Most of the American armor lost in Desert Storm were unfortunately from friendly fire. Over 4,000 Iraqi armor and APC's were destroyed compared to 31 Coalition armor. USAF lost 14 aircraft with over 29,000 combat sorties. Most of the Iraqi Airforce was destroyed on the ground or escaped to Iran.
Fun fact. A Royal Australian Air Force Hornet pilot, Matt Hall, was on exchange with USAF at the time and he flew Strike Eagles into combat. After retirement he became a Red Bull Air Race pilot and is still flying private charter planes and doing aerobatics at airshows.
@@dexlab7539😂 Saddam was living on borrowed time. He still would have been removed. Russia would get its ass kicked and claimed they didn’t have troops there only Wagner mercenaries. 😂
The Tu-22B and U were both Blinders, and were generally considered a disappointment, lacking the speed and range it was expected to have. Among its nicknames were "Man-eater," "Defectocraft," and "Error-plane." The Tu-22M Backfire is a completely different plane, only designated such as an attempt to save face.
@@blademaster2390 I remember a pilot talking about how they were amazed when they did call backs. That everyone made it through that mess. It catapulted the U.S. on a whole new field of war. No one knew what hit them.
@@tetraxis3011a 50s era SAM shot down an F-117 which is a plane built with 70s tech. It's not the missile, it's the radar and whether or not the F-117 has it's bomb bay doors open or not.
@dfmrcv862 I'd like to add, other than the innovative use of radar by the Serbs, the F-117 shootdown was a fluke and not a single manned stealth aircraft have been lost in combat since then.
Sum of my experience and knowledge base near zero (but avid watcher for past year). That said, I thought that was some of the best teamwork and communication I've yet observed! Well done all!
Yep. T-72B and T-80BV (both from 1985) would have been the bulk of Soviet armor in 1991. Not even the more capable T-80U would’ve been appeared in big numbers by that period.
the americans used m1a1s which are very much almost identical for DCS. As for the russians they would have used the t80B at the very least and U at the very best. Although the t80U had existed long before the gulf war, they didn't have too many of them so probably just t80bs. Even still they're better protected than t72s/t90s and have better weapons. Realistically the russian tanks would be peppering the abrams well before the abrams were in *effective* firing range. key word being 'effective'
@grimreapers the Soviet model designations are like this: One or more designers will present a new platform, whether pistol, rifle, tank etc to the government for consideration. The officials will deem which is most likely to succeed and then it is given the designation. The platform or system then enters longer trials to iron out the bugs. The actual finished product may not enter full scale production for 2 years but retains it's designation, unless it fails the trails then they go back to the drawing board or revisit a previous entry.
While Russian tanks do have the capability to fire ATGMs, hardly any were/are issued to them due to cost. I believe it was either platoon (or the next tier higher) leader tanks who were given any, and were mostly used against fortifications rather than enemy armor
I read Viktor Belenko's book that the wrote back in 1980 and he blistered the Soviet Air Force. He wrote about how poorly trained and prepared most units and individuals were. Not only that but you had Generals that got their positions based on their standing with The Party instead of their abilities. He made the assertion that in a war the Soviet military would perform very poorly and only have a chance of victory if the war was fought inside their own borders and against a vastly inferior opponent.
Of the 36 enemy aircraft downed during Desert Storm, 33 were downed by F-15s. F-4G Phantoms would have been used for SEAD with HARMs and F-16s would have been paired with dumb bombs and Mavericks as backup SEAD. Interdiction service would have been done by F-111s and F-15Es.
@@grimreapers No F-15s were lost. Save for 2 strike eagles lost to AAA after the air campaign ended. I believe the total a2a kill tally was 33 Iraqi fighters to F-15s, 1 to F/A-18, and 1 to F-16, and one maneuver kill to an EF-111
4 f-15s were taken down. Do a search on "Coalition Fixed-Wing Combat Aircraft Attrition in Desert Storm" there is a website that provides a fairly accurate list of US gulf war one aircraft losses.
No kills for F-16 in 1991. It was used purely in A2G role, and dumping A2G munitions to engage air targets was prohibited :-). F-16 got it's first kill later, after the war, it killed an Iraqi Mig-25 violating a NoFlyZone with an AMRAAM. First AMRAAM kill. Interesting is that some F-14s tried to engage other NFZ violating Mig-25s with Phoenix missiles, but scored no hits (can't remember if the missiles malfunctioned or Migs defeated them kinematically). Can't remember if that was before or after this first F-16/AMRAAM kill.
A total of 23 M1A1's [M1 Abrams Tank]were damaged or destroyed during the war. Of the nine Abrams tanks destroyed, seven were destroyed by friendly fire and two intentionally destroyed to prevent capture by the Iraqi Army. While some crew were injured in some instances no crewmembers were KIA.
It is worth remembering that the Irai air defence in 1991 was far denser than anything the warsaw pact had, far better equiped. How well trained they were is open to debate, however the USAF *Expected* to loose 1 in 6 of its aircraft deployed over Iraq....
Quite a few coalition aircraft losses were friendly fire incidents .. thats why they established basically air highway lanes in OIF to avoid this issue in 2003.
This sounds so cool already and I just started the video! Can't wait! But I will cause I want and need to know what is going on exactly! Awesome Mission Cap!
In the F-4G Wild Weasel during the Desert Storm the systems operator had a T2T (or TTI, can't remember) indication for HARM that was calculated by weapons computer at launch and they said it was quite accurate. Often they noted that indication of enemy radar emission disappeared just when T2T for the launched HARM counted to zero. They knew then that the SAM was most likely neutralised.
The Iranians kept some of the Iraqi aircraft as reparations since they hadn’t been paid. They returned about or a little more than half. Kuwaiti Airlines had some commercial aircraft that landed in Iran that were also interned.
ALARM was cool as it had a parachute so could loiter while the Radar was turned off then when they switched it back on believing the danger had passed it would dive to the Radar location.
