Its kind of bizarre, I've seen everywhere from
1500 to 4100 coaltion tanks, but I believe that some of these sites include APC's like the Bradley as tanks.
Also out of the 3300 coalition tanks a lot of those didn't leave Saudi Arabia and acted as a reserve force and defensive force.
From everything I've read and it could be wrong, there were 1500 coalition tanks involved in the actual armor war against Iraq with the majority being the M1.
Shockingly the Syrians supplied 30 T-62 tanks to the coalition.
I can just imagine the thought of a M1 driver seeing those drive into a maintenance yard.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Admittedly this was from an article that I read years ago that was clearly slanted as it was making the case that this was a propaganda effort by both sides as much as anything. The thing is though that while this as a crushing defeat, its still hard to be impressed because of the sheer amount of firepower and manpower here.
Like I say, we've all seen this playing board games where one guy builds up an enormous army and sits on the door step of the other who tries in vain to match this. Eventually, the outcome is hardly strategic mastery or unforeseen brilliant strategy. Its a beat down. If your figures are right, that only proves this point...a few hundred deaths compared to tens of thousands. Its all firepower and technology.
Admittedly this was from an article that I read years ago that was clearly slanted as it was making the case that this was a propaganda effort by both sides as much as anything. The thing is though that while this as a crushing defeat, its still hard to be impressed because of the sheer amount of firepower and manpower here.
Like I say, we've all seen this playing board games where one guy builds up an enormous army and sits on the door step of the other who tries in vain to match this. Eventually, the outcome is hardly strategic mastery or unforeseen brilliant strategy. Its a beat down. If your figures are right, that only proves this point...a few hundred deaths compared to tens of thousands. Its all firepower and technology.
I completely disagree with you.
This was more then a fire power on firepower battle, the figures point to that.
The strategy was brilliant and something that the Iraqi's who had plenty of time to prepare for didn't see happening. You also have to remember that the Iraqi military was fairly battle hardened after 8 years of a slugfest in the swamps against Iran.
On top of that Swarzkopf was able to bring together a very diverse coalition in a very short period of time.
The battleplan was more then perfect, the numbers point to that, the fact that Swarzkopf managed to integrate Soviet firebag strategies with American mobility and created a offensive game plan that took advantage of technology points to the fact that he had a brilliant game plan.
This wasn't command and conquer. The coalition didn't have some superior military in terms of man power or unit strength. They had faster tanks and took advantage of it with a high speed unpredictable mobility war. They had better gun sights then the Iraqi's for the most part and took advantage of that with their war plan.
No matter which way you slice it when you have a roughly 166/1 casualty ratio a large part of that is your game plan and understanding how the enemy things.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
What about the complete air and naval superiority? They took out all the supply routes (which is basically strategic planning 101, is it not?) by use of their domination in the skies and sea. By the time the ground troops were in the thick of what would've been the fighting many Iraqis were fleeing or waving the white flag.
You can call that brilliant strategy or planning on the part of the Americans, or you can add to this strategy the fact that the Iraqis couldn't possibly hold their own against what is probably still the most technologically advanced army in the world (and their allies).
The Following User Says Thank You to Slava For This Useful Post:
The 1991 Gulf War's Battle of 73 Easting is the most studied tank battle of modern times. This is the story of how the American 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment used superior equipment and training to overcome a blinding sandstorm and hundreds of tanks manned by Iraq's elite Republican Guard.
What about the complete air and naval superiority? They took out all the supply routes (which is basically strategic planning 101, is it not?) by use of their domination in the skies and sea. By the time the ground troops were in the thick of what would've been the fighting many Iraqis were fleeing or waving the white flag.
You can call that brilliant strategy or planning on the part of the Americans, or you can add to this strategy the fact that the Iraqis couldn't possibly hold their own against what is probably still the most technologically advanced army in the world (and their allies).
I think your really oversimplifying things to be quite honest.
