Cool Desert Storm Battle

Cool Desert Storm Battle (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns

Message

TheChin -> Cool Desert Storm Battle (1/9/2002 10:54:00 AM)
I know it's not WWII and it's probably been posted before, but this reads like a SPWaW A & R, so I thought I'd post it. The Battle of 73 Easting (South)

rlc27 -> (1/9/2002 1:44:00 PM)
You're right, that was good. Gee, it's amazing how little we heard about the casualties that did not result from "friendly fire." According to the press, Iraqi bullets almost seemed to have this magical way of not hitting anything made in the US! It's interesting to think about what might have happened had the contest been a little bit fairer in terms of mass, technology, and training. Or if, say, the Russians had decided that it was a great time to invade Germany. Thanks for finding that. Maybe we'll see SP esert Storm sometime in the future!

lnp4668 -> (1/9/2002 10:58:00 PM)
The US was surprised by the ease of which the T-72 blow up when hit by the M1. According to Zaloga (if memory serve), it is due to way the ammo is stored. Also, due to the high barrel wear of the T-72, most Iraqui soldiers do not have much live fire experience, so they are very inaccurate. Tactic is also another short fall of the Iraqui. I guess overmatch is the main word here.

MacCready -> (1/10/2002 12:33:00 AM)
Your forgetting that the idea behind any conflict is to WIN,If this means keeping info from your own people so anti-war stuff doesnt get rolling,so be it. War is seldom FAIR like a game of SPWAW between two people drinking coffee and commanding thier cyber troops...

Steve Wilcox -> (1/10/2002 2:37:00 AM)
Apparently Saddam Hussein built refrigerated mortuaries to store the bodies of Iraqi dead in during the Iran-Iraq war, so as to not demoralize the Iraqi population with a lot of casualties at once. he could release them slowly over a period of time, so the effect on morale was minimized. I guess he didn't want the anti-war stuff to get rolling either. ;-)

Frank W. -> (1/10/2002 3:43:00 AM)
quote: Originally posted by SteveFromWork: Apparently Saddam Hussein built refrigerated mortuaries to store the bodies of Iraqi dead in during the Iran-Iraq war, so as to not demoralize the Iraqi population with a lot of casualties at once. he could release them slowly over a period of time, so the effect on morale was minimized. I guess he didn't want the anti-war stuff to get rolling either. ;-) both sides used propaganda and psychologic warfare. it was important to the US that the american people believed that the iraquies were real monsters so they had to be killed. as with the story of iraq soldiers killing a baby which was told by an kuwaiti woman. later it came out,that this was pure propaganda directly from the kuwaities IIRC.

rlc27 -> (1/11/2002 9:53:00 AM)
Just to clarify, I wasn't saying that it should have been fair, nor was I complaining about the lack of coverage by the press. I was just saying, it's interesting to think about what might have happened had the contest been fairer. Since this is a wargames site, it's perhaps a fair assumption that many people here are interesting in "what if" scenarios. However, even if casualty reports by the press might have had a demoralizing effect and weakened the war effort, why have we still not heard much about M1's being destroyed? Until I read this essay, I didn't know about any casualties from Iraqi fire. It was quite amazing to me that they took out some M1's.

MacCready -> (1/11/2002 11:59:00 PM)
We havent heard about it because it never happened. T-72 shells don't even penatrate M1HA Armor. You combine that with positive air cover (Apaches) Exactly how are the feable Iraqis supposed to take one out? Ambushing one alone I suppose it could have happened,but with all that US and coilition ordinance around,not to mention the ability to always know where ALL visible Iraq forces are at any given time...

Frank W. -> (1/12/2002 1:02:00 AM)
quote: Originally posted by MacCready: We havent heard about it because it never happened. . read the report on the link above. of course were some destroyed by iraqis not to mention the friendly fire. and: i would like a "what if" desert storm scen,i think in SP3 there were 1 or 2.... hope for combat leader for this case..

