The switch and mechanism can be overrided, and Saudi soldiers have been spotted doing so. It is not a fool prof system and lazy soldiers will always find a way.
You'd be surprised at how smart your average grunt is.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
New Type98/99 MBT thread
- Thread starter Dongfeng
- Start date
The switch and mechanism can be overrided, and Saudi soldiers have been spotted doing so. It is not a fool prof system and lazy soldiers will always find a way.
??? Index you are making false claims here. The Iraqi Army in 1991 had the most modern version of Russian tanks short of the T80. They had not just the export version of the T-72, but updated version.Enemies in desert storm did not have modern equipment. They used ww2 era AAA guns. They were very delusional as Saddam essentially had an insurgent army but chose to fight as a regular army.
As one who was there (US Army), they did have many version of tanks, even Chinese Type (ZTZ) 59. I shot a couple of ZTZ-59 and T-72.
There were what they were. I would not put them as undiscipline mob, but they were not the same Army that came out of the Iraq/Iran war. The Iraqi Army had different levels of effectiveness, but they were not prepared to fight the way the Air-Land-battle doctrine.I do not consider this military on military action. The Abrams had success here because there the Iraqi "army" was an undisciplined mob, and even worse, agitated to go out on the fields by Saddam.
Could say the same for the 1965 Indo-Pakistani war.In the same vein, Chinese Type 59G had significant success in Sudan's wars, where Sudan had the only airplanes providing spotting and the other forces, similar to Iraq, mostly fielded old early cold war relics or unupgraded T72s. I do not consider this to be military on military action for the Type 59G.
Again, show your facts. you are showing none. I linked to show you an old article. The Oryx website (as of today) shows 14 Abrams destroyed. These are confirmed through photos which is what they do. There are many more T-72s and T-80 show on either side. The loss rate of the T-72/80/90 is no where as good as the western tanks in the Ukrainian conflict. But this is me pulling this data out, not you. Again you lack facts to back up your statements.There's much more videos alone than 5 Abrams destroyed in Ukraine. The other "numbers" given by this channel are so extremely off that it's laughable propaganda.
Thanks, I really appreciate these images. I was looking for these images. I stand corrected that the Chinese have moved this concept off of engineering designs to a demonstration vehicle is good. Allows for a concept to be proven out.View attachment 136663
Quite the contrary. It's at least as far progressed as Armata.
By the way how is the VN-17 sales going? I am saying this b/c the sales of unmanned turrets are almost non-existent.
??? Index you are making false claims here. The Iraqi Army in 1991 had the most modern version of Russian tanks short of the T80. They had not just the export version of the T-72, but updated version.Enemies in desert storm did not have modern equipment. They used ww2 era AAA guns. They were very delusional as Saddam essentially had an insurgent army but chose to fight as a regular army.
As one who was there (US Army), they did have many version of tanks, even Chinese Type (ZTZ) 59. I shot a couple of ZTZ-59 and T-72.
There were what they were. I would not put them as undiscipline mob, but they were not the same Army that came out of the Iraq/Iran war. The Iraqi Army had different levels of effectiveness, but they were not prepared to fight the way the Air-Land-battle doctrine.I do not consider this military on military action. The Abrams had success here because there the Iraqi "army" was an undisciplined mob, and even worse, agitated to go out on the fields by Saddam.
Could say the same for the 1965 Indo-Pakistani war.In the same vein, Chinese Type 59G had significant success in Sudan's wars, where Sudan had the only airplanes providing spotting and the other forces, similar to Iraq, mostly fielded old early cold war relics or unupgraded T72s. I do not consider this to be military on military action for the Type 59G.
Again, show your facts. you are showing none. I linked to show you an old article. The Oryx website (as of today) shows 14 Abrams destroyed. These are confirmed through photos which is what they do. There are many more T-72s and T-80 show on either side. The loss rate of the T-72/80/90 is no where as good as the western tanks in the Ukrainian conflict. But this is me pulling this data out, not you. Again you lack facts to back up your statements.There's much more videos alone than 5 Abrams destroyed in Ukraine. The other "numbers" given by this channel are so extremely off that it's laughable propaganda.