I seem to recall that there was a surprising number of a-10s hit during Desert Storm, from AA gunfire (1) and infrared SAMs (6). They were then reassigned to higher-altitude strikes (for which they are not ideally suited) that F-16s and F-15s did better. I don't think, however, that there were any Coalition losses air-to-air save one FA-18 loss, pilot Scott Speicher.
cap, the T-90 was not in service at the time, but the bulk of iraqi armor was made up of T-55 and T-62, the few T-72 were the export version called T-72M with downgraded armor.
@41:30.......CAP obviously no longer enamored with the limitations of his 'Fire Everything' button is now pushing the boundaries of combat with his 'Drop Everything' button.
Just wondering if Cap or any even watched or viewed any of the planning and how these weapons were used to understand how to create an actual simulation for an engagement. Even for the tank battles there was more to it then just having tank vs tank. My suggestion is to actually watch and read about the Operation Desert Storm before just making it into the typical hey here Russian stuff against American stuff. Before the tanks even engaged there was massive artillery bombardments. Desert Storm was deeply planned and overwhelming force and firepower.
Iraqis at 73 Easting and Medina Ridge fought from stationary positions. I think the only times Iraqi armor even tried to maneuver was in the 1 ID and 1AD(UK) AO, and very early on in the USMC sector.
I thought the F-14 Tomcat was the primary air superiority fighter in Desert Storm. We had 4 carriers groups in the Persian gulf. Not to mention A-10 Warthogs and AH-64 Apache would have wiped out the Soviet tanks before they realized they had a problem.
In terms of how reaslistic the T72 versus Abrams battle was - I suggest looking at youtube videos of the "battle of 72 easting" you're in for a treat...
Cap, what source did you use for coalition losses? Because you're giving the same numbers on Wikipedia, and the only link supporting those is dead. Not sure it really matters but it'd be informative to see what were the incurred losses versus the total deployed, and how they were lost.
That's quite an interesting scenario, worth revisiting maybe ? I would take Mirage F1 rather than Mig23 however, they had proven very efficient against F4s during the Iran-Irak war and were quite feared at the beginning of the conflict , as they had better range and better electronics than Migs; 25 fled to Iran at the beginning of the war, and they were outclassed by F15s of course, but still dangerous for air to ground F16 and F18.
I’m not sure what variant of the Flogger the Iraqis used in 1991. If it was the MiG-23MS or MF, yep the Mirage F1s were probably better. But if it was any of the improved MiG-23ML/MLA, things might be harder. These improved and lightned Floggers proved to be in the upper hand against Mirages in the Angolan civil war, when Cuban pilots fought against South African F1s
The biggest difference that would occur would be the Coalition forces would have spent more time in the air-campaign before they opened their ground offensive. If the Russians only came in later they would have been at a huge disadvantage trying to fly from Iraqi airfields.
Yeah that's a huge point. There were so many aircraft with so many different controllers that things got tangled up. This was before the data link we have today.
Do you know how I can change the default canopy color to black instead of gold of the F-22A Raptor? I've been trying to play around with game mod files but nothing seems to work. If you know anything on how I can change the default color to black, I would love help Cap, looking for hours on end for what seems something simple. I also love the cap I got from you guys recently, love the fit
The biggest problem that Iraq had was a lack of Command and Control. Those were the first sites that were taken out. Russia suffers from the same lousy battle tactics. The soldiers and commanders in the field are not permitted to make adjustments to the battle plan that they are given from higher up. The US allows soldiers and field commanders to make adjustments to the battle plan as the "playing" field changes. Russia is learning nothing from their war with Ukraine. Russia should have been able to roll over Ukraine the same way that the Coalition rolled over Iraq. When I first heard that Russia was digging trenches I laughed. They're still fighting with WW I tactics. Artillery and trenches. Give me a break.
Tank battle do be accurate, at least in the 90’s and early 2000’s the abrams was nearly unbeatable. Think desert storm. Even our bradly ifv’s where taking out t-72s
It is funny when Eagle fanboys talk about the F-15s record, considering the amount of unmanned, parked aircraft were lost on the Iraqi side. Makes me chuckle when I see those 105-0 tweets on Twitter, followed by "Simply an issue of skill". Cause in hindsight, the majority of those kills were on parked jets and not in proper air to air combat. That is like a dude in FPS bragging about his near perfect K:D ratio, only for it to be revealed that it was due to him farming AFK Players on idle servers 90% of the time he has played.
@@grimreapersThey were severely downgraded T-72’s, with hand-cranked turret rotators, outdated ammunition from the early 70’s, no ATGM’s, etc. So, yeah.. they were utter crap and were easy-pickings.
MiG-23's have a woeful safety and combat record. The dedicated ground pounder MiG-23BN had a simplified airframe (especially the air intakes) and evolved into the externally almost identical MiG-27 whose own gun used to make it's own airframe fall apart! All versions of the Flogger were crap sadly, which probably explains why it had such a relatively short life with the Soviet/Russian air force, some types it was supposed to replace actually out lasted it. It was a popular export plane for them though, for those wanting cheap and cheerful flexible-ish aircraft.
Not entirely true. The Flogger indeed have a terrible reputation and did not perform well in its first variants (of which most export models were based of). But the later, improved and lightened MiG-23ML/MLA and specially the soviet exclusive MLD were far better machines and much more competent. Russia kept an entire regiment of MLDs in Germany up until 1993 (when MiG-29s and Su-27s were already in service by almost a decade). The MiG-27K (soviet exclusive use) was one of the only soviet aircrafts capable of precision striking enemy targets and was pretty on par with NATO assets in the 1980s. Floggers do have a very bad reputation indeed, but that’s largely duo to their service with middle eastern countries, which received MiG-23MS and MF export and heavily downgraded variants. Russia only retired them in the mid-90s because of a doctrine change (and duo to the economic collapse), scrapping all single engined combat aircraft (MiG-23s, MiG-27s, Su-17s)
@@IllustriousUnknown416Imo they would've scrapped them even if the soviet union didn't collapse; the Su27 and Mig29 were an order of magnitude better in every way. The mig23 might be the worst aircraft the soviets ever serially produced.
