OP Desert Storm: Did Iraqi T-72s knock out any Abrams?.. ever???

[guest]

EDIT: Apparently, I can't spell "Storm"...

I have a question.

During Op Desert Strom in 1991, there were a number of tank battles involving M1 Abrams and Iraqi T-72s

I'm curious how many (if any), Abrams sustained significant damage, i.e: hull/turret penetration or mobility kills and above. (Assuming of course, that the Iraqis were able to actually hit any US tanks at all. )

I'm not looking to start a pissing match, not looking for guesses., or any such petty bull****.

I'd just like some info, otherwise better to let this thread die.

Any opinions on the Abrams accounts found here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_of_Babylon_tank

[mattnwnc03]

i may be mistaken, but wasnt there a abrams tank knocked out by a t-72 while the abrams crew was guarding prisoners? no abrams crew members were killed.
on a different note, i liked the book armored cav by tom clancey . he was talking about abrams tanks taking out iraqi tanks, hitting them while hiding behind sand berms. plus one round going threw one iraqi tank and into another.

[Ruledbyjames]

i may be mistaken, but wasnt there a abrams tank knocked out by a t-72 while the abrams crew was guarding prisoners? no abrams crew members were killed.
on a different note, i liked the book armored cav by tom clancey . he was talking about abrams tanks taking out iraqi tanks, hitting them while hiding behind sand berms. plus one round going threw one iraqi tank and into another.

In regards to the last statement, yeah they took out the T-72s with KE ammo as it could easily pass through the berms.

[11 Bravo]

Armor Buddies of mine there recalled only freindly fire taking out M1 tanks. One buddy recalled an M1 that had the turret nearly halved from front to back by another M1 - no fatalities from a DU ( silver bullet ) round fired into it during the heat of battle. I was told several T72's were offed by 25mm bushmaster cannon fire from bradley IFV's, which is comforting.
Only thing I ever saw distrubing is what a Zsu23 can do to a bradley if it gets the jump on it.

[Bryson C]

EDIT: Apparently, I can't spell "Storm"...

I have a question.

During Op Desert Strom in 1991, there were a number of tank battles involving M1 Abrams and Iraqi T-72s

I'm curious how many (if any), Abrams sustained significant damage, i.e: hull/turret penetration or mobility kills and above. (Assuming of course, that the Iraqis were able to actually hit any US tanks at all. )

I'm not looking to start a pissing match, not looking for guesses., or any such petty bull****.

I'd just like some info, otherwise better to let this thread die.

Any opinions on the Abrams accounts found here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_of_Babylon_tank

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams#Operation_Desert_Storm

This is what wikipedia has to say, there is also a chart listing the 21 M1 Abrams damaged from enemy fire in Desert Storm and the cause of damage.

[angry cow]

In that list only three Abrams appeared to actually have been damaged beyond repair by direct fire from enemy armor.

The vast majority seem to have gotten stuck or otherwise damaged and then destroyed by another Abrams to prevent capture.

[mattnwnc03]

In that list only three Abrams appeared to actually have been damaged beyond repair by direct fire from enemy armor.

The vast majority seem to have gotten stuck or otherwise damaged and then destroyed by another Abrams to prevent capture.

well it said one abrams was damaged but returned to action, but the destroyed abrams were by friendly fire. id seen a few friendly fire accidents, a bradley hit from behind by a abrams, our convoy being shot at by an apache helicopter. alot combat was at night and we didnt have devices we have today to identify our own people

[schwarz]

I thought I watched a show on the history channel about an M1 guarding prisoners and T-72 took it out but none of the crew were injured. Like some one else said.

[wormie]

plus one round going threw one iraqi tank and into another.

can someone verify? that's awesome!

[MG 3]

I have a 6hr documenatry on op desert storm and it only indicates 2 incidents. One where the prisoner incident took place and the other was during a battle. It only damaged the M1 from the side but the crew survived with minor wounds.

[mattnwnc03]

can someone verify? that's awesome!

forgive me im taking this from my book by tom clancey , a guided tour of an armored cavalry regiment.

