Note from 13th to 27th September the T-72: The Definitive Guide to the Soviet Workhhorse is 20 % off and all our other books are about 10 % off, see them here: militaryhistorygroup.com.
Too many apologies and excuses for the T-72, none of which match up with it's performance in Ukraine. I was there in 1991, and not one M-1 was lost to enemy tanks. Nobody expected this since Iraq had EIGHT YEARS of combat experience, few of ours had any at all. Does that experiance factor into your friend's calculations?
As a Terrian Analyst, one of our tasks was finding, via remote sensing, and plotting the location of "revetments". Prepared locations where Iraqi tanks had already dug emplacements. Holy crap, they were everywhere! I don't recall if they actually utilized any of them. The 24th ID out flanking them kinda messed up their plans...
Except they could avoid them because you found them. Your counterparts in Iraqi intelligence were useless because most of their spying was on other Iraqis and they lacked equipment and expertise.
@@crownprincesebastianjohano7069 i had a tent in one of them while there (not a soldier, i was there as a consultant for a gun company) It was far better than a tent on flat ground
C Co. 2/34 AR 1st ID Desert Storm vet (M1A1HA)... All our tank vs tank engagements were at night, most notably against Republican Guard T72s in the battle at phase line Norfolk. They never stood a chance, our TIS picked them up before they could even see us much less return fire. At 1800 - 2000 meters we were getting full pens, tracers often bounced off the ground on the far side of the target. Many of them had ammo detonations immediately after the pen, and all of them caught fire. The T72M1 was simply outmatched in every way that mattered.
*civilian truck blows up* “Who put an anti-tank mine on the main road?” “But it’s an anti-tank mine, it shouldn’t have gone off…” “Oh my God ARE YOU SERIOUS? YOU PUT AN ANTI-TANK MINE ON THE MAIN ROAD. THE MAIN FUCKING ROAD.” “But it’s an anti-tank mine. Thats not a tank.” “HOW DUMB ARE YOU!”
Another thing people often forget or don't talk about is that by most accounts those very same T-72M1s did pretty well for themselves in the first gulf war against equally mismanaged Iranian tanks of a similar technical vintage. So it seems to be a perfectly decent machine against the threats it was intended to fight, all other factors being equal.
Yep that's what people love to ignore. People saying the M1A1 Abrams beating T-72M1 is impressive is like saying a T-90M beating a M60A3 or a T-14 beating a M1A1 Abrams is impressive
The Iraqis struggled against the Iranians who at that time had to cannibalize parts from vehicles due to arms embargoes. This is while Iraq received top notch equipment and intelligence from NATO countries and the Soviet Union. The Iraqis were just poorly lead and trained and had low morale plus they were fighting major militaries.
Big in paper terms. The Iraqi army fought each other more than anyone else, but you'd have to be in the know on local gangs to know who was fighting who
I think the biggest problem with the Iraqi T-72s was the training and tactics, not entirely the technology. They mostly used their best tank as self-propelled assault guns in fixed positions, which proved effective against Iranian human wave tactics. That said, very lack of training in mobile warfare, like counter-attack and etc. The T-72s would have more chance of success if they used them in a more mobile, shock tactic instead of sitting duck in their fixed spider holes.
There's also the issue that many of their troops were demoralized, especially from the constant air attacks. The one story about a few M1s destroying numerous Iraqi tanks was mainly because of a dust storm, I believe, and the Iraqis lacking in the proper equipment to see through it like the US had. There was also the fact that many of the best troops and tanks were held back.
The Iraqis were screwed either way because the US had total air superiority. Apache helicopters, A-10's, F-16's, you name it, were pounding the Iraqis for a month before the end run by the ground forces. So either get destroyed in their fixed defiladed positions or get destroyed out in the open. I also remember also a well publiziced amphibious exercise to keep the Iraqis guessing. The Iraqis had been schooled in Soviet doctrine and the US had spent fifteen years figuring out how to specifically defeat that doctrine.
@@kurt9395 And then the US ended up fighting an enemy decades behind even the Red Army. Like training with weighted gloves to fight a heavyweight, then finding out you're actually fighting the contender's tweaker cousin.
My buddies dad was on a m60 during the gulf war. They took a t72 out at night, they could see the Iraqis what he described as they looked like they were floating but they standing on top the tank at night, they could see them with thermal used a he round because the crew was outside. The next day when the sun was up he noted the tank was pretty small and it looked like it hadnt been taken care of at all.
In the US Army and Marine tank crews mirror each other. The most important part in crew training was gunnery, US tank crews would spend many hours in the MCOFT simulator prior to any gunnery qualification. The MCOFT is the Tank Commander and Gunner combination which emphasizes both to complete an engagement at the fastest time from identifying the target then destroying it. Fire commands, gunners manipulating controls from selecting ammunition, using the Gunners Auxiliary Sight as an emergency procedure with no power and only manual controls. The MCOFT system behaves exactly like the real controls in the M1 series tank. As a gunner and commander the best thing training with it was the emphasis on training using the Thermal Imager in all engagements in different environments. This training is done under time constraints in order to advance to the next phase of engagement, it consists of over if I remember right over 60 types of engagements in the program. It requires a lot of mental stamina to endure hours of making mistakes of being to slow or failing and have to re- do an engagement over and over until as TC and Gunner complete and reach Reticle Aim 201 at the end which is completion. When I went to my first gunnery as a gunner our tank Q-1 meaning first time qualification and 3rd place as a crew. The MCOFT is an excellent training device. Many NATO countries have similar systems for their appropriate tank model.
The fun y thing is the most deadly vehicule in iraq it was the f-111, then the brandly destroy a lot of t72 even when they are just scouts (the bradley scout version)
I was assigned to 4th Bn 70th Armor, 2nd Brigade, 1st Armored Division, during Desert Shield/Desert Storm. My unit along with the entirety of the units that deployed from Germany to Saudi Arabia had the standard M1A1. When the equipment arrived in Saudi Arabia, all of these tanks had a DU plate welded to the front glacis of the turret before being given a quick coat of desert sand paint.
My understanding is even the Bradleys took out a lot of Iraqi tanks, the issue being that the Bradleys detected the Iraqi tanks long before the Iraqis knew what was going on. My brother was 101st Airborne. They were helicoptered deep into Iraq with a mission of preventing return of Iraqi units along the Baghdad Basra highway. I assume they took had sufficient weaponry to take out Iraqi armor if necessary.
Equipment argument doesn't matter anyways, you did absolutely nothing. The war was won in a day with just the air force then you rolled in, played pretend to feel big and strong.
@@jintsuubest9331 that is what we were told. It wasn’t a bunch of army guys doing some field expediant mods. It was a lot of civilian contractors that had a lot of expensive looking equipment.
2:25 It could also be noted that contemporary production T-72A were already better than T-72M1 and closer to T-72B, receiving the 1A40 FCS with the mentioned lead calculator in 1982, and improved turret with NERA composite plates and 5-layer UFP in 1983.
Would T-72A model 1979 have done better? Better armor was not much better and better round had a margin of advantage but nothing revolutionary. Explosive armor could help against TOW missiles if you got lucky but not effective against KE round. The crew training might be a factor but do not forget how good thermal sights are in dry air over long ranges.
A.k.a. newest top of the line vehicle, backed up by all the support assets of a large multinational coalition, vs. a decade old export version of a mass-production vehicle.
@gansior4744 Yes, but comparatively speaking, IIRC USA produced about 7000 M1s in the 80s, while USSR produced about 25000 T-64s, T-72s, and T-80s (on top of about 13000 produced in the 70s).
There is also the post penetration results. If a tank were to be penetrated what were the likely results be? In the case of a T-72 you might get an ammunition cookoff and a turret in the road.
I'm going to let you know if a tank is penetrated frontally it really doesn't matter most of the crew are dead. Only tanks with segregated crew compartments can say otherwise.
You’re a war thunder player. If a tank gets penetrated anywhere, the crew are abandoning that thing ASAP. IRL people don’t behave like your war thunder crew
@@comrade_commissar3794except then your tank crew survives another day, which means you can give them a new tank This is why Ukraine has veterans and the Russians don’t
@@Brent-jj6qi that is, if Ukraina have any new tank to give to these crews most of these abandoned tanks were hit by a drone or a 122mm shell anyway, they weren't even penetrated but they got the tracks or the engine damaged absurd yet, some drones might just drop an RPG-7 round on a tank with topside blowout panel (like the M1) and then watch the M1 crew running out of ammo in 10 seconds
Sadly when I hear some people talk of aircraft and tanks they assume they're all the same, not even thinking about the countless variants of the vehicles. Leading them to blame faults or issues on the entire group instead of the one with the problem.
I always credited the victory on the Abrams on the Coalition’s access to GPS. It was the deciding factor as we could see where the all the T-72s were while they lacked a similar capability.