The finished version of Mig-23 was great for what it was, a BVR interceptor, but by that time US tech had moved on. It ended up potentially facing F-15c instead of Phantoms, so the original concept would never have worked. Wrong generation. Fortunately it was also built to handle well at low altitude, so they converted it to attack roles which it did fine. Gun might have been a problem. Mig-23 was never meant to have one. Just shoot long range AA missiles.
MLD/MLA were considered good they were the equal of later generation Phantoms and systems like Tornado. Export ones excluding warsaw pact and DDR were poor in comparision with downgraded Radars and Avionics with some Iraqi versions not even equiped with an RWR!
Given the outcome, I can't even guess why the US imagined they could overcome such technically and tactically superior equipment, as the Iraqis had, much less the Russians, especially outnumbered, flying down a narrow corridor in a straight line, without jamming or CAP...
You mean USSR. They didn’t officially collapse until December, 1991. The USSR mostly used A-50’s to monitor the Iraqi’s, as they feared the conflict would spill over.
But then factor in the Russians would have actively targeted the support aircraft knowing (EAWCs and Tankers) Iraq didnt have a means to engage these assets. MiG 31 would be perfect for this.
91 Iraq had a veteran battle harden military, Baghdad was the most heavily defended city in the world. Some years before the Iraqi cut there teeth against Iran. Battling tomcats in the air…😂
As to the line up of the Mig-23/27 easy way to tell if it has a duck nose it is a ground attack jet... But for number designations if it is a Mig-23B___ then it is a ground attack variant. Also the jets that Iraq had where downgrades primarily the radar set and poorer versions of the missiles... As to how they would be used they couldn't turn worth a damn but in a straight line they went like a scalded cat, when Israel got their hands on one and tested it they found it accelerated faster than the Kfir, F-4E and the F-16 the other major issue was the cockpit was not ergonomic and the view out of the cockpit was terrible... outside of that the Iraqi's followed the Soviet method of air defence primarily using GCI which once this had gone it was useless... this was also primarily why NATO practiced low-level tactics to get under the radars and radar guided missile systems...
Too bad you can't simulate EF-111's - could solve the SAM problems. In any case, what the video shows that it is hard to downscale an air campaign like Desert Storm. As for the Soviet tanks vs. the Abrams - you might have added Bradleys with TOWs to make it more realistic. Obviously the TOWs could have outranged the Abrams - and with thermal sites would have outranged the T-90s.
Sure, the Iraqi T-72s used outdated ammunition and were not up to the standards of 1991, but they were not bad tanks. They performed quite well against the Western models used by Iran in the Iran-Iraq war.
Bug difference between an M-60/Cheiftain and an M1 Abrams, Iraqi ammo wasnt even Tungsten or DU penetrator they were using Steel darts that shattered on M1 tanks. Some of the T-72s didnt have powered turrets! @@Nimmermaer
Nah this is pretty accurate. The T90As (a 2003 tank) have relict armor and about a 700ish mm thick frontal plate and would likely be firing 3BM46 or 3BM42M with nearly 660-700mm pen. The 3bm59/60 Sinvets 1 &2 didnt exist yet/until 2016. the circa 1994 M1A2 abrams would be firing M829A2 with about 680mm pen. meaning its a tall order for the 10 year old abrams to pen the front hull of the T90A from the future. The Hull armor of the M1A1HA/HC and M1A2 is only about 480mm. so its pretty easy for the T90s to kill these old Abrams. The M1A2 Abrams frontal turret is the strong point as per nato doctrine/design and has about 864mm frontal armor.. but its a flat desert so they dont have anywhere to hull down really. If this was a 2004 M1A2B/Sep v1 then things would be very different as it finally got hull DU armor, and a higher generation composites in general and a new M829A3 round round with 800mm pen. the T90A would struggle to pen the now 864mm Hull and Would be impossible to pen the now 1200mm turret of the Sep V1 and this fight would have been reversed.
There is a Ukrainian video with English subtitles about the Tu-160, with footage of the only aircraft in a museum (the city of Poltava) in the world and interviews with Ukrainian pilots. Ukraine used to have strategic aviation, but was forced to abandon it under pressure from the US and Russia ( as well as from nuclear weapons, from ballistic and cruise missiles). The video has a lot of unique footage and stories from direct witnesses. And a few words about American pilots in Poltava during World War II. Maybe someone will be interested. czcams.com/video/GBMvuurHaQg/video.html
I suspect that western armored units didn’t use cannon “fired” ATGMs b/c their Sabot rounds were more effective and accurate (same with HEAT against AFVs). While the Abrams, challenger 2, Leopard2, etc could deliver either accurately with deadly effect at over 2 Kms, Soviet tanks lacked the ability to do so at those ranges; they required an ATGM. A lot of storage space for ATGMs so if you don’t need them… I promise that those ATGMs aren’t making a dent in the front glacis of an M1 or Challenger anyway
Definitely not the case. For instance the Merkava uses a western NATO gun but still carries gun launched ATGM's. The use case was that ATGM's were versatile and could be used effectively to disable enemy armor and light vehicles but also low flying helos from considerably greater range than sabot and the tanks' FCS' played far less of a role when it came to engaging moving targets. For instance, while the T80 had automatic target tracking, the T72 didn't, but with ATGM's target tracking was irrelevant, allowing T72's to engage moving targets as well as tanks with much better fire control systems. As for penetration, all of them could fly right through the LFP of the challenger 2, and most of them could penetrate the LFP of the M1. Soviet 125mm guns were actually about on par with their 120mm western equivalents until the early 90's when the Soviet union collapsed. We think of them as inferior today because we've continued to evolve 120mm guns and muntions and nations like Russia still primarily use the 125mm guns from the 80's and 90's they inherented from the former Soviet union.