"THE M1 ABRAMS MAIN BATTLE TANK

It has a number of nicknames. U.S. troops call it "THE BEAST", DRACULA," AND WHISPERING DEATH.Whatever name you use, the M1 Abrams is unquestionably the worlds best main battle tank. To understand why, considera couple of incidents out of Desert Storm.On one occasion, an M1 fired its 120mm gun at an Iraqi T72.The round went right through the T72 and into another one directly behind it, destroying both tanks.
Another more amazing M1 story happened during General Barry McCaffrey's 24TH Mechanized Infantry Division's run to the Euphrates River.It was raining heavily, and one m1 managed to get stuck in a mud hole and could not be extracted.With the rest of their unit moving on, the crew of the stuck tank waited for a recovery vehicle to pull it out.
Suddenly, as they were waiting, three Iraqi T72 tanks came over a hill and charged the mud bogged tank.One T72 fired HE antitank round that hit the frontal turret armor of the M1, but did no damage.At this point, the crew of the M1, though still stuck , fired a 120mm armor piercing round at the attacking tank.The round penetrated the T72's turret, blowing it off into the air.By this time, the second T72 also fired a HE round at the M1.That alsohit the front of the turret,and did no damage.The M1immediately dispatched this T72 with another 120mm round.After that,the third and now last T72 fired a 125mm amor piercing round at the M1 from a range of 400 meters.This only grooved the front armor plate.Seeing that continued action did not have much of a future, the crew of the last T72 decided to run for cover.Spying a nearby sand berm, the Iraqis darted behind it, thinking they would be safe
there.Back in the M1 , the crew saw through their Thermal Imaging Sight the hot plume of the T72's engine exhaust spewing up from behind the berm.Aiming carefully through the TIS,the M1's crew fired a third 120 mm round through the berm, into the tank, destroying it."

[Hydro]

Why is everything nicknamed "whispering death"?

[wormie]

forgive me im taking this from my book by tom clancey , a guided tour of an armored cavalry regiment.

"THE M1 ABRAMS MAIN BATTLE TANK

It has a number of nicknames. U.S. troops call it "THE BEAST", DRACULA," AND WHISPERING DEATH.Whatever name you use, the M1 Abrams is unquestionably the worlds best main battle tank. To understand why, considera couple of incidents out of Desert Storm.On one occasion, an M1 fired its 120mm gun at an Iraqi T72.The round went right through the T72 and into another one directly behind it, destroying both tanks.
Another more amazing M1 story happened during General Barry McCaffrey's 24TH Mechanized Infantry Division's run to the Euphrates River.It was raining heavily, and one m1 managed to get stuck in a mud hole and could not be extracted.With the rest of their unit moving on, the crew of the stuck tank waited for a recovery vehicle to pull it out.
Suddenly, as they were waiting, three Iraqi T72 tanks came over a hill and charged the mud bogged tank.One T72 fired HE antitank round that hit the frontal turret armor of the M1, but did no damage.At this point, the crew of the M1, though still stuck , fired a 120mm armor piercing round at the attacking tank.The round penetrated the T72's turret, blowing it off into the air.By this time, the second T72 also fired a HE round at the M1.That alsohit the front of the turret,and did no damage.The M1immediately dispatched this T72 with another 120mm round.After that,the third and now last T72 fired a 125mm amor piercing round at the M1 from a range of 400 meters.This only grooved the front armor plate.Seeing that continued action did not have much of a future, the crew of the last T72 decided to run for cover.Spying a nearby sand berm, the Iraqis darted behind it, thinking they would be safe
there.Back in the M1 , the crew saw through their Thermal Imaging Sight the hot plume of the T72's engine exhaust spewing up from behind the berm.Aiming carefully through the TIS,the M1's crew fired a third 120 mm round through the berm, into the tank, destroying it."
simply amazing.

[Dominique]

Why is everything nicknamed "whispering death"?

Becuase no one want to ride in a vehicle calm the Pink Pansy, or Mama's Boy.

[M_S]

forgive me im taking this from my book by tom clancey , a guided tour of an armored cavalry regiment.

"THE M1 ABRAMS MAIN BATTLE TANK

It has a number of nicknames. U.S. troops call it "THE BEAST", DRACULA," AND WHISPERING DEATH.Whatever name you use, the M1 Abrams is unquestionably the worlds best main battle tank. To understand why, considera couple of incidents out of Desert Storm.On one occasion, an M1 fired its 120mm gun at an Iraqi T72.The round went right through the T72 and into another one directly behind it, destroying both tanks.
Another more amazing M1 story happened during General Barry McCaffrey's 24TH Mechanized Infantry Division's run to the Euphrates River.It was raining heavily, and one m1 managed to get stuck in a mud hole and could not be extracted.With the rest of their unit moving on, the crew of the stuck tank waited for a recovery vehicle to pull it out.
Suddenly, as they were waiting, three Iraqi T72 tanks came over a hill and charged the mud bogged tank.One T72 fired HE antitank round that hit the frontal turret armor of the M1, but did no damage.At this point, the crew of the M1, though still stuck , fired a 120mm armor piercing round at the attacking tank.The round penetrated the T72's turret, blowing it off into the air.By this time, the second T72 also fired a HE round at the M1.That alsohit the front of the turret,and did no damage.The M1immediately dispatched this T72 with another 120mm round.After that,the third and now last T72 fired a 125mm amor piercing round at the M1 from a range of 400 meters.This only grooved the front armor plate.Seeing that continued action did not have much of a future, the crew of the last T72 decided to run for cover.Spying a nearby sand berm, the Iraqis darted behind it, thinking they would be safe
there.Back in the M1 , the crew saw through their Thermal Imaging Sight the hot plume of the T72's engine exhaust spewing up from behind the berm.Aiming carefully through the TIS,the M1's crew fired a third 120 mm round through the berm, into the tank, destroying it."