"Sure, you'll see some tank battles. But fighting in desert is very different from fighting in canopy jungle. I mean 'nam was a foot soldier's war. Whereas, this thing should, you know, should be a piece of cake. I mean, I had an M16, Jacko. Not an Abrams fucking tank. Me and Charlie, eyeball to eyeball. Yeah. That's fuckin' combat. The man in the black pajamas, Dude. Worthy fuckin' adversary. Who's in pajamas, Walter? Shut the fuck up, Donny. Whereas what we have here? A bunch of fig-eaters wearing towels on their heads, trying to find reverse in a Soviet tank. This is not a worthy adversary." Walter Sobchak
Not a single word about the US Marine M-60 tanks that were used in this conflict and they also had success against the T-72. See I was there task force Shepherd and Task force Ripper. People who were not there never get anything correct.
The problem with a tank digging itself in is, the soil it turns over tends to be of a different color and temperature then the topsoil. This means the resulting berm becomes a "kill me mound", making enemy tanks easy to identify visually or through TTS.
@@Duncomradecan’t speak for certain, but t72’s have atrocious revering speed. At least if you were in the open you could potentially use forward gears and reposition. If you have to rely on the t72’s reverse speed to get you out of a bad position you’re gonna have a bad time.
@@Duncomrade Depends, if you can do proper concealment in the open, possible yes (though TTS can look through most if not all concealment at that time, a tank engine is just hard to hide). But then again if you can conceal the tank in the open, you should be able to conceal the dug in position, too...
@@Brent-jj6qi i am by no means an exspert, but i belief it isn't about the moved soul being *warmer* but rather colder. Dug up earth is usually more moist, even in the desert, and being dug up and exposed to wind, cools the earth/sand down quicker than the surrounding soil.
A cool collab in the context of discussing armor pen would be to bring in SY Simulation and / or Dejmian XYZ Simulation to model the M1A1 on T-72 and the T-72 on M1A1 at the 2km ranges.
We don't know anything about m1 armor. There is 1 cia document, and it is a scanning of a drawing thats scanned incorrectly (slanted). Also, the image is not to scale. The original m1 armor has acceptable performance against the likes of 3bm22 using some assumption based on understanding of basic rod armor interaction. We know more than enough about t72 armor. They struggle against m900 and m829, period. Especially the hull, I believed field testing said the projectile pass through the armor and the vehicle from a distance that's at least 2000m away.
M1A1s could spot, acquire, and accurately hit T-72M1s before T-72s could lase. Not like the T-72s could take a hit from the 120 either, nor dish out effective return fire with 3BM9, thus engagements were very 1-sided.
1) Iraqis were nowhere nearly as well trained as the Americans. 2) My understanding of the T-72 is that it was primarily intended as a more affordable, export tank, whereas in the 80s, the Soviets primarily used the T-80s and T-64s, so really wasn't necessarily intended to take on front-line American tanks. I can't remember where I saw it, but I remember once reading that a veteran of the 1991 tank battles stated that if the US Forces were equipped with M60A3s instead of Abrams, the result would have likely been very similar, due to the massive training/morale disparity in favor of the Americans
No, it's intended as a more easily mass produced T-64 like AKM to Ak-47. There are export variant T-72s and domestic use productions so no, it's not intended for export
@flarvin8945 Only the Marines had M60A3's with appliqué armour. The only armour on armour engagement, including M60s, was Kafji before the ground war had actually started. And I believe that were Saudi operated M60's. The Marines only fired HE against infantry, according to their war diaries, all the armour they encountered had been destroyed before the tanks got in range.
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere in the past that they were using crap ammunition too, it wasn't even tungsten. They were shooting Steel training rounds.
I think the scenario we should ask about is what if the war had been a few years earlier, or the US introduced the M1 a few years later, so it was mostly an M60 vs T-72 fight. That was the scenario the Russian tank was built for. Now its a tank with thick, but still steel armor, and the older style of ammunition handling (a few ready rounds on the walls, and the others in less coinvent parts of the tank) vs an auto-loader that doesn't slow down. Spin stabilized shells (albeit good ones) vs a smooth bore. Now from a point of training and money - I'd still say the US has the edge (remember, Iraq was mostly bankrupt from a war it fought from 1980-88, and grabbing the treasure of Kuwait was a way to pay its debts.)
Well, the M60s the marines used in GW1 had no trouble at all versus Iraqi tanks of all types. Russian kit, in Iraqi hands, was just not very good. If every Abrams were a late M60, there would have been a few dozen lost. But it'd still be deeply one sided as a war. A lot, and I mean a lot, of the Iraqi tanks got side shot, or rear. M60 circa 1990 was still able to fire on the move and could have used similar tactics. They would have suffered more from counter fire hits, to be sure, and would have taken more hits, too, due to being slower, but most of what won GW1 was better training, tactics, better strategy, better optics, and better networking. Folks insist front line Russian kit from the era would have done much better... I don't really think so. Bradleys with basically the same overall kit (relative to their foe) as in 1990 has gone up against much better than late soviet tanks, often head on, and come out very positive in KD. Often while outnumbered and without strategic surprise. Russian hardware is almost always wildly overhyped, and under delivers. Then, and now. But it does still deliver deadly effects, and if not treated with respect and the right tools to counter them, it will kill you very dead.
M60 used in desert storm had capabilities to shoot on the move, had good optics and fire control systems and were able to shoot modern munitions. Its not like M60 was somehow a tank equal to M48 from Vietnam
@@Eleolius "Bradley has gone up against much better than late soviet tanks, often head on, and come out very positive in KD." And where did that happen? In some computer simulation?
Finally, someone normal without lies and propaganda to analyze Desert Storm and the performance of tanks. Roughly speaking from today's perspective and standards, the Iraqis had the Leopard 2A1/A2, since the T-72M/M1 lagged behind armor protection and opto-electronics, even the first modernization of the T-72A for the Soviet Army in 1979. And the Americans had Leopard 2A7/A8.
Todays standards it would be like using T-90Ms and T-72B3Ms against a country whos tanks were mostly Chieftain Mk.3s, Leopard 1A3s and M60A1s with a few Leopard 1A4s, M60A3s and Chieftain Mk.5s
Whilst tanks played an important role in the swift and successful ground phase of the war, air power was the decisive factor in Operation Desert Storm. It not only crippled Iraq’s ability to fight but also ensured that the ground campaign was brief and overwhelmingly successful.
In basic Iraqi T-72s couldn't penetrate another T-72M1 armor frontally. As far as I have seen(read) from the memoares of the US tank commanders, the ammo for the Iraqi T-72 were just upscaled ammo from the T-62, old steel core APFSDS. I know that they aren't experts on the Soviet ammo (some even claimed that is a training ammo), but killing Chieftains in Iran service and disable M1A1HA is another thing. Remember even partial penetration near the gun is enough to dislocate the gun from its cradle and remove the tank from the battle. Edit: The US had GPS abd the thermals, so the night engagements were no problem on 1800-2000 m while T-72 couldn't even see the tank on more than 300 m....
2 місяці тому+1
I thought about doing an armor Video based on Ryans book. And then I flipped through about 1000 pages on that topic in that book and decied to go for Ergonomie instead :) Good Video. Great book
After Desert Storm there a sense of Russian amazement over the ease the Abrams over the T72. The defenders of the T-72 being used by the Iraqis called the export versions “Monkey Tanks”. The export tanks were stripped models.
Comparing US military equipment since ww2 to other nations is so interesting because it fits their country's methods of war so well but often is underwhelming when used by others (Sherman, Abrams, even small arms) I always found the arms and tactics and logistical race in the cold war fascinating
@@me67galaxylifeWell, the M1A1 is the first US tank that clearly outperforms most foreign tanks and would for a good generation. Before that the US army was dealing with stop gaps M26, M46, M47, M48 until M60. And M60 was def. a different design philosophy, with some distinctive downsides to go with its upsides, compared to Centurion, Chieftain, Leopard 1 and the sovjet MBTs. But the US industry surely was able to keep her up to date on the key area's where M60 performed well. This is offcourse somewhat more difficult for some foreign operators.
At least one Abrams was actually penetrated, suffering a side penetration from enemy fire after being hit in the rear by a Hellfire that did not detonate. B23 of 1-37AR. Other than that no penetrations ever occurred from T72 fire it seems.
Heres the thing Abrams got their reputation from fighting an enemy in a sandstorm who didn't have thermals and they did. It's what prevented us from getting a tank ready for how wars fought now
The M2 Bradleys destroyed more Iraqi armored vehicles than the M1 Abrams tanks during Operation Desert Storm. Some 2,200 Bradley vehicles were deployed, and only three were lost to enemy fire.
