder is not real life kid
Soviet tanks were always ahead. The collapse of the Soviet Union only gave western designers a chance to catch up. And yes, the T-72s would have shredded the Leopard 1s, Chieftains and M60 pattons. The T-72 had the best gun and armor of the time. In fact, The 125mm 2A46 gun, which is literally the same gun with some minor improvements is still the best tank gun. The new Vacuum-1 and Vaccuum-2 shells just supassed the best sabot rounds in NATO arsenals. That gun has been fitted to every T-64, T72, T-80 and T90 in Russian service.
T-72 went into production in late 1971 in the Soviet Union, hence the T-72 designation.
@@shockwave6213 the problem is, that mostly only diameter is the same between those guns, some variants of 2a46 show nice leaps in gun stabilization or loading mechanism available (going from 6-7 rounds per minute in early models to 10-12 rounds currently or adding the ability to launch ATGM's). you should note that vakuum ammo was designed to work only with new gun that is 2a82-1m.
@@seushimarejikaze1337 Well, yeah. They're adapting all the new tanks in service with the new loader to accommodate the new ammo length. But speaking purely for the gun and breech, but not the additional stabilizers, autoloader and targeting mechanisms, its essentially the same.
Another good video!
We see these problems even today, whether it's in Iraq, Syria or somewhere between Saudi Arabia and Yemen.
very good video and very well said and explained.
Decent points were made, very good video. You kept in mind:
1) Export versions of both tanks and ammo are different; in fact, some export versions of T-72 didn't have real composite armor. It simply had cavities filled with air instead of ceramics.
2) T-72 was put in service in 1972 and in Gulf it faced tanks from 1990s. So, they were outclassed in any aspect...
3) US troops used highly mobile tactics the Iraqi didn't respond to in time.
4) Full US air superiority
So, the outcome was the only possible.
You're vastly overstating the differences in tanks. The Abrams used in the first Gulf War was not a "90's tank". The majority were versions that came out in the early to mid 80's. Even the latest update to the Abrams used in the Gulf War was from the late 80's. I really don't think there would be a tremendous difference if it was the US vs Soviets in a simple conventional war. It's like everyone that tries to make this argument forgets that the USSR largely had a poorly trained conscript army as well, with only a few units actually considered elite and reliable. All you have to do is look at any unbiased history of the late stages of the USSR to see that their morale, training, organization, and general military structure was falling apart during the 70's and 80's. The loss in Afghanistan and subsequent economic downturn really was the kick that tore the entire rotten frame down.
@@ericharrison7518 There is no evidence of this in the 1970s. Afghanistan was the USSR fighting where its advantages were of little use, that exposed time lag in its chain of command to react (that wouldn't really be much of a problem in the WWIII fight the Soviet army was geared to fight). Even NATO war games in the 1980's admitted the USSR would bully them and all NATO could do was delay them as they fell back with NATO's only trump card being tactical nukes that the USSR also had. It should be noted NATO would have had to quickly rush conscript soldiers to the front to have any hope of stopping the Warsaw Pact meaning NATO troops (that would be conscripts with only a few hours of training) would have far worse training then Warsaw Pact conscripts (that would have months of training) as the European theater became a meat grinder.
@@Psy500 What does any of this have to do with the Soviet army in 1991? You're trying to compare a hypothetical war in the Middle East between the US/NATO with the Soviet Army in one of its better times, not the Soviet Army of 1991. Nor did NATO have a clue as to how much rot had seeped into the Soviet Union and it's military during the 80's. Not only that, the First Gulf War showed how absolutely out of date Soviet battlefield tactics were by 1991. There would have been no difference whether we were fighting Iraqi's or Soviets in 1991, beyond nuclear weapons being involved. Maybe Soviet troops would do slightly better initially but the Iraqi's were using the same fundamental equipment with Officers trained in Soviet military academies, using Soviet military tactics and doctrine. How can anyone thinking logically really attribute any different outcome? Soviet troops were poor disenfranchised conscripts in 91 that actually ended up turning on the government later that year, not only once, but multiple times. You're fanboying if you think there would have been any difference.
@@ericharrison7518 Iraq didn't have any of the Warsaw Pact doctrines (not even that of the weaker members like Romania and Bulgaria). The Warsaw Pact didn't believe in static defenses yet mobile defenses where the front dynamically moves to absorb enemy offensives (defense in depth) . The Warsaw Pact focused on spearheads that can penetrate deep into the enemy (deep battle doctrine) from overwhelming firepower support from artillery and air power (battlefield destruction doctrine).
Yes there were advisors but they didn't mold their military to Warsaw Pact standards.