@@92HazelMochaTo be fair 120mm is still the standard MBT gun for western armor. It's only been very recently that the have begun to consider 140mm as a possible replacement. I've never heard of M1A1's carrying ATGM's. I thought that went out with the Shillelagh. I know that the heavy ACR units had Bradleys traveling at the spear point loaded with TOW missiles.
@@92HazelMocha the 125mm gun wasn't the issue with Soviet tanks....it was the fire control system and ammo that prevented accuracy at longer ranges and penetration concerns. You wouldn't see many t-72s, T-64s or T-80s in the 1980's landing penetrating hits on M1s, Challengers or Leaporad2s at 2km. I cant speak to why the Israelis use the missiles....only why the US and NATO do not. They may add a bit of versatility but they take up a lot of storage and- if using HEAT- arent particularly effective at penetrating modern composite armor.
If Russia deployed T-72B tanks with Kontakt 5...the Abrams would have struggled as they had M829A1 which could not get through the composite armour AND Kontakt 5 ERA. Iraq had Steel Core APFSDS which the Russians stopped using in the 1970s whilst Russia would have had the still effective 3BM42 Mango round. Not to mention if they brought in the T-80s as they had the best mobility of the Russian MBTs. Challenger 1's had L26 DU rounds...that might have been enough to penetrate the T72B's. The B model T72 had been sorely underestimated by the West as they had encountered, engaged and destroyed only the A model and Variants. T-72 had a completely different armour scheme...the area where the Russian tanks were behind on was Thermal Optics which both the Abrams M1A1 and the Challenger (Chieftain MK 11 and 12 too) had Roland was a pain in the rear in the Falklands War too....it shot down 1 aircraft and 2 bombs that were being used to destroy it...in the end the FAA went round the Roland instead of engaging
@@jyralnadreth4442 A2 was tested on T-72Bs in Germany after USSR fell. It didnt pen. There are written reports about it. To defeat K-5 you need a break off tip. M829A3 and DM53 featured this.
Improved Re-run: czcams.com/video/3H-qozYDg7U/video.html
Above link does not work.
Most of the American armor lost in Desert Storm were unfortunately from friendly fire. Over 4,000 Iraqi armor and APC's were destroyed compared to 31 Coalition armor. USAF lost 14 aircraft with over 29,000 combat sorties. Most of the Iraqi Airforce was destroyed on the ground or escaped to Iran.
Imagine running away to the country you just spent almost the entire last decade trying to destroy.
imagine attacking a country immediately after 8 years of war and then bragging about winning.
Is it bragging to just state the facts? @@servantofthealmightygod7234
Fun fact. A Royal Australian Air Force Hornet pilot, Matt Hall, was on exchange with USAF at the time and he flew Strike Eagles into combat. After retirement he became a Red Bull Air Race pilot and is still flying private charter planes and doing aerobatics at airshows.
This immediately caught my attention. I'm a Desert Storm Vet and I can't imagine the difference if the Soviets had joined in.
Yup, would have ended up like Syria…with Sadam still in control
The US would never had intervened in the first place if Russia threatened. As it was, pulling VII Corp out of Europe was a pretty ballsy move!
Well it was a UN action and they are security council so they would just veto intervention and Kuwait remains occupied
@@dexlab7539😂 Saddam was living on borrowed time. He still would have been removed. Russia would get its ass kicked and claimed they didn’t have troops there only Wagner mercenaries. 😂
@@smyers820gm We're talking about the USSR vs a 1991 US here, not the russia we know today.
The Tu-22B and U were both Blinders, and were generally considered a disappointment, lacking the speed and range it was expected to have. Among its nicknames were "Man-eater," "Defectocraft," and "Error-plane." The Tu-22M Backfire is a completely different plane, only designated such as an attempt to save face.
Don't forget "Vodka Carrier"
Most heavy defended and the F-117's hit all their targets with no losses.
I still remember watching this on the news.
That’s stealth for ya.
@@blademaster2390
I remember a pilot talking about how they were amazed when they did call backs. That everyone made it through that mess.
It catapulted the U.S. on a whole new field of war. No one knew what hit them.
Yeah, agaisnt 50s era SAMs
@@tetraxis3011a 50s era SAM shot down an F-117 which is a plane built with 70s tech. It's not the missile, it's the radar and whether or not the F-117 has it's bomb bay doors open or not.
@dfmrcv862 I'd like to add, other than the innovative use of radar by the Serbs, the F-117 shootdown was a fluke and not a single manned stealth aircraft have been lost in combat since then.
Sum of my experience and knowledge base near zero (but avid watcher for past year). That said, I thought that was some of the best teamwork and communication I've yet observed! Well done all!
F-14 should have been an option since it was used as interceptor. My friend was in the navy for both gulf wars.
Roger I actually forgot that it served in this war.
F-14 was kept out over the Persian Gulf due to a lack of proper IFF equipment. Would have definitely been a killer otherwise.
T90 did not enter service until 1992.
Yep.
T-72B and T-80BV (both from 1985) would have been the bulk of Soviet armor in 1991. Not even the more capable T-80U would’ve been appeared in big numbers by that period.
T-72B (1989) and T-80B and U models with Kontakt 5
I find your lack of A-10's disturbing!
No B-52's? I flew both low altitude and high altitude strikes in the B-52 in Desert Storm. Great sim anyway, Cap. Thanks!
I heard those bombing runs lasted for months…how long did you guys bomb for?
@@dexlab7539 Started the first night January 16 and last sorties were around the end of February.
The T90 wasn't even in service till 1992 Cap....the T90A is what you sent against the Abrams in the Sim...they were in service from 2004 lol
the americans used m1a1s which are very much almost identical for DCS. As for the russians they would have used the t80B at the very least and U at the very best. Although the t80U had existed long before the gulf war, they didn't have too many of them so probably just t80bs. Even still they're better protected than t72s/t90s and have better weapons. Realistically the russian tanks would be peppering the abrams well before the abrams were in *effective* firing range. key word being 'effective'
Roger, I just assumed 1990 because of the name.
@@grimreapers Wouldn't it be nice if we started naming planes and tanks by the year they entered service?