How come the iraqis didn't all fire KE rounds? HE = High explosive....that you use against non-armored targets? Or does the writer mean HEAT?

[mattnwnc03]

i was wondering the same thing when i was reading the book

[Smok]

How come the iraqis didn't all fire KE rounds? HE = High explosive....that you use against non-armored targets? Or does the writer mean HEAT?

Clancy's books are like russian newspapers from 30's. You won't find any true informations there. I read that book and it is piece of cheap propaganda.
M1 is great tank but it is not god's chariot as Clancy said.

[packetloss]

Clancy's books are like russian newspapers from 30's. You won't find any true informations there. I read that book and it is piece of cheap propaganda.
M1 is great tank but it is not god's chariot as Clancy said.

I assume you're referring to his fiction novels, and/or his fictional scenarios in his non-fictional works.

While Mr.Clancy has an obvious love affair with whatever service/serviceman he's writing about - his non-fiction works are quite factual and accurate - Consult his bibliography.

[Smok]

No I'm reffering to his "armoured cavalry" book. Only US guys can believe that. In polish translation there were even notes from translator who couldn't stand that propaganda.
Clancy's books can be shorten to these words: "Everything made in the USA is the best, everything made in Russia is the worst".
BTW my father (higher officer with more then 35 years in army) read this book, threw it and said "It is the biggest piece of **** I have ever read! Even soviet propaganda books about Lenin were better!".

[mattnwnc03]

well... this book armored cav is a guide kinda like.talks about vehicles, helicopters,equipment and training an armored cav has. not a made up fictional story, in fact theres no story at all. theres no main character or anything like that.

[jango]

I heard of an incident during desert storm were an abram tank got lost and then ran into a group of T72's. The abram tank crew started to fire at the T72's and killed them all before rejoining up with it's regiment.

Wheather or not this is true is another thing.

[Smok]

well... this book armored cav is a guide kinda like.talks about vehicles, helicopters,equipment and training an armored cav has. not a made up fictional story, in fact theres no story at all. theres no main character or anything like that.

Yes. It is a guide. But special guide. Guide of "USA is the best" type.
You won't find a single word about weakness of US equipment in this book. But all no USA stuff is descripted as junk.
Something like "Who is the best in the world and why it is Lenin".

[mzp]

I was stationed in Ft Knox after the Gulf War and most tankers in my unit had been in the war. What I remember most from thier stories was how competitive they got over the opportunities to blow something up. If one crew skipped ahead of another crew whos "turn" it was there would be long profane agguements over the radio, even skipping a few coax gun rounds off the offenders turret!

[orionhawk]

How come the iraqis didn't all fire KE rounds? HE = High explosive....that you use against non-armored targets? Or does the writer mean HEAT?

If I am not mistaken, the T72 was unable to fire silver bullets. Or, at the very least, the Iraqis simply didn't have any. And if you look closely, you will see it says HE antitank. aka HEAT. the Abrams' armor is designed specifically to be extremely resistant to standard HEAT and HESH rounds, as well as being at least somewhat resistant to KE/silver bullet APDS fire.