I heard a while back that the Iraqi army didn't even properly dug in their tanks .The US forces noticed that instead of placing the tanks in the ground and only exposing a small portion of the turret, they made mounds of dirt front of the tank . Of course in the relatively flat terrain that make them stand out even more.
I remember arguing on tank forums years ago about the Abrams superiority to t-72, I remembered the main argument for the t-72 was “these were Iraqi crews and not well trained Russians”. This defense did not age well.
The Russian Army from now is quite different from the Soviet Army. After the fall of the Soviet Union there was basically no money for the military for a long time, this would have broken every other army as well. More details here: ua-cam.com/video/R98I-kD2vcQ/v-deo.html
@MilitaryHistoryVisualized And now at this point they are the most modern combat tested army in the world. They're some scary mfers now. More than equal adversary.
You've done a very thorough analysis of the differences between the two machines and the ammo that they had. I can only say that the difference was training, as I watched many T72s and T80s cook off in the desert. Those that weren't destroyed outright were destroyed whilst dug in. I am an American, and I am glad the Iraqis were not trained well. It is debatable whether or not proper training and motivation would have made a difference. I can say that after that conflict, most of the remains we recovered were from Iraqi vehicles that had no night vision or thermal sights. It might have made no difference, but who's to say?
The Russian Army from now is quite different from the Soviet Army. After the fall of the Soviet Union there was basically no money for the military for a long time, this would have broken every other army as well. More Details here: ua-cam.com/video/R98I-kD2vcQ/v-deo.html
I wonder how much any of this mattered against air power interdiction? I was under the impression that most of these were destroyed by air power. Not the 30mm Warthog gun, but bombs, missiles, etc.
Whenever describing the features of the T-72 it's probably best to qualify it with something like "assuming [the feature] worked, and had actually been installed by the officers in charge."
When did the -M suffix on Russian vehicles change from designating terrible export models to modernized variants? I'm assuming the change stemmed form some sort of maskirovka.
I mean in some regards, it was an updated version, also about a year ago, I think a friend told me that there are actually at least two T-72 variants that have the same suffix but are different... And for the T-55 as far as I know, I think the AB in the Soviet Union was quite different to the AB in Germany and/or Poland...
@@PeterMuskrat6968the designations are consistent if you know the logic. The type of weapon is the first letter, the number of the model, the next letter is the factory variant, the next number is a modification of such variant, the next letter is an upgrade and the next number says the package upgrade if more were made. T-72 is tank model 72. A is the first variant over the original factory Ural, all first letters after the model number indicate newly built variants. T-72M is the export version, a downgraded A that was. M1 was a modification of the M variant increasing armor by 15%. The T-72B was a newer variant with 40% more armor equivalency, better gun, FCS, engine, etc. T-72B2 was a modification of the B base made in the factory. The T-72B2M means B2 variant modernized, is an upgrade over existing units, not newly made tanks. If a Number follows the M for modernized like T-72B3M2 it means is an upgrade with a new pack of modernized upgrades very different to the previous M. Now if the M is followed by a letter it means is just a minor add on or mod on the standard Modernitsiya. Like MV being just add on armor.
@@pluemas And a Bradley was taken out by 12.7mm bullet in the Gulf War. So whats your point? Btw that T90 "kill" was the autocannons destroying the optics, not the entire tank, nafotard. The tank was destroyed by drones long after the crew left it.
@@captainfreedom3649 you realise that the Bradley's taking out the optics (and the turret control, which you conveniently left out) is a mission kill, right? This isn't war thunder, a majority of the time all you have to do is damage the opposition to the point where it forces the crew to bail as the vehicle is no longer able to function. The Bradley's killed the T90, the drones just prevented its recovery and repair. I've not been able to find a source for your claim about a 50cal taking out a Bradley, but tbh it's an IFV and it's reasonable that if it got caught being hit in the rear (the rear doors are much more lightly armoured) it could penetrate. Bradley's are not magic, they're an old IFV and outdated by modern IFVs like Puma and CV90. That arguably makes it even more embarrassing that the most modern tank that Russia has got mission killed by two old IFVs that are vulnerable to 50 cals.
I know for a fact most of our armored troops spent several months on the firing line before they deployed so I know their skills were up to snuff . I have to wonder if the op forces even got to fire the main gun to even sight it in .
Did those T-72s even have thermals at all or at least a basic night vision?? For the night battles that they were, it was like beating blind elderly people in a dark room with lashes. They may hear the boom/spank sound, but have no idea where the thing came from.
I don't even know why this is a discussion point. GAO NSIAD-92-94, Page 4: "In fact, the enemy destroyed no Abrams tanks during the Persian Gulf war, according to the Army." Regardless of all other factors, dumb luck should have accounted for at least a few enemy kills.
I'd like to see a similar video to this comparing M1 and M1A1 (Not the HA) to the T-72M and T-72M1 and a video comparing the Cheiftan Mk. 5 to the T-72s of Iraq. It would also be interesting to see a comparison of Cheiftan Mk.11 vs Challanger 1, M1A1 and Leopard 2 to see how far NATO did or didn't improve on their previous best tank
What Desert Storm showed is what happens when a force designed to fight World War III goes against a tinpot regional dictator. I'm sure if the USSR gathered a coalition and sent a dozen Corps against an isolated South Korea(or other suitable western aligned secondary power) circa 1990 the result would be similar. T-80U vs K1 is about as mismatched as M1A1HA vs T-72M1.
That is very wrong. K1 being derived from later prototypes of the Abrams, were much superior to T-80's from that era. You also talk like Russians in the 1990's had good training, experience or well serviced equipment. South Korea in the 90's was outmatching Russia, maybe not in numbers, but in capabilities. Also not like Iraqi forces with T-72's were untrained. Those were some of the best forces in the region on the soviet side
@@gansior4744 The early K1 still had the underpowered 105mm gun, no depleted uranium armor, but decent FCS. So while it could likely hit the T-80U better, penetrating it or surviving hits is another matter. Also bulk of ROK army is conscripts/reservists whose training and motivation is dubious. Capital Division might be better but I wouldn't bet on it against a Soviet Guard's Tank Corp.
Before the upgraded k1 actually got build up in numbers, the south korean decided to station t80u on the border. The upgraded k1 is most certainly better but Im not sure about the original k1.
Excellent brief summary that is definitely a vital addition to the real understanding of tank warfare. I think though, that you should have pointed out that the US possessed two very critical things the Iraqis lacked: 1. good ISR and 2. Complete air supremacy. While in the Gulf War they were not the critical issues like training and maintenance, they did contribute to the overall success. In Ukraine, NATO began the conflict with superior ISR but the Russians made vest improvements in theirs. Also, it should be noted that early in the Ukrainian conflict, Russia possessed air tactical advantage in the conflict areas only by using their air elements combined with their GTA and used missile and drone strikes to perform the deeper penetration strikes thus minimizing Russian aircraft losses. As the conflict dragged on, Russian strikes against the Ukrainian GTA defense systems resulted in such degradation of Ukraine's air defense systems that Russia had no difficulty in eventually achieving full air supremacy over all of Ukraine. This air supremacy resulted in making drone kills on armored vehicles to almost become accomplished facts once a Ukrainian armored unit was spotted.
I don’t know why, but I have always loved the T-72. I realize it’s a piece of crap now, but at the date of release it was a very capable and cool looking tank. Low silhouette, maneuverable, decent armour scheme and an auto loading big gun! It was a pretty scary tank.
Something that many people forget is that the air power is what gives victory over the enemy, even the best tank is trash without planes, you have scenarios like the one in Ukraine where tanks change owners every five minutes, that if the tanks survive
We should also compare the American M60s to the T72m1s, since the T72s stood a better chance against them and they've also engaged each other during the Gulf war.
@@samsonsoturian6013 When and IFC/APC kills the your tanks, that's a problem. When it happens AGAIN in another county and on another continent in another decade....well, LOL. Yes I am referring to the Ukraine incident.
@@xxxlonewolf49it's kinda funny how because of this, bradley was advertised as t series killer, which led to complete overestimation of it's capabilities, not only it's mostly outranged by Russian IFVs like bmp3 and bmp2m but it's only documented use against a tank was shooting t90s optics and damaging it
@ryssa2409 Uh no. Go look up the Iraq invasion dude. The brads had more tank kills than the M1 tanks & no it wasn't just the TOW missiles, they made cannon KILLs.
Just like with fighter jets, what usually decides who wins comes down mostly to crew training. If you swapped a highly trained Abrams and minimally trained T72 crew around, chances are that the T72 would win.
There were some 105mm M-1 tanks there too as there were M-9000 105mm ammo in theater, had to be some M-1, right? The USMC M-60s were not capable of firing the M-9000 as the recoil systems could not handle the recoil.