@@Psy500 I think you need to study Iraqi tactics during the 1st Gulf War a little better dude. The main Iraqi army was supposed to be the main defensive line holding the Coalition forces back while the Republican Guard smashed any breakthroughs. You can try to spin it all you want but Iraq was essentially a client state of the Soviet Union during the mid to late 80's, and relied heavily on the Soviet military for training and equipment. The Soviet Army in 91 really would not have fared that much better against Coalition forces. If anything, that would have hastened the downfall of the USSR before the first shots were even fired.
In the Gulf War quality of the T72 was largely irrelevant. The US strategy and the Abrams killed the T72. The Abrams had superior weapons technology , crews and firepower, then it was used to every tactical advantage possible. The Iraqis were flanked and destroyed in detail. The battle was very one sided. As far as the T72's performance was concerned it should be noted that very few Abrams were even hit by T72 shells. and those that were usually recovered. Less that 10 Abrams were damaged or incapacitated in the Gulf war. This factor gave the Abrams an air of invincibility which it maintains to this day.
Over 20 Abrams were damaged or destroyed. I personally saw some of them.
Lots of Iraqi forces were destroyed during the withdrawal. Lots. I was there.
A fair bit were indeed hit but the apfsds iraqi t72s were using were from the 70s and had only 250mm penetration
For reference M1A1 deployed in gulf war had DU armore and had fron protection of 600+mm
I liked the video, good use of original source material.
Don’t forget that we used the tanks as target practice for the Air Force. They coined a term “ tank plinking”, like target shooting. They scattered them in the desert and showed up as glowing boxes for a nice laser point.
It was a fine tank before depleted Uranium shells, Wire guided missiles and Composite armor. It also doesn’t help that the Iraqi Army was not extremely professional and loyalty, rather than merit was valued by Saddam’s regime.
Most the Iraqi tanks where snuffed out by Bombers. Using JDAMS at night... They called it tank Plinking. As the tanks were still hot enough to show up on thermal sights from 40,000 feet. The Iraqi troop had no chance. As several even said. They camped 300 meters away from their tanks at night. As they would just explode seconds after the JDAMS sound wave was heard..
The T72 hull down in their fighting positions would have been a great advantage because it hides their silhouette. But like you said about their maintenance and training, it was pretty much all for nothing. Plus, their main munitions couldn't handle any coalition forces tanks besides the M60 tank. Which at the time were more than likely used by the Saudis. Also, their air dominance was crap since they were more likely to get lit up by an Apache, Cobra, or F-15 and A10.
Interesting how much the quality of the videos, and sound has improved over the years. Don't get me wrong, it's a good video, it's just that his newer videos are better.
ikr he did good tho love his content
Iraq’s elite tank formations made better use of tactics, yet it wasn’t enough for the advanced Information Age weapons wielded by coalition forces. A lot had to do with the GPS and fire control systems of the Abrams
The T-72 has no match against my spaghetti Tank
*Spills Spaghetti*
Where is speghati missile system
Soooo....
What would happen if the T-72 export version tangled with the M1 export version?
=P
Asad Babils were NOT T-72, they only looked like one. If you're asking what would happen if real T-72M1 clashed with asad Babils, there may be only one answer - T-72 would massacre Asad Babils, just like Abrams and Bradleys did.
An additional comment about the M829A1 round - it was designed from the ground up to kill the T-72.
The T-72 has a basic design flaw in the manner the ammunition is stowed in the turret. This round was designed to take advantage of this design flaw.
We call it the T72 Monkey model here in the US. Haha, keep up the great videos.
Even though the Iraqis had inferior equipment, the Republican guard did put up a brave and tough fight as reports mentioned although their tactics might have been insufficient , they were well trained and won many decisive victories during Iran Iraq war....at many instances the T-72 tanks of Republican guard did hit the Abram tanks but they simply bounced of them, the T-12 antitank guns of Iraqis destroyed 2 Abram tanks in one battle . Had the Iraqi Republican guard pocessed better tanks like T-80 then the Americans would surely loose many tanks even though Americans would win.
The Tawakhalna division and all Republican guard divisions were subjected to daily B-52 bombardment for 35 days and the Tawakhalna division was at only 65% of it's strengthen at D-day and despite taking such a beating fought battles against American forces for 2 days which shows their morale was high and they trained to fight even in unfavorable conditions, while regular Iraqi divisions collapsed or surrendered with brief engagement.
Imagine the American division subjected to 35 days of intense bombardment and lost 30% of their armor and few hundred dead.
Ahmed Rb They still got whooped, Also you can’t assume that Americans would not react in the same way. Iraqi didn’t have air superiority so US shouldn’t abuse it? Iraq should not have been in Kuwait in the first place, and deserved the beating they received.
Tanks for watching
I think it was Dateline? I saw a Video of a T-72 the Iraqis were using against ISIS. The tank was clearly beat to hell and back. The engine sounded like it on the verge of dying. Several times I though it had been destroyed. It took everything that was thrown at it and kept on going. It was truly amazing!