@grimreapers the Soviet model designations are like this:
One or more designers will present a new platform, whether pistol, rifle, tank etc to the government for consideration. The officials will deem which is most likely to succeed and then it is given the designation. The platform or system then enters longer trials to iron out the bugs. The actual finished product may not enter full scale production for 2 years but retains it's designation, unless it fails the trails then they go back to the drawing board or revisit a previous entry.
@@SmithandWesson22A came here to say this
While Russian tanks do have the capability to fire ATGMs, hardly any were/are issued to them due to cost. I believe it was either platoon (or the next tier higher) leader tanks who were given any, and were mostly used against fortifications rather than enemy armor
I read Viktor Belenko's book that the wrote back in 1980 and he blistered the Soviet Air Force. He wrote about how poorly trained and prepared most units and individuals were. Not only that but you had Generals that got their positions based on their standing with The Party instead of their abilities. He made the assertion that in a war the Soviet military would perform very poorly and only have a chance of victory if the war was fought inside their own borders and against a vastly inferior opponent.
Of the 36 enemy aircraft downed during Desert Storm, 33 were downed by F-15s. F-4G Phantoms would have been used for SEAD with HARMs and F-16s would have been paired with dumb bombs and Mavericks as backup SEAD. Interdiction service would have been done by F-111s and F-15Es.
Why were so many F-15s lost?
@@grimreapers No F-15s were lost. Save for 2 strike eagles lost to AAA after the air campaign ended. I believe the total a2a kill tally was 33 Iraqi fighters to F-15s, 1 to F/A-18, and 1 to F-16, and one maneuver kill to an EF-111
4 f-15s were taken down.
Do a search on "Coalition Fixed-Wing Combat Aircraft Attrition in Desert Storm" there is a website that provides a fairly accurate list of US gulf war one aircraft losses.
No kills for F-16 in 1991. It was used purely in A2G role, and dumping A2G munitions to engage air targets was prohibited :-). F-16 got it's first kill later, after the war, it killed an Iraqi Mig-25 violating a NoFlyZone with an AMRAAM. First AMRAAM kill.
Interesting is that some F-14s tried to engage other NFZ violating Mig-25s with Phoenix missiles, but scored no hits (can't remember if the missiles malfunctioned or Migs defeated them kinematically). Can't remember if that was before or after this first F-16/AMRAAM kill.
A total of 23 M1A1's [M1 Abrams Tank]were damaged or destroyed during the war. Of the nine Abrams tanks destroyed, seven were destroyed by friendly fire and two intentionally destroyed to prevent capture by the Iraqi Army. While some crew were injured in some instances no crewmembers were KIA.
Don’t forget the A6’s n The Tomcats also used. DCS needs the A-6 imo
Dedicated airborne jamming would help. The Prowlers and Ravens were invaluable in combat ting Iraqi Air defenses
It is worth remembering that the Irai air defence in 1991 was far denser than anything the warsaw pact had, far better equiped. How well trained they were is open to debate, however the USAF *Expected* to loose 1 in 6 of its aircraft deployed over Iraq....
Denser doesnt = good though the Soviet S-300 systems were far superior to anything Iraq had with their best SAM being the Roland 1
We were primarily geared up to go against the Soviet threat at that time.
I'd be interested to see this re-run with F-15Cs and/or F-14Bs in the air-to-air role instead of the 18C.
Today's lesson.... Bad planning makes bad endings to mission.
👍👍
Quite a few coalition aircraft losses were friendly fire incidents .. thats why they established basically air highway lanes in OIF to avoid this issue in 2003.
This sounds so cool already and I just started the video! Can't wait! But I will cause I want and need to know what is going on exactly! Awesome Mission Cap!
In the F-4G Wild Weasel during the Desert Storm the systems operator had a T2T (or TTI, can't remember) indication for HARM that was calculated by weapons computer at launch and they said it was quite accurate. Often they noted that indication of enemy radar emission disappeared just when T2T for the launched HARM counted to zero. They knew then that the SAM was most likely neutralised.
The Iranians kept some of the Iraqi aircraft as reparations since they hadn’t been paid. They returned about or a little more than half. Kuwaiti Airlines had some commercial aircraft that landed in Iran that were also interned.
thx
Great work as always. Adapt and kill is the name of the game.
RAF used a lot of ALARMs from Tornados on Iraqi air defence radars.
ALARM was cool as it had a parachute so could loiter while the Radar was turned off then when they switched it back on believing the danger had passed it would dive to the Radar location.
the soviets got so angry at america that they revived themselves 💀
And forgetting about America Big Un-healthcare system to the point it manage to perish their economy again
They still existed at that time
Note: They broke up in December 1991
They still existed in 1991 tho
Actually, they join the coalition to strike Iraq
I'm hooked for take two.
I seem to recall that there was a surprising number of a-10s hit during Desert Storm, from AA gunfire (1) and infrared SAMs (6). They were then reassigned to higher-altitude strikes (for which they are not ideally suited) that F-16s and F-15s did better. I don't think, however, that there were any Coalition losses air-to-air save one FA-18 loss, pilot Scott Speicher.
"F15s have armor" plot armor lol
cap, the T-90 was not in service at the time, but the bulk of iraqi armor was made up of T-55 and T-62, the few T-72 were the export version called T-72M with downgraded armor.
Iraqi T-72s were mostly comprised of T-72 Ural and T-72M. But there were T-72M1 and Iraq’s locally made attempt at the T-72M1.
@41:30.......CAP obviously no longer enamored with the limitations of his 'Fire Everything' button is now pushing the boundaries of combat with his 'Drop Everything' button.
not 75 a/c shot down. There were 75 losses, including crashes
And 25 helos
The old SAM system I worked on had TTI displayed, so I would imagine the more modern versions do as well
What's tti?
@@FLMKane time to intercept
Was actually surprised to see Iraq had Mig 21's as trainers and not active fighters.