Not really a fair comparison. When Iraq was in a war with Iran they lost allot of tanks and became broke. After the war Saddam bought what was called Monkey Models which were stripped down tanks, more like WW2 type tanks without any modern equipment. That is why if you watched the war the US attacked allot at night because they knew that Iraqi tanks had no night vision or range finder or gun stabilizers so they were at a great disadvantage. Even a modern M-60 could knock out those tanks because even though they only had a 105mm gun they can shoot on the run, fire at night and could use a range finder to help target the Iraqi tank!
Quite a lot of soviet armor fans made this claim that if crewed by russians this would have turned different. But now reality showed us otherwise for more than two years. And before some people with fragile egos start with the " BuT MuH W3St taNk5 AlSO g0T Lo5T In UkRAIn3 " whataboutism ( because they always resort to that ), that was not the point. The point was that even the " best " soviet tanks ( I won't call them russian because all their tanks were designed and built in the USSR ) crewed by " elite " russians had their turret tossed in the atmosphere. They are vulnerable ( any tank is and that includes western tanks of course, but those are still superior ).
Reality has also shown us that the Abrams are little more than rusted cans, at this point I don't know why we argue about tanks in the first place if all tanks are vulnerable in the 21st century
@@armandoventura9043 Such a rusted car that all dementive ruZZian propagandists started threatening with nukes when Abrams were announced. Why ? If the Abrams is so bad ? If its so worthless, why did all the pro russian bots were celebrating like they were taking Kyiv when a few western tanks were lost ? Meanwhile Ukraine pops turrest of T90 and latest T80 like is bussiness as usual. And it is bussiness as usual for the to pop turrets of soviet tanks.
The Type 69 was better according to some people then the Republican Guars T72 exports. But nobody talks about the M60TTS or the other upgraded versions.
From what i heard and read, the US mostly won the tank Engangements due to night vision. They could see and fire at the T72s before they even saw the Abrams.
The war lrak versus lran in eighties was one of the biggest war in the world after WWll, irak lost every important weapons including ammunition and ofcourse troops.
I think the part that seems to have surprised folks the most, but really shouldn't have is how poorly Russian tank crews and their commanders have performed their duties even when compared with their Iraqi counterparts. This should not really surprise anyone given that the Iraqi army had the benefit of fairly recent combat experience in both the Iran Iraq war and the successful invasion of Kuwait. The Russian army, in sharp contrast, was and remains largely a mobilized reserve force with little to now actual combat experience, led by commanders with no theater-wide command experience, and who have not participated in meaningful military exercises of any scale since the 1980's. The expectation was that they would perform better mostly out of some sense of Eurocentric bias. Of course they would do better than the "oriental" Iraqis because.... reasons. They have not.
Crews that had a lot of time practicing, and knowing the sights. There was a lot more Kentucky windage at the time. That said, very few long distance first shot kills. Not that they didn't happen, but it was more difficult unless proper range cards had been established.
I think Iraq's problem was that its crews were incompetent. Sure their tanks weren't good but a good crew can make a tank work well. Giving best T72s to a bad tank crew would've only delayed the inevitable
Oh the good old times, when tanks could be tanks and there were no swarm of drones flying around. I have my doubts that such a pure tank-mechanized warfare as DS can be repeated anymore.
@@copter2000 True, but they could be warded away (temporarily) with anti-air systems. Such weapons are much less effective against swarms of cheap, low-flying drones.
t-72 is not a bad tank. but the t72 used by the Iraqis is old and of poor quality and while the Russians add armor to protect the t-72s, the Iraqi asad babil tank does not even have an era. In addition to this, they were destroyed because the Iraqis lost air superiority and Iraqi tank crews poorly trained
The T-72 isn’t bad. It’s not great either and the export model was worse. It was more that they had awful tankers, awful ISR, and awful comms. So, they were always going to get lose badly.
The Iraqi T-72 may have been a particularly crappy version of the Tank with sub par ammo but I think Ukraine has proven that the fundamental takeaways are the same.
Do you think it would have been wise for the Iraqis to close the distance for a close-range battle, given their impotent ammo and weaker armour? At a closer range, both parties would have been able to penetrate each other's armour more easily, which helps the Iraqi T-72s and doesn't benefit the M1A1 since it could already penetrate the T-72 from further away.
Closing the range across flat open desert didn't do the Britsh forces a lot of good in the Western Desert, so I can't see the Iraqis fairing any better.
![[Barbarossa] The Major Errors and Blunders - Or why Barbarossa Failed](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A_3R-Rkn_98/mqdefault.jpg)
Note from 13th to 27th September the T-72: The Definitive Guide to the Soviet Workhhorse is 20 % off and all our other books are about 10 % off, see them here: militaryhistorygroup.com.
Too many apologies and excuses for the T-72, none of which match up with it's performance in Ukraine.
I was there in 1991, and not one M-1 was lost to enemy tanks. Nobody expected this since Iraq had EIGHT YEARS of combat experience, few of ours had any at all. Does that experiance factor into your friend's calculations?
As a Terrian Analyst, one of our tasks was finding, via remote sensing, and plotting the location of "revetments". Prepared locations where Iraqi tanks had already dug emplacements. Holy crap, they were everywhere!
I don't recall if they actually utilized any of them. The 24th ID out flanking them kinda messed up their plans...
Except they could avoid them because you found them. Your counterparts in Iraqi intelligence were useless because most of their spying was on other Iraqis and they lacked equipment and expertise.
They are all over Iraq. Our base in 2010 still had the fighting positions dug out by the Iraqis in the 80s.
@@crownprincesebastianjohano7069 i had a tent in one of them while there (not a soldier, i was there as a consultant for a gun company)
It was far better than a tent on flat ground
They did. The revetments was part of the problem -- the way they were built actually made the Iraqi tanks easier to target.
C Co. 2/34 AR 1st ID Desert Storm vet (M1A1HA)... All our tank vs tank engagements were at night, most notably against Republican Guard T72s in the battle at phase line Norfolk. They never stood a chance, our TIS picked them up before they could even see us much less return fire. At 1800 - 2000 meters we were getting full pens, tracers often bounced off the ground on the far side of the target. Many of them had ammo detonations immediately after the pen, and all of them caught fire. The T72M1 was simply outmatched in every way that mattered.
Crazy what happens when you fight a tank with early 70s technology
That carousel auto loader in the middle of the crew compartment seemed like a good idea at the time...
@@TheSMR1969 the Abrams was also designed at that time.
@@pluemasNo, the Abrahams entered both design and production roughly 8-9 years after the T-72
@@pluemas But not the upgraded version that was actually there. Did you even watch the video?
Poor sovietwomble. His logo being shown at the mention of low attention or training. lol
*civilian truck blows up*
“Who put an anti-tank mine on the main road?”
“But it’s an anti-tank mine, it shouldn’t have gone off…”
“Oh my God ARE YOU SERIOUS? YOU PUT AN ANTI-TANK MINE ON THE MAIN ROAD. THE MAIN FUCKING ROAD.”
“But it’s an anti-tank mine. Thats not a tank.”
“HOW DUMB ARE YOU!”
I’m glad somebody else noticed that
I mean..... it's on point xP
Another thing people often forget or don't talk about is that by most accounts those very same T-72M1s did pretty well for themselves in the first gulf war against equally mismanaged Iranian tanks of a similar technical vintage. So it seems to be a perfectly decent machine against the threats it was intended to fight, all other factors being equal.
Yep that's what people love to ignore. People saying the M1A1 Abrams beating T-72M1 is impressive is like saying a T-90M beating a M60A3 or a T-14 beating a M1A1 Abrams is impressive
@@TheSMR1969the t14 isn’t even impressive
@@Rokaizeit isn't hardly even real lol
The Iraqis struggled against the Iranians who at that time had to cannibalize parts from vehicles due to arms embargoes. This is while Iraq received top notch equipment and intelligence from NATO countries and the Soviet Union. The Iraqis were just poorly lead and trained and had low morale plus they were fighting major militaries.
It is. Stop coping. @@Rokaize
"Saddam Hussein went from having the fourth largest army in the world to having the second largest army in Iraq." - General Norman Schwartzkopf
Big in paper terms. The Iraqi army fought each other more than anyone else, but you'd have to be in the know on local gangs to know who was fighting who
Same happen recently in 2022
Iraq did not have the 4th most powerful army
@@Slycarlo goofy delusional comment
@@TheSMR1969 they did just look at the numbers before the firdt gulf war
I think the biggest problem with the Iraqi T-72s was the training and tactics, not entirely the technology. They mostly used their best tank as self-propelled assault guns in fixed positions, which proved effective against Iranian human wave tactics.
That said, very lack of training in mobile warfare, like counter-attack and etc. The T-72s would have more chance of success if they used them in a more mobile, shock tactic instead of sitting duck in their fixed spider holes.
Ive read they also foucused on armour rather then ifv they should have hit supporting infantry.