Thanks, I really appreciate these images. I was looking for these images. I stand corrected that the Chinese have moved this concept off of engineering designs to a demonstration vehicle is good. Allows for a concept to be proven out.View attachment 136663
Quite the contrary. It's at least as far progressed as Armata.
How is the VN-17 sales going?
The Iraqi Army in 1991 had the most modern version of Russian tanks short of the T80. They had not just the export version of the T-72, but updated version.
It wasn't. Iraqi Army T-72 were Polish and Czech built T-72M which weren't even close to Soviet T-72A's specs and were closer to the initial T-72 Obr 1973 Urals. As a matter of fact Polish built T-72's had some of the worse production quality within the T-72 family and the Poles weren't allowed access to Soviet composite armors, so they were forced to develop their own variant of the Kvartz which didn't have the same performance.
Edit: Anyway, I think the thread has been derailed enough.
Last edited:
I would not say the Saudi Army is a well trained force, but are you stating that the M1A2 the Saudi's used in the Yemini conflict had the turret doors locked opened? where are your facts/reports. I am not saying you are wrong, just show link the report, news article or image or hit me up with a message. So we can talk about it.The switch and mechanism can be overrided, and Saudi soldiers have been spotted doing so. It is not a fool prof system and lazy soldiers will always find a way.
Oh no, we have a saying in the Army (which I am sure is true in ANY Army), lock two privates in a room with a sledge hammer, walk back in after ten minutes and the sledge hammer will be broken.You'd be surprised at how smart your average grunt is.
I may be biased, but a tanker can out do a grunt any day.
=============================================
Wow waiting to post and Sheogorath already posted about the Iraqi T-72 quality.
+1 to you Sheogorath!
I made no false claims. As you also realize, an isolated good tank, especially a downgrade of one (T-72M) does not save a whole force who decide to not use air defenses or even organized comms.??? Index you are making false claims here. The Iraqi Army in 1991 had the most modern version of Russian tanks short of the T80. They had not just the export version of the T-72, but updated version.
As one who was there (US Army), they did have many version of tanks, even Chinese Type (ZTZ) 59. I shot a couple of ZTZ-59 and T-72.
And shooting at angry mobs with mostly light arms, no comms, no recon, no air cover or even fortifications is easy. The tankers at tiananmen 1989 could do it as well. Or the Chinese tanks in South Sudan. These are not victories that prove the tank's military capability, it's not a christening in real combat.There were what they were. I would not put them as undiscipline mob, but they were not the same Army that came out of the Iraq/Iran war. The Iraqi Army had different levels of effectiveness, but they were not prepared to fight the way the Air-Land-battle doctrine.
You've acted as a colonial policeman/partisan suppresser, but just like you can find plenty of interviews from other people with a similar portfolio as you, fighting a military force is different, as they experienced when they volunteered in Ukraine.
Oryx was debunked as double counting and also passing off Ukrainian losses as Russian.Could say the same for the 1965 Indo-Pakistani war.
Again, show your facts. you are showing none. I linked to show you an old article. The Oryx website (as of today) shows 14 Abrams destroyed. These are confirmed through photos which is what they do. There are many more T-72s and T-80 show on either side. The loss rate of the T-72/80/90 is no where as good as the western tanks in the Ukrainian conflict. But this is me pulling this data out, not you. Again you lack facts to back up your statements.
Thanks, I really appreciate these images. I was looking for these images. I stand corrected that the Chinese have moved this concept off of engineering designs to a demonstration vehicle is good. Allows for a concept to be proven out.
It is much worse than that. At the time of Desert Storm the Soviets were already operating the T-72B. And that is the 2nd line tank. Because the first line tank was the T-80U.It wasn't. Iraqi Army T-72 were Polish and Czech built T-72M which weren't even close to Soviet T-72A's specs and were closer to the initial T-72 Obr 1973 Urals. As a matter of fact Polish built T-72's had some of the worse production quality within the T-72 family and the Poles weren't allowed access to Soviet composite armors, so they were forced to develop their own variant of the Kvartz which didn't have the same performance.
The Iraqis still might have had a chance if they had ammo capable of actually penetrating modern tanks instead of the equivalent of training rounds. They never had a chance to begin with because of this.