[orionhawk]

Smok, you should substantiate your charges. If you have evidence to support Clancy's NONFICTION being untrue, let us have it. If you don't like hearing that a russian-built tank, which was quite good when it was built, but was badly obsolete when the Iraqis bought it, and poorly maintained by them, was whupped up on by what is, in fact, one of the two or three deadliest tanks ever built, but have no evidence to support your allegations, then quitcherbitchin or GTFO.:bash:

[Smok]

Smok, you should substantiate your charges. If you have evidence to support Clancy's NONFICTION being untrue, let us have it. If you don't like hearing that a russian-built tank, which was quite good when it was built, but was badly obsolete when the Iraqis bought it, and poorly maintained by them, was whupped up on by what is, in fact, one of the two or three deadliest tanks ever built, but have no evidence to support your allegations, then quitcherbitchin or GTFO.:bash:

You do not understand me. I say that Abrams is great tank. I say that Abrams is better than T-72. But in Clancy's book there were only good informations about US stuff and almost only bad informations about russian stuff. That is not true. Abrams and whole US equipment have weak points. There is no thing without weak points. And that is why Clancy's book is cheap propaganda. This book shows almost only weak points of russian equipment and only strong points of US equipment. There is no objectivism in this book. If you want to be honest writer you should write about good and weak things in US Army. If you write only about good points and avoid writing about weak points then it is propaganda.

[orionhawk]

OK, then, what are some of these weak or strong points?

[Smok]

OK, then, what are some of these weak or strong points?

Read this forum. There were hunderds of threads about M1, T-72, Iraq, BMP, M2, AK, M-16, MiG-29, F-16 etc.

[EsoognomEhT]

Bear in mind Clancy is a non-academic writer and he includes a lot of personal opinion in his books (ie in the cav book he says he has a hummvee and a M1(?) and that "he loves them"..not exactly good writing for a guide)

[mattnwnc03]

aye, pretty much typical talk from soviet block country. i worked with some russians back in the 1990's, they talked about how much better everything in their country over the united states. doesnt matter if you show it to them in front of their faces , theyl never admit our technology is better.

[GazB]

Most of the combat in desert storm was on US terms. If you think the T-72 was crap then the tanks the kuwaites had at the time must have been real rubbish.
The US knew the Iraiqis had poor ammo, their so called silver bullets were made of steel. The germans were probably using better quality penetrators in WWII.
The US also knew that the US side had good night vision equipment and proper air support. Fighting day or night the US tried to fight at max range where they had all the advantages, and they obivously tried to fight at night to maximise their advantages. I would also expect the average American tank crew to be better equipped and better trained and also better supported than any tank unit. Add to that that the majority of Iraqi tanks were either T-54s or Chinese built versions and there were rather fewer T-72s and no T-80s or T-90s and they were playing in a nice flat sand pit where anyone with air superiority was going to win anyways it was always going to be a bit one sided. Considering the biggest killer of Iraqi tanks was probably laser guided bombs the tank vs tank stuff wasn't pivotal even if it was convincing. Note there was no interest in using these super tanks in Kosovo.

Regarding the mentioned performance of the Bradley agaisnt MBTs... that is normal. Most modern MBT have protection over the frontal arc that protects them from their enemies main tank gun... or as near to it as they can get. This covers a frontal arc of about 30 degrees. From the side most tanks can only stop the cannon fitted to the enemies standard APC, while to the rear most tanks can be damaged by little more than HMG fire. The 25mm gun used in the Bradley is quite a potent weapon and one would expect it to penetrate the rear and side of most modern tanks. Am a bit surprised the ZU-23 can maul a Bradley however because at over 30 tons a Bradley weighs almost as much as a T-34 and lost its amphibious capabilities specifically to armour it against the 30mm cannon of the BMP-2. If the 23mm ZU-23 can rip it up then the 30mm shell has rather more power and would seem to present a much greater threat than we have been led to believe.

[Smok]

aye, pretty much typical talk from soviet block country. i worked with some russians back in the 1990's, they talked about how much better everything in their country over the united states. doesnt matter if you show it to them in front of their faces , theyl never admit our technology is better.

My father told this about US soldiers. It is normal that you don't want to say "my toy is worse". But we call it propaganda.

[mattnwnc03]

i remember when i was over there, they were predicting high casualties for OUR side. the iraqis had the upper hand, they got to pick how, where to fight. alot of their tanks were dug in, we didnt know what ammo their tanks were using. we thought they would fight us like they fought the iranians. we were expecting a hard fight. everybody today forgets that, plus that war was the first time the M1, bradley, apache had seen action, nobody knew if they would do alright. when we invaded we thought the war would last months, luckily it didnt.

[Kaapeli]

The ZSU-23-4 Shilka AA-tank or a simple ZU-23 AA-gun?
No doubt the Shilka can disable (destroy gunsights and vision blocks, cut tracks, set on fire) a Bradley even without armor penetration with it's enormous rate of fire and armor piercing incendiary rounds. It has a lot more firepower than the BMP-2 with it's 30mm cannon.

[csqnsas]

Its a horse pissing contest.

