Cool Desert Storm Battle

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Cool Desert Storm Battle

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

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

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Cool Desert Storm Battle - 1/9/2002 10:54:00 AM

TheChin

Posts: 88
Joined: 4/20/2001
From: Cleveland,OH,USA
Status: offline

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)

_____________________________

"Conan, what is best in life?"
"To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women!"

Post #: 1

- 1/9/2002 1:44:00 PM

rlc27

Posts: 306
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline

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!

_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"

--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.

(in reply to TheChin)

Post #: 2

- 1/9/2002 10:58:00 PM

lnp4668

Posts: 517
Joined: 11/10/2000
From: Arlington, TX, USA
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

"My friends, remember this, that there are no bad herbs, and no bad men; there are only bad cultivators." Les Miserables

(in reply to TheChin)

Post #: 3

- 1/10/2002 12:33:00 AM

MacCready

Posts: 591
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: USA
Status: offline

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...

_____________________________

(in reply to TheChin)

Post #: 4

- 1/10/2002 2:37:00 AM

Steve Wilcox

Posts: 103
Joined: 8/17/2001
From: Victoria, BC, Canada
Status: offline

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. ;-)

_____________________________

(in reply to TheChin)

Post #: 5

- 1/10/2002 3:43:00 AM

Frank W.

Posts: 1958
Joined: 10/18/2001
From: Siegen + Essen / W. Germany
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

(in reply to TheChin)

Post #: 6

- 1/11/2002 9:53:00 AM

rlc27

Posts: 306
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"

--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.

(in reply to TheChin)

Post #: 7

- 1/11/2002 11:59:00 PM

MacCready

Posts: 591
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: USA
Status: offline

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...

_____________________________

(in reply to TheChin)

Post #: 8

- 1/12/2002 1:02:00 AM

Frank W.

Posts: 1958
Joined: 10/18/2001
From: Siegen + Essen / W. Germany
Status: offline

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..

_____________________________

(in reply to TheChin)

Post #: 9

- 1/12/2002 2:12:00 AM

V-man

Posts: 151
Joined: 12/10/2001
From: Indiana
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

"You see, in this world there's 2 kinds of people, my friend:
Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig."

(in reply to TheChin)

Post #: 10

- 1/12/2002 2:20:00 AM

V-man

Posts: 151
Joined: 12/10/2001
From: Indiana
Status: offline

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...

"You see, in this world there's 2 kinds of people, my friend:
Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig."

(in reply to TheChin)

Post #: 11

- 1/12/2002 5:35:00 AM

rlc27

Posts: 306
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline

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?

_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"

--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.

(in reply to TheChin)

Post #: 12

- 1/12/2002 5:57:00 AM

V-man

Posts: 151
Joined: 12/10/2001
From: Indiana
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

"You see, in this world there's 2 kinds of people, my friend:
Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig."

(in reply to TheChin)

Post #: 13

- 1/12/2002 8:08:00 PM

Belisarius

Posts: 4041
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

Got StuG?

(in reply to TheChin)

Post #: 14

- 1/13/2002 2:05:00 AM

Frank W.

Posts: 1958
Joined: 10/18/2001
From: Siegen + Essen / W. Germany
Status: offline

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 ??)

_____________________________

(in reply to TheChin)

Post #: 15

- 1/13/2002 2:07:00 AM

rlc27

Posts: 306
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline

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!

_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"

--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.

(in reply to TheChin)

Post #: 16

- 1/13/2002 6:28:00 AM

V-man

Posts: 151
Joined: 12/10/2001
From: Indiana
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

"You see, in this world there's 2 kinds of people, my friend:
Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig."

(in reply to TheChin)

Post #: 17

- 1/14/2002 2:12:00 AM

rlc27

Posts: 306
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Connecticut, USA
Status: offline

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?

_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"

--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.

(in reply to TheChin)

Post #: 18

- 1/14/2002 10:08:00 PM

lnp4668

Posts: 517
Joined: 11/10/2000
From: Arlington, TX, USA
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

"My friends, remember this, that there are no bad herbs, and no bad men; there are only bad cultivators." Les Miserables

(in reply to TheChin)

Post #: 19

- 1/15/2002 12:39:00 AM

Craw

Posts: 5
Joined: 12/4/2001
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

(in reply to TheChin)

Post #: 20

- 1/15/2002 3:56:00 AM

Belisarius

Posts: 4041
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: offline

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?

_____________________________

Got StuG?

(in reply to TheChin)

Post #: 21

- 1/15/2002 4:29:00 AM

Steve Wilcox

Posts: 103
Joined: 8/17/2001
From: Victoria, BC, Canada
Status: offline

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. :-)

_____________________________

(in reply to TheChin)

Post #: 22

- 1/15/2002 5:22:00 AM

richmonder

Posts: 158
Joined: 12/9/2001
From: Richmond, VA USA
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

Respectfully,
Richmonder
(formerly Gen. Richmond)

(in reply to TheChin)

Post #: 23

- 1/15/2002 5:27:00 AM

richmonder

Posts: 158
Joined: 12/9/2001
From: Richmond, VA USA
Status: offline

A smoothbore gun??!!? Wow - shades of the Napoleon!!

_____________________________

Respectfully,
Richmonder
(formerly Gen. Richmond)

(in reply to TheChin)

Post #: 24

- 1/15/2002 6:18:00 AM

lnp4668

Posts: 517
Joined: 11/10/2000
From: Arlington, TX, USA
Status: offline

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 ]

_____________________________

"My friends, remember this, that there are no bad herbs, and no bad men; there are only bad cultivators." Les Miserables

(in reply to TheChin)

Post #: 25

Page: [1]

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

Page: [1]

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

1.016

Slitherine

Cool Desert Storm Battle