Are you saying that the use of their technological superiority wasn't part of their plan and that this was just a blind zerg rush by the Americans?
A good general knows what he has and takes the best advantage of it.
Storming Norman knew that he had the faster and better armor, he knew he had the better navigation equipment.
To an extent the American's were fighting a Iraqi army that was battle hardened after an 8 year war against Iran. An Army which at the time had the second best main battle tank in their arsenal.
On top of that the Republican Guards were well supplied and had high moral and they were pounded.
Maybe I don't get what your saying, but Schwarzkopf before he was the supreme commander of the coalition (which included command of the air assets and naval assets in the region) was Commander in Chief of the U.S. Central Command and had built a strategy around Iraq invading into Saudi Arabia prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, a large part of that strategy formed what would later become Desert Shield, the build up of a rapid reaction force In the middle east to counter Iraq's army. That strategy also encompassed the use of Air Power to smash strategic and high value tactical targets prior to the ground forces going in.
Chuck Horner was the air commander, but he implemented Norman's overall theatre strategy.
Schwarzkopf knew what he was facing, and he built a battle plan around that and his tactical advantages. He didn't line up his units on the border pull out his sword and yell charge.
The American's overwhelmed and destroyed what at the time was one of the largest armies in the world, an army with one of the largest armor formations seen with the exception of the Soviets and he not only smashed them, but he smashed them in about 4 days with very few casualties on his side.
He will go down as one of the great American Generals, and justifiably so.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
The impact on Iraqi ground forces day after day led Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Merrill A. McPeak to conclude, "My private conviction is that this is the first time in history that a field army has been defeated by airpower."
And . . .
The culminating goal of the air campaign as structured by Schwarzkopf was to destroy 50 percent of Iraqi tanks, armored personnel carriers, and artillery lined up on the Kuwait border before the coalition attacked on the ground. Schwarzkopf knew on paper his coalition was outgunned. Some 4,700 Iraqi tanks faced 3,500 coalition tanks. "We were outnumbered as a minimum three-to-two as far as troops were concerned," he added. The Iraqis also had more artillery pieces. "We had to come up with some way to make up the difference," he later wrote.
"It was imperative that air knock out as much of this armor as possible, …as the alternative was to let 20-year-olds in tanks go head-to-head," said Isherwood, an A-10 pilot and weapons officer.
And
On the eve of the ground war, CENTCOM reported Iraq’s units were beat down to an average of just 66 percent of their prewar strength. Two days before ground operations, intelligence estimates showed most of the frontline infantry units at below 50 percent capability, while all of the Republican Guard units were between 50 and 75 percent, said Certain Victory, a report authored for the US Army by then-Brig. Gen. Robert H. Scales Jr.
Among the Republican Guard divisions, the Tawakalna stood at 57 percent of its prewar combat effectiveness, the Army found. The Medina was at 65 percent and the Hammurabi at 72 percent. The three Republican Guard infantry divisions were around 60 percent combat effectiveness. "The fighting force that invaded Kuwait was not the same as the one facing our troops on the eve of the ground campaign," Glosson summed up.
Schwarzkopf started the ground attack on Feb. 24, 1991. Rain, drizzle, fog, and mud did not hamper the offensive.
"The Air Force did deliver on its promise to make any ground offensive a walkover," Michael R. Gordon and Bernard E. Trainor later wrote. "The ground war was won in four days, but it was preceded by five weeks of bombing."
I don't know where you got your numbers from Slava
Iraq lost between 10 and 12,000 casualties in the air war and up to 12000 during the ground campaign on top of that Iraq suffered 75,000 wounded.
The Americans lost 148 in total and 35 of those were friendly fire incidents.
In total there were 347 coalition deaths.
The Coalition had 150,000 troops and 1500 tanks on the ground, The Iraqi army was estimated as a million man army half of which were involved in Kuwait. Iraq started the war with 4230 tanks and lost 4000 of them in the war.