Put normal US crews in 5 or 6 T72's (with NVG and long rod penatrators) up against normal Iraqi's (Arab) crew in A1's and the US will still win. Training and tactics outweigh the gear.

Put a good Iraqi team in 1 A1 against 1 normal US crew in a T72 and the Iraqi"s would win. IMHO.

Try the same with US against Russian A1 against T72 with the associated air cover and ATGM cover for both sides and it would be a flip of a coin.

[AlphaOneSix]

I read "Armored Cav" and I found quite a bit of information on the AH-64 and the HMMWV to be factually incorrect, with a lot of Clancy's opinion thrown in. I coldn't say if the other information contained factual inaccuracies, because I am not familiar enough with the other systems discussed, but if he followed the same pattern for the M1 that he used for the AH-64 in the book, then there are plenty of factual inaccuracies regarding the M1 in that book.

In fact, the book kind of pissed me off because after I read about the AH-64, I no longer trusted Clancy's writing and I started to get the feeling that the whole book was crap.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

Most of the combat in desert storm was on US terms. If you think the T-72 was crap then the tanks the kuwaites had at the time must have been real rubbish.

They had a few Chieftains IIRC...but Iraq had a whole lot more of everything so it really didn't matter. I'm pretty sure 200 T-72s could defeat 10 M1's as well...


Fighting day or night the US tried to fight at max range where they had all the advantages, and they obivously tried to fight at night to maximise their advantages.

The Abrams main gun outranges the T-72 by a significant distance IIRC.

[GazB]

The ZSU-23-4 Shilka AA-tank or a simple ZU-23 AA-gun?
No doubt the Shilka can disable (destroy gunsights and vision blocks, cut tracks, set on fire) a Bradley even without armor penetration with it's enormous rate of fire and armor piercing incendiary rounds. It has a lot more firepower than the BMP-2 with it's 30mm cannon.

The Zu-23 and the ZSU-23-4 both use the same ammo, while the guns are different they are related and of similar length and performance. The guns on the ZSU-23-4 have a water cooling system added that allows a higher sustained rate of fire, but rate of fire is not as important as you might think against hard ground targets. If one shell doesn't penetrate the armour of a vehicle then shell number two wont penetrate either unless that second shell hits exactly where the first shell hit. Even then rate of fire makes accuracy worse rather than better. High rate of fire is only useful for aerial fast moving targets and increases hit probability rather than increases lethality.
If rate of fire was more important than the calibre and shell used then tanks would have gatling guns rather than large heavy cannons... and they don't.

A 23mm cannon shell would do damage to parts of a Bradley, shatter sights, smash tracks and make the inside unbearable, but the 30mm cannon of the BMP-2 is much more likely to penetrate especially from the side.


They had a few Chieftains IIRC...but Iraq had a whole lot more of everything so it really didn't matter. I'm pretty sure 200 T-72s could defeat 10 M1's as well...

At night, with Iraqi crews in the T-72s vs US crews in the M1s in a long range battle I would expect the US crews to win... even if the M1s were the first model with the 105mm guns.


The Abrams main gun outranges the T-72 by a significant distance IIRC.

The US M1 with their latest round and Thermal sights could easily defeat the Iraqi T-72s with the ammo and sights they had. With more modern 125mm guns with more modern ammo and thermal sights the difference would have been less and it would not have been so easy... but air superiority always is a huge advantage in the desert.

[Kaapeli]

The Zu-23 and the ZSU-23-4 both use the same ammo, while the guns are different they are related and of similar length and performance. The guns on the ZSU-23-4 have a water cooling system added that allows a higher sustained rate of fire, but rate of fire is not as important as you might think against hard ground targets. If one shell doesn't penetrate the armour of a vehicle then shell number two wont penetrate either unless that second shell hits exactly where the first shell hit. Even then rate of fire makes accuracy worse rather than better. High rate of fire is only useful for aerial fast moving targets and increases hit probability rather than increases lethality.
If rate of fire was more important than the calibre and shell used then tanks would have gatling guns rather than large heavy cannons... and they don't.

A 23mm cannon shell would do damage to parts of a Bradley, shatter sights, smash tracks and make the inside unbearable, but the 30mm cannon of the BMP-2 is much more likely to penetrate especially from the side.

Well tank buster A-10 has a gantling cannon that relies on saturation fire. Even if majority of the rounds fail to penetrate some likely will and even the non penetrating hits will destroy pretty much every instrument outside the vehicle and set it on fire.
Of course the cannon on A-10 is more powerful than the one on Shilkas and it fires from a higher angle but the basic method of pounding with a large number of "inferior rounds" until something breaks and then some more is the same.