Never underestimate Russia she is never been as weak as she looked. That is the mistake that Napoleon and Hitler made
Yes, that's why we invade from Central Asia, like the only other force in history that has defeated Russia - the Mongols.
@@ravenouself4181 Japan?
T-72 Ural? You mean T-72 OURal!
those Kuwaitii M84 were made in Croatia and croatian treacherous leaders continued exporting them to Kuwait in 1991 although Croatia was already under heavy attack by Jugoslav National Army
thanks for providing the source now i have a new book to read
T-72 in Gulf War. Was it any good? yes, it was great for target practice
Turns out that T-72 tanks owned and operated by Russia can launch their turrets just as high as Iraqi tanks.
Funny and original comment
@@ViinnySMT funny to be sure but to be fair not original.
The M1 Abrams wasn't the only US tank in theater.
USMC used M60A1s in the battle of Kuwait International Airport - and they used them very effectively.
This video reminded me:
Originators are always step ahead from relicators
You dummies don't understand the context... When the T-72 first came out it was too much for both the M-60 and the Chieftain. The US responded by building the Abrams, which outclassed the T-72 with ease, especially the export version and the Iraqi knock off variant. The Russians responded by upgrading the T-72 and then eventually building the T-90 and then the T-90MS, which is more than a match for the Abrams. The latest T-90MS variant can shoot ATGM's from 5 km away with a 90 percent success rate. It's reactive armor as well as it's APC, have proven to be VERY effective on the battlefields in Syria.
in syria many t-90 tank destroyed by US TOW ATGM. effective against RPG7.
@@hamedsabet5380 no t90s have been destroyed...
ATGM's which can't penetrate the armor of western tanks. T-90MS is not a match for the latest west has to offer, and you really can't expect a 48 ton tank to be a match for 60-70 ton tank designs unless you make some kind of a revolutionary step, and oooh look Armata.
@@klesk4never Weight has nothing to do with the capabilities and firepower of a tank, For the exception of speed. Lol! Showing your arrogant and ignorant way of thinking.
Sort of like putting a Sherman up against a Tiger tank.
I'm just curious, where did you find the data on penetration of american APFSDS?
Slobodan Mitic yeah I would assume that it's classified
Good video!
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the T72. It's poor gun depression is made up by the integral ability to dig in. Later updates including the T90 package simply add better armour and ranging equipment. That said the Abrams was developed in direct response to the T72 and as such is a superior weapon to it. Whether Abrams can match Armata is going to be interesting to see. However the Iraqi T72 tanks were not handled in the way they were designed to be adhering to Soviet doctrine. Had they been used by Russians with no upgrades they probably still would have performed better. Many countries struggle with finding equipment matched to their doctrine and needs, in this case I think Iraq purchased the wrong equipment.
harbringer F Not only that but Iraqi army was poorly trained and had poor coordination
harbringer F And based on period training videos. They were really concerned about the Abram's performance against T60s and T72s
Armata, you mean the tank that exists in few prototypes and that broke on the parade on Red Square?
calindicusar regardless of its production state it seems Russia still intends to make and deploy 2000 odd Armata MBTs. Eventually they will replace a proportion of their frontline strength.
calindicusar it doest break at red square,came up expirienced test crew driver ,and Armata drive away without any help...problem was unexpirienced driver and new type of technic
I have read a book about T-72, M, M1 made in Czechoslovakia, now Slovakia, years 1981-1985 T-72, years 1985-1987 T-72M, from 1987 onward T-72M1, total number made of T-72M1 was 1010. Production ended probably in 1990 or 1991. Then there was a US puppet takeover, because our factories were to upgrade about 2500 Syrian T-55 tanks. Didnt happen. Also, T-55 was produced until T-72 started production, because Soviets didnt offer any worthwhile licenses, as T-62 was twice as expensive for a marginal increase in effectiveness. First T-72s cost was 11 million of czechoslovak crowns, while BMP-1 was for about a million, while T-55 was if I remember right, 1.6 million KCS. Laser range finder was only present in command M1 tanhks, opposed to standard T-72A having it.
Two thumbs up for this review.
There is a face that flashes on the screen at 2:14. Who's face is that?
It doesn't really mater if the Iraqi's had inferior tanks or the best that the Soviets could give them. As long as the US had superior combined arms and training, there isn't much any nation could do.
The last time the US fought a well armed and well trained enemy was Vietnam and everybody knows how that one turned out. Since then, the US has understandably made sure to confront only enemies which are badly armed, badly trained and badly led.