My favourite HARM shot of the gulf war was the one fired at the tail radar on an B52 - don't know if this is recreatable in DCS- unlikely I suppose!
Just wondering if Cap or any even watched or viewed any of the planning and how these weapons were used to understand how to create an actual simulation for an engagement. Even for the tank battles there was more to it then just having tank vs tank. My suggestion is to actually watch and read about the Operation Desert Storm before just making it into the typical hey here Russian stuff against American stuff. Before the tanks even engaged there was massive artillery bombardments. Desert Storm was deeply planned and overwhelming force and firepower.
Iraqis at 73 Easting and Medina Ridge fought from stationary positions. I think the only times Iraqi armor even tried to maneuver was in the 1 ID and 1AD(UK) AO, and very early on in the USMC sector.
More cap needed!!! F15c with sparrows needed. F14 with phoenix needed.
I thought the F-14 Tomcat was the primary air superiority fighter in Desert Storm. We had 4 carriers groups in the Persian gulf. Not to mention A-10 Warthogs and AH-64 Apache would have wiped out the Soviet tanks before they realized they had a problem.
HARM 360 no scope
In terms of how reaslistic the T72 versus Abrams battle was - I suggest looking at youtube videos of the "battle of 72 easting" you're in for a treat...
Your comparing downscaled iraqi T-72’s to T-72B’s from the Soviet Union which had better munition, atgms and armour
There's an alternate history series based on this scenario.
Agreed
What's it called?
@@extraordinarytv5451 Crisis in the Desert. By Matt Jackson and James Rosane.
Book 1. Project 19.
Book 2. Desert Shield.
Book 3. Desert Storm.
Did good. Missed some stuff but overall good. The tank part was a surprise and happened after the air attack.
Amazing simulation guys, could you do it from a Navy perspective with F-14, F/A-18 and A-6?
Cap, what source did you use for coalition losses? Because you're giving the same numbers on Wikipedia, and the only link supporting those is dead. Not sure it really matters but it'd be informative to see what were the incurred losses versus the total deployed, and how they were lost.
It would have got very very interesting, very very quickly… and the Soviets would have been bloodied, rather than blooded.
I'm surprised you didn't include the F-14 and the Harrier in this.
That's quite an interesting scenario, worth revisiting maybe ? I would take Mirage F1 rather than Mig23 however, they had proven very efficient against F4s during the Iran-Irak war and were quite feared at the beginning of the conflict , as they had better range and better electronics than Migs; 25 fled to Iran at the beginning of the war, and they were outclassed by F15s of course, but still dangerous for air to ground F16 and F18.
Yup, IMPROVED version next week.
@@grimreapersYay! Loved this mission concept Cap 😊
I’m not sure what variant of the Flogger the Iraqis used in 1991. If it was the MiG-23MS or MF, yep the Mirage F1s were probably better. But if it was any of the improved MiG-23ML/MLA, things might be harder. These improved and lightned Floggers proved to be in the upper hand against Mirages in the Angolan civil war, when Cuban pilots fought against South African F1s
Mig-23 was built to kill Phantoms.
The biggest difference that would occur would be the Coalition forces would have spent more time in the air-campaign before they opened their ground offensive. If the Russians only came in later they would have been at a huge disadvantage trying to fly from Iraqi airfields.
In Desert Storm, 60% of coalition aircraft were lost in training, not combat.
Looks like you needed some plucky Tornado pilots helping
almost half the allied losses were accidents or crashes.
Yeah that's a huge point. There were so many aircraft with so many different controllers that things got tangled up. This was before the data link we have today.
Interesting.
Do you know how I can change the default canopy color to black instead of gold of the F-22A Raptor? I've been trying to play around with game mod files but nothing seems to work. If you know anything on how I can change the default color to black, I would love help Cap, looking for hours on end for what seems something simple. I also love the cap I got from you guys recently, love the fit
The biggest problem that Iraq had was a lack of Command and Control. Those were the first sites that were taken out. Russia suffers from the same lousy battle tactics. The soldiers and commanders in the field are not permitted to make adjustments to the battle plan that they are given from higher up. The US allows soldiers and field commanders to make adjustments to the battle plan as the "playing" field changes. Russia is learning nothing from their war with Ukraine. Russia should have been able to roll over Ukraine the same way that the Coalition rolled over Iraq. When I first heard that Russia was digging trenches I laughed. They're still fighting with WW I tactics. Artillery and trenches. Give me a break.
Tank battle do be accurate, at least in the 90’s and early 2000’s the abrams was nearly unbeatable. Think desert storm. Even our bradly ifv’s where taking out t-72s
It is funny when Eagle fanboys talk about the F-15s record, considering the amount of unmanned, parked aircraft were lost on the Iraqi side. Makes me chuckle when I see those 105-0 tweets on Twitter, followed by "Simply an issue of skill". Cause in hindsight, the majority of those kills were on parked jets and not in proper air to air combat. That is like a dude in FPS bragging about his near perfect K:D ratio, only for it to be revealed that it was due to him farming AFK Players on idle servers 90% of the time he has played.
did the iraqis have the bore-fired atgms on the tanks?
Their tanks were capable but I don't know if they actually had the missiles to fire.
@@grimreapersThey were severely downgraded T-72’s, with hand-cranked turret rotators, outdated ammunition from the early 70’s, no ATGM’s, etc. So, yeah.. they were utter crap and were easy-pickings.
MiG-23's have a woeful safety and combat record. The dedicated ground pounder MiG-23BN had a simplified airframe (especially the air intakes) and evolved into the externally almost identical MiG-27 whose own gun used to make it's own airframe fall apart! All versions of the Flogger were crap sadly, which probably explains why it had such a relatively short life with the Soviet/Russian air force, some types it was supposed to replace actually out lasted it. It was a popular export plane for them though, for those wanting cheap and cheerful flexible-ish aircraft.
Not entirely true. The Flogger indeed have a terrible reputation and did not perform well in its first variants (of which most export models were based of). But the later, improved and lightened MiG-23ML/MLA and specially the soviet exclusive MLD were far better machines and much more competent. Russia kept an entire regiment of MLDs in Germany up until 1993 (when MiG-29s and Su-27s were already in service by almost a decade).
