"So how much does the tank matter?" Topic

Iraq 1991. Give the Americans T72 and the Iraqi's M60 and M1.

Everything else remains the same (communications, doctrine, training, air power etc.)

Does anything significant change in the big picture?

To follow up on the thought experiment: How big of a technological gap can you have and still win through training, doctrine and intel advantages?

Depends on a number of factors. An inept opponent with superior weapons and equipment will still lose to a tactically and doctrinally sound one with inferior equipment. And then there's also logistics/supply.

I would say the US still wins due to advantages in C3I, doctrinal and small unit initiative in your scenario, but if the US has WWII equipment/weaponry my money's probably on the Iraqis.

The US with only the equipment listed-heavy losses but a win in the end.

Old tank---same 1991 air power---not much change

It's hard to judge, usually large numbers of operational high tech tanks are hand in hand with well trained functional military forces. The Iraqi T-72s are a reflection of the Iraqi military and it's operational capabilities. The M1A1 is a reflection of the US military's ability to support, and utilize cutting edge hardware.

So it gets to the absurdities of if Ditka coached the world's worst football team. Ditka is a reflection of Da Bears and…

Okay nix that analogy. But it is hard to imagine an Iraqi Army that can effectively employ M1 tanks (as seen recently!). Conversely the US did okay with much less advanced tanks historically (while I like the Sherman, in a strictly one tank on another tank it was inferior to the German opposition).

Having continued along further then, the difference is the M1 equipped Iraq will only succeed where the tank and the tank alone's technology matters. A well trained and sound military will succeed most of the time, technological inferiority or no because it is a capable effective force and will adapt to adjust for marginal technology.

How many Iraqis even fired their main gun (in battle) during the final assault? From the accounts, not many.

Equipment, doctrine and training are 3 legs of the same stool. Change one and you have to change the others. The M1 tank was just one piece of a complex puzzle. Change the M1 for the T72 and the US would have used air power, attack helicopters and indirect fires more to fight at a slower, more firepower intensive tempo. See the USMC operations with their M60A3s.

Iraq in 1991 was on the receiving end of an American military that had just reached the conjunction of technological imporvements, especially in night fighting and C3I, the pinnacle of Cold War tactical and logistics doctrinal development, and the freeing up of combat power with the collapse of the Soviet Union, but before the so called "peace dividend" kicked in. Iraq made the mistake of taking on the US in the first war in our history we were actually prepared to fight and win.

Fanatik is basically correct, victory in combat and war depends on a number of factors, technology, communications, training, motivation, troop morale, political will, and political influence to name a few. I suspect that considering the state of the Iraqi Army in 1991, and assuming all other US military advantages and doctrines were still valid. You could've replaced the US forces of M1 and m60's with World War II Shermans and still beat the Iraqis, assuming of course that the remaining US forces still retained the superior doctrines, command-and-control, logistics, air superiority, morale, etc. It would've been a more costly victory for the coalition in terms of lives lost, but the end results would've been pretty much the same

Please note, I'm not trying to demean the valor or efforts of the US or its allies in the Gulf War, I just believe that the Iraqi army despite its fairly modern equipment, was a hopelessly inept opponent, in comparison to the Allied coalition and the United States military in particular.

lots of M1s took hits from the T 72s and just kept fighting NO T 72 crews lived after a hit from a M1.

Come to think of it, if ONLY tanks are the variable the US should win even without any tanks. Airpower and infantry alone can defeat the Iraqi army and its T-72's.

Gulf War I would've been won even without the battles of Medina and 73 Easting, since aircraft and missiles could've done the job as well as M1's assuming all other variables remain constant.

So maybe tanks don't matter all that much.

As an addition, is there a good source of statistics of how many coalition vehicles took hits from Iraqi tanks and how they fared?

Not just thinking about M1 but also M60 and Bradley?

A lot has been written about the terrible state of Iraqi ammunition but it's also worth examining how often they actually landed a hit to begin with.

Meanwhile the Germans did just fine in 1940 against superior tanks, poorly used. But again context is everything.

And terrain. Not trying to give the Iraqi armed forces an out, but desert war isn't favourable to anyone with non existent air support.

Love the way in all these only US forces are mentioned (as usual).

Yes, majority, but UK 'Almost 2,500 armored vehicles and 53,462 troops were shipped for action.', France 'The second largest European contingent was from France, which committed 18,000 troops', Canada 'This was the first time since the Korean War that Canada's military had participated in offensive combat operations. The only CF-18 Hornet to record an official victory during the conflict was an aircraft involved in the beginning of the Battle of Bubiyan against the Iraqi Navy', Australia 'Australia contributed a Naval Task Group, ', even Argentina 'Argentina was the only Latin American country to participate in the 1991 Gulf War sending a destroyer, ARA Almirante Brown (D-10), a corvette, ARA Spiro (P-43) (later replaced by another corvette, ARA Rosales (P-42)) and a supply ship (ARA Bahía San Blas (B-4)) to participate on the United Nations blockade and sea control effort of the Persian Gulf.'