Agains a enemy with total manpower and material superiority being dare is risky and hard but unpredictable too
There's also the issue that many of their troops were demoralized, especially from the constant air attacks. The one story about a few M1s destroying numerous Iraqi tanks was mainly because of a dust storm, I believe, and the Iraqis lacking in the proper equipment to see through it like the US had. There was also the fact that many of the best troops and tanks were held back.
The Iraqis were screwed either way because the US had total air superiority. Apache helicopters, A-10's, F-16's, you name it, were pounding the Iraqis for a month before the end run by the ground forces. So either get destroyed in their fixed defiladed positions or get destroyed out in the open. I also remember also a well publiziced amphibious exercise to keep the Iraqis guessing. The Iraqis had been schooled in Soviet doctrine and the US had spent fifteen years figuring out how to specifically defeat that doctrine.
@@kurt9395 And then the US ended up fighting an enemy decades behind even the Red Army. Like training with weighted gloves to fight a heavyweight, then finding out you're actually fighting the contender's tweaker cousin.
My buddies dad was on a m60 during the gulf war. They took a t72 out at night, they could see the Iraqis what he described as they looked like they were floating but they standing on top the tank at night, they could see them with thermal used a he round because the crew was outside. The next day when the sun was up he noted the tank was pretty small and it looked like it hadnt been taken care of at all.
In the US Army and Marine tank crews mirror each other. The most important part in crew training was gunnery, US tank crews would spend many hours in the MCOFT simulator prior to any gunnery qualification. The MCOFT is the Tank Commander and Gunner combination which emphasizes both to complete an engagement at the fastest time from identifying the target then destroying it. Fire commands, gunners manipulating controls from selecting ammunition, using the Gunners Auxiliary Sight as an emergency procedure with no power and only manual controls. The MCOFT system behaves exactly like the real controls in the M1 series tank. As a gunner and commander the best thing training with it was the emphasis on training using the Thermal Imager in all engagements in different environments. This training is done under time constraints in order to advance to the next phase of engagement, it consists of over if I remember right over 60 types of engagements in the program. It requires a lot of mental stamina to endure hours of making mistakes of being to slow or failing and have to re- do an engagement over and over until as TC and Gunner complete and reach Reticle Aim 201 at the end which is completion. When I went to my first gunnery as a gunner our tank Q-1 meaning first time qualification and 3rd place as a crew. The MCOFT is an excellent training device. Many NATO countries have similar systems for their appropriate tank model.
Don’t think even better T 72s would have changed the outcome of Desert Storm very much
They need better training and numerical superiority with the better t-72.
Once the Coalition had air superiority it was game over on the ground.
Even alien weaponry would have performed poorly when Iraqis were using them
The fun y thing is the most deadly vehicule in iraq it was the f-111, then the brandly destroy a lot of t72 even when they are just scouts (the bradley scout version)
True Iraq needed way more than just better tanks
Fun fact: there were two battalions that fought with M1IPs. (1-64AR, and 3-67AR IIRC.)
I was assigned to 4th Bn 70th Armor, 2nd Brigade, 1st Armored Division, during Desert Shield/Desert Storm. My unit along with the entirety of the units that deployed from Germany to Saudi Arabia had the standard M1A1. When the equipment arrived in Saudi Arabia, all of these tanks had a DU plate welded to the front glacis of the turret before being given a quick coat of desert sand paint.
My understanding is even the Bradleys took out a lot of Iraqi tanks, the issue being that the Bradleys detected the Iraqi tanks long before the Iraqis knew what was going on.
My brother was 101st Airborne. They were helicoptered deep into Iraq with a mission of preventing return of Iraqi units along the Baghdad Basra highway. I assume they took had sufficient weaponry to take out Iraqi armor if necessary.
Equipment argument doesn't matter anyways, you did absolutely nothing. The war was won in a day with just the air force then you rolled in, played pretend to feel big and strong.
@@channeldud What's the temperature in Moscow these days?
You cannot weld du plate on top of steel plate, at least not without very expensive welding.
@@jintsuubest9331 that is what we were told. It wasn’t a bunch of army guys doing some field expediant mods. It was a lot of civilian contractors that had a lot of expensive looking equipment.
2:25 It could also be noted that contemporary production T-72A were already better than T-72M1 and closer to T-72B, receiving the 1A40 FCS with the mentioned lead calculator in 1982, and improved turret with NERA composite plates and 5-layer UFP in 1983.
cope
@@mysteriousfox88 how is that cope? That's like him saying "the M60A3 was vastly superior to M60A2" and you going cope
It was literally the T-72 in its worst state vs the M1 in its best state.
Cool collab!
How was it like? Crowded? Or just darkness and messy
AND the majority of Iraqi tank were t-55
@@mr.waffentrager4400 as an Iraqi many people were mistaken we had the 4th LARGEST army not the strongest quality is better than quantity
Would T-72A model 1979 have done better? Better armor was not much better and better round had a margin of advantage but nothing revolutionary. Explosive armor could help against TOW missiles if you got lucky but not effective against KE round.
The crew training might be a factor but do not forget how good thermal sights are in dry air over long ranges.
@@MarcinP2 no matter how much armour you have a tank could always penatrate it if not a tank then definitely bombs and missiles of any sort
“Low amount of training and attention” SovietWomble pictured for reference
8:45 "low amount of training and attention" *picture of Soviet womble for reference*
A.k.a. newest top of the line vehicle, backed up by all the support assets of a large multinational coalition, vs. a decade old export version of a mass-production vehicle.
Abrams was and is a mass-production vehicle. It was also made is mind boggling amounts
Yup, about right.
Still one of the best military campaigns in human history.
bUt iRaQ wAs tHE 4th lArGeSt aRmY iN dA w0Rld!!!111!
@gansior4744 Yes, but comparatively speaking, IIRC USA produced about 7000 M1s in the 80s, while USSR produced about 25000 T-64s, T-72s, and T-80s (on top of about 13000 produced in the 70s).
@@captainfreedom3649 so mad
There is also the post penetration results. If a tank were to be penetrated what were the likely results be? In the case of a T-72 you might get an ammunition cookoff and a turret in the road.
I'm going to let you know if a tank is penetrated frontally it really doesn't matter most of the crew are dead.
Only tanks with segregated crew compartments can say otherwise.
You’re a war thunder player. If a tank gets penetrated anywhere, the crew are abandoning that thing ASAP. IRL people don’t behave like your war thunder crew
@@comrade_commissar3794except then your tank crew survives another day, which means you can give them a new tank
This is why Ukraine has veterans and the Russians don’t
@@Brent-jj6qi that is, if Ukraina have any new tank to give to these crews
most of these abandoned tanks were hit by a drone or a 122mm shell anyway, they weren't even penetrated but they got the tracks or the engine damaged
absurd yet, some drones might just drop an RPG-7 round on a tank with topside blowout panel (like the M1) and then watch the M1 crew running out of ammo in 10 seconds
@@tranquoccuong890-its-orge well, yes, obviously it relies on having more tanks, but if they had none, this war would be over
Sadly when I hear some people talk of aircraft and tanks they assume they're all the same, not even thinking about the countless variants of the vehicles. Leading them to blame faults or issues on the entire group instead of the one with the problem.
I always credited the victory on the Abrams on the Coalition’s access to GPS. It was the deciding factor as we could see where the all the T-72s were while they lacked a similar capability.
"Sure, you'll see some tank battles. But fighting in desert is very different from fighting in canopy jungle. I mean 'nam was a foot soldier's war. Whereas, this thing should, you know, should be a piece of cake. I mean, I had an M16, Jacko. Not an Abrams fucking tank. Me and Charlie, eyeball to eyeball. Yeah. That's fuckin' combat. The man in the black pajamas, Dude. Worthy fuckin' adversary.
Who's in pajamas, Walter?
Shut the fuck up, Donny.
Whereas what we have here? A bunch of fig-eaters wearing towels on their heads, trying to find reverse in a Soviet tank. This is not a worthy adversary."
Walter Sobchak
Thank you. Best movie ever.
@@Shotty262 , the Dude abides ☺️
@@Shotty262what’s it called?
@@Brent-jj6qi the big Lebowski
Walter was no doubt a supply clerk in Saigon
Very grateful when you veer into modern military topics. Thank you for the content!
Is 33 years ago still modern?
@@SlappyTheElf Compared to world war 2, the main focus of this channel, I would say so :)
Not a single word about the US Marine M-60 tanks that were used in this conflict and they also had success against the T-72. See I was there task force Shepherd and Task force Ripper. People who were not there never get anything correct.
well does the video title say abrams and m-60 vs t-72??
@@theplayerofus319 i think he meant "if the M60 could also wreck the Iraqi T-72, then the M1 would have no problem achieving the same"
The problem with a tank digging itself in is, the soil it turns over tends to be of a different color and temperature then the topsoil. This means the resulting berm becomes a "kill me mound", making enemy tanks easy to identify visually or through TTS.
so it's better to just sit in the open?
