| paulgenna | 31 Aug 2015 1:15 p.m. PST |
I'm hoping a few of the treed heads on the board might be able to provide a little feedback. In Desert Storm there are many accounts of Iraqi armor not being able to penetrate the armor of US and British vehicles. Most indicate this was at long distance. Are there accounts of closer range shells bouncing off the armor as well? I know we lost no tanks to enemy tank fire but I'm not sure the if anything close was fired. Also, would the Iraqi AP round be equivalent to the Russian round or is each countries round slightly different? Putting together some penetration ideas and wondered if a Russian round would be better than another country? Also, is the year the round was manufactured also a factor? |
| boy wundyr x | 31 Aug 2015 1:34 p.m. PST |
Pretty sure the Russian/Soviet round was definitely different than what the client states got, particularly if outside of Europe. The whole tank was better than what they exported, so same should apply to the rounds (which may have been manufactured locally too). |
| twawaddell | 31 Aug 2015 1:37 p.m. PST |
The Iraqi's went with homemade rounds for their T-72's and other tanks. They cheated out and did not buy the Russian depleted uranium rounds which may have penetrated U.S. and U.K. armor. I say may as I know of no instance where it has been tried that has been published anywhere I could find it. |
| lkmjbc3 | 31 Aug 2015 1:50 p.m. PST |
The Iraqi rounds were homemade copies of early 70s Soviet rounds. The standard Soviet 125mm round in 1980 would have killed any Nato tank at standard combat ranges. This stayed true until the deployment of the IPM1. This and the M1A1 were still vulnerable at <1200 meters. Joe Collins |
 Saber6   | 31 Aug 2015 2:20 p.m. PST |
The standard Soviet 125mm round in 1980 would have killed any Nato tank at standard combat ranges. This stayed true until the deployment of the IPM1. This and the M1A1 were still vulnerable at <1200 meters. problem was we were engaging at 2500+ |
| lkmjbc3 | 31 Aug 2015 3:25 p.m. PST |
Not in Europe. Joe Collins |
| Major Mike | 31 Aug 2015 6:58 p.m. PST |
You have been from my GDP positions on the IGB. |
| Lion in the Stars | 31 Aug 2015 7:55 p.m. PST |
Did the Russians even offer the really good shells for export? I thought all the Iraqi shells had plain steel darts, not Tungsten Carbide or DU… |
| zoneofcontrol | 01 Sep 2015 6:01 a.m. PST |
I recall an anecdote from Clancy's "Armored Cav" that had an Abrams disabled or stuck. Unable to get it going before having to move on, the unit was ordered to destroy the vehicle. Another tank from the unit put three shells into it before achieving penetration. I cannot speak to the validity of the anecdote or even the clearness of my memory. However, if accurate, it speaks to the quality of the armor vs US rounds as opposed to the poorly copied Iraqi rounds. |
| paulgenna | 01 Sep 2015 6:29 a.m. PST |
The only US tank destroyed was one where a board went out and the commander of the task force had the tank destroyed. All accounts of Iraqi fire from their tanks at US/British tanks simply bounced. It sounds like the homemade rounds did not compare to the Russian version. Would a Russian version be expected to penetrate a US tank at 1500-2000 meters? It sounds like <1200 it would. |
| kabrank | 01 Sep 2015 6:32 a.m. PST |
I read somewhere that some of the Iraq AT rounds used were practice rounds |
 Legion 4 | 01 Sep 2015 8:36 a.m. PST |
The US M1 had a main weapon's range advantage as Sabre6 noted. And again as noted by Joe … this is not the closed or mixed terrain found in Europe. Let's admit it. The US crews and soldiers in general, had many magnitudes more/superior training than any Iraqi … We saw that in GWI and GWII … Better tech and better soldiers, etc. … a recipe for success it would appear. |
| lkmjbc3 | 01 Sep 2015 10:06 a.m. PST |
Not training rounds… The Iraqi ammo was probably a copy of the BM-17. The BM-17 was an improved version of the original Soviet 125mm round. It was just steel like the BM-9, but was longer and featured a more advanced nose that improved performance against sloped targets. The BM-17 was fielded in 1972. The BM-17 was basically the poor man's Bm-15… the round the Soviet's used in the mid 70s. Joe Collins |
| Mako11 | 01 Sep 2015 1:03 p.m. PST |
From what I've read and seen on TV, a lot of the attacks were made at night too, from long range, so I doubt many of the Iraqis could even locate their attackers until they fired on them, and then would still have had difficulty firing back in those conditions. Ran across some notes on the T-72 recently, and their night sights are only good to about 3/4s of a mile range. |
| Lion in the Stars | 01 Sep 2015 7:34 p.m. PST |
When your expected sightlines in Europe are only 1200m, why bother with longer-ranged sensors? |
| Weasel | 02 Sep 2015 3:17 p.m. PST |
I mean, the US and Israeli armies did plenty of tests with Russian weapons versus American tanks and vice versa, so this data is out there right? |
| Lion in the Stars | 02 Sep 2015 6:37 p.m. PST |
@Weasel: not really, it's mostly pretty well classified, still. it wasn't until after the German Reunification that we started seeing reports of the Soviet rounds instead of the export rounds, and those reports were demoralizing in the extreme. An S-Tank was immune to export 125mm APFSDS, but the Soviet ammo would blow clear through the tank unless it hit the engine block, for example. |