OK, from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War, but still a reasonable source to use.

And from link a couple of interesting points: ' British Challenger tanks destroyed approximately 300 Iraqi vehicles, including achieving the longest-range tank-kill in history from 3 miles away.' ' In particular, Royal Navy Westland Lynx helicopters were responsible for the destruction of almost the entire Iraqi Navy'

I'm not American so I have no skin in the race but for the purpose of the discussion, I don't think it matters if the tank is Abrams, Challenger or LeClerc.

The OP poses it as just the Americans.

Given the Armored Forces that Garrison listed, any one of them would have had a good track record

'I'm not American so I have no skin in the race but for the purpose of the discussion, I don't think it matters if the tank is Abrams, Challenger or LeClerc.'

Totally agree. It just tends to irritate a bit that, if it isn't American, it doesn't matter or count or even exist!

yeah i hear you. my apologies :)
at least people can find the UK on a map!

Iraq 1991. Give the Americans T72 and the Iraqi's M60 and M1.

(assuming front-line APFSDS-DU ammo and AT11s for the 125mm, not the utter crap the Iraqis were using)

The Iraqis would have had a much better chance then, since the M829 APFSDS round had a much better range than the ADFSDS round from the T72. The Americans would have to fire AT11s to equal the range of the Abrams, and I don't believe that the AT11's launcher can move much before the missile hits. So stopping at long range for up to 20 seconds for the first wave of missiles to hit would likely have lead to a whole lot of burning T72s.

Possibly enough to make a frontal attack against those defensive positions suicidal.

But the fact that the Iraqis didn't recognize that the main weapon of a tank is the tank's engine would still have lead to their destruction by air.

Things MAY have been different if the Iraqis had Chally 2s, those beasts are obscenely well-armored. Maybe well-armored enough to take hits from Mavericks, but the US could have switched over to 500lb or larger laser-guided bombs.

As many have noted here, MBTs still have a place in modern conflicts. And again as noted, an army may have Tanks, but they have to know how to effectively employ them as well as maintain them … As any of the Tankers and Mech Grunts on this thread know from experience … Now some have mentioned the US/Coalition would have still won without Tanks, but would have had higher losses. Very true, however, being a former Grunt, in almost all situations, I want armor support … And remember "Tanks" were designed in WWI to support and work with Infantry to break the stalemate of the trenches. And inturn reduce Infantry losses … Unless I'm being send to the jungle and I have been in the past. I still want armor support. And even in some cases it was useful in SE Asia plus the islands of the PTO … Yes, the US/Coalition would have won with out tank support in Iraq, but why risk high infantry losses, etc. … Again, re-read the lessons of WWI …

It just tends to irritate a bit that, if it isn't American, it doesn't matter or count or even exist!

Oh stop GM ! Really ?!? You are still just mad about those Colonial Rustics that threw you Redcoats and Hessians out of the colonies of the New World ! Without the use of Tanks I may add by the way ! Oh and I can find the UK and the Mid East on the map, Weasel

Lousy troops, poorly trained, abysmally lead, with neither any maintainance or any morale.

VS

Well lead, highly trained and motivated troops.

I think the equipment is irrelevant.

I would take a unit of T72s crewed by professional soldiers over conscripts any day. I would take near anyone over most arab armies anyday too.

I would take a unit of … professional soldiers over conscripts any day.

Totally agree …

Just for reference, the question isn't "Tank or no tank", it's how big an inferiority in equipment you can have and still make up for it with superior training and fighting spirit.

One of the spin offs of the troubles inside Syria is that Syrian crews are getting lots of hands on experience and they are prooving the conceptual worth of even export grade T-72s.Troopwo has it right,good crews,well supported and with well maintained equiptment can and will beat well equipped,lethargic opponents on a regular basis.

Despite being 1 generation of tech behind, it is possible to win.

Two Generations, say, 1960-vintage T55s versus Abrams, though, I don't think there's much way to overcome that much difference without it being a Pyrrhic victory.

The OP says only tanks have differences in tech. Everything else is unaffected, including aircraft. So let's say the Iraqis have Abrams and the US have WWII-era Shermans, the US will still win big due to:

1. Superior doctrine, training and tactics;

2. Better C3I including satellites and instantaneous comm;

3. Airpower (the US has 4th gen a/c and AWACS vs. 3rd gen Iraqi a/c) plus Apache helos;

4. Individual small unit initiative;

5. Better mobility and logistical support.

While the Abrams and M60's would be impervious to the Shermans, that's moot because they would all be destroyed by airpower, missiles, and infantry with portable AT weapons.

"So how much does the tank matter?"

The Short answer, when I was a Grunt … they mattered to me …

L4, would you care if the tankers coming your direction had Abrams or T72s? Or did you just want something with a big gun and significant armor coming to help?

As long as they are on my side is, again, the short answer … Of course bigger is usally better !