In Defense of the Red Army

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

Not really sure...but it was certainly packed with extra caffine...nothing could wake you up faster than Lifer Juice! And it was such a shame to add sugar or creamer to it the mix!

Never could drink the stuff before a gunnery though, the caffine overload would leave you shaking. Red Bull and the rest of these energy drinks just don't have the same punch....

I remember one Reforger, we stopped at an Air Base during the admin break, just for the chance to hit someplace with hot showers. Eating lunch in the "dining facility" was an experience! First mess hall that I ever saw with carpeting and wooden booths for the people to eat in. The chow was great, hard to believe that the Air Force and Army cooks train at the same location, but the coffee was as weak as the slush served in McDonalds...and the zoomies....armored cavalry troopers, straight off of a week straight of maneuvers, and ever man carrying his NBC mask and personel weapon and showing that thang called discipline....LMAO!!!!

Yeah I remember it. You are right it has nothing on the so called energy drinks that out today. The same thing with Mountain Dew that used to be on the market back in the 1980s and 1990s. It pack way more wake up punch than the version they are trying to sell now.

[Sanjuro]

Did the export version of the T80 have the same gun as the Soviet's own equipment? I remember talking to a tanker after GW1; he described vividly the loud clang as a main armament round from a T80 (Manually traversed or not, they traversed fast enough) bounced off the front of his Challenger I; the T80 was then taken out by the first shot they fired in return.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro

Did the export version of the T80 have the same gun as the Soviet's own equipment? I remember talking to a tanker after GW1; he described vividly the loud clang as a main armament round from a T80 (Manually traversed or not, they traversed fast enough) bounced off the front of his Challenger I; the T80 was then taken out by the first shot they fired in return.

Although Armored Cav by Tom Clancy is liberally sprinkled with apocrypha and fervor, one statement he made in the book I've heard corroborated elsewhere by a guy I worked with who was in GW1: the Iraqi long rod penetrator rounds were made from local tungsten, not imported. While the guns were likely entirely identical to what was in Russian/Soviet tanks of the day, the ammo was most definitely not.

I also seem to recall a story about a guy who received a silver star (or may have even been a DSC) after the M2 he was in took a direct hit front from a T55's main gun. The vehicle was an immediate loss and the driver and gunner (I believe) were killed instantly, the rest of the crew survived with injuries. As he was the only ambulatory passenger he was able to get everyone out of the track and away, and go back in and get TOW and gun rounds out to prevent an ammo explosion from killing them all due to their proximity. Now, the T55 mounts a 115mm main gun; I'm not sure if the Brad was sporting reactive armor or not, but if not a direct hit should have blown it off the face of the earth - unless perhaps it was an inferior locally manufactured round.

[HorseSoldier]

I don't believe any Brads in GW1 were sent into Iraq/Kuwait with reactive armor fitted, but may be wrong.

A direct hit from a T-55 isn't a guaranteed kill on a Bradley, however. A friend of mine was in close proximity to a Bradley that took a hit from a T-72 in Baghdad where it rolled away under its own power. (Longer story -- the T-72 took a shot and missed at her NBC recon vehicle, the Bradley roared up to cover their getting out of there, took a hit, and then a passing M1, that was towing another disabled M1, popped the T-72 without slowing down and kept on going . . .)

[dragoon500ly]

Although Armored Cav by Tom Clancy is liberally sprinkled with apocrypha and fervor, one statement he made in the book I've heard corroborated elsewhere by a guy I worked with who was in GW1: the Iraqi long rod penetrator rounds were made from local tungsten, not imported. While the guns were likely entirely identical to what was in Russian/Soviet tanks of the day, the ammo was most definitely not.

For the non tankers on the list, a bit of background. There are two types of AT rounds, chemical and kinetic. An example of a chemical round is a HEAT warhead, this is a charge of explosive with a funnel imprinted into one end and usually lined with copper. Typically has a long tube pointing from the business end holding a stand off fuse. When the fuse hits the armor, the explosive is denotated forcing the copper from a metal and straight into a plasma state...this blast of molten hot metal burns through armor and spalls the interior of the vehicle with white hot fragments of armor...with the amount of ammo, fuel and other flammables stored inside a tank you almost always get a secondary explosion. Advantages is that with a direct strike, you almost always get a penetration, its easy to make, armor penetration is not affected by range. Disadvantages, its a heavy, slow round so the chance to hit at long range is badly degraded, its affected by cross-winds and it has to strike the armor at the right angle or you get a wonderful roman candle effect.

Kenetic rounds depend on the speed of the round. A AP round is simply a solid block of steel, this is the WWI/WWII primary AT round. You get penetration but thicker armor is more resistant. The Germans tried to get around this with the APHE round, penetration then a light explosive charge, but face-hardened armor stopped this. Then along comes the APCR, or taper-bore round, tungsten steel penetrator with a outer shell of aluminum, the force of firing squeezes the round into a smaller caliber, thus getting more speed. But shortages of tungsten (and the complicated manufacture process) caused this to be dropped by the Nazis. The British designed the first real advance in 1945 with the APDS. A tungsten steel penetrator with, at first a wooden shoe or "sabot" (later replaced with aluminum) that allowed the advantages of APCR without the manufacture issues.

The Soviets designed the first APDSFS with the introduction of the T-62 and its 115mm smooth-bore cannon. Fin Stabilized took care of a problem with APDS, that of the spin causing the round to drift a few mils to the right during long range engagements. This was the first kenetic round to be used out to 2,000 meters. Still used the tungsten steel penetrator. Sometime around 1978-79, the US started deploying the APDSDU round, replacing tungsten steel with depleted uranimum. DU seemed to be the perfect combination of light weight and high tensile strength. Armor penetration was several times greater than that of tungsten steel. Shortly afterwards the US started deployment of the APDSFSDU rounds. Since the M-60A1/A3 tanks used rifled cannons, there was a counter-rotating feature to allow for the full advantage of FS. This is also the main reason why the decision to go with the German 120mm came about. Yes it was poltical decision, but the lack of a native smoothbore design also played a major role. This allowed the APDSFSDU to be made more cheaply by getting ride of the counter-rotating device.