The MiG-27K (soviet exclusive use) was one of the only soviet aircrafts capable of precision striking enemy targets and was pretty on par with NATO assets in the 1980s.
Floggers do have a very bad reputation indeed, but that’s largely duo to their service with middle eastern countries, which received MiG-23MS and MF export and heavily downgraded variants.
Russia only retired them in the mid-90s because of a doctrine change (and duo to the economic collapse), scrapping all single engined combat aircraft (MiG-23s, MiG-27s, Su-17s)
😮 How dare you disparage Russian aircraft, or Sam's, or artillery, or tanks, or missiles, or ships, or subs, or space capsules, or..., or, or, or..!
@@IllustriousUnknown416Imo they would've scrapped them even if the soviet union didn't collapse; the Su27 and Mig29 were an order of magnitude better in every way. The mig23 might be the worst aircraft the soviets ever serially produced.
The finished version of Mig-23 was great for what it was, a BVR interceptor, but by that time US tech had moved on.
It ended up potentially facing F-15c instead of Phantoms, so the original concept would never have worked. Wrong generation.
Fortunately it was also built to handle well at low altitude, so they converted it to attack roles which it did fine.
Gun might have been a problem. Mig-23 was never meant to have one. Just shoot long range AA missiles.
MLD/MLA were considered good they were the equal of later generation Phantoms and systems like Tornado. Export ones excluding warsaw pact and DDR were poor in comparision with downgraded Radars and Avionics with some Iraqi versions not even equiped with an RWR!
Damn i didnt know it was the most heavily defended city at the time.
the t-72 you used for Iraq are t-72B, Iraq used t-72M and t-72M1
Cap I think it would be fun to see the reenactment of the rescue scene of Iron Eagle. 2 * f16 vs the baddies to rescue his father. Thanks Darkdemon
Desert Storm saw the first air to air kill with a laser guided bomb. I would love to see you guys recreate that.
they did it
@@erickg9011 thanks for the heads up. I hadn't seen that one.
Don’t have a clue about how DCS maps are made/modeled, but there needs to be a wider range of real-world options available…
Given the outcome, I can't even guess why the US imagined they could overcome such technically and tactically superior equipment, as the Iraqis had, much less the Russians, especially outnumbered, flying down a narrow corridor in a straight line, without jamming or CAP...
Q: Why on Earth would Russia help Iraq fight the USA?
A: That would make more sense than America helping Ukraine fight Russia.
No M1s were lost to enemy fire during all of Desert Storm.
would love to see this with f14s
Didn't the USA have satellite recognisance during that time, I'm not sure what the time delay was?
Russia actually helped the US during Desert Storm. Russia was in chaos after the fall of the Soviet Union and didn't see Iraq as important.
You mean USSR. They didn’t officially collapse until December, 1991. The USSR mostly used A-50’s to monitor the Iraqi’s, as they feared the conflict would spill over.
We also had a few F-111's in the storm.
I'm only at the end of the briefing, and I'm wondering - what about the F117s?
But then factor in the Russians would have actively targeted the support aircraft knowing (EAWCs and Tankers) Iraq didnt have a means to engage these assets. MiG 31 would be perfect for this.
Yesssd f15e!!! Best bomb truck in dcs
91 Iraq had a veteran battle harden military, Baghdad was the most heavily defended city in the world. Some years before the Iraqi cut there teeth against Iran. Battling tomcats in the air…😂
imagine attacking a country immediately after 8 years of war and then bragging about winning.
Do The whole german navy defending against one supercarrier group from the usa pls, had a discussion with a friend about it…😂
As to the line up of the Mig-23/27 easy way to tell if it has a duck nose it is a ground attack jet... But for number designations if it is a Mig-23B___ then it is a ground attack variant. Also the jets that Iraq had where downgrades primarily the radar set and poorer versions of the missiles... As to how they would be used they couldn't turn worth a damn but in a straight line they went like a scalded cat, when Israel got their hands on one and tested it they found it accelerated faster than the Kfir, F-4E and the F-16 the other major issue was the cockpit was not ergonomic and the view out of the cockpit was terrible... outside of that the Iraqi's followed the Soviet method of air defence primarily using GCI which once this had gone it was useless... this was also primarily why NATO practiced low-level tactics to get under the radars and radar guided missile systems...
Too bad you can't simulate EF-111's - could solve the SAM problems. In any case, what the video shows that it is hard to downscale an air campaign like Desert Storm. As for the Soviet tanks vs. the Abrams - you might have added Bradleys with TOWs to make it more realistic. Obviously the TOWs could have outranged the Abrams - and with thermal sites would have outranged the T-90s.
Why didn't anyone use an F-15C for air to air? They did use sparrows
Best response 👆🏻
Now, if you'd had F-14s all the Iraqi pilots would have turned back when the Tomcats turned on their radar.
The T-72’s the Iraqi Army used was the export version. I was told by guys who were there that they were garbage compared to Soviet tanks.
Yup, Soviets never sent out the good stuff
Sure, the Iraqi T-72s used outdated ammunition and were not up to the standards of 1991, but they were not bad tanks. They performed quite well against the Western models used by Iran in the Iran-Iraq war.
Bug difference between an M-60/Cheiftain and an M1 Abrams, Iraqi ammo wasnt even Tungsten or DU penetrator they were using Steel darts that shattered on M1 tanks. Some of the T-72s didnt have powered turrets! @@Nimmermaer
Nah this is pretty accurate.
The T90As (a 2003 tank) have relict armor and about a 700ish mm thick frontal plate and would likely be firing 3BM46 or 3BM42M with nearly 660-700mm pen.