Actually we did fairly well in Vietnam. Everyone says how badly so and so battle was or how we lost the war but the facts are quite different. Take the Tet offense for one. The Vietcong stage a sneak attack across the entire country, but by the time it was done, the Vietcong ceased to exist as a formable fighting force. The NVA was better by far, but we still held our own against them when outnumbered by large amounts. We came out of Vietnam a far stronger fighting force because we learned what worked and what didn't and we developed a whole lot of new toys to take into the next war.
I'm pretty sure won every battle in Vietnam. We left because of hippies. Also, a lot of people don't know this, but we entered Vietnam because of France. They were getting beat and were like "Hey! We need your help." and once we got there they left. "Haha, thx for the help! peace!"
eddie money
Never use competitions as proof of tanker skill. It's funny how the guys who keep winning these things are never spearheading the assaults in any wars NATO countries find themselves in.
eddie money So, tell me the last time Leo 2s were spearheading NATO operations in absolutely hellish conditions.
Don't go telling me Afghanistan either. I was there in 2013 with Second Tanks Delta Company. Shit sucked over there but we never had it anywhere near as bad as the Iraq veterans. There was a much more organized resistance in Iraq and plenty of the fighters were former Iraqi army.
The only guys who ever deployed on leo 2s were Danish and Canadians and the latter got em on load from Germany after being there in Leo 1s for a while.
Competitions where crews in Europe can train all year round on mock sets of the real thing doesn't mean shit.
Nobody gives a fuck how many shiny gold medals you have, what matters is that you're actually applying that shit. Last I checked out of both Stronk Tank Europe competitions, the top winners weren't deploying for fuck all on their tanks.
When it's time to perform and get the job done our guys have always accomplished their tasks. So no, we're not weak.
Especially not when the Germans in their fancy leo 2s have under half of those tanks working.
A huge problem in the 91 war was over penetration. Our sabo rounds would go through BOTH sides of the tank and keep on going. Sometimes leaving the tank still usable. This means the rounds were already designed for the heavier armor.
Tech2188 If you knew anything about sabo rounds you would know that a crew wouldn’t survive a sabo round over penetration.
Adrian Rivero depends on strike spot, but t-x series tanks have ammo stored at lower hull in a circle means any hit is likely to cook the ammo.
nope the M829A1 round which the Abrams used couldnt penetrade the russian T-72b with reactive armor. Nato made some test from the T-72 from the DDR with reactive armor and they couldnt penetrade it. They developed than the new round M829A2
Thank you. This is interesting and presents a cogent argument.
indeed
Modern events be fun to revisit this
It did poorly because it was basically the real life equal of a Tier 4 tank facing a T8 in WoT......
What wars has the T72 performed well in? Russia's invasion of Georgia?
Not really, lost about couple hundred there
@@terrynewsome6698 False information. They lost only 5
Can you make a video about T-64, T-80 and SMAW rocket launcher?
Look at 5:22 that is a M60A3 used by the Marine Corps used during Desert Storm.
I was there. The Iraqis did not have the top of the line fully loaded models. They also do not have the heart of the Russians.
Irrelevant, 85% of iraqi tank losses was to aircrafts
That is not true. 7th Corps destroyed over 1500 Iraqi tanks alone.
@@Old-Dog00 Bullshit.
The biggest weakness of Russian tanks is the ammo rack..
its not like the ammo is stored on the intirety of the front plate on the leopard one
OH WAIT
@@AlexanderTch it can bro mine have delay time to activate and ammo in the top no problem it have blow up panel yes it can hit easly but no problem but you dont have ammo
@@felixgamingvlog6702 Mines are not the most dangerous enemies of tanks. Tank losses due mine explosion are very rare. In recent conflicts not a single tank was lost due to mine. It's not common to put mines on delay, because tank can move with different speed. give me links to info about anti-tank mines with time delay.
Blowing of box with ammo on top of the turret causes huge explosion and usually it puts entire tank on fire and makes in disfunctional. Practice in Iraq and Yemen showed that clearly. It's really stupid idea to put ammo there. Typical american crappy idea.
@@AlexanderTch well about link i cannot give becouse im electronic hobbiyist that know how to add delay fuction and the point of mine is yes can destory the tank but the most useful case is to immobile tank or venicle about ammo on top that beter than ammo in low section of tank where the armor is thinner abaout iran and yemen meh what you expect from those soldier blow up panel is not fool proof
@@felixgamingvlog6702 Low section of armor is not thinner. Low section is protected not only by armor but by steel wheels.. So, ,it has double protection. Locating of ammo in low section also significantly decrease probability of hitting it by projectile. Higher target is hit more easily , and target closer to surface of earth is much harder to hit.
A second hand, hand me down, cold war tank vs a modern tank. I wonder who would win?
Training and CRM is the vital key in a weapon system's successful employment in the battle space.
I was there, the T72 was killed wholesale by us, not only by US Abrams, but M60, and Challenger. Totally outclassed the T72 in every way shape and form.