In Defense of the Red Army

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Raellus

The following is from Osprey's M1 Abrams vs. T-72 Ural- Operation Desert Storm by Steven J. Zaloga.

"As a result of the USSR’s export policy, clients such as Iraq did not receive tanks comparable in quality to the best Soviet tanks. In 1990 the best Iraqi version of theT-72 was the T-72M1 – roughly equivalent to the Soviet T-72A, which was already a decade old and not as well armored as the newer T-72B or the preferred T-80B series. Just as importantly, the Soviet Union did not export its best tank ammunition: the Iraqi army relied primarily on second-rate ammunition for its T-72 tanks." (p.24)

In Defense of the Red Army, I would also like to refer to the following excerpt:

"Despite the vehicles’ relative technical merits and flaws, the outcome of the tank battles of Desert Storm hinged as much on tactics, terrain, and crew capabilities as onthe machines themselves." (p. 7)

These are just a couple of snippets but they sum up my main points quite nicely. It looks like the entire book can be broused on this site:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/48201782/M1A1-Vs-T-72

Apparently, some of Iraq's T-72s were kit-built in Iraq and they were building a factory for local manufacture of T-72Ms in '91 (but it was destroyed by Coalition airstrikes before it could begin production).

When there is any discussion of the selling of arms in between countries, there is one major misconception. What is sold is NOT the latest hardware with the latest bells and whistles. What is normally sold is earlier versions that carry non-classified equipment. The M-1 that is sold to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Egypt is not the same beast as that used by the AUS/USMC.

The Sovs were perfectly within their rights to refuse to sell their version of Chobham armor, as well as the latest fire control gear. What happened, however, was that tanks on the current production lines were pulled off, outfitted with older fire control equipment and then shipped on to Iraq. These tanks were not manufactured with substandard armor, they simply lacked the Special Armor, although they were fitted and many did carry reactive armor blocks. According to the Congressional Record, an examination of Iraqi T-72s captured in the KTO confirmed that they were fitted with "simple telescopic sights" these sights "being engraved with ballistic data and steroscopic rangefinders". These are the same sights and rangefinders as fitted to the T-55/T-62 series tanks. And Zaloga confirms this same information in his books.

The point that I call utter hogwash was the opinon that the Soviets deliberately produced a run of T-72s with substandard armor. Nowhere, in the Congressional Records, Zaloga's books, the Armor Journel and several other mainstream publiciations is this idea confirmed.

[Webstral]

I don’t think anybody is claiming that Soviets deliberately cheated the Iraqis. The Soviets went with their established policy of exporting less-capable versions of the state-of-the-art equipment. The Iraqis were unable to make good on the shortfall in capabilities with domestic industry, and the Republican Guard paid the price. In a way, it’s too bad. Just as I am academically curious to see what the Wehrmacht could have accomplished on the Eastern Front without Hitler’s interference, I am academically curious to see what the Republican Guard could have accomplished under different circumstances.


Webstral

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Sururov goes over Soviet exporting methods quite a bit in Inside the Red Army; there's definitely a "home standard" and an "export standard".

Sometimes, at least in the west, quality stuff winds up in the hands of allies before it gets used at home: the South Korean military fielded ASEA radar for F15s before it was equipped in US models!

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

Sururov goes over Soviet exporting methods quite a bit in Inside the Red Army; there's definitely a "home standard" and an "export standard".

Sometimes, at least in the west, quality stuff winds up in the hands of allies before it gets used at home: the South Korean military fielded ASEA radar for F15s before it was equipped in US models!

Don't forget about the F-15J, that plane is externally an Eagle, inside its a whle nother bird!

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Webstral

Just as I am academically curious to see what the Wehrmacht could have accomplished on the Eastern Front without Hitler’s interference, I am academically curious to see what the Republican Guard could have accomplished under different circumstances.

+1

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by Webstral

I don’t think anybody is claiming that Soviets deliberately cheated the Iraqis. The Soviets went with their established policy of exporting less-capable versions of the state-of-the-art equipment. The Iraqis were unable to make good on the shortfall in capabilities with domestic industry, and the Republican Guard paid the price. In a way, it’s too bad. Just as I am academically curious to see what the Wehrmacht could have accomplished on the Eastern Front without Hitler’s interference, I am academically curious to see what the Republican Guard could have accomplished under different circumstances.


Webstral

It's interesting that you bring up operation Barbarossa, Webstral; there's a theory put forth by Shirer in Rise and Fall of the Third Reich that it was Hitler's interference - at one key moment - that was precisely what saved the Army in Russia. His own "not one step back" order that kept units on the front line through the winter of 1941 rather than letting them trade time for distance probably spared the Army a total crushing rout. The Russians had not yet perfected a "cut off and bypass" strategem yet, and the strong-points and lines of defense the Red Army ran into as they counterattacked through the winter kept them from becoming too agile, and kept supply lines and rear areas from being overcome.

Had Hitler allowed the high command to permit a general retreat, the victory for the Soviets might have come much, much sooner.

(With that said I think that was more happenstance than any brilliance on Corporal Shicklegruber's part...)

Oh...edit...I feel kind of weird saying this but I feel weird NOT saying it, but I feel regardless like I should, especially given my user-handle: I'm not a skinhead, neo-Nazi, white supremacist or anything. That post above up there was not some "yeah the Nazis totally kicked ass but got some bad breaks!" type post.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

Had Hitler allowed the high command to permit a general retreat, the victory for the Soviets might have come much, much sooner.

(With that said I think that was more happenstance than any brilliance on Corporal Shicklegruber's part...)

It should be noted that this early success of Hitler's more "intuitive" style of military leadership simply reinforced Hitler's belief in his own infalibility and led to a long litany of operational and strategic blunders that utimately led to the annihilation of his Third Reich. Stalingrad is probably the best and most widely known example of the kind of military disaster that resulted from Hitler's antiquated understanding of warfare and his belief that willpower- not logistics or the correlation of forces- was the definitive key to wresting victory from the jaws of defeat.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by Raellus

It should be noted that this early success of Hitler's more "intuitive" style of military leadership simply reinforced Hitler's belief in his own infalibility and led to a long litany of operational and strategic blunders that utimately led to the annihilation of his Third Reich. Stalingrad is probably the best and most widely known example of the kind of military disaster that resulted from Hitler's antiquated understanding of warfare and his belief that willpower- not logistics or the correlation of forces- was the definitive key to wresting victory from the jaws of defeat.

Oh I'm completely in agreement with you (and I should have mentioned that was Shirer's thesis, too).

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

The point that I call utter hogwash was the opinon that the Soviets deliberately produced a run of T-72s with substandard armor. Nowhere, in the Congressional Records, Zaloga's books, the Armor Journel and several other mainstream publiciations is this idea confirmed.

Perhaps I missed it, but I don't recall anyone here making the claim that you are refuting. I guess we can chalk this little debate up to simple miscommunication.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Perhaps I missed it, but I don't recall anyone here making the claim that you are refuting. I guess we can chalk this little debate up to simple miscommunication.

It is I who must apoligize, I was in the midst of a rather heated exchange of private messages and that one went out in error.

What can I say, I type faster than my brain can react!