Iraqi tank losses are also massively overstated since the US destroyed most Iraqi tanks during the Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait. The US agreed on Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait and then just destroyed the retreating Iraqi army columns.
Yup. Soviet 1st rate tank in 1990 was T-80U, followed by T-80BV. This was well-understood at the time.
T-72 was second-rate tank, considered 'mobilization model,' and used frequently to give tanks to mech. infantry formations. The T-72B was the most modern in-service model at the time of Desert Storm. Iraqi T-72M was a downgraded T-72A, basically a lesser second-rate tank in Soviet arsenal. According to detailed analysis at Tankograd, the non-Soviet-produced T-72M appeared to be missing some armour(?) components found in canonical Soviet T-72A.
The export T-72M was a minority within the Iraqi army. This second-rate export tank was the best thing they had. And yet there are people saying 'U.S. fought exactly what Soviets had during Desert Storm.' Really? 1990 Soviet army's best tank was T-72A, and most of their front-line tanks were T-55 equivalents and NATO export tanks?
As others have indicated, Iraqi army was using outdated practice ammo that was no longer in service in Soviet Union. Yeah, what an equivalent to Soviet armed forces.
T-72 was second-rate tank, considered 'mobilization model,' and used frequently to give tanks to mech. infantry formations. The T-72B was the most modern in-service model at the time of Desert Storm. Iraqi T-72M was a downgraded T-72A, basically a lesser second-rate tank in Soviet arsenal. According to detailed analysis at Tankograd, the non-Soviet-produced T-72M appeared to be missing some armour(?) components found in canonical Soviet T-72A.
The export T-72M was a minority within the Iraqi army. This second-rate export tank was the best thing they had. And yet there are people saying 'U.S. fought exactly what Soviets had during Desert Storm.' Really? 1990 Soviet army's best tank was T-72A, and most of their front-line tanks were T-55 equivalents and NATO export tanks?
As others have indicated, Iraqi army was using outdated practice ammo that was no longer in service in Soviet Union. Yeah, what an equivalent to Soviet armed forces.
There is also the fact that Iraq lacked a credible command and control system and had IIRC only a dozen crotale short range air defenses as their whole air warfare investment. In other words they were a complete joke, who might have been able to put up a fight (not as a military force) if they had distributed into guerilla cells.Yup. Soviet 1st rate tank in 1990 was T-80U, followed by T-80BV. This was well-understood at the time.
T-72 was second-rate tank, considered 'mobilization model,' and used frequently to give tanks to mech. infantry formations. The T-72B was the most modern in-service model at the time of Desert Storm. Iraqi T-72M was a downgraded T-72A, basically a lesser second-rate tank in Soviet arsenal. According to detailed analysis at Tankograd, the non-Soviet-produced T-72M appeared to be missing some armour(?) components found in canonical Soviet T-72A.
The export T-72M was a minority within the Iraqi army. This second-rate export tank was the best thing they had. And yet there are people saying 'U.S. fought exactly what Soviets had during Desert Storm.' Really? 1990 Soviet army's best tank was T-72A, and most of their tanks were T-55 equivalents and NATO export tanks?
As others have indicated, Iraqi army was using outdated practice ammo that was no longer in service in Soviet Union. Yeah, what an equivalent to Soviet armed forces.
It didn't matter than Iraq's T72Ms were the worst export version and had no ammo. You could have swapped them all for T-14 or Leopard 2A7 while giving US army the T72s and the outcomes would still be the same.
So yeah not an example of military on military conflict (in the way it's typically understood).
This isn't quite correct. Iraq had a somewhat robust (but very outdated) IADS network that was causing aircraft losses to coalition forces basically to the end of the air campaign. They had a French designed IADS control system called KARI, which was effective but was never designed to deal with the amount of aircraft that it had to face, and a decent number of air defense systems with both guns and SAMs. The sheer volume of the coalition aircraft as well as the fact that the Iraqi air force was basically invisible during the whole conflict was what doomed it.There is also the fact that Iraq lacked a credible command and control system and had IIRC only a dozen crotale short range air defenses as their whole air warfare investment. In other words they were a complete joke, who might have been able to put up a fight (not as a military force) if they had distributed into guerilla cells.
If you're interested in learning more, here is a great article.