@@Duncomradecan’t speak for certain, but t72’s have atrocious revering speed. At least if you were in the open you could potentially use forward gears and reposition. If you have to rely on the t72’s reverse speed to get you out of a bad position you’re gonna have a bad time.
@@Duncomrade Depends, if you can do proper concealment in the open, possible yes (though TTS can look through most if not all concealment at that time, a tank engine is just hard to hide).
But then again if you can conceal the tank in the open, you should be able to conceal the dug in position, too...
I feel like the desert would be the best place then, since the sand wouldn’t look different, and wouldn’t be too much warmer on thermals
@@Brent-jj6qi i am by no means an exspert, but i belief it isn't about the moved soul being *warmer* but rather colder. Dug up earth is usually more moist, even in the desert, and being dug up and exposed to wind, cools the earth/sand down quicker than the surrounding soil.
A cool collab in the context of discussing armor pen would be to bring in SY Simulation and / or Dejmian XYZ Simulation to model the M1A1 on T-72 and the T-72 on M1A1 at the 2km ranges.
We don't know anything about m1 armor. There is 1 cia document, and it is a scanning of a drawing thats scanned incorrectly (slanted). Also, the image is not to scale.
The original m1 armor has acceptable performance against the likes of 3bm22 using some assumption based on understanding of basic rod armor interaction.
We know more than enough about t72 armor. They struggle against m900 and m829, period. Especially the hull, I believed field testing said the projectile pass through the armor and the vehicle from a distance that's at least 2000m away.
M1A1s could spot, acquire, and accurately hit T-72M1s before T-72s could lase. Not like the T-72s could take a hit from the 120 either, nor dish out effective return fire with 3BM9, thus engagements were very 1-sided.
1) Iraqis were nowhere nearly as well trained as the Americans. 2) My understanding of the T-72 is that it was primarily intended as a more affordable, export tank, whereas in the 80s, the Soviets primarily used the T-80s and T-64s, so really wasn't necessarily intended to take on front-line American tanks. I can't remember where I saw it, but I remember once reading that a veteran of the 1991 tank battles stated that if the US Forces were equipped with M60A3s instead of Abrams, the result would have likely been very similar, due to the massive training/morale disparity in favor of the Americans
No, it's intended as a more easily mass produced T-64 like AKM to Ak-47. There are export variant T-72s and domestic use productions so no, it's not intended for export
Some US Forces were equipped with M60s during Desert Storm. And the main advantage was complete air control over Kuwait and Iraq.
@flarvin8945 Only the Marines had M60A3's with appliqué armour. The only armour on armour engagement, including M60s, was Kafji before the ground war had actually started.
And I believe that were Saudi operated M60's.
The Marines only fired HE against infantry, according to their war diaries, all the armour they encountered had been destroyed before the tanks got in range.
@@flarvin8945only the Marines had M60 series tanks. All active duty army tank forces were equipped with M1A1 tanks.
@@johnm9002 US Marines are not part of the US Forces?
Bradley's decimated t72s in desert storm,Abrams killed them from beyond their range when they found some
I just bought Ryan’s T72 book, great author
Thank you!
I wasnt ready for this tank tech. Amazing work ❤
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere in the past that they were using crap ammunition too, it wasn't even tungsten. They were shooting Steel training rounds.
yes you can call standard moscuvy ammo that
@@mysteriousfox88 I'm not here to have a pissing match. Everyone knows that Russia has tungsten carbide and DU sabots at their disposal.
I think the scenario we should ask about is what if the war had been a few years earlier, or the US introduced the M1 a few years later, so it was mostly an M60 vs T-72 fight. That was the scenario the Russian tank was built for. Now its a tank with thick, but still steel armor, and the older style of ammunition handling (a few ready rounds on the walls, and the others in less coinvent parts of the tank) vs an auto-loader that doesn't slow down. Spin stabilized shells (albeit good ones) vs a smooth bore. Now from a point of training and money - I'd still say the US has the edge (remember, Iraq was mostly bankrupt from a war it fought from 1980-88, and grabbing the treasure of Kuwait was a way to pay its debts.)
Well, the M60s the marines used in GW1 had no trouble at all versus Iraqi tanks of all types.
Russian kit, in Iraqi hands, was just not very good. If every Abrams were a late M60, there would have been a few dozen lost. But it'd still be deeply one sided as a war. A lot, and I mean a lot, of the Iraqi tanks got side shot, or rear. M60 circa 1990 was still able to fire on the move and could have used similar tactics. They would have suffered more from counter fire hits, to be sure, and would have taken more hits, too, due to being slower, but most of what won GW1 was better training, tactics, better strategy, better optics, and better networking.
Folks insist front line Russian kit from the era would have done much better...
I don't really think so. Bradleys with basically the same overall kit (relative to their foe) as in 1990 has gone up against much better than late soviet tanks, often head on, and come out very positive in KD. Often while outnumbered and without strategic surprise. Russian hardware is almost always wildly overhyped, and under delivers. Then, and now. But it does still deliver deadly effects, and if not treated with respect and the right tools to counter them, it will kill you very dead.
M60 used in desert storm had capabilities to shoot on the move, had good optics and fire control systems and were able to shoot modern munitions. Its not like M60 was somehow a tank equal to M48 from Vietnam
@@Eleolius "Bradley has gone up against much better than late soviet tanks, often head on, and come out very positive in KD." And where did that happen? In some computer simulation?
@captainfreedom3649 In real life, keep huffing that copium though
Finally, someone normal without lies and propaganda to analyze Desert Storm and the performance of tanks.
Roughly speaking from today's perspective and standards, the Iraqis had the Leopard 2A1/A2, since the T-72M/M1 lagged behind armor protection and opto-electronics, even the first modernization of the T-72A for the Soviet Army in 1979. And the Americans had Leopard 2A7/A8.
Todays standards it would be like using T-90Ms and T-72B3Ms against a country whos tanks were mostly Chieftain Mk.3s, Leopard 1A3s and M60A1s with a few Leopard 1A4s, M60A3s and Chieftain Mk.5s
Whilst tanks played an important role in the swift and successful ground phase of the war, air power was the decisive factor in Operation Desert Storm. It not only crippled Iraq’s ability to fight but also ensured that the ground campaign was brief and overwhelmingly successful.
Don’t forget GPS.
In basic Iraqi T-72s couldn't penetrate another T-72M1 armor frontally. As far as I have seen(read) from the memoares of the US tank commanders, the ammo for the Iraqi T-72 were just upscaled ammo from the T-62, old steel core APFSDS. I know that they aren't experts on the Soviet ammo (some even claimed that is a training ammo), but killing Chieftains in Iran service and disable M1A1HA is another thing. Remember even partial penetration near the gun is enough to dislocate the gun from its cradle and remove the tank from the battle.
Edit: The US had GPS abd the thermals, so the night engagements were no problem on 1800-2000 m while T-72 couldn't even see the tank on more than 300 m....
I thought about doing an armor Video based on Ryans book. And then I flipped through about 1000 pages on that topic in that book and decied to go for Ergonomie instead :) Good Video. Great book
guess I'm buying new books now
After Desert Storm there a sense of Russian amazement over the ease the Abrams over the T72. The defenders of the T-72 being used by the Iraqis called the export versions “Monkey Tanks”. The export tanks were stripped models.
Awesome video! I think the training combined with lack of night fighting capabilities from the t-72 is what made it such a one-sided fight.
Also, air force 😂
@@Schimml0rd That as-well… man it would have really sucked to be an Iranian tanker
Comparing US military equipment since ww2 to other nations is so interesting because it fits their country's methods of war so well but often is underwhelming when used by others (Sherman, Abrams, even small arms)
I always found the arms and tactics and logistical race in the cold war fascinating
War is logistics by other means. Tens of thousands of Shermans works a lot better than a few hundred!
The contrast in tank philosophies is none more apparent than the Leopard 1 vs. the T-60 models.
How were any of these underwhelming when used by other nations ?
@@me67galaxylife Have you looked at the Saudi Abrams losses in Yemen? They have done horrendously with the Abrams.
@@me67galaxylifeWell, the M1A1 is the first US tank that clearly outperforms most foreign tanks and would for a good generation. Before that the US army was dealing with stop gaps M26, M46, M47, M48 until M60. And M60 was def. a different design philosophy, with some distinctive downsides to go with its upsides, compared to Centurion, Chieftain, Leopard 1 and the sovjet MBTs. But the US industry surely was able to keep her up to date on the key area's where M60 performed well. This is offcourse somewhat more difficult for some foreign operators.