What Saddam chose to go with was native manufacture of his tank rounds, he didn't have the technology to make DU rounds, and he lacked enough tungsten to make penetrators (since tungsten is also used in tools, he was faced with the same choice as the Nazis....being able to make tools, or make ammunition). He was forced to use stainless steel to make his armor penetrators and since his quality control was for shit, he wasn't able to make good quality stainless steel....this is why you hear so many stories of Iraqi AT rounds shattering on impact or just penetrating armor. The Iraqi Army depended on HEAT rounds to a great extant, but thus doomed them to except an engagement range well short of what the Allies could do.

During Desert Storm, M-1s and Challengers were able to engage with APFSDSDU to 4,500+ meters, the longest range shot was by an M-1 of the 1st Armored Division that hit a T-55 at 5,250 meters. When you consider that the Iraqis did not engage anything over 1,200 meters, you begin to understand just how demoralizing it was to go up against M-1s. The lethality of the APFSDSDU round was shown when a 2nd ACR M-1 nailed a T-72 at 2,100 meters, shooting through a protective berm 15 meters thick and still penetrating the turret ring.

There is also a confirmed story of an M-1 that was stuck in a bog and left behind for maintenance to recover. While waiting, the M-1 was attacked by three T-62 tanks. In the engagement that followed, the M-1 killed all three T-62s, for the expediture of four rounds of main gun ammo, and was hit by five 115mm APDSFS rounds. There was no penetration of the M-1's armor, one sponson box on the turret was damaged and the M-1 was fully operational and rejoined its platoon later that day.

There is also a lot of BS about how the Iraqi tanks where not of the same quaility as those used by the Russians. This has already been noted by a couple of other users and I repeat, this is nothing more than utter hogwash! The Iraqi's did not then, and do not now have the heavy industry to make their own tanks. They purchased directly from the builder, in other words, these tanks were taken directly from the Red Army's own production lines, this was Russian front line equipment. Where the Iraqi's dropped the ball was in the purchase of those little extras, like tank ammunition. In addition, the Soviets did not sell their latest ballistic computers and laser rangefinders, thus dooming the Iraqi Army to a fight that they couldn't win.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

There is also a lot of BS about how the Iraqi tanks where not of the same quaility as those used by the Russians. This has already been noted by a couple of other users and I repeat, this is nothing more than utter hogwash! The Iraqi's did not then, and do not now have the heavy industry to make their own tanks. They purchased directly from the builder, in other words, these tanks were taken directly from the Red Army's own production lines, this was Russian front line equipment. Where the Iraqi's dropped the ball was in the purchase of those little extras, like tank ammunition. In addition, the Soviets did not sell their latest ballistic computers and laser rangefinders, thus dooming the Iraqi Army to a fight that they couldn't win.

You are flat out wrong. No one here has suggested that the Iraqis made their own T-72s.

We have noted that the T-72s sold to Iraq were export versions. This means that they did not have all the bells and whistles that came standard on tanks retained for Soviet/Russian use- things like powered turret traverse, night sights, etc.

If you can provide reliable documentation that refutes this, please feel free to do so. Posting that something is "utter hogwash" does not make the poster an authority on the topic.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Raellus

We have noted that the T-72s sold to Iraq were export versions. This means that they did not have all the bells and whistles that came standard on tanks retained for Soviet/Russian use- things like powered turret traverse, night sights, etc.

Correct.

[Sanjuro]

Raellus pointed out:

AFAIK, T-80s were not sold to Iraq. Ever. It was probably a misidentified T-72E that your aquaintance saw.

In fact, I was trying to remember a conversation from the summer of 1991; I couldn't remember whether he said T-72 or T-80 and went online to find what tanks the Iraqis had on the front line: fancy the internet giving the wrong answer!
The mistake is mine; even at second hand, the clang! is the thing that sticks in the mind!

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by Raellus

You are flat out wrong. No one here has suggested that the Iraqis made their own T-72s.

We have noted that the T-72s sold to Iraq were export versions. This means that they did not have all the bells and whistles that came standard on tanks retained for Soviet/Russian use- things like powered turret traverse, night sights, etc.

If you can provide reliable documentation that refutes this, please feel free to do so. Posting that something is "utter hogwash" does not make the poster an authority on the topic.

I don't recall anyone claiming that these tanks weren't made in Soviet Union/Russia, but the export models always had less features that only the units going to the Soviet Union military units would get. Even today Russia keeps up the same standard when they sell their old equipment.

Much like the U. S. Army did with the equipment that they have sold to Isreal and other Middle East countries since the PG1 War.

[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).

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro

Did the export version of the T80 have the same gun as the Soviet's own equipment? I remember talking to a tanker after GW1; he described vividly the loud clang as a main armament round from a T80 (Manually traversed or not, they traversed fast enough) bounced off the front of his Challenger I; the T80 was then taken out by the first shot they fired in return.

AFAIK, T-80s were not sold to Iraq. Ever. It was probably a misidentified T-72E that your aquaintance saw.

There was a bit in the Greatest Tank Battles episode about the 73 Easting battle where a Brad was killed by a 73mm HEAT round fired by a BMP-1. Although a Bradley could conceivably luck out when hit by a 100+ mm AT shell, it would be the exception that proves the rule.