V-man -> (1/12/2002 2:12:00 AM)
quote: Originally posted by MacCready: We havent heard about it because it never happened. T-72 shells don't even penatrate M1HA Armor. You combine that with positive air cover (Apaches) Exactly how are the feable Iraqis supposed to take one out? Ambushing one alone I suppose it could have happened,but with all that US and coilition ordinance around,not to mention the ability to always know where ALL visible Iraq forces are at any given time... The M-1A1 is, indeed, FROM THE FRONT, invunerable to T-72 fire. But from the sides, the hull is just as vunerable as any other tank. The special Armor of the M-1series tanks is in the front glacis and the turret front and sides. Several US tanks were destroyed by T-72 fire. Not a lot, and nowhere near the number of Iraqui tanks destroyed by US tanks, but some were. Also, during teh ground phase of the PGW, a variety of bad weather conditions grounded most Coalition aircraft. The Battle for 73 Easting, for example, was done without arty or air. V-man

V-man -> (1/12/2002 2:20:00 AM)
quote: Originally posted by MacCready: We havent heard about it because it never happened. T-72 shells don't even penatrate M1HA Armor. You combine that with positive air cover (Apaches) Exactly how are the feable Iraqis supposed to take one out? Ambushing one alone I suppose it could have happened,but with all that US and coilition ordinance around,not to mention the ability to always know where ALL visible Iraq forces are at any given time... The M-1A1 is, indeed, FROM THE FRONT, invunerable to T-72 fire. But from the sides, the hull is just as vunerable as any other tank. The special Armor of the M-1series tanks is in the front glacis and the turret front and sides. Several US tanks were destroyed by T-72 fire. Not a lot, and nowhere near the number of Iraqui tanks destroyed by US tanks, but some were. Also, during teh ground phase of the PGW, a variety of bad weather conditions grounded most Coalition aircraft. The Battle for 73 Easting, for example, was done without arty or air. V-man[EMAIL]null[/EMAIL]

rlc27 -> (1/12/2002 5:35:00 AM)
I didn't know that about the M1 having its special armor only on the glacis plate and turret front & sides. Chobham, right? What is the difference between that and reactive armor? Doesn't the T-72 just have steel plate? How about the newer Russian tanks? The heavy frontal and turret protection kind of makes the M1 sound like a contemporary King Tiger, but with worse gas mileage. Could the M1 penetrate its own armor, from the front?

V-man -> (1/12/2002 5:57:00 AM)
quote: Originally posted by kendokabob: I didn't know that about the M1 having its special armor only on the glacis plate and turret front & sides. Chobham, right? What is the difference between that and reactive armor? Doesn't the T-72 just have steel plate? How about the newer Russian tanks? The heavy frontal and turret protection kind of makes the M1 sound like a contemporary King Tiger, but with worse gas mileage. Could the M1 penetrate its own armor, from the front? As to armor composition, I am not in a position to know for certain, that is really a national secret. Chobham is certainly a component, but most likely there is also a layer of depleted uranium. Much of the armor of an M-1A1 is RHA, with the special layers added to that. the part of the factory where the special armor is put on is called, by the plant workers, the "Kryptonite Room". Reactive armor is composed of segments, each one being a box, fronted with some light armor plate, and backed by explosives. Reactive armor explodes when hit by an HEAT round, and disrupts teh round's jet of molten steel and hot gases. WRT comparisons to the Tiger, no dice. While the milage may be bad, do remember that milage comes with a 60+ Miles per Hour speed, something the Tiger didn't have. The M-1 is fast. Further, all turbine engined tanks have the fuel consumption issue. To reduce that consumption when stopped, but needing power to run the hydraulics and sighting/ballistic computer systems, an aux generator is being added (may already be fully installed) to the fleet. If a Silver Bullet (or any other long-rod penetrator) hits the shot trap under the turret front, yes, but otherwise, the M-1A1, from the front, cannot kill another M-1A1. It's worth noting that only TWO nations have been given the right to purchase the M-1-series tanks. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. -+++V-,am