At least one Abrams was actually penetrated, suffering a side penetration from enemy fire after being hit in the rear by a Hellfire that did not detonate. B23 of 1-37AR. Other than that no penetrations ever occurred from T72 fire it seems.
Heres the thing Abrams got their reputation from fighting an enemy in a sandstorm who didn't have thermals and they did. It's what prevented us from getting a tank ready for how wars fought now
The M2 Bradleys destroyed more Iraqi armored vehicles than the M1 Abrams tanks during Operation Desert Storm. Some 2,200 Bradley vehicles were deployed, and only three were lost to enemy fire.
I heard a while back that the Iraqi army didn't even properly dug in their tanks .The US forces noticed that instead of placing the tanks in the ground and only exposing a small portion of the turret, they made mounds of dirt front of the tank . Of course in the relatively flat terrain that make them stand out even more.
I remember arguing on tank forums years ago about the Abrams superiority to t-72, I remembered the main argument for the t-72 was “these were Iraqi crews and not well trained Russians”. This defense did not age well.
Well of course there are different levels of training for Russian tank crews. The best used the T-80 around this time.
The Russian Army from now is quite different from the Soviet Army. After the fall of the Soviet Union there was basically no money for the military for a long time, this would have broken every other army as well. More details here: ua-cam.com/video/R98I-kD2vcQ/v-deo.html
@MilitaryHistoryVisualized And now at this point they are the most modern combat tested army in the world. They're some scary mfers now. More than equal adversary.
@@09jadeen not even close to scary
@mustangmanmustangman4596 Yes, they would be lol. Considering it would be the end of the world if we fought.
Really interesting video. Ryan is an asset.
You've done a very thorough analysis of the differences between the two machines and the ammo that they had. I can only say that the difference was training, as I watched many T72s and T80s cook off in the desert. Those that weren't destroyed outright were destroyed whilst dug in. I am an American, and I am glad the Iraqis were not trained well. It is debatable whether or not proper training and motivation would have made a difference. I can say that after that conflict, most of the remains we recovered were from Iraqi vehicles that had no night vision or thermal sights. It might have made no difference, but who's to say?
0:27 Looking at how the Russians perform in Ukraine, I'm dubious how well the Soviet troops were trained either.
The Russian Army from now is quite different from the Soviet Army. After the fall of the Soviet Union there was basically no money for the military for a long time, this would have broken every other army as well. More Details here: ua-cam.com/video/R98I-kD2vcQ/v-deo.html
I wonder how much any of this mattered against air power interdiction? I was under the impression that most of these were destroyed by air power. Not the 30mm Warthog gun, but bombs, missiles, etc.
Whenever describing the features of the T-72 it's probably best to qualify it with something like "assuming [the feature] worked, and had actually been installed by the officers in charge."
When did the -M suffix on Russian vehicles change from designating terrible export models to modernized variants? I'm assuming the change stemmed form some sort of maskirovka.
I mean in some regards, it was an updated version, also about a year ago, I think a friend told me that there are actually at least two T-72 variants that have the same suffix but are different...
And for the T-55 as far as I know, I think the AB in the Soviet Union was quite different to the AB in Germany and/or Poland...
How many so called T72 might have been Asad Babil boilerplate iraqi tanks?
t72m(1) specifically are export
in other cases its modernized
t72m is worse t72a and t72m1 is around same as t72a iirc
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Ahh, soviet designations being completely inconsistent and insane. I'll take calling something an M1 any day of the week.
@@PeterMuskrat6968the designations are consistent if you know the logic.
The type of weapon is the first letter, the number of the model, the next letter is the factory variant, the next number is a modification of such variant, the next letter is an upgrade and the next number says the package upgrade if more were made.
T-72 is tank model 72. A is the first variant over the original factory Ural, all first letters after the model number indicate newly built variants.
T-72M is the export version, a downgraded A that was. M1 was a modification of the M variant increasing armor by 15%.
The T-72B was a newer variant with 40% more armor equivalency, better gun, FCS, engine, etc. T-72B2 was a modification of the B base made in the factory.
The T-72B2M means B2 variant modernized, is an upgrade over existing units, not newly made tanks.
If a Number follows the M for modernized like T-72B3M2 it means is an upgrade with a new pack of modernized upgrades very different to the previous M. Now if the M is followed by a letter it means is just a minor add on or mod on the standard Modernitsiya. Like MV being just add on armor.
Given the total US air superiority, no tanks would have helped Iraq. Iraqi infantry with semi-partisan tactics inflicted more damage.
Highly doubt the Russian 13 SABOTA does as well as they claim
Russia has wrecked NATO equipment
@@TheSMR1969 Bro a T90 got smoked by Bradley's... Keep huffing the copium.
@@TheSMR1969 Russia has trouble countering western equipment from the 80's and 90's. Russia stopped being relevant in the '89
@@pluemas And a Bradley was taken out by 12.7mm bullet in the Gulf War. So whats your point? Btw that T90 "kill" was the autocannons destroying the optics, not the entire tank, nafotard. The tank was destroyed by drones long after the crew left it.
@@captainfreedom3649 you realise that the Bradley's taking out the optics (and the turret control, which you conveniently left out) is a mission kill, right?
This isn't war thunder, a majority of the time all you have to do is damage the opposition to the point where it forces the crew to bail as the vehicle is no longer able to function. The Bradley's killed the T90, the drones just prevented its recovery and repair.
I've not been able to find a source for your claim about a 50cal taking out a Bradley, but tbh it's an IFV and it's reasonable that if it got caught being hit in the rear (the rear doors are much more lightly armoured) it could penetrate. Bradley's are not magic, they're an old IFV and outdated by modern IFVs like Puma and CV90.
That arguably makes it even more embarrassing that the most modern tank that Russia has got mission killed by two old IFVs that are vulnerable to 50 cals.
I know for a fact most of our armored troops spent several months on the firing line before they deployed so I know their skills were up to snuff . I have to wonder if the op forces even got to fire the main gun to even sight it in .
Really well done video
Did those T-72s even have thermals at all or at least a basic night vision?? For the night battles that they were, it was like beating blind elderly people in a dark room with lashes. They may hear the boom/spank sound, but have no idea where the thing came from.
I don't even know why this is a discussion point. GAO NSIAD-92-94, Page 4: "In fact, the enemy destroyed no Abrams tanks during the Persian Gulf war, according to the Army." Regardless of all other factors, dumb luck should have accounted for at least a few enemy kills.
I'd like to see a similar video to this comparing M1 and M1A1 (Not the HA) to the T-72M and T-72M1 and a video comparing the Cheiftan Mk. 5 to the T-72s of Iraq. It would also be interesting to see a comparison of Cheiftan Mk.11 vs Challanger 1, M1A1 and Leopard 2 to see how far NATO did or didn't improve on their previous best tank
What Desert Storm showed is what happens when a force designed to fight World War III goes against a tinpot regional dictator. I'm sure if the USSR gathered a coalition and sent a dozen Corps against an isolated South Korea(or other suitable western aligned secondary power) circa 1990 the result would be similar. T-80U vs K1 is about as mismatched as M1A1HA vs T-72M1.
Comparing a T-80U as if it's even remotely similar to a T-72M1 shows how utterly clueless you are about tanks
That is very wrong. K1 being derived from later prototypes of the Abrams, were much superior to T-80's from that era. You also talk like Russians in the 1990's had good training, experience or well serviced equipment. South Korea in the 90's was outmatching Russia, maybe not in numbers, but in capabilities. Also not like Iraqi forces with T-72's were untrained. Those were some of the best forces in the region on the soviet side
@@TheSMR1969 I'm comparing T-80U to M1A1HA, since both were the first rate tanks for their respective superpowers. Or do you not know how to read?
@@gansior4744 The early K1 still had the underpowered 105mm gun, no depleted uranium armor, but decent FCS. So while it could likely hit the T-80U better, penetrating it or surviving hits is another matter.
Also bulk of ROK army is conscripts/reservists whose training and motivation is dubious. Capital Division might be better but I wouldn't bet on it against a Soviet Guard's Tank Corp.
Before the upgraded k1 actually got build up in numbers, the south korean decided to station t80u on the border.
The upgraded k1 is most certainly better but Im not sure about the original k1.
Excellent brief summary that is definitely a vital addition to the real understanding of tank warfare. I think though, that you should have pointed out that the US possessed two very critical things the Iraqis lacked: 1. good ISR and 2. Complete air supremacy. While in the Gulf War they were not the critical issues like training and maintenance, they did contribute to the overall success. In Ukraine, NATO began the conflict with superior ISR but the Russians made vest improvements in theirs. Also, it should be noted that early in the Ukrainian conflict, Russia possessed air tactical advantage in the conflict areas only by using their air elements combined with their GTA and used missile and drone strikes to perform the deeper penetration strikes thus minimizing Russian aircraft losses. As the conflict dragged on, Russian strikes against the Ukrainian GTA defense systems resulted in such degradation of Ukraine's air defense systems that Russia had no difficulty in eventually achieving full air supremacy over all of Ukraine. This air supremacy resulted in making drone kills on armored vehicles to almost become accomplished facts once a Ukrainian armored unit was spotted.