By the end of the war out of Iraq's 44 army and armor divisions only 2 were left somewhat combat efficient the rest had been savaged.
Your information is wrong.
This was a crushing victory by Norman.
Two factors. while the Iraqi's had a huge number of T-72 tanks which were considered to be a main generation tank, the M1 was just a generational jump in tank technology. The Russian's pretty much pooped bricks when they saw the M1's savage them. To this day through multiple wars, while 80 M1 and M1A1 tanks have been disabled in war, very few have been destroyed.
As mentioned above the GPS was a huge advantage and allowed the American's to slash Iraqi formations from unexpected directions and better flank and destroy them.
If I'm not mistaken isn't the Abrams the only tank in the world that has the electronic aiming where you fire one round and the computer keeps the barrel on target even while moving? Maybe the Panther has that but I wasn't sure.
__________________
Thank you for everything CP. Good memories and thankful for everything that has been done to help me out. I will no longer take part on these boards. Take care, Go Flames Go.
I think your really oversimplifying things to be quite honest.
Are you saying that the use of their technological superiority wasn't part of their plan and that this was just a blind zerg rush by the Americans?
A good general knows what he has and takes the best advantage of it.
Storming Norman knew that he had the faster and better armor, he knew he had the better navigation equipment.
To an extent the American's were fighting a Iraqi army that was battle hardened after an 8 year war against Iran. An Army which at the time had the second best main battle tank in their arsenal.
On top of that the Republican Guards were well supplied and had high moral and they were pounded.
Maybe I don't get what your saying, but Schwarzkopf before he was the supreme commander of the coalition (which included command of the air assets and naval assets in the region) was Commander in Chief of the U.S. Central Command and had built a strategy around Iraq invading into Saudi Arabia prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, a large part of that strategy formed what would later become Desert Shield, the build up of a rapid reaction force In the middle east to counter Iraq's army. That strategy also encompassed the use of Air Power to smash strategic and high value tactical targets prior to the ground forces going in.
Chuck Horner was the air commander, but he implemented Norman's overall theatre strategy.
Schwarzkopf knew what he was facing, and he built a battle plan around that and his tactical advantages. He didn't line up his units on the border pull out his sword and yell charge.
The American's overwhelmed and destroyed what at the time was one of the largest armies in the world, an army with one of the largest armor formations seen with the exception of the Soviets and he not only smashed them, but he smashed them in about 4 days with very few casualties on his side.
He will go down as one of the great American Generals, and justifiably so.
I guess what some having been saying is with such overwhelming equipment and resources he comes across more like a Scotty Bowman and not a George Washington.
The Following User Says Thank You to SeeBass For This Useful Post:
I guess what some having been saying is with such overwhelming equipment and resources he comes across more like a Scotty Bowman and not a George Washington.
That's a much easier way to say what I was trying to say.
The Following User Says Thank You to Slava For This Useful Post:
If I'm not mistaken isn't the Abrams the only tank in the world that has the electronic aiming where you fire one round and the computer keeps the barrel on target even while moving? Maybe the Panther has that but I wasn't sure.
If the Panther had that in World War 2 the German's would have swept the Russians off of the battlefield.
the Leopard 2, the Israeli Merkava Mark 3 BAZ has a similar system.
The Russian T-90 and the soon to be released T-99 have their own version of it. The Chinese T-99 latest variant has that on top of a fairly unique laser defense system that is built to blind enemy tank optics.
Most of the top military countries are closing the gap with the excellent M1A1 Main Battle tank, they used the American tank as the standard to achieve.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
oops I meant leopard when I typed that. I remember thining not to use the WWII version lol
__________________
Thank you for everything CP. Good memories and thankful for everything that has been done to help me out. I will no longer take part on these boards. Take care, Go Flames Go.
Yeah, I kinda figured that, I had this whole terminator time travel response to your post, but then I saw something shiny out the window and had to chase it.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