The 3bm59/60 Sinvets 1 &2 didnt exist yet/until 2016.
the circa 1994 M1A2 abrams would be firing M829A2 with about 680mm pen. meaning its a tall order for the 10 year old abrams to pen the front hull of the T90A from the future. The Hull armor of the M1A1HA/HC and M1A2 is only about 480mm. so its pretty easy for the T90s to kill these old Abrams. The M1A2 Abrams frontal turret is the strong point as per nato doctrine/design and has about 864mm frontal armor.. but its a flat desert so they dont have anywhere to hull down really.
If this was a 2004 M1A2B/Sep v1 then things would be very different as it finally got hull DU armor, and a higher generation composites in general and a new M829A3 round round with 800mm pen. the T90A would struggle to pen the now 864mm Hull and Would be impossible to pen the now 1200mm turret of the Sep V1 and this fight would have been reversed.
maybe they should have... but to be honest, I already know how this will work out
Query, weren't the Spark Vark's used to set up such operations, creating blind channels of jamming for the strike packages to flow through?
Yep, Ravens and Prowlers. They both carried variants of the AN/ALQ-99 jamming system
F-117's took out all of their heavy Radar sites.
But who took out the first two radar sites? Hint: "Party in ten..."
On the map is there an option that if a SAM gets destroyed it's range ring will go away?
There is a Ukrainian video with English subtitles about the Tu-160, with footage of the only aircraft in a museum (the city of Poltava) in the world and interviews with Ukrainian pilots. Ukraine used to have strategic aviation, but was forced to abandon it under pressure from the US and Russia ( as well as from nuclear weapons, from ballistic and cruise missiles). The video has a lot of unique footage and stories from direct witnesses. And a few words about American pilots in Poltava during World War II. Maybe someone will be interested.
czcams.com/video/GBMvuurHaQg/video.html
Stealth bombers??
I suspect that western armored units didn’t use cannon “fired” ATGMs b/c their Sabot rounds were more effective and accurate (same with HEAT against AFVs). While the Abrams, challenger 2, Leopard2, etc could deliver either accurately with deadly effect at over 2 Kms, Soviet tanks lacked the ability to do so at those ranges; they required an ATGM. A lot of storage space for ATGMs so if you don’t need them…
I promise that those ATGMs aren’t making a dent in the front glacis of an M1 or Challenger anyway
Definitely not the case. For instance the Merkava uses a western NATO gun but still carries gun launched ATGM's. The use case was that ATGM's were versatile and could be used effectively to disable enemy armor and light vehicles but also low flying helos from considerably greater range than sabot and the tanks' FCS' played far less of a role when it came to engaging moving targets. For instance, while the T80 had automatic target tracking, the T72 didn't, but with ATGM's target tracking was irrelevant, allowing T72's to engage moving targets as well as tanks with much better fire control systems.
As for penetration, all of them could fly right through the LFP of the challenger 2, and most of them could penetrate the LFP of the M1.
Soviet 125mm guns were actually about on par with their 120mm western equivalents until the early 90's when the Soviet union collapsed. We think of them as inferior today because we've continued to evolve 120mm guns and muntions and nations like Russia still primarily use the 125mm guns from the 80's and 90's they inherented from the former Soviet union.
@@92HazelMochaTo be fair 120mm is still the standard MBT gun for western armor. It's only been very recently that the have begun to consider 140mm as a possible replacement. I've never heard of M1A1's carrying ATGM's. I thought that went out with the Shillelagh. I know that the heavy ACR units had Bradleys traveling at the spear point loaded with TOW missiles.
@@92HazelMocha the 125mm gun wasn't the issue with Soviet tanks....it was the fire control system and ammo that prevented accuracy at longer ranges and penetration concerns. You wouldn't see many t-72s, T-64s or T-80s in the 1980's landing penetrating hits on M1s, Challengers or Leaporad2s at 2km.
I cant speak to why the Israelis use the missiles....only why the US and NATO do not. They may add a bit of versatility but they take up a lot of storage and- if using HEAT- arent particularly effective at penetrating modern composite armor.
F3/GR1 is begging to be in DCS
Thou shall not deleteth mine sayeth
If Russia deployed T-72B tanks with Kontakt 5...the Abrams would have struggled as they had M829A1 which could not get through the composite armour AND Kontakt 5 ERA. Iraq had Steel Core APFSDS which the Russians stopped using in the 1970s whilst Russia would have had the still effective 3BM42 Mango round. Not to mention if they brought in the T-80s as they had the best mobility of the Russian MBTs. Challenger 1's had L26 DU rounds...that might have been enough to penetrate the T72B's. The B model T72 had been sorely underestimated by the West as they had encountered, engaged and destroyed only the A model and Variants. T-72 had a completely different armour scheme...the area where the Russian tanks were behind on was Thermal Optics which both the Abrams M1A1 and the Challenger (Chieftain MK 11 and 12 too) had
Roland was a pain in the rear in the Falklands War too....it shot down 1 aircraft and 2 bombs that were being used to destroy it...in the end the FAA went round the Roland instead of engaging
NATO had no weapon to penetrate anything with kontakt-5 until M829A3 and DM53 was developed with break off tips.
@@Phapchamp M829A2 might have been able to pen at short range IIRC...but yes A3 was designed to more reliably do so :)
@@jyralnadreth4442 A2 was tested on T-72Bs in Germany after USSR fell. It didnt pen. There are written reports about it. To defeat K-5 you need a break off tip. M829A3 and DM53 featured this.
Britain purchased a T-80U through backroom channels and developed the L27A1 to penetrate K5 armour found on T-80U tanks@@Phapchamp
OMG! U are a little oblivious to what the Soviet Union even WAS in 1991. Hell, Clint Eastwood was the best pilot in Soviet Air power back then!
Fyi the 1991 wasn't a couple years fight.
Pointless as Russia had it's own problems at that stage and did not necessarily support Iraq politically other than to sell products.
Yes, but it makes americans feel better in their waning days.
What with the US being outnumbered? That would have never happened even with the Soviets involved.
Once again, blown away by the Grim Reapers. I can say Cap, the leader of the Grim Reapers really knows how to blow his fans away!
have they got the anti awacs missile?