The Soviets never offered the best equipment to export. Imagine if the Germans did the same…
I don’t know why, but I have always loved the T-72.
I realize it’s a piece of crap now, but at the date of release it was a very capable and cool looking tank. Low silhouette, maneuverable, decent armour scheme and an auto loading big gun! It was a pretty scary tank.
Buy ryans book is actually really good
Danke 👍
Better fuel economy doesn’t amount to much if it’s on fire.
Something that many people forget is that the air power is what gives victory over the enemy, even the best tank is trash without planes, you have scenarios like the one in Ukraine where tanks change owners every five minutes, that if the tanks survive
We should also compare the American M60s to the T72m1s, since the T72s stood a better chance against them and they've also engaged each other during the Gulf war.
Also, the Bradly kicked the shit out them as well.
In the handful of tank vs tank engagements that occurred
@@samsonsoturian6013 When and IFC/APC kills the your tanks, that's a problem. When it happens AGAIN in another county and on another continent in another decade....well, LOL. Yes I am referring to the Ukraine incident.
@@xxxlonewolf49 you're clueless
@@xxxlonewolf49it's kinda funny how because of this, bradley was advertised as t series killer, which led to complete overestimation of it's capabilities, not only it's mostly outranged by Russian IFVs like bmp3 and bmp2m but it's only documented use against a tank was shooting t90s optics and damaging it
@ryssa2409 Uh no. Go look up the Iraq invasion dude. The brads had more tank kills than the M1 tanks & no it wasn't just the TOW missiles, they made cannon KILLs.
Just like with fighter jets, what usually decides who wins comes down mostly to crew training. If you swapped a highly trained Abrams and minimally trained T72 crew around, chances are that the T72 would win.
There were some 105mm M-1 tanks there too as there were M-9000 105mm ammo in theater, had to be some M-1, right? The USMC M-60s were not capable of firing the M-9000 as the recoil systems could not handle the recoil.
Not really a fair comparison. When Iraq was in a war with Iran they lost allot of tanks and became broke. After the war Saddam bought what was called Monkey Models which were stripped down tanks, more like WW2 type tanks without any modern equipment. That is why if you watched the war the US attacked allot at night because they knew that Iraqi tanks had no night vision or range finder or gun stabilizers so they were at a great disadvantage. Even a modern M-60 could knock out those tanks because even though they only had a 105mm gun they can shoot on the run, fire at night and could use a range finder to help target the Iraqi tank!
Quite a lot of soviet armor fans made this claim that if crewed by russians this would have turned different.
But now reality showed us otherwise for more than two years.
And before some people with fragile egos start with the " BuT MuH W3St taNk5 AlSO g0T Lo5T In UkRAIn3 " whataboutism ( because they always resort to that ), that was not the point.
The point was that even the " best " soviet tanks ( I won't call them russian because all their tanks were designed and built in the USSR ) crewed by " elite " russians had their turret tossed in the atmosphere. They are vulnerable ( any tank is and that includes western tanks of course, but those are still superior ).
western tanks had their turret tossed aswell, leos, challengers etc
@@mazazaza11 There he is the little upset fanboy. Didn't take long.
@@Vlad_-_-_ i am a fasting jew no offense
Reality has also shown us that the Abrams are little more than rusted cans, at this point I don't know why we argue about tanks in the first place if all tanks are vulnerable in the 21st century
@@armandoventura9043 Such a rusted car that all dementive ruZZian propagandists started threatening with nukes when Abrams were announced. Why ? If the Abrams is so bad ? If its so worthless, why did all the pro russian bots were celebrating like they were taking Kyiv when a few western tanks were lost ?
Meanwhile Ukraine pops turrest of T90 and latest T80 like is bussiness as usual.
And it is bussiness as usual for the to pop turrets of soviet tanks.
The Type 69 was better according to some people then the Republican Guars T72 exports. But nobody talks about the M60TTS or the other upgraded versions.
Thanks Bernhard.
Isn't abrams hull armor around 450 against KE? 600 sounds a bit too cool for an armor package with 0 upgrades
Interesting.
Played the beta. This is what the genre was always supposed to be. Nothing comes close. Eugen may have invented it, but Slytherin is gonna own it.
lmao, i didnt expect to see broken arrow reference here
Numbers mean as much now as they did in 1914, 1918, 1939, 1941, 1945, 1990, 2022 ...
From what i heard and read, the US mostly won the tank Engangements due to night vision. They could see and fire at the T72s before they even saw the Abrams.
As well as training and exercises to get them prepared. Give the American crews those t tanks and they would still win.
The war lrak versus lran in eighties was one of the biggest war in the world after WWll, irak lost every important weapons including ammunition and ofcourse troops.
Bradley TOWs killed more T72s than the Abrams. USMC M60s also killed a bunch.
You dont mention the T-72 reverse speed?
Maybe an interesting data set would be the Bradley against T-72 in Ukraine while taking into account kills.
Likewise if you draw conclusions about the M1 Abrams based on the Saudi experience you might find it less combat effective than a geriatric SU100!
I think the part that seems to have surprised folks the most, but really shouldn't have is how poorly Russian tank crews and their commanders have performed their duties even when compared with their Iraqi counterparts. This should not really surprise anyone given that the Iraqi army had the benefit of fairly recent combat experience in both the Iran Iraq war and the successful invasion of Kuwait. The Russian army, in sharp contrast, was and remains largely a mobilized reserve force with little to now actual combat experience, led by commanders with no theater-wide command experience, and who have not participated in meaningful military exercises of any scale since the 1980's.
The expectation was that they would perform better mostly out of some sense of Eurocentric bias. Of course they would do better than the "oriental" Iraqis because.... reasons.
They have not.
Additional aemor really wouldnt have helped those T72s survive.
Better optics might have
Genuine question
How did tanks in WW2 actually hit anything? The calculations are hellishly complex. It's a wonder there were any hits at all!
Crews that had a lot of time practicing, and knowing the sights. There was a lot more Kentucky windage at the time. That said, very few long distance first shot kills. Not that they didn't happen, but it was more difficult unless proper range cards had been established.
WW2 tanks very rarely fired on the move and would stop or crawl at low speed while aiming.
Thanks for all the information. Makes me appreciate WW Tank crews even more...
The T-72 series as a whole is an export and mobilization tank. Period.
I think Iraq's problem was that its crews were incompetent. Sure their tanks weren't good but a good crew can make a tank work well. Giving best T72s to a bad tank crew would've only delayed the inevitable
Oh the good old times, when tanks could be tanks and there were no swarm of drones flying around. I have my doubts that such a pure tank-mechanized warfare as DS can be repeated anymore.
There's a swarm of F-16s and Apaches back then.
@@copter2000 True, but they could be warded away (temporarily) with anti-air systems. Such weapons are much less effective against swarms of cheap, low-flying drones.
@@Jupiter__001_ for now
Bad training can't overcome meh gear.
t-72 is not a bad tank. but the t72 used by the Iraqis is old and of poor quality and while the Russians add armor to protect the t-72s, the Iraqi asad babil tank does not even have an era.
In addition to this, they were destroyed because the Iraqis lost air superiority and Iraqi tank crews poorly trained
Night vision was a big factor
The T-72 isn’t bad. It’s not great either and the export model was worse. It was more that they had awful tankers, awful ISR, and awful comms. So, they were always going to get lose badly.
Grains of salt is a very small mesure i prefer buckets, Barrels, tonnes, Containers, Freighers :P
Heavy cavalry.
The Iraqi T-72 may have been a particularly crappy version of the Tank with sub par ammo but I think Ukraine has proven that the fundamental takeaways are the same.
How so? Give me respected reviewed studies.
+@@goforbroke4428+ Redit wants it's calling card back.
This was interesting one again.
Maybe could You making a similar video about what could achieve some Königtiger against an early T72..?
Bradleys destroyed more Iraqi armor than Abrams tanks. The TOW missile had already 4km range at that time.
US could've fought in trucks and it won't make a difference. US airpower carries every war, the army just follows behind and sweeps the pieces.
Do you think it would have been wise for the Iraqis to close the distance for a close-range battle, given their impotent ammo and weaker armour?
At a closer range, both parties would have been able to penetrate each other's armour more easily, which helps the Iraqi T-72s and doesn't benefit the M1A1 since it could already penetrate the T-72 from further away.
unlikely, especially with 3Bm15 being the common export sabot, which, was terrible to say the least
Closing the range across flat open desert didn't do the Britsh forces a lot of good in the Western Desert, so I can't see the Iraqis fairing any better.