3 ms·

I ve seen some write ups and basically the Allies go caught out by the Iraqis and almost got completely overrun. As Wellington said ” It has been a damned seri

I ve seen some write ups and basically the Allies go caught out by the Iraqis and almost got completely overrun. As Wellington said ” It has been a damned serious business. It has been a damned nice thing – the nearest run thing you ever saw in your life.”

baybal2 7y ago
No, a loss of a single APC is a miraculously low number for just any armour on armour battle imaginable. Even a WWII era armoured force would've been able to inflict higher losses than Iraqi army of the Gulf War period.
- nl 7y ago
  > No, a loss of a single APC is a miraculously low number for just any armour on armour battle imaginable. This is true > Even a WWII era armoured force would've been able to inflict higher losses than Iraqi army of the Gulf War period. This isn't. The gun on the T55 tank used by the Iraqis couldn't penetrate the armour of a M1 Abrams. No WWII tank was anywhere near as well gunned as a T55. The Iraqi army in Gulf War 1 was actually pretty good. They were well armed and experienced (they'd fought the Iran/Iraq war). Airpower was the big difference though.
  - baybal2 7y ago
    > They were well armed and experienced 1. Quite the opposite. Look for the accounts of some of tank battalions being sent to the field without food, ammo, and fuel, and only being deployed at the very last moment in a hurry. I am not talking about their reserves here, but their main force. They also had new officers up to a colonel rank simply having no real military training. Both of these has been quite usual for the Iraqi army. I has been the case since Iran-Iraq war. 2. Saddam was regularly purging his own armed forces. Though, I heard that he gave amnesty to officers he purged a day before the invasion, and ordered them back into ranks, but you can imagine how that panic move went. 3. Saddam was sitting still for nearly a year, while US was building up more, and more forces in Saudi Arabia. His officers knew they will loose, and they saw Saddam being paralysed with fear all that time, and getting crazier by the day. That greatly demoralised his few remaining competent officers, some of whom cashed out his treasury, and flew to places like London. > The gun on the T55 tank used by the Iraqis couldn't penetrate the armour of a M1 Abrams. Certainly, nothing at the time could've penetrated M1 front armour, but skirts and side armour even of the latest tanks are vulnerable to WW2 era weapons. It would've been a universally correct decision for a tank force commander to push for flanking attacks, envelopments, and close up skirmishes, rather than allowing a superior force engage them in a frontal attack from outside of their return fire range. Iraqi army did few lacklustre offensive attempts, with January 29 attack by their 5th Iraqi mechanised being the most serious one, but still botched. From then on, their morale collapsed, and it was a turkey shoot. I was saying that if US were to attack a force with WW2 era level of preparedness, experience, and tactics, they could've taken more losses.
    - PhantomGremlin 7y ago
      if US were to attack a force with WW2 era level of preparedness, experience, and tactics, they could've taken more losses. It would have still been difficult for the Iraqis to do much. The Iraqi T-72 tanks (the best they had) didn't include night vision systems. Also the M1 could engage far outside of T-72 effective range. Preparedness and tactics go a long way. But the equipment disparity was overwhelming.

baybal2 7y ago

No, a loss of a single APC is a miraculously low number for just any armour on armour battle imaginable. Even a WWII era armoured force would've been able to inflict higher losses than Iraqi army of the Gulf War period.

nl 7y ago
> No, a loss of a single APC is a miraculously low number for just any armour on armour battle imaginable. This is true > Even a WWII era armoured force would've been able to inflict higher losses than Iraqi army of the Gulf War period. This isn't. The gun on the T55 tank used by the Iraqis couldn't penetrate the armour of a M1 Abrams. No WWII tank was anywhere near as well gunned as a T55. The Iraqi army in Gulf War 1 was actually pretty good. They were well armed and experienced (they'd fought the Iran/Iraq war). Airpower was the big difference though.
- baybal2 7y ago
  > They were well armed and experienced 1. Quite the opposite. Look for the accounts of some of tank battalions being sent to the field without food, ammo, and fuel, and only being deployed at the very last moment in a hurry. I am not talking about their reserves here, but their main force. They also had new officers up to a colonel rank simply having no real military training. Both of these has been quite usual for the Iraqi army. I has been the case since Iran-Iraq war. 2. Saddam was regularly purging his own armed forces. Though, I heard that he gave amnesty to officers he purged a day before the invasion, and ordered them back into ranks, but you can imagine how that panic move went. 3. Saddam was sitting still for nearly a year, while US was building up more, and more forces in Saudi Arabia. His officers knew they will loose, and they saw Saddam being paralysed with fear all that time, and getting crazier by the day. That greatly demoralised his few remaining competent officers, some of whom cashed out his treasury, and flew to places like London. > The gun on the T55 tank used by the Iraqis couldn't penetrate the armour of a M1 Abrams. Certainly, nothing at the time could've penetrated M1 front armour, but skirts and side armour even of the latest tanks are vulnerable to WW2 era weapons. It would've been a universally correct decision for a tank force commander to push for flanking attacks, envelopments, and close up skirmishes, rather than allowing a superior force engage them in a frontal attack from outside of their return fire range. Iraqi army did few lacklustre offensive attempts, with January 29 attack by their 5th Iraqi mechanised being the most serious one, but still botched. From then on, their morale collapsed, and it was a turkey shoot. I was saying that if US were to attack a force with WW2 era level of preparedness, experience, and tactics, they could've taken more losses.
  - PhantomGremlin 7y ago
    if US were to attack a force with WW2 era level of preparedness, experience, and tactics, they could've taken more losses. It would have still been difficult for the Iraqis to do much. The Iraqi T-72 tanks (the best they had) didn't include night vision systems. Also the M1 could engage far outside of T-72 effective range. Preparedness and tactics go a long way. But the equipment disparity was overwhelming.