Belisarius -> (1/12/2002 8:08:00 PM)
quote: Originally posted by Velovich: If a Silver Bullet (or any other long-rod penetrator) hits the shot trap under the turret front, yes, but otherwise, the M-1A1, from the front, cannot kill another M-1A1. It's worth noting that only TWO nations have been given the right to purchase the M-1-series tanks. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. -+++V-,am ...and other nations has rejected it in favor of the Leopard II series. German tanks' still got teeth. Interesting article. Telling friend from foe must've been a constant problem in the desert night-fighting during Destert Storm. Does anyone have any information regarding losses from friendly fire during WWII? Considering how the Germans changed to night fighting in Western Europe (due to allied aerial superiority) this must've been a real challenge, despite some units alreday having infra-red capabilities.

Frank W. -> (1/13/2002 2:05:00 AM)
quote: Originally posted by Belisarius: ...and other nations has rejected it in favor of the Leopard II series. German tanks' still got teeth. Interesting article. Telling friend from foe must've been a constant problem in the desert night-fighting during Destert Storm. Does anyone have any information regarding losses from friendly fire during WWII? Considering how the Germans changed to night fighting in Western Europe (due to allied aerial superiority) this must've been a real challenge, despite some units alreday having infra-red capabilities. i think newest leopard,challenger and merkawa tanks play in the same league as the M1. if not above...don�t know much about the french lerclerc and the newest russian ones (T-2000 ??)

rlc27 -> (1/13/2002 2:07:00 AM)
Thanks for the detailed information, Velovich. My next question was something that Belisarius's statement brought up--how would an M1 compare to a Leopard II? The reference book I've got says that the Leopard II basically outclassed everything else that came before, but another book says that the M1 is the best tank in the world. Is it safe to assume that the M1 supplanted the Leopard as the best? What about the newest Russian tanks? What exactly is Chobham, anyway? Thanks, you're a wealth of info!

V-man -> (1/13/2002 6:28:00 AM)
quote: Originally posted by kendokabob: Thanks for the detailed information, Velovich. My next question was something that Belisarius's statement brought up--how would an M1 compare to a Leopard II? The reference book I've got says that the Leopard II basically outclassed everything else that came before, but another book says that the M1 is the best tank in the world. Is it safe to assume that the M1 supplanted the Leopard as the best? What about the newest Russian tanks? What exactly is Chobham, anyway? Thanks, you're a wealth of info! Well, Chobham is a secret. I don't know. It is believed to be a series of layers of different materials that each react to different kinds of AT weapons differently. While some layers are resistant to kenetic energy (sabot rounds) others are resistant to HEAT. Mostly, it's best described as composite - being different materials in layers. What those layers are, only a handful of people know for sure. Even US Tankers don't know what the composition is. The New Leos, Challengers, and Merkava can indeed give an M-1A1 a run for it's money. But these don't exist in a vacumn. The Israelis are not just at the bottom of the list of future enemies of the US, but they will NOT sell their tank to anyone. The Brits, also long time, staunch allies, don't sell the Challenger. too many secrets that might fall into the hands of adversaries. the one advantage that the Brits have is that the Challenger is an even heavier tank than the M-1 series, and has MUCH more armor. If we were to EVER (hah!) have to fight GB, the Challengers might be able to shrug off even the Silver Bullet, the APFSDS-DU round of the M-1A1. But even with that, the Challenger is slower and even more of a fuel hog than the M-1A1. The Germans, they sell the Leo, but few nations can afford it (like these others, it's expensive) and the Leo II doesn't ahve the automotive performance of the M-1A1. The guns (120 mm smoothbores) are all similar, fire similar ammo, but one round the Germans don't have is the Silver Bullet, a Depleted Uranium sabot round. Without that, they aren't going to kill from the front unless they get a shot trap hit. Also, you asked about an "M-1" - my info is for the M-1A1, a vastly improved tank. the M-1 is now ten years out of date. V-man

rlc27 -> (1/14/2002 2:12:00 AM)
V-man, Thanks for the clarifications. Why has the gun diameter quest seemingly ended with the 120mm? Is it that larger guns are simply not practical to carry on a tank chassis? The Soviets were, after all, mounting the 122mm even during WWII. So why not mount a 150mm gun?

lnp4668 -> (1/14/2002 10:08:00 PM)
quote: Originally posted by kendokabob: V-man, Thanks for the clarifications. Why has the gun diameter quest seemingly ended with the 120mm? Is it that larger guns are simply not practical to carry on a tank chassis? The Soviets were, after all, mounting the 122mm even during WWII. So why not mount a 150mm gun? The problem with larger round are: 1. Storage space 2. Loading speed 3. Improve ammunition design allows increase in muzzle velocity which is the main determinant in lethality of a projectile * The Soviet Union went to larger gun in WW2 because their gun couldn't achieve sufficient velocity as compared to the German.

Craw -> (1/15/2002 12:39:00 AM)
Some brief reading on the armor site indicates that the Abrams is the best overall tank in service today. However, that takes into consideration the fact that American military forces are designed to fight in an extremely broad range of conditions, so versatility is paramount. I understand the Leopard 2 has a very lethal gun, but is considerably less armored than the Challenger and Abrams. However, proponents of the Leopard will note that the tank has vastly superior mobility and is tiny (for a MBT), providing a small target. It becomes the question of the boxer versus the puncher. Therefore, in a tactical situation calling for mobility and stealth, the Leopard WOULD be a better tank than the Abrams.

Belisarius -> (1/15/2002 3:56:00 AM)
quote: Originally posted by Craw: Some brief reading on the armor site indicates that the Abrams is the best overall tank in service today. However, that takes into consideration the fact that American military forces are designed to fight in an extremely broad range of conditions, so versatility is paramount. I understand the Leopard 2 has a very lethal gun, but is considerably less armored than the Challenger and Abrams. However, proponents of the Leopard will note that the tank has vastly superior mobility and is tiny (for a MBT), providing a small target. It becomes the question of the boxer versus the puncher. Therefore, in a tactical situation calling for mobility and stealth, the Leopard WOULD be a better tank than the Abrams. Good point, Craw. Also worth noting that our (the Swedish) Army uses an upgraded version of the Leo II, the IIS or S-122. It's not really comparable to the German Leo IIA5 (or KWS), it's taken one step further. Amongst other things - added armor on hull top and turret and a more sophisticated command system. This version is, from what I've heard (sources - although from different parts of the world - may be biased) the most advanced MBT today. Par with, and in some cases, above the M1A2?

Steve Wilcox -> (1/15/2002 4:29:00 AM)
As a point of interest for any unaware of it, both the Leopard II and the late model(non-105 armed)Abrams use versions of the German 120mm Rheinmetall smoothbore gun, with the US version being somewhat simplified. It must be good. :-)

richmonder -> (1/15/2002 5:22:00 AM)
From the reading of 73 Easting, it should be very clear: best tank or not, it is the superior communications and tactics between combat arms and units that enable forces to be overwhelming or sitting ducks. So if a tank has slightly better frontal armor or it's gun is a bit deadlier, what does that matter when that's tanks fellow forces have lost air superiority and there are loads of copters pummeling them with anti-tank missiles and what not? Or any other poor tactical situation. It's all very relative, but makes great fodder for us keyboard generals.

richmonder -> (1/15/2002 5:27:00 AM)
A smoothbore gun??!!? Wow - shades of the Napoleon!!

lnp4668 -> (1/15/2002 6:18:00 AM)
quote: Originally posted by richmonder: A smoothbore gun??!!? Wow - shades of the Napoleon!! It fires fins stabilize ammo, so don't needs for the shells to rotate. Checks this link: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/120.htm [ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: lnp4668 